Mochovce

Dear Commissioner Piebalgs and Commissioner Dimas,

Do you think that 20 year old construction plans for an outdated design for nuclear power plants with insufficient built-in security are anywhere near safe for European citizens? I think neither of you actually are of that opinion so I would hope that both of you work for that the European commission will give a strong negative opinion about the current plans for Mochovce 3 and 4 in Slovakia.

Furthermore, the foreseeable lack of funds for taking care of the nuclear waste of when the power plants themselves are scrapped would in itself be a strong enough deterrent for even thinking about approval of constructions of such plants. Indeed, the insurance that is required from the operator is only a fraction of that in most other Western European countries.

Also, I would urge you to urge the Slovakian government to perform an impartial environmental impact assessment that includes sustainable options (which nuclear power obviously is not). I see no reason why the people in Slovakia would have to suffer from lower levels of protection against the actual problems with both nuclear waste treatment and the running of nuclear plants than any other European citizen.

Slovakia does not have long-term storage capacity for the highly dangerous nuclear waste generated by its existing plants, nor would it for Mochovce. The Slovakian government has stated that it wishes to have a permanent repository by 2038, but as the country has had nuclear reactors since the late fifties, it seems unlikely that this will ever happen.

The pending “Euratom opinion” may well be the only opportunity for the European Commission to critically assess the Mochovce nuclear power plant. I therefore urgently ask you to issue a negative opinion on the plans for the third and fourth blocks of the Mochovce nuclear power plant.

I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

Submit your thoughts as well HERE

IKEA is one of the worst in Portugal in 2006

The Portuguese environment NGO Quercus has assigned IKEA as a worst case on their annual list of best and worst events in 2006. The list (In Portuguese). Or rather construction of a Swedwood factor in a environmentally protected area. Declassified by state or local government without much analysis, or so it seems.

The snippet which includes IKEA:
"Avanço de obras públicas e privadas em áreas classificadas
Ao longo de 2006 inúmeros foram os projectos públicos e privados viabilizados em áreas classificadas. Fazendo uso de instrumentos como as declarações de imprescindível utilidade pública e as classificações como projectos PIN (Potencial Interesse Nacional), o governo revelou ter como orientação base a viabilização de qualquer investimento mesmo que localizado em zona classificada como Reserva Ecológica Nacional (REN), Reserva Agrícola Nacional (RAN), povoamento de sobreiros e azinheiras ou Rede Natura 2000, sem olhar à existência de alternativas de localização.

Este tem sido o caso do IC9 (sublanço Carregueiros/Tomar), da fábrica do IKEA em Paços de Ferreira, das plataformas logísticas e da barragem do Sabor."

In short:
The Portuguese government has been very eager to classify many projects as being of national importance thus aiming to override several area protections such as "national ecological reserves", "national agricultural reserve" and Natura 2000 without even looking at alternatives (such as building on other sites). Natura 2000 is a very strict EU classification that usually has strong impact on making nearby large installations and has to be considered when making an Environmental Impact Assessment.

One of these instances is the construction of a Swedwood factory in Paços de Ferreira between Braga and Porto. Swedwood is a subsidy of IKEA.

IKEA is starting to build an image as being environmentally benign, but by this decision one can always wonder how serious about this they really are...