TL: WORLD REVIEW: NUCLEAR POWER IN DECLINE
SO: Greenpeace International (GP) & World Watch Institute
DT: May 20, 1992
Keywords: nuclear power problems overview gp reactors economy
iaea global /

----------
INTRODUCTION 



The nuclear power industry is being squeezed out of the global
energy marketplace, according to a new survey conducted by the
Worldwatch Institute in Washington DC, World Information Service on
Energy in Paris, and Greenpeace International in Amsterdam. These
new figures contradict the rosy assessments put out each year by
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna. In fact,
it now appears that the official IAEA figures released in April
1992 include serious inaccuracies, including overstating the
numbers of reactors under construction by 27. 

According to this survey there were 421 nuclear plants in operation
at the beginning of 1992, ten fewer than there were at the peak in
December 1988. These plants had a total generating capacity of
325,942 megawatts - only five per cent above the figure reported
three years earlier. Between the end of 1990 and 1991, the total
installed nuclear generating capacity actually declined for the
first time since commercial nuclear power began in the fifties. At
the year end there were 49 nuclear plants under active construction
world-wide (see Table 1), a quarter as many as a decade ago.[1]

Many of the remaining plants under construction are nearing
completion so that in the next few years worldwide nuclear
expansion will slow to a trickle. It now appears that in the year
2000 the world will have at most 360,000 megawatts of nuclear
capacity P only ten per cent above the current figure. This
contrasts with the 4,450,000 megawatts forecast for the year 2000
by the IAEA in 1974.[2]

Ever since the Three Mile Island accident rocked the world in 1979,
the nuclear industry has insisted that its image would soon be
restored, and that vigorous construction programs would resume.
Instead, rejection of nuclear power has spread from the United
States to Western Europe, Latin America, and the Far East. Most
recently, the wave of democracy that has swept Eastern Europe and
the Commonwealth of Independent States has eroded public support
and led to the cancellation of dozens of plants.

While nuclear proponents frequently refer to the expansionist plans
of France and Japan, these two countries are minor exceptions to
the global trend, and even their nuclear programs are now in
jeopardy due to public opposition in Japan and the poor financial
health of the State utility in France. Countries where construction
has ceased entirely are Belgium, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland,
and Germany. Great Britain and the United States P two leading
nuclear powers P have just one reactor each still under
construction, while Canada has just two.

In the Third World, there are only 18,394 megawatts of nuclear
plants in operation P six per cent of the world total. Many are
seriously over budget, behind schedule, or plagued by technical
problems. As a consequence there have been only a handful of Third
World orders in the past decade.[3] Recently, nuclear programs in
Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union have also begun to come
unhinged. Public opposition has risen as some 300,000 people
undergo treatment for radiation-related illnesses that stem from
Chernobyl and other mishaps. Meanwhile, political changes have
further unleashed a torrent of public criticism, which in Eastern
Europe has focused on the fact that their nuclear plants do not
meet western safety standards. Plant shutdowns have proceeded
rapidly as declining economic conditions lower worker morale,
jeopardize the supply of critical spare parts, and reduce
electricity demand.[4]

This international trend is propelled by the two serious accidents
at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, rapid cost escalations, and
rising concern about a healthy environment. Nuclear technology has
performed poorly in many countries and has often failed to live up
to the high safety standards that its inherent dangers demand.
People are particularly concerned about the danger of accidents and
a continuing failure to develop safe means of disposing of nuclear
wastes. Opinion polls in most countries find majorities against the
construction of additional reactors.

