Activists protest Rosatom’s plans to build new nuclear power plants
Part of:
Nuclear Russia
“We are for a non-nuclear Kalinigrad” said activists as they sent their atomic idea to Moscow.
Alexei Milovanov
- Kaliningrad meets nuke industry to discuss the phantom Baltic NPP amid dazzling atomic sideshow
- Comment: The Baltic nuclear power plant in the very long perspective
- US nuclear-plant advertising campaign draws accusations of consumer fraud
- US Congress pledges $50m to international uranium fuel bank - but what will this cost Russia's environment?
- International uranium enrichment plant in Siberia to attract more radwaste to Russia
- Lawmakers revive proposed NPP in Kostroma Region, overriding a referendum against it
- Activists from 13 Russian cities protest Rosatom’s construction plans
- Rosenergoatom chief: Construction of second Kola NPP ‘unprofitable’
- Russia ready to build nuclear plants without an ecological “good-to-go” stamp
- Life-span extension of Russian reactors causes concern in Europe
- Lithuanias Ignalina NPP begins the road to shut down
Related articles
During the protest, a “working” model of the power-generating unit of a nuclear power plant was placed next to the regional government building. The model, which was more than 4.5 meters long and 2.5 meters high, was equipped with a pipe emitting pungent, orange smoke. The side of the giant model was inscribed with an address – Moscow, White House – in reference to the building housing President Vladimir Putin’s administration.
A half an hour after the start of the protest, the mock-up of the “Kaliningrad NPP” released its last puff of smoke, signifying the environmentalists’ hope that their model nuke plant will be the first and last “nuclear” polluter in the area.
The protest was prompted by remarks made last week by the deputy head of Rosenergoatom, Aleksandr Apkaneev, who announced that “the Kaliningrad Region is being considered as a site for the development of the nuclear-energy sector, in particular, the construction of an NPP.”
 |
| Alexei Milovanov |
According to representatives of Ecodefense!, the construction of nuclear facilities in the Kaliningrad Region would create a number of hitherto unknown threats to the region’s citizens. First, the functioning of an NPP and the accompanying plants necessary for the NPP’s nuclear cycle will mean a constant risk of radioactive contamination in the region and pose a danger to the lives and health of its citizens.
“Without any consultations with the residents of the Region, representatives of Rosenergoatom brazenly announce their intentions to bless Kaliningraders with a nuclear power plant,” said Alexandra Koroleva, co-chairperson of Ecodefense! and the head of the organization’s Kaliningrad office.
“But the construction of an NPP in the leading region in Russia in terms of population density is not only foolish, it is also a violation of the rights of citizens to a clean environment.”
The protest in Kaliningrad was the first of a number of similar actions planned by environmentalists in various cities in Russia in connection with the Russian Federal Atomic Energy Agency, or Rosatom’s, plans to build 10 new nuclear power-generating units by 2015.
Energy dependence or energy security?
Lithuania’s Ignalina nuclear power plant will be completely dismantled by 2009 – as per the conditions of Lithuania’s membership in the European Union (EU). But while Russia’s neighbours are escaping from one dangerous facility in the region, Russia is planning to build a Kaliningrad NPP, presenting a new host of nuclear dangers. One example will be an increase in nuclear fuel transports.
In order for the prospective Kaliningrad NPP to function, Russian-made nuclear fuel will have to be transported across what are now the international borders surrounding former Soviet republics. Because transporting fuel is a dangerous part of the nuclear cycle, there is no guarantee that Kaliningrad’s neighbors will agree to provide a transit corridor for shipments.
 |
| Alexei Milovanov |
While the activist’s nuclear power plant was giving up the ghost outside the Kaliningrad Regional Government building, a government meeting was taking place inside, during which Regional Governor Georgy Boos threw his support behind building the Kaliningrad NPP. He said it would be profitable for a number of reasons” at present, the Kaliningrad enclave is not able to independently fulfill its own energy needs. The deficit has been made up by energy imports from Russia proper flowing via Lithuania. Once the Ignalina NPP is closed, these energy imports will no longer be possible.
“We are troubled by this, as is the Government of the Russian Federation, and several possibilities are currently being considered to create our own power-generating facility in the region. This includes the development of small-scale power generation and the construction of a second TETs-2 thermoelectric power plant, as well as an NPP,” Boos said.
“While the second option is preferable, its drawback is the lack of natural gas flowing into the region and the higher cost of generated electricity,” noted the governor. “An NPP produces cheaper electricity that could not only cover the region’s needs for the long-term future, but could also be exported to neighboring countries.”
Last week, Rosenergoatom was forced to announce that it was abandoning its plans to build the second phase of the Kola NPP specifically because of considerations about its lack of profitability, and to announce that nuclear energy is certainly not cheap, even where there is a working NPP. It is difficult to imagine, therefore, how the production of nuclear energy could turn out to be less expensive when starting from scratch, as Boos asserted.
In addition, the price of uranium is currently increasing. As environmentalists have pointed out, Rosatom will begin to feel the pinch of lacking uranium resources in about 2010 to 2015 in light of Russia’s uranium export contracts and in conjunction with how quickly its own nuclear energy development plans bear out. As a consequence, Russia will have to purchase uranium on foreign markets, driving up the cost of nuclear energy.
Aside from the dangers and costs of delivering nuclear fuel to the Kaliningrad enclave, environmentalists are troubled by the disposition of the resultant spent nuclear fuel (SNF) from the proposed plant. If the plant is built, though, Boos said there was not question that the SNF would be shipped out.
“Concerning the disposal of waste, spent raw materials will, of course, be exported,” he said. “For the storage and reuse of waste, specialized facilities are needed that don’t exist in Kaliningrad, and there are no plans to build any. In Russia, however, they do exist.”
Representatives of neighbouring countries spoke out against the building of the Kaliningrad NPP during a meeting of the Environment Committees of the Nordic Council and the Baltic Assembly in Daugavpils in Latvia.
In a statement issued by the Nordic Council, Saulius Vytas Pikšrys of Lithuania’s Atgaja NGO, said: "Non-governmental ecological movements are against the nuclear power plant because it is an extremely dirty and dangerous energy source."
He was joined in his negative assessment of nuclear energy by former Latvian Prime Minister Indulis Emsis who said that “nuclear power was a form of energy that belongs to the past,” according to the statement. Emsis added that nuclear power plants are attractive targets for terrorists.
Danish Member of Parliament Kristin Touborg Jensen, reminded the gathering about the EU's recent energy strategy which includes an emphasis on alternative forms of energy.
Asmund Kristoffersen, a member of Norwegian Parliament and chair of the Nordic Council’s Environment Committee, has also issued extremely critical statements on nuclear power in the past.
Peaceful atoms and peaceful people
As is customary, Felix Alekseev, an honorary environmentalist of Russia and deputy chairperson of the regional parliament’s Committee on Agriculture, Land Use, and Natural Resources, gave activists his own instructions: “Instead of having meetings, you should be asking for the development of truly environmentally friendly, economical sources of energy. If an NPP were to be such a source, [and if] there were full guarantees of safety, then why not?”
Following the protest, participants called a cargo truck to transport their mock nuclear power plant to Moscow. Getting to the heart of the matter, the driver of the truck expressed his own opinion regarding the problem: “Do they want to have a second Chernobyl here? So we’ll later give birth to mutants?”
According to Russian legislation, the construction of especially dangerous facilities, including nuclear facilities, is forbidden in places where the majority of the population is against such construction. As experience has shown, the population of regions where nuclear facilities already exist is strongly against the construction of new facilities. In December 2006, for example, 89 percent of those surveyed in public-opinion polls were against the building of the second phase of the Kola NPP.
On the eve of the Kaliningrad protest, the local television station Kaskad conducted its own quick poll during a programme on the plans to build a Kaliningrad NPP. The results showed that, of the 800 viewers who had a chance to respond, 456 said they were not in favor of the plans. At first glance, this is not much of an opposition - less than 60 percent. It is important to remember, however, that until now, Rosatom has been developing its plans for Kaliningrad in an atmosphere of secrecy and has not announced them to the public.
Even for Oksana Aryutova, a correspondent from the Kaliningrad newspaper “Kaskad,” who last month asked representatives of Rosenergoatom in about the possibility of building a nuclear power plant in the Kaliningrad Region, “their affirmative response was like thunder in a clear sky.” According to Aryutova, she had previously “regarded such a possibility … as science fiction.”
In addition, it should not be forgotten that the residents of the region are always being fed a bitter pill about the region’s energy deficit and energy dependence, and it is recommended that they swallow this with a sweet syrup of confirmations about the safety and low cost of nuclear energy. Moreover, these confirmations are based mainly on proof by contradiction: mineral resources are also environmentally unfriendly, and wind power and hydroelectricity are incapable of being used on an industrial scale.
“When we spent four hours on the street, building this model NPP, passersby would say: ‘What? A nuclear power plant in Kaliningrad? It’s great that you’re speaking out against this! How can we join you and oppose this ourselves?’” Ecodefense’s Koroleva said.
“In the middle of February, we are planning to commission a public survey on this topic, so that our opinion is not, on the one hand, the opinion of a small group of people, and, on the other hand, so that it doesn’t turn out that we are speaking in the name of the region’s residents without their support,” she continued. “We are also interested in the results, although we’re sure that the result will be just as I’m suggesting.”
Copyright © Bellona -- Reprint and copying is recommended if source is stated
