Europe’s uncertain energy security

DISCLAIMER: All opinions in this column reflect the views of the author(s), not of EURACTIV Media network.

Protest against the construction of two new nuclear reactors in Finland. Helsinki, 2010. [A?a?nesta? ydinvoima historiaan/Flickr]

While the EU is formulating its Energy Union to increase energy security, some member states are working against these goals, write Heidi Hautala and Benedek Jávor.

Heidi Hautala and Benedek Jávor are Members of the European Parliament from Finland and Hungary respectively. They are members of Greens/EFA political group in Parliament.

Energy security is a key element in the common European energy policy given the massive energy dependency on external sources, the lack of diversification of energy sources, and the volatility of energy prices. Risks of dependency on gas supply from Russia have been widely recognised in the EU’s energy policy. However, the impacts of Russia’s nuclear investments in the EU are not seriously considered in the communication on energy security which the EU Commission presented in May this year.

The European Commission states that it is necessary “to address control of strategic infrastructure by non-EU entities, notably by state-companies, national banks or sovereign funds from key supplier countries, which aim at penetrating the EU energy market or hampering diversification rather than the development of the EU network and infrastructure.”

If we look at the proposed actions, the Commission seems to have closed its eyes to the impact of Russian nuclear investments in the EU.

Through its energy corporations, the Russian government has means of influence far beyond mere business transactions. Rosatom owns and controls nuclear weapons subsidiaries, research institutes, as well as nuclear and radiation safety agencies. It generates 40 percent of the nuclear power in our continent. Globally, its market share in uranium enrichment accounts for 40 percent, in nuclear fuel 17 percent.

Despite EU sanctions against Russia, the Finnish government recently decided to support a plan to build a nuclear plant in cooperation with Rosatom. The nuclear project would be run by a Finnish consortium, Fennovoima, and 34 percent of the shares would be owned by Rosatom. Rusatom Overseas, a subsidiary of Rosatom, would deliver the 1.200-megawatt reactor.

Rosatom would provide the fuel to the plant at least for the first ten years. However, changing a fuel contractor afterwards is not going to be easy, as the fuel rods are reactor specific. Fennovoima cannot accept a Rosatom offer to reprocess the spent fuel in Russia, as exports are prohibited by Finnish law – but the fact is that at the moment, it lacks a real domestic alternative.

Another EU member state, Hungary has ordered two new 1,200-megawatt nuclear reactors with Rosatom, to increase the production in the Paks plant by 120 percent. Construction works were commissioned without public procurement – an obvious case for EU competition authorities. 10 billion euros, out of a total cost of €12 billion, will be financed by a loan from Russia. The deal offers an entire fuel cycle.

This is precisely what the EU Commission warns against: “Russia is a key competitor in nuclear fuel production, and offers integrated packages for investments in the whole nuclear chain. Therefore, particular attention should be paid to investments in new nuclear power plants to be built in the EU using non-EU technology, to ensure that these plants are not dependent only on Russia for the supply of the nuclear fuel.”

The Finnish Prime Minister Alexander Stubb argues that the chosen cooperation with the Russian nuclear industry would reduce energy dependency from Russia, as the plant would be operated by Finns on Finnish soil. In reality, such projects would weaken the European energy security as it would

  • increase technology dependency,
  • link the energy supply to a Russian nuclear fuel cycle, and
  • make the European energy supply increasingly vulnerable through financial ties with the Russian state and companies integrally linked to it.

The Commission has stated that nuclear investment decisions made by member states need to be discussed at the European level. It also recognises the importance “in light of recent experience” of being informed about intergovernmental agreements between EU member states and third countries” which may have “a potential impact on security of energy supplies and diversification”. Apparently, the Commission is happy with the intergovernmental nuclear cooperation agreements which Finland and Hungary have made recently with Russia.

Some EU members have reconsidered their cooperation with Rosatom as a consequence of the crisis in Ukraine. Bulgaria refused a second Rosatom nuclear plant, Slovakia stopped negotiations with Rosatom, and the UK suspended its negotiations with Rosatom.

A comprehensive energy policy and energy security strategy also needs to address the issues of financial and ownership dependency in the European energy infrastructure.

Subscribe to our newsletters