In addition, costs have risen to the point where nuclear power is
no longer competitive with other new power sources. Not only coal
plants, but also new, highly efficient natural gas plants, and new
technologies such as wind turbines and geothermal energy, are all
substantially less expensive than new nuclear plants. The market
niche that nuclear power once held has in effect gone.
Nuclear proponents have tried to use concern about global warming
as a reason for reviving their industry, and have even tried to
force it onto the agenda of the United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development in June 1992. There has been little
response so far, however, as most of the governments with new
climate policies are focused instead on energy efficiency and
renewable energy. And reactor orders meanwhile continue to dwindle
(see chart 1). Nuclear power is an expensive means to offset
fossil-fuel fired power, and several hundred plants would have to
be built to have any real impact. Given the current economic and
political state of the nuclear industry, this would appear to be
unrealistic.

The nuclear issue of the next few decades P and possibly the next
millennium as well P is the clean-up of the nuclear industryUs
legacy of radioactive waste. Nearly one in six nuclear plants that
has ever been built is now closed. Some 75 reactors with a capacity
of 16,673 megawatts, have been retired, after an average service
life of less than 17 years, yet there are still no clear plans for
dealing with the waste. Meanwhile, waste accumulates in RtemporaryS
above-ground storage facilities at hundreds of nuclear plants. Not
a single country has near-term plans to permanently dispose of high
level waste. This may be the issue that determines the final
verdict on the nuclear age.[5]


THE AMERICAS

It has been 14 years since the United States ordered a nuclear
plant of any kind. And one must go back even further  P  19 years
to 1973  P  to find a nuclear plant that was ordered and not
subsequently cancelled. Indeed, between 1972 and 1990, 119 nuclear
plants were cancelled by utilities, representing 130,792 megawatts
of generating capacity, which is well above the countryUs total
current nuclear capacity. Public opposition to nuclear power
continues to mount in the United States. A March 1992 public
opinion poll found that 65 per cent oppose the construction of more
nuclear power plants, the highest level of opposition since
pollsters first started asking the question in March 1975. (Only 27
per cent of those questioned favoured building more plants.)[6] 

During the past few years, construction has wound down on the few
remaining nuclear facilities that were begun in the
early-seventies. These completions have added only slightly to
total nuclear generation, and they also mark the end of the era of
post-war nuclear construction. Today there is only one US nuclear
plant under active construction  P  the Comanche Peak facility in
Texas. While there are another seven partially built plants in
RmothballsS, most of these are unlikely ever to be finished. (One
plant that may be completed, Watts Bar 1, recently received Nuclear
Regulatory Commission approval for renewed construction.)[7]

Total nuclear capacity in the US has essentially peaked at just
under 100,000 megawatts. The nuclear share of US electricity in
1991 reached a new high of nearly 22 per cent, a figure that is
unlikely to rise much, if at all, in the next decade. Some 18
plants have already been shut down, nearly all of them well ahead
of schedule, and San Onofre 1 in Southern California is to be
closed by mid-1993 at the latest.[8]

US nuclear power has been a victim of market economics as well as
rising public opposition. In fact, the US business magazine Forbes
has called the nuclear industry Rthe largest managerial disaster in
US business historyS, involving $100 billion in wasted investments
and cost overruns, exceeded in magnitude only by the Vietnam War
and the current Savings & Loan crisis[9]. The average cost of 21
new nuclear plants completed in the late 80s and early 90s reached
$3,700 per kilowatt or more than $4 billion for a single plant.
This compares to costs of $200 per kilowatt in the early seventies
and $750 per kilowatt in 1980. Even after adjustment for inflation,
real nuclear construction costs have increased sixfold since the
early seventies.[10]

There has also been an increase in the operating costs of US
nuclear plants. These costs have increased threefold in the past
decade even after adjusting for inflation, reaching 2.27 cents per
kilowatt-hour in 1989. This occurred despite a fall in uranium
prices, now at an historic low. Total operating and fuel costs of
nuclear power plants in the US now exceed those of coal-fired
plants, which were 2.14 cents per kilowatt- hour in 1989. The
nuclear costs of over $10 billion per annum reflect a technology
that has not yet been stabilized, requiring large amounts of
unplanned maintenance, equipment replacement and capital additions.
This enormous unexpected repair business is the main thing keeping
the order-short nuclear industry alive.[11]

Combined operating and construction costs yield an annual levelized
cost for new nuclear plants of over 12 cents per kilowatt-hour.
This is well above the equivalent costs of new coal, gas and even
wind-driven plants being built in the US. It is hardly surprising
that these huge costs have encouraged state utility commissions to
look skeptically at nuclear power and for many utility companies to
state publicly that they have no interest in even considering
nuclear investments.[12]

Most government and private analysts in the US now agree that
without a complete redesign of the technology, requiring at least
a decade, further nuclear construction is unlikely. Beyond two or
three of the seven partly built plants now sitting in mothballs, no
additional nuclear plants are likely to be completed in the United
States before the year 2000. There simply is not enough time left.
The decade from 2000-2010 could conceivably see some nuclear
expansion, but only if conditions change rapidly. As many as 61 US
nuclear plants (over half those now operating) are candidates to be
decommissioned by 2010, assuming a projected operating life of 30
years. Minor additions of new capacity by that date are unlikely to
add to the net installed capacity.[13]

Meanwhile, the US governmentUs efforts to bury nuclear waste, now
proposed for the site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, have been moving
in reverse. In 1975, the US planned on having a high-level waste
burial site operating by 1985. The date was moved to 1989, then to
1998, 2003, and now 2010 P a goal that still appears unrealistic,
given technical questions and the vehement opposition of the state
of Nevada. Former US Nuclear Regulatory Commissioner (NRC) Victor
Gilinsky describes Yucca Mountain as a Rpolitical dead-endS.[14]

Industry efforts to revive nuclear power have centered on changing
the licensing procedure for new nuclear power plants. In 1989, the
NRC attempted to enact, through administrative fiat, one-step
licensing, which would allow a utility to receive a construction
and operating license for a new plant before the ground was even
broken. The move was rejected by Federal courts, which found that
it violated the explicit language of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
which called for a two-step process that would require public
hearings after a plant was built to ensure safety. However, the
effort to codify the one-step licensing is not over. The energy
bill that passed the US Senate in February 1992 included a
provision for one-step licensing. So far, the House energy bill has
conflicting versions of licensing revisions. However, even if
one-step licensing became the law of the land, it is uncertain
whether utilities P or state regulators P  would take the risk of
starting new plants.

In Canada, a two-decade push by a provincially owned utility and 
federally owned nuclear industry has resulted in 20 licensed
nuclear reactors, with two more under construction at the
problem-plagued Darlington station in Ontario. The remaining
nuclear plants are expected to be completed by mid-1993, but the
government-owned Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd. (AECL), continues to
urge new construction programs. In 1990, AECL managed to land a
contract to sell South Korea one reactor, as well as Canadian
government funding in 1991 to complete one reactor in Romania.[15]
Ontario Hydro planned on completing ten more reactors by 2014,
until a September 1990 provincial election put the New Democratic
Party (NDP) in control of the province. One of the first moves by
the NDP was to order Ontario Hydro to invest in energy conservation
instead of new nuclear power plants, and to complete a three-year
study of energy options before any new nuclear orders are
considered. In January 1992, Ontario Hydro announced an update
submission to this demand-supply energy plan which concluded that
there would be no need for any new major energy sources, either
nuclear or fossil fuels until 2010. On March 12, 1992, AECL
suffered another setback, this time in Saskatchewan. There, the
recently elected NDP government cancelled the previous governmentUs
planned nuclear feasibility study.[16]

In all of Latin America, only four nuclear reactors are now in
operation: two in Argentina, and one each in Brazil and Mexico. All
have been accident prone, and are often shut down for repairs. Each
country also has one reactor under active construction (in Brazil,
a second project is still officially under construction, though no
work is being conducted and the government is considering
cancelling the project). While Mexico and Brazil appear destined to
complete their projects, it is unclear if ArgentinaUs third reactor
will be completed, as costs have soared. Estimates now place the
final cost at $5,014 per installed kilowatt, among the worldUs most
expensive. 

In Cuba, there are two Soviet-designed reactors officially still
under construction. However delays in construction put the
completion of the final project in doubt.[17]

WESTERN EUROPE

In Western Europe, a process of gradual attrition during the early
eighties has mushroomed into a massive rejection of nuclear power
since Chernobyl  P  more for political reasons than for
technological or economic ones. Today, not a single West European
country is moving forward with a steady expansion of nuclear power.
Even the French government has not officially approved the order of
a single new plant in the last five years.

Several European countries made formal commitments to shut down
their nuclear programs in the wake of Chernobyl. Austria abandoned
its only nuclear plant, at Zwentendorf P a plant that was completed
in 1978 but not formally abandoned until 1986. Greece decided at
about the same time to scrap plans to build its first nuclear
plant. After a protracted political debate that contributed to the
collapse of two governments, Italian voters decided in November
1987 to block the expansion of the countryUs already stalled
nuclear program. In June 1990, the parliament approved a measure to
dismantle the countryUs three once-operating units. In fact, these
units have not operated since Chernobyl.[18]

Early in 1988, the government of Belgium, already heavily dependent
on nuclear power, decided to indefinitely postpone expansion plans.
In February 1992, the four parties of the government reaffirmed the
indefinite moratorium on new reactors. The Netherlands, which has
only two reactors, also cancelled its plans. Switzerland, which has
not completed a nuclear plant since 1980, decided in 1988 to cancel
22-year old plans to build the countryUs sixth nuclear plant at
Kaiseraugst. Then in September 1990, voters approved a moratorium
on future nuclear construction until after the turn of the century.
At the same time, voters narrowly defeated a referendum to phaze
out nuclear power by 2025. In February 1992, voters in the Swiss
canton of Berne voted against plans to give the 20-year old
Muehleberg reactor permission to renew its license that expires at
the end of the year. The Federal government considers the
referendum consultative, and will make the final decision on
whether to close the reactor.[19]

ScandinaviaUs nuclear programs have also been stalemated. Finland,
with a substantial nuclear capacity, has repeatedly postponed
expansion plans since Chernobyl. Recently, one utility has asked
permission to build a new plant, and the government plans to make
a decision in 1992. (The Prime Minister has stated his personal
opposition to the plant.) Denmark and Norway, meanwhile, have
reaffirmed their vows never to develop nuclear power. Sweden
decided in a 1980 referendum to phase out nuclear power by 2010,
despite the fact that nuclear plants supply 46 per cent of the
countryUs electricity. Following the Chernobyl accident, Sweden
pledged to phase out two of the countryUs 12 plants by 1995-6, but
this early phase out was abandoned in early 1991. The country
retained the 2010 phase out, but an active debate on the countryUs
nuclear future continues in the aftermath of 1991 elections that
forced the previous socialist government out. Meanwhile, funding
for energy efficiency improvements, cogeneration, and renewable
energy supplies such as biomass and wind has been increased.[20]
Spain ranks third in the European Community for dependence on
nuclear-generated electricity, with nine reactors still in
operation. A tenth, the Vandellos 1 reactor near Tarragona, was
permanently closed following a 1989 fire. In 1983, the Spanish
government initiated a moratorium on construction of new plants,
stopping work on five reactors. Three other plants have since been
completed. In April 1991, less than a month before regional and
municipal elections, the government reaffirmed the moratorium on
nuclear construction, leaving the five mothballed projects still in
limbo. Instead of nuclear energy, the country plans to build a
natural gas pipeline across the Strait of Gilbraltar to bring
Algerian gas to the Iberian peninsula. Two 975 MW reactors
mothballed at Valdecaballeros will probably be converted to
gas.[21]

In Germany, nuclear opposition has flourished since Chernobyl,
further weakening the already remote possibility of the countryUs
building additional nuclear plants. Several State governments and
the major opposition party in the Federal parliament are vehemently
opposed to the expansion of the nuclear power industry, but the
Christian-Democratic government continues to support it. The
deadlock resulted in the 1989 abandonment of the partially built
Wackersdorf reprocessing facility in Bavaria, as well as the
permanent closure of the brand new, never operated, Kalkar breeder
reactor in 1991. No new nuclear plants have been ordered in the
former West Germany since the mid-seventies, and no additional
plants are now under construction. Meanwhile, all five operating
reactors have been closed and construction projects abandoned in
the former East Germany since the tumbling of the Berlin Wall and
unification.[22]

France has nearly half of Western EuropeUs nuclear capacity, with
56 reactors supplying 75 per cent of the countryUs power. However,
the countryUs construction pipeline is emptying, with just six
plants under active construction. (Two of these P at Civaux P do
not yet have official government approval.) The last official
reactor order was in 1987, and an active debate on nuclear
construction is underway within the once unified French
administration.

The French nuclear program got a fast start in the early seventies 
in reaction to concern about rising oil prices. Like much of the
French system, the nuclear program is highly centralized and run by
state-owned companies. Standardized reactors are built in just six
years, and neither local governments nor citizensU groups have much
opportunity to impede projects. Socialist President Francois
Mitterand came to power in 1981 promising a re-evaluation of the
nuclear program, but soon decided to leave it unscathed. Only
recently has political criticism of the program reached the point
that the government has had to take it seriously.

In recent years, the safety record of the French nuclear program
has been less impressive than the high nuclear supply figure might
suggest. The standardization of French plants carries the inherent
risk of widespread generic faults. Growing technical problems have
led to extensive maintenance and repairs, costing billions of
francs. Two critical pieces of equipment P steam generators and
reactor vessel heads P have had to be replaced at several plants.
(Replacing cracked vessel heads at just six reactors will cost
about 700 million French francs.) The larger 1300 megawatt reactors
are meanwhile operating at less than design capacity because of
concern about the potential for additional cracking. In view of the
numerous problems of the aging French reactors, the chief inspector
for safety at Electricite de France, has warned of a probability of
Rseveral per centS of a Three Mile Island scale accident during the
next decade.

The other problem in France is too much nuclear capacity. The
country already has at least seven more nuclear plants than it
needs, according to government figures, and has been forced to sell
electricity to neighboring countries at bargain prices and to run
its plants at partial capacity. As a result, France now ranks
relatively low in terms of the amount of power generated per
installed megawatt of nuclear capacity. This gap will grow larger
as another five plants are completed by the end of the century.[23]
(See chart 2)

As a result of this massive over construction, the French State
utility had built up a debt of 214 billion FF ($38 billion) by the
beginning of 1992. That debt grew as high-cost nuclear electricity
was subsidized so as to encourage greater power consumption and so
justify the nuclear investment. Meanwhile, FranceUs nuclear
expansion has been slowed to a level intended to just barely
support the countryUs government owned nuclear manufacturing
industry.[24]

The countryUs fast breeder reactor program has fared even less
well. The worldUs only large breeder, the 1,200 megawatt
Superphnix, reportedly cost three times as much to build as a
standard light-water reactor and has had an abysmal operating
record P on-line less than 40 per cent of the time. Coupled with
safety concerns, the French government is debating whether to shut
it down permanently.[25]

Politically, the French nuclear program faces unprecedented
controversy. In local elections in April 1992, two green parties
confirmed earlier exit polls and reached close to 15 per cent of
the vote. EdF is apparently hoping to order two more reactors this
year, in the expectation that voter sentiment may shift further
against nuclear power in the near future. Opponents also point out
that FranceUs heavy investment in nuclear power has not even given
it EuropeUs cleanest air. Even though the power industry in Germany
(Western) is far less nuclearized, it produces less sulphur dioxide
per kilowatt-hour than in France. The reason: France has spent so
much money on nuclear power that it has neglected putting scrubbers
on fossil fuel power plants (see chart 3). 


The British nuclear program, problem-plagued for most of the last
two decades, suffered an apparently fatal setback in late 1989 when
the Secretary of State for Energy, John Wakeham told the House of
Commons that the Government was abandoning its nuclear expansion
plans P pending a review to take place in 1994. Just a day earlier,
Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had delivered a UN speech lauding
the critical importance of nuclear power.[26] This painful end to
EuropeUs oldest nuclear program was precipitated by the
governmentUs effort to sell the countryUs power system to private
investors. As the books were opened on the nuclear industry, it
became clear that the government lied to itself as well as the
British public about the economics of the nuclear industry. Costs
turned out to be about double what the government had claimed.[27]

Only the Sizewell B reactor, started in the eighties after a
lengthy inquiry, remains under construction P at about double the
projected cost. Meanwhile, serious safety problems continue to
plague the countryUs existing gas-cooled reactors. On the more
positive side, the new era of private power has led to early signs
of life for renewables, despite luke-warm government support. In
fact, some 16,300 megawatts of electric power capacity is currently
under construction in Great Britain P only 1,300 megawatts of it
nuclear.[28] 


EASTERN EUROPE 



The Chernobyl accident had a damaging impact on nuclear power in
Eastern Europe, but nothing is speeding the end to these programs
faster than the removal of Soviet subsidies and the shortage of
hard currency to purchase western nuclear technologies. Even in
countries plagued by the pollution of brown coal, nuclear power is
proving an impossible alternative. Many nuclear plants once planned
for the former centrally planned countries of Eastern Europe have
been cancelled, including two in Bulgaria, two in Czechloslavakia,
two in Hungary, and two in Poland. Meanwhile, pressure grows to
close plants early in Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia.[29]

Concern over the safety of Soviet-designed reactors has recently
centered on the VVER-440/230, an early pressurized-water reactor.
Western experts believe that it has a design flaw in the cooling
system which makes the system particularly vulnerable to accidents
involving major ruptures in the cooling circuits.[30] The reactor
also lacks adequate instrumentation and a containment vessel to
lower the probability of the release of radioactive materials in
case of a serious accident. There are four of these reactors in
Bulgaria, two in Czechoslovakia and four in Russia. Following
inspection of the ten VVER-440/213 reactors, the IAEA said that it
had found more than 1,000 specific safety problems that, alone or
combined, could lead to a major accident. Yet even the newer
designs used by the Russians and their former allies may not be
safe enough; German Environment Minister Klaus Toepfer has said
that a VVER-440/213 at Greifswald in the former East Germany has
Rno future in Germany.S[31]

Most attention has focused on the Kozloduy plant in Bulgaria, which
includes four VVER-440/230 and two larger VVER-1000 reactors. In
addition to employing a dangerous technology, Kozloduy suffers from
staffing problems, as Russian technicians have returned home and
Bulgarian technicians have left due to inadequate pay and poor
living conditions. The plant has been called Rone of the most
dangerous nuclear power plants in the worldS, by nuclear experts.
The IAEA recommended the four VVER-440 reactors be shut down for
repairs. Bulgaria has complied by temporarily closing the two
oldest ones.[32] Public protests also led to the cancellation of
the two 1,000 MW reactors under construction at Belene on the
Danube River.[33]

In Czechoslovakia, an active debate now rages over Eastern Europe's
largest nuclear program, which currently has eight plants in
operation producing 25 per cent of the nation's electricity.
However, future growth in nuclear power depended on eight new
nuclear reactors that have since been cut back to six P two at
Temelin and another four at Mochovce. Government plans to close two
VVER 440/230 reactors at Bohunice by the mid-19902 in
Czechoslovakia were announced in June 1990. The neighbouring
country of Austria offered to provide free replacement power if
plants near the border were closed.[34]

In Poland, no reactors are operating nor are any under
construction. The delay-plagued Zarnowiec station