Speech of the Prime Minister Mirek Topolánek on the Occasion of Opening of 2nd European Nuclear Forum in Prague Delivered on 22.5.2008
Ladies and gentlemen,
Welcome to a country which was at the cradle of the nuclear age. It was the uranium ore of Jáchymov, from which Maria Sklodowska-Currie extracted the first gram of radium. Welcome in a country which as the ninth in the country in the world began to operate a research nuclear reactor. Welcome to a country the industry of which manufactured complete equipment for 24 nuclear blocks and which safely operates its nuclear power stations for more than twenty years. Welcome to a country which can contribute to the future of the nuclear energy.
The Prague Nuclear Forum 2008 enjoys extraordinary interest. I am pleased I can welcome the Chairman of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, the Commissioner for Energy, Andris Piebalgs, the father of the Nuclear Forum, Dominique Ristori, Prime Ministers of six countries of the EU, one Deputy Prime Minister, number of ministers, nearly two hundred of captains of industry, experts, politicians of all countries of the EU, the Russian Federation and other countries.
I am glad that the EU managed to push through organizing of three nuclear forums, at which it is possible to freely discuss issues of nuclear energy. I am glad we were commissioned to organize it together with the Slovak Republic, the country which is close to us, if nor the closest, and which has similar opinion as we have, and which , unlike us must solve the issue of the self-sufficiency as early as nowadays. When I was thinking how to introduce our today's meeting best, I found thirty-years-old text of the Russian academician Andrei Sacharov. In 1978 a prestigious American journal The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists published his article: "Nuclear Energy and Freedom of the West". Andrei Sacharov expressed a predictive idea in it: "It will be neither oil nor gas, nor coal, nor renewable sources but the nuclear energy which will ensure its freedom and independence." These words are still true. In spite of this fact they were not answered by west politicians and the west public for those thirty years although the article of Sacharov was published by majority of prestigious periodicals. On the contrary – ideologically motivated attacks of environmentalist movements against nuclear power stations found allies in number of political parties and they even lead certain parties to reduction of nuclear energy. A meaningful example of such a discouragement which causes opposition to the nuclear energy is a pseudoproblem of nuclear waste disposal. This issue is already solved from the technological point of view ; only political and economic courage is lacking to choose a way how to use that considerable volume of energy contained in so called waste. Also about this Andrei Sacharov wrote as early as thirty years ago.
What are the implications of the decisions not to develop the nuclear energy - decisions to which did not lead factual arguments but an irrational campaign, the reason of which was to evoke fears? As a consequence of this step, Europe is nowadays lacking sources of electric energy and experts in nuclear technologies. Who would be interested in a branch without future? Will we have courage to recommend members countries at this forum to increase investments to education and training of nuclear experts and to the research of new generation of nuclear reactors? As a consequence of this decision not to support the nuclear energy, that "Freedom of the West" which Sacharov mentioned, is jeopardized. As a consequence of this decision, we are lacking those reliable sources of cheap energy. Our dependency on oil and gas which we have to import often from instable areas and for constantly growing prices is increasing, and we are exposing ourselves to a risk of a political or price extortion. It is not necessary to use power in today's world, threat of power is enough. Do we realize that people in China, India, and Brazil or in the Russian Federation want to live in prosperity, to fill their rightful and growing needs of energies and high-quality food? Are we really convinced that we will impose upon them our ambitious vision of the fight against climatic changes without nuclear sources? And if they follow this path, does anybody want to say that we will not require these sources to be of high security and under control because of our own security? He, who thinks so or he, who even supports it, is a really dangerous dreamer.
This leads the European Union to a change of its attitude to the nuclear energy, as I hope. One of visible results of this change is also organizing these nuclear forums. But we cannot speak about some renaissance of the nuclear energy, we can just say about the renaissance of "speaking" about the nuclear energy. And I should say that the debate, this change of the wind, comes just in time. In the ambitious plans of the EU for ensuring energy security (plan 20 20 20 to 2020) the nuclear energy is not included at all, despite low emissions - in spite of the fact that it is a source with ensured raw materials for hundreds of years, and if we also take thorium into consideration, then even for thousand years. Will we have courage to begin a debate on the French plan 30 30 to 2030? Will we have courage to declare the nuclear energy as a low-carbon source of energy and for a means for filling binding targets of environment protection? Even though the situation within the EU is changing and the nuclear energy ceased to be total taboo, the share in the electric energy production is decreasing. From one to three reactors are put out of operation every year – more than they are built. In other words, a real renaissance of the atom can occur in some ten years – if we find courage today to say that we need nuclear energy and that we will need it, that our freedom is jeopardized without it. Courage and responsibility!
One of tasks of the European Nuclear Forums is to radically change this situation. The Bratislava Nuclear Forum in November 2007 started that process. It rather asked questions without having ambitions to find immediate answers. Then, number of experts´ meeting was held; experts thoroughly considered various aspects of the nuclear energy, its economic expedience, possible risks and eventually ways how to persuade citizens. We will acquaint their conclusions, and we will try to find "Prague" answers to "Bratislava" questions, so that we would be able to hold "European" discussion on them. As to the Czech Republic, I can say that more than 70% of citizens support construction of nuclear power stations. Europe as a whole is lacking sources of electricity. Also the Czech Republic, as one of its greatest exporters may become dependant on electricity import after 2015. Consumption of the electric energy is increasing annually by 1% thanks to economic growth and increasing standard of living, despite all the economies, despite decreasing energetic demand factor of industry, despite massive subsidies in higher share of renewable sources. To expect an opposite, would be extremely irresponsible. But there will be a problem with electricity imports. In case of no action, number of countries of the EU will be in a similar situation.
Therefore we need new sources. And we must act quickly, because construction of nuclear power stations is a demanding process as far as time is taken into consideration. We must realize that it will take from seven to eight years at a minimum, according to type of the power station, but sometimes thirteen or fifteen years until the power stations starts to supply electricity. To wit, we have nearly any time to decide. Will our citizens behave politically correctly when they switch on and no light will occur? Will we be able to explain them that they have been surfing on the wave of populism and that it was simpler to invest in construction of wind power stations, that black-out is normal, in fact? There are not many alternatives for our country. Electric energy production based on gas will certainly increase. But it is very expensive from the point of view of energy security, and very risky because of increasing dependency on gas imports. Production of hydroelectric power station is now at the top of the natural, technological and economic potential. As far as renewable sources are concerned, the greatest chances we have in case of biomass; nevertheless, it cannot cover consumption increase and also the development of food prices should warn us.
Thus, we have only two realistic options how to ensure sufficiency of energy in the future: either coal or atom. But if thermal power stations would be to cover the entire consumption, it would mean breakthrough into all mining limits. With regard to the historical experience with mining under the totalitarian era, the response of the public would be strongly negative, let alone impacts on environment and non-meeting of binding limits in the sphere of reduction of CO2 emissions. The second possibility is the construction of new nuclear blocks. Nuclear power station form powerful and flexible source, which can effectively cover increasing demand and its volatility. We can purchase the nuclear fuel in politically stable countries. As to prices, the nuclear energy is one of cheapest sources of electrical energy. Moreover, emissions are very low, as I have already said. Besides, the Czech Republic still has fair resources of usable uranium.
It is time to stop just speaking about nuclear energy. The next Nuclear Forum will be held in Prague during the Czech presidency. One of its priorities will be just energy, its sustainability and security. I wish the Nuclear Forum in Prague to take a visible step forward, so that we would proceed from discussion to decisions and to final conclusions and concrete recommendations to the European Commission and the individual member states; so that we would agree on implementation of a new European licence for new generation of nuclear reactors, so that we would declare nuclear power stations to be a low-emission source of energy, a source which is environmental friendly, so that nuclear power station would not be ostracized and become a part of politically correct vocabulary of European politicians and European political parties.
Ladies and gentlemen, I wish success to your negotiations and I wish you nice stay in Prague, of course.
