[]TL: WORLD BANK REPORT, EXTRA POINTS
SO: ANTONY FROGGATT, GREENPEACE (GP)
DT: JUNE 18, 1993
Keywords: environment nuclear world bank G7 europe  /

1)  The leaked World-Bank study clearly states the following
points.

-  The least cost investment option is the low nuclear scenario.
-  That the most dangerous reactors (RBMK and VVER 44-/230) can
be shut down and the power replaced, by the mid 1990s.


2)  G7 and EBRD

The G7 in Munich last year  establish the Emergency Safety Fund,
which was aimed at the  RBMKs and VVER 440/230.  It specific
purpose was not to increase the operating lives of the reactors,
but to make them safer during their limited operation.

The World-Bank report looks at the effect of the different
scenarios on the cost of upgrading the RBMK/230 for different
lengths of time of operation.

               Cost           Shutdown

Low            0.7 billion    by mid 1990


Moderate       1.9 billion    by 2000


High           2.9 billion    original design lives ?


Present Situation

To date Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan,
Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Uk and US as well as the EC have
pledged over ECU 115 to the fund.


Kozloduy.

On the 16th June, the EBRD gave its first grant of 24 million ECU
to Kozloduy.   The money is targeted towards the first 4 units
(working out at 6 million Ecu per unit).

The EBRD have given the information on the negotiated shut-down
dates.

Units 1 and 2 will be shut down as soon as upgrading work is
completed on either on either units 5 or 6, and when Chaira pump
storage hydro station is completed - expected spring 1997.

Units 3 and 4 will operated until both 5 and 6 units are upgraded
and three district heating co-generation units are upgraded. 
Subject to availability of financing, this could be done by the
end of 1998.

This shows that the shut-down of the reactors is dependant on
alternative sources of power.  Also that it seems likely that the
most that the EBRD will get is the shut-down of the RBMK and VVER
230s by the year 2000 [moderate nuclear scenario].

At present about 115 million Ecu (about 140 million dollars) have
been raised from a total requirement of 700 million dollars.  
However, if as it seems likely  the EBRD can only negotiate the
shut-down by the year 2000 then this falls under the moderate
nuclear scenario and according to the World Bank figures, they
will require additional funding for retrofitting of $1.9 billion.

The Kozloduy example clearly shows that whatever the G7 does,
unless it is prepared to inject very large amounts of money, the
situation will only get worse.  Importantly, the WB study shows
that the shut-down of the reactors and replacement of power with
gas is by far the cheapest investment option, which is
effectively what the G7 will be paying for.


3)  New Supply.

In both the cases of Mochovce (Slovakia) and in the Ukraine, the
Worldbank study shows that despite advanced state of construction
of some of the Units - 90% complete unit 1 Mochovce- the least
investment cost is not to finish the units but to build
alternative energy sources.


4)  Nuclear costs.

The study does not take into consideration.

- The costs of Decommissioning of existing reactors (RBMK and
VVER 440/230), a clear example of this is in Ukraine, where there
is not sufficient money for the sarcophagus for unit 4 as well as
the decommissioning of the station.
- If new reactors are commissioned, then their decommissioning
costs need to be taken into consideration when comparing running
costs of the reactors.
- The fresh and spent fuel cost.  
- The cost of a nuclear accident.


5).  Security of Supply.

The nuclear option, given the unreliability of the reactors, does
not guarantee security of supply.  This has been shown in
Bulgaria, where because of the number of accidents, incidents,
and inspection programmes, the availability of the plants cannot
be guaranteed and there are subsequent black-outs in the country.