18 Amendments of Michèle RIVASI related to 2018/2222(INI)
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas fusion is expected to play an importantcould in the very distant future play a hypothetical role in the future European and global energy landscape as a potentially inexhaustible, safe, climate- friendly, environmentally responsible and economically competitive source of energy,;
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas, according to the latest IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre- industrial levels, limiting global warming to 1.5°C will require a reduction in global emissions to ‘net zero’ in around 2050, so that fusion research will not make it possible to respond to global warming in time;
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas Europe hFrance persuaded Europe to spend the taxpayer’s money in such a way as from the start to played a leading role in the ITER project, developed in close collaboration with the non-European signatories to the ITER Agreement (the US, Russia, Japan, China, South Korea and India), and whereas the European contribution, channelled through the Joint Undertaking ‘Fusion for Energy’ (F4E), represents 45 % of the construction costs of the project,
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 (new)
Paragraph -1 (new)
-1. Recalls that initially, in 2001, the construction costs of ITER were estimated to be around EUR 5.9 billion (2008 value), but that in 2010 this figure was adjusted to around EUR 16 billion (2008 value); notes that, on 12 July 2010, being aware of the risk of a budget overrun, the Council of the European Union limited the European contribution for the construction phase to EUR 6.6 billion (2008 value);
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 a (new)
Paragraph -1 a (new)
-1a. Recalls the delay in the construction of this experimental reactor, because originally it was planned that ITER should be constructed by 2020, but in 2016 the ITER Council approved a new timetable for reaching First Plasma in December 2025, the earliest technically possible date for the construction of ITER;
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 b (new)
Paragraph -1 b (new)
-1b. Recalls certain observations made by the European Court of Auditors in its report on the annual accounts of the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the development of fusion energy for the financial year 20161a, in particular that: – In June 2017, the Commission had issued a communication entitled ‘EU contribution to a reformed ITER project’1b, seeking Parliament’s support and a mandate from the Council of the European Union to approve the new baseline on behalf of Euratom; – Although there are no contingencies in the new baseline, the Commission considers in its Communication that a contingency margin of up to 24 months for the calendar and between 10% and 20% for the budget would be appropriate1c. In addition, the measures taken to respect the budget ceiling of EUR 6.6 billion include in particular postponing the acquisition and installation of all components that are not essential to First Plasma. Although constructive steps have been taken to improve the management and control of the construction phase of the ITER project, there remains a risk of further cost overruns and further delays in the implementation of the project compared to the proposed new baseline; __________________ 1a OJ C 426, 12.12.2017, p. 32 1b COM(2017) 319 final, 14.6.2017 (accompanied by Commission Staff Working Document SWD(2017) 232 final) 1c Chapter V of COM(2017) 319 final, 14.6.2017 (accompanied by Commission Staff Working Document SWD(2017) 232 final)
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 c (new)
Paragraph -1 c (new)
-1c. Observes that, in April 2018, the US Department of Energy estimated the cost of ITER at USD 65 billion, i.e. three times the budget announced by the ITER Organisation1a. __________________ 1a Paul Dabbar, DOE undersecretary for science, provided the estimate to the US Senate Appropriations subcommittee on energy and water development on 11 April 2018. https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/he arings/review-of-the-dept-of-energy-and- nnsa-budget-requests-for-fy2019
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 d (new)
Paragraph -1 d (new)
-1d. Notes that, on 29 March 2017, the United Kingdom notified the European Council of its decision to withdraw from the European Union and from Euratom; recalls that the United Kingdom has up to now been a net contributor to the Union budget and, in particular, to the financing of the fusion research programme, including ITER; recalls that the United Kingdom was contributing to the funding of ITER; points out that, according to the Court of Auditors, an agreement ‘setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal … may have a significant effect on the future activities of the F4E Joint Undertaking and the ITER project’1a. __________________ 1a OJ C 426, 12.12.2017, p. 34.
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 e (new)
Paragraph -1 e (new)
-1e. Stresses that, ‘as ITER is an experimental machine that will not work on a continuous basis, the energy produced will not be converted into electricity’1a and that ‘ITER is not intended to feed the [electricity] grid’1b; observes, therefore, that ITER will play no role in fighting climate change or in energy independence or the European electricity market; __________________ 1a ref. ITER.org https://www.iter.org/en/proj/inafewlines 1b Mr Massimo Garribba, DG ENER, during consideration of the report by Mr Marinescu on the Joint Undertaking for ITER and the development of fusion energy, ITRE – 9 October 2018.
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 f (new)
Paragraph -1 f (new)
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 g (new)
Paragraph -1 g (new)
-1g. Notes that project reactors require a great amount of lithium-6 obtained by means of nuclear enrichment from naturally occurring lithium, and that land-based lithium resources raise many issues, particularly of an environmental and economic nature; stresses that the production of tritium from lithium-6 in the ITER reactor and subsequent ones of the same type requires a large amount of beryllium, which is rare on Earth and extremely toxic and costly; concludes that deuterium/tritium fusion is neither ‘sustainable’ nor ‘inexhaustible’;
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 h (new)
Paragraph -1 h (new)
-1h. Condemns the complete failure to take account of democratic institutions, particularly the opinion of the European Parliament; calls for decisions on nuclear issues from now on to be taken under the ordinary legislative procedure as provided for in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU);
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 i (new)
Paragraph -1 i (new)
-1i. Calls for a scientific audit of nuclear fusion by nuclear physicists not involved in nuclear fusion research;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomesDissociates itself from the Commission proposal for a Council Decision amending Decision 2007/198/Euratom establishing the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy and conferring advantages upon it (COM(2018)0445), which will provide the basis for the financing of the activities of the Joint Undertaking for the period 2021-2027 under the Euratom Treaty;
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 – introductory part
Paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. Calls on the Council to approvereject the Commission proposal while introducing the following modifications:;
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 – indent 7
Paragraph 2 – indent 7