From: Greenpeace via Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu>
Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive,alt.activism,sci.energy,talk.environment
Subject: NEWS: World Bank Recommends Halt of Czech N-Plant Construction
Followup-To: sci.energy,talk.environment
Date: 25 Jan 1993 06:04:14 GMT
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Keywords: environment nuclear press

[Greenpeace Press Release from Greenbase -- Redistribute Freely]

WORLD BANK RECOMMENDS HALT OF CONSTRUCTION AT TEMELIN

            World Bank offers to finance conversion
               of Temelin into a gas power plant

VIENNA, January 13, 1993 (GP) Two internal reports of the
World Bank come to disillusioning conclusions about the state
of nuclear power plants in Eastern Europe and in particular
the Czech NPP at Temelin.  The reports were recently leaked to
Greenpeace.  Backfitting of the technologically outdated plants
is considered senseless -- for economical and safety reasons.
The experts of World Bank claim that Temelin is not necessary
for the Czech energy supply; its construction should be halted
or, alternatively, it should be reconstructed into a gas power
plant.
  
Between 2nd and 14th November 1992, a World Bank Delegation,
led by the economy and energy expert Dale Gray, investigated
the actual situation of the energy policy and the long-term
energy concepts of Czechia and Slovakia.  The World Bank mission
took place as part of a report about energy alternatives in
Eastern Europe, commissioned by the G-7 countries.
  
The mission report comes to a devastating judgement about the
present energy policy and the economical consequences of a
continued construction of nuclear power plants in Czechia:
even with a moderate energy-consumption scenario, Temelin's
capacity and energy would not be needed between 1995 and 2010.
In a scenario based on a reduction of electricity consumption,
even without Temelin there would be an electricity-surplus in
the country.
  
The further construction costs of 27 billion Kcs would dig a big
hole into the Czech budget and would have negative consequences
for the economical development of the country.  Using Temelin as
replacement for the existing thermal power plants would result
in high unemployment rates for miners and power plant operators;
backfitting of the coal power plants would be about 40% cheaper.
  
The World Bank delegation suggests two possible solutions:
  
1.  Halt of construction at Temelin until there is an actual
need for the energy -- even with a moderate consumption rate
this will not be before 2010.

2.  Export of the electricity produced at Temelin (if the
governmental policy is to allow such exports -- politically
this would hardly be achievable at the moment).
  
The World Bank further suggests to convert the nuclear plant
to a combined gas-plant.  The World Bank would be willing to
arrange the financing of a feasibility study and -- if it is
successful -- to ensure the financing of a gas-plant by a
recommendation to the G-7 countries.  The mission suggests
delaying any irreversible decision on the CEZ and SEP nuclear
power program until the alternatives to be proposed by the G-7
next year are on hand.  The second World Bank report with the
title "Nuclear Safety -- The Need for an Insurance Policy",
written by the Director of the Industry and Energy Department,
Anthony A. Churchill, comes to the conclusion that "Given the
high cost of a potential (nuclear) accident, all plants without
acceptable containment structures should be shut down as soon as
possible . . . The cost of a feasible program to shut down these
reactors is minimal -- between USD 1 and USD 3 per capita per
year for ten years for the immediately affected populations of
Western, Eastern, and Central Europe.  This is cheap insurance.
What is missing is the political will and the required
institutional structures to make this happen."
  
To the question of safety and backfitting of the outdated
Eastern European nuclear plants Churchill states:  "Thus,
under no circumstances, can these plants be brought up to
acceptable international standards.  The next question to
ask is can they be made safer, how much safer, and at what
cost.  Again we do not really know the answers."
  
Technical backfitting of the outdated reactor types is out
of the question for Churchill:  "The questions we have to ask
ourselves are:  one, what are the chances of these programs
being implemented effectively within a reasonable period of
time, and, two, at the end of this process how much safety have
we really bought?  Are we simply playing Russian roulette with
a pistol that now has twelve cylinders instead of six?  Is this
a game we really want to play, even with twelve cylinders?"
  
"Even the World Bank talks in concrete terms", said Greenpeace
nuclear campaigner Gabi Wiener. "By continuing their nuclear
program, Eastern Europe and especially Czechia will be running
into an environmental and economical dead-end road. Safety and
economical reasons permit only one conclusion: Stop nuclear
energy - now!"

For further information and copies of the reports, contact Gabi
Wiener, Greenpeace Austria Tel +43.1.7130031-21
Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive