AN AGREEMENT between Ukraine and the West to shut down Chernobyl and
replace it with two other nuclear plants will be thrown into doubt by a report
which says the plan is not cost-effective.
A panel of European and American energy experts is expected to advise Western
governments not to spend a billion dollars finishing the Soviet-designed
reactors at Rovno and Khmelnitsky, which Ukraine says are necessary to make up
its energy shortfall. The country has refused to close Chernobyl without the
money, but the panel says that the two new plants are not the answer to
Ukraine鈥檚 problems. Meanwhile the European Commission, which has already spent
$70 million on the reactors, is looking for ways to finish them despite
the scientists鈥� advice.
Western experts say that Chernobyl, whose three remaining reactors supply 5
per cent of Ukraine鈥檚 electricity, is unsafe. In 1995, Ukraine and the G7 group
of rich nations agreed that the plant would shut down by 2000 and that the West
would pay for its closure and the completion of the two replacement plants, as
well as helping Ukraine develop non-nuclear energy.
Advertisement
The deal was to be funded with $470 million from the European
Commission鈥檚 Euratom nuclear fund, a loan of $300 million from the
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), based in London, and
further contributions from the West, bringing the total to $1 billion.
But the EBRD can only lend the money if finishing the two plants is the cheapest
way of replacing Chernobyl. And last year, along with the European Commission
and the US State Department, the bank sponsored a study to confirm that it
was.
The panel鈥檚 report has not yet been released, but officials who have seen it
say it recommends that upgrading existing nuclear reactors and improving
Ukraine鈥檚 non-nuclear energy plants would be a cheaper way of meeting the
country鈥檚 electricity needs. The European Commission, which is apparently
unhappy with the panel鈥檚 conclusions, says it will not allow publication of the
report until it has first written a detailed response. However, Rebecca
Hill of the EBRD confirms that the bank 鈥渃ould not contribute money鈥� to the
Ukrainian energy programme unless it met its 鈥渓east cost鈥� principles.
John Surrey of the Science Policy Research Unit at the University of Sussex,
who chaired the scientific panel, says he cannot divulge the contents of the
report before the Commission releases it. But he told New 杏吧原创
that Ukraine has sufficient nuclear energy to meet its off-peak demand for
electricity, even without Chernobyl. He says the country could meet peak demand
by improving its many underused coal-burning power stations.
According to a European Commission report last year, 97 million megawatts of
coal-fired generating capacity, more than Ukraine鈥檚 nuclear capacity, is lying
idle. But Ukraine is reluctant to expand coal-fired generation because it is
trying to reduce its dependence on the Russian oil it adds to low-quality coal
to improve the efficiency of its power stations.
The European Commission is thought to be keen to go ahead with the two
reactors because several European companies, led by 脡lectricit茅 de
France, are vying for the contract to complete the building.