By Florence Antomarchi
with Mycle Schneider
Prague is beautiful, but Prague smells! On winter evenings there is the smell of sulphur, and clouds of grey dust can be seen billowing out of the old coal heaters which heat the city's baroque palaces. Forty kilometers away, in North Bohemia, stands the industrial town which makes Czechoslovakia one of the strongest countries in the Eastern block. It is one enormous industrial estate, with open coal mines and thermal centers. This piece of ground, which measures 60 kilometers by 10 kilometers, produces 40% of the country's electricity, but it also produces 2.2 million tonnes of sulphuric dioxide, the same amount produced by West Germany (1986 figures). Half the children suffer from respiratory illnesses. About 90% of the woods and forests have been destroyed. This area, close to the East German and Polish borders, has been nicknamed "The Triangle of Death".
After the "velvet revolution", Bedrich Moldau, who had been appointed minister of the new Czech Ministry of the Environment, told us, "There is no longer any future for nuclear energy, and I can't see a future in other countries either."
However, on 23 May, plans were announced to build nuclear power stations. Apparently these plans had been approved by the previous government, and were now to be taken up again. Thus Temelin would become the area with the largest number of nuclear power stations in Central Europe. All of this would take place not 100 kilometers from Austria, a "nuclear free" country since 1978. During the wave of protests from environmentalists, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who also happens to be a good friend of the president, Valclav Havel, declared, "Apart from nuclear energy we have no other ecological solution for the supply of energy."
Czechoslovakia's example cannot be freely applied to other countries in Eastern Europe, but it does show how much pressure is being brought to bear on the energy system.
Firstly, there are the ecological problems. Eastern European countries are the world's main producers of sulphur, sulphuric acid and acids containing sulphur. But, apart from Hungary and Bulgaria(1), the other countries depend on pit-coal and brown-coal (lignite) for 70% of their energy production. This has been the case for fifty years, and the longer it continues, the weaker the energy they produce. It is now obvious that a number of mines and thermal centers dating from the fifties will have to close down.
Besides this serious problem, the collapse of COMECON, Eastern Europe's common market and communal cooperation scheme, make it necessary to deal with the world market. In order to have access to this world market, dollars are necessary. Since January 1st, 1991, the USSR calculates the price of its oil and gas just like any other producer -- in hard cash.
The cost of Chernobyl: 2000 Billion Francs
The choice of nuclear energy appears to be the best solution because the installations are immediately available, thus paving the way to the ultimate goal of being completely independent as far as energy is concerned, and it is also "clean". At least, that's what is claimed by the Western suppliers of nuclear technology, especially the French electric utility, EDF (Electricite de France), which is delighted to have discovered this new market, enabling them to solve the crisis in which they find themselves within their own market. And they have supporters. On 23 May 1990 the Council of Ministers in Brussels approved a number of resolutions giving nuclear energy "ecological qualities", thus following a declaration made by Mitterand and Rocard in July, where, for the first time ecological questions were on the agenda.
Politicians and industrialists are throwing themselves at the Eastern European countries with tremendous enthusiasm. Jean-Michel Fauve, Director of International Affairs at EDF, made this clear in his firm's internal news bulletin in May 1990. "We must establish ourselves elsewhere, a long way from our base, we must participate. For instance, we should join with our Hungarian partners to build a nuclear plant on the shores of the Danube, which would mean an extension of our nuclear energy program in Eastern Europe."
It is no coincidence that Hungary is the country where negotiations between EDF and its partners from Eastern Europe appear to be the most advanced. Hungary draws nearly 50% of its energy from nuclear in order to cover demand. Elsewhere, roughly 10% is used -- including in the USSR -- and in Czechoslovakia, not more than 25%. Although there are great plans dating from the seventies, Poland and Rumania still have no nuclear power plants in operation. According to Lesley Fox of EDF International, "This diversity in the situations is just as much a result of the history of the relations between the USSR and the brother countries as of the local possibilities in the field of energy in each country."
Towards the end of the seventies, the big boss -- the USSR --launched a nuclear energy program within COME-CON. Why does a country with its own vast natural resources of oil and gas need nuclear energy anyway? Through the myth of the development of production powers and through the direct experience of manufacturing its own nuclear weapons, the USSR now throws itself into the construction of nuclear power stations, and tries to involve the rest of the community (COME-CON).
For the USSR it is also a way of reducing the export of oil to other East European countries, thus reserving more for Western countries who pay in hard cash. Not only does the USSR force the other countries in the East block -- to a certain extent -- to take care of themselves, but it also maintains the traditional trade links, leaving these countries completely dependent on COMECON for their energy, because the USSR keeps the supply of fuel entirely in its own hands.
Only Czechoslovakia, which before the war already had a reasonable amount of know-how together with the manufacturing firm Skoda, became the second supplier of nuclear energy installations for the entire COMECON, but with technological support from the USSR. In fact, all the nuclear plants in operation or under con-struction in East block countries are of the types VVER-440 or VVER-1000. VV stands for Voda-Voda, water water. The RBMK water-graphite type like the one in Chernobyl has never been built over the Soviet border.
The tragedy now taking place in Byelorussia, with its death toll and people suffering from deformities, plays an important role in the strategy with regard to energy in the Eastern European countries. The heart of the system, the USSR, has -- to say the least -- been dealt a blow. Since the accident in 1986, 32 nuclear energy plants either under construction, planned or ordered, have been cancelled, in other words, 35,000 MW. This is equal to the number of nuclear plants actually operational. Even more amazing is the fact that these cancellations concern not only the Chernobyl RBMK types, but also the VVER types found in all the countries in the East block.
According to Grigori Medvedev, author of "The Truth about Chernobyl"(2), Chernobyl has ensured that nuclear energy will never be a paying business in the USSR, even if a balanced program for energy development is designed making it necessary to use nuclear energy. It is not only a psychological shock but also a financial one. The total cost of the disaster will probably be twenty times higher than originally estimated. The estimates are now even as high as 2000 billion francs, according to Youri Karianine, an economist in the field of energy installations at the Research and Development Institute in Moscow.
Chernobyl is the reason that nuclear energy has been thrown completely off balance in East block countries. Seen first as a symbol of the dominant protection from big brother, nuclear energy is now seen as a symbol of danger and destruction. In Poland, top of the list of victims of the radioactive clouds, people started to demonstrate openly against nuclear energy for the first time. The moratorium approved on 19 June 1990 in Yugoslavia is a direct result of this accident.
But, is this about Soviet nuclear energy or about nuclear energy as a whole? The Western manufacturers of nuclear energy are, of course, inclined to choose the former, and try to make it appear as though their nuclear plants are safe. During negotiations no mention is ever made of "Three Mile Island", or the percentage of leukemia cases near the British nuclear power plants Dounreay and Sellafield (respectively two and four times higher than the national average). Or about the last report from the French inspector of the safety of nuclear energy, Pierre Tanguy, entitled "The Safety of Nuclear Energy up to the End of 1989", dated 8 January 1990. This report was intended for internal publication only, but was in fact published by Canard Enchainee on 14 February, and states that "there is some chance" that within ten years a serious accident will occur in a French nuclear power station.
The EDF: "We Have the Best Nuclear Energy in the World"
"We went there and told them we can do anything." Jacqueline Laudenbach, director of Europe's EDF International, has spent the last months travelling back and forth between Paris, Prague, Warsaw, Budapest, Moscow and many other new places where business can be transacted.
Framatome, the CEA and Cogema* all appear in the same direc-tors' rooms, sometimes together, but more often separately. Electricity producers and manu-facturers can also be found there, amongst others none less than the German giant concern Siemens. Ten years of experience, including experience with environmental groups, has given Siemens a healthy financial position and also an attractive marketing position with East Germany, as it can offer a more varied proposition for these markets than simply nuclear energy, ie gas or coal power plants, and particularly combined plants. In the field of nuclear energy, Siemens is more flexible than the French firms. Siemens in fact has already been given the task of studying a plan for a nuclear power station in the town of Pilsen, Czechoslovakia, with a capacity of 200 MW for the supply of a town heating system.
These are areas for which EDF has no reference at all. But, the EDF does see a great chance for its nuclear energy. "We are convinced that we have the best nuclear energy in the world. The US has done nothing for the past ten years, and the Germans not much more. The East block countries have enormous problems with pollution, and will be forced to make a choice soon as far as energy is concerned. We can deliver clean, cheap energy."
Two disputable points. Economically cheap nuclear energy? The EDF bears the weight of a debt of 232 billion francs, and announced a financial loss of 2.5 billion francs in 1989.
The Germans have so much they don't know what to do with their financial assets. They even toyed with the idea of buying up all the East German nuclear plants.
As far as the sulphur dioxide is concerned -- the biggest problem in East European countries -- the situation is not rosy. According to WISE-Paris, the German Electricity power stations have discharged 220,000 tonnes of SO2. For nearly the same amount of production, the EDF discharged 382,000 tonnes of SO2. the systematic desulphurization of the power plants -- a choice made by the Germans -- seems to be more effective than that of the French nuclear energy industry, which "saved" on the modernization of the polluting thermic power plants.
* Framatome is a supplier. CEA refers to the Commissariat a l'Energie Atom-ique -- a nuclear operator and supplier and part of EDF. All three of these companies mentioned above are French concerns.
(1) Voir Science & Technologie, Sept. 1990.
(2) Public par Albin Michel, Paris 1990, collection Domaine russe.
The nuclear industry faces problems in Eastern Europe
The nuclear industries in the West, it doesn't matter if they're German or French, steer a course through a minefield with their plans for East Europe! Trade talks about the enormous amounts of money necessary for the investment in nuclear energy are being held, while in the back-ground are the dark shadows of Chernobyl, the deep economic crisis in the region, the political instability in for instance Rumania, and the radical changes in industrial leader-ship. But financially there are no limits in the West. Jaqueline Laudenbach thinks the financial questions are of little importance: "There is a lot of money available; besides French financing possibilities, like the BFCE (Banque Francaise Commerce Exterieur), there are other European possibilities such as the Phare-program or DG XIII and the BERD, which just started, as well as the possibility of the World Bank. And there are many private banks which are willing to invest in Eastern Europe, besides which there are many private industrialists with a lot of money, working through Swiss banks....". In brief, in terms of mobilizing capital and making it available, the West is doing all that's possible, and couldn't do much more.
The 'difficulties' will be more of the technological, organizational and political nature. In the first place, technological and organizational. To change from the technology of the VVER (reactor with enriched uranium and water under pressure) to the French PWR (Pressurized Water Reactor) would probably not be that easy, because actually there's not much knowledge about the functioning of operational units. Finland, which has combined Soviet and Western technology in its nuclear program, could be an example, but in Finland this mixing of technologies was planned, and this is absolutely not the case for the East European countries.
The Largest Energy Supplies? Energy Saving!
Last but not least... the time. In the field of energy provision it's even more obvious than in other areas that time is running out. Take for instance the assumption of the French CEA (Commissariat a l'Ene-gie Atomique) that the construction of a nuclear power station will cost six years, in addition to the almost nine years needed before capacity is enough for industrial purposes. If there is any resistance from environmental groups, it takes one year more. But these assumptions are relevant only if technological and labor organization are homogeneous. However, the few cooperation projects between East and West which are beyond the first stages are looking for real cooperation, which means that the East European countries are demanding that local companies participate in the construction. Up to now, the construction of a 900 MW installation which costs in the west 6,000 man-years of labor, costs 13,000 man-years of labor in Eastern Europe....
And then there is the environmental movement, which can create political barricades. It is difficult to make this aspect tangible, but it is definitely not negligible. For ecological thinking probably has been a factor which - if it wasn't of decisive importance - has largely influenced and accelerated at least the perestroika in the USSR and the changes in Eastern Europe. Environmental protection is not exclusively reserved to the Green movements, nor are the movements themselves "extensions of German or Austrian ecological movements, which are related to Trotskyists, financed by oil magnates of large financial means": This analysis by EDF (Electricite de France), a company on top of French know-how on electricity and nuclear power, could easily decrease its position on the East European markets.
Its position could decrease even more, because the biggest energy supply for the East European countries is found in energy saving. And for that, no new plants or import of electricity is necessary. "Why should we," Gorbachev once declared, "increase the production of raw materials, fuel and energy, if it will be swallowed by inexpedient use of the means." For the Soviet Union alone, the energy saving possibilities which can be realized between now and the year 2000 are estimated at a quantity that's equal to 250 million tonnes of oil. This means more than 1200 billion Francs (120 nuclear reactors). Everywhere in Eastern Europe the very extensive energy use, the leakages in energy transportation and distribution and the only means households have for regulating the temperature (ie, opening a window), are deplorable. According to the German Institute for Economics (DIW), the energy use of an inhabitant of the eastern Germany is 25% more than in western Germany, while the industrial production of energy in the DDR is 25% less. The same figures are seen in the other East European countries.
The understanding that investments in energy saving are much more profitable than investments for increasing availability of energy is as big in Eastern Europe as it is in Western Europe. In 1984...the energy saving program of the COMECON clearly emphasized the emergency need for efficient energy use, and broke with the long, almost obsessional, tradition of increasing production capacity. Some countries, like the former DDR, had already begun programs of energy saving in the seventies. The only obvious result of those programs was a reduction in the expenditure resulting from the decrease of economic activity.
Three Times as Much Energy to Produce the Same Product
At every point in economic life there exist possibilities to save considerable amounts of energy. At the energy production level itself: the 1988 annual report of the United Nations estimates the quantity of electricity lost in power stations at about 14% to 22% (the consumption of the power stations them-selves and losses within the electricity distribution system). In the western countries, that loss is about 10%. But there are savings possibilities in industry too; it is estimated that East European countries need three times the energy used to make the same product as in Western Europe.
The cooperation projects between East and West which are focussed on the issue of energy savings are the less extensive ones; their size the correct reflection of the know-how the West was able to develop .... and learned to sell...
Source: The above companion articles were reprinted from Science et Technologie (France), 31 Nov. 1990.
Contact: The Polish Ecological Club, Pl. Sacsepanski 5 VIIIp., 31-011 Krakow, Poland.
This group is working with independent western organizations such as the Center for Energy Saving
(Centrum voor Energie Besparing) to develop energy savings programs for Poland.
Friends of the Earth, 218 D Street SE, Washington DC 20003, US, tel: +1-202-547-5330. This group
has made an offer to draw up an energy scenario based on alternatives to nuclear energy for
Czecho-Slovakia.
Contact person is Brent Blackwelder.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |