Brussels, 15/03/2016 (Agence Europe) - Based on a study prepared by the Wise energy information and study agency that is close to the anti-nuclear movement, a study unveiled on Tuesday 15 March by chair of the Greens/EFA group at the European Parliament, Rebecca Harms of Germany, the group says that the European Commission's Indicative Nuclear Programme (INP) 2016 that is due to be published next week is “illusory.” The programme has already been widely leaked in the international press (see EUROPE 11498).
According to the Greens, the INP 2016 will be 'ironically' published between the fifth anniversary of the Fukushima disaster in Japan and the thirtieth anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine that was then in the former USSR, and is even more favourable to the nuclear industry than the previous INP which dates back to 2007 but was updated in 2008 and demonstrates a total denial of reality in terms of the risks and costs of nuclear power.
INP 2016 does not reflect the 'spectacular changes' since the previous INP, such as the trend for a decline in nuclear power, which is losing speed in the face of the booming sector of renewable energies; on the contrary, it uses biased arguments to exaggerate nuclear's contribution to energy security and reducing climate change, explains the Wise study.
Moreover, INP 2016 does not take account of the real nuclear situation and trends in the EU, where no new reactors have been brought on stream and no construction has started since 2007, although 21 reactors have been shut down. On the contrary, the European Commission introduces “very ambitious and apparently unrealistic” targets for maintaining most European nuclear capacity until 2050, combining new constructions and a vast programme of extension of lifecycles.
In terms of security, INP 2016 does not take the consequences of the Fukushima catastrophe seriously into account, particularly the need to boost the safety of existing reactors, preparation and cross-border concerns relating to the impact of major accidents, or the insufficient level of civil liability coverage of operators in terms of the cost of a catastrophe of a scale of that of Fukushima.
Wise's study criticises the Commission's “blindness” to the problems encountered by new nuclear reactors in terms of being competitive and financed on the European electricity market, as shown by the 'financial catastrophes' of the EPR projects in Olkiluoto (Finland) or in Flamanville (France) or the obstacles to the decision to invest in Hinkley Point C (United Kingdom).
Rather than criticsing the tearaway production and state aid costs for the construction, the INP 2016 continues to use a methodology destined to minimise the rise in costs and ensure they can diminish in future, hence denying that the cost of building new nuclear plants is unaffordable, says the Wise study, also criticsing the underestimation of costs and problems with extending the lifecycle of old nuclear plants.
Finally, the investment needs presented by INP 2016 are underestimated by around a third for new reactors and by at least a half for extending lifecycles, which makes it even less likely that this investment will be made, while the cost of declassifying and eliminating waste is underestimated by more than half, due to “omissions and weak hypotheses.”
Through bad representation of the problems, a lack of admitting that a great revision of the nuclear strategy is required the Commission puts the EU up against the risk of supporting unrealistic nuclear developments while creating more related problems concludes the study. (Original version in French by Emmanuel Hagry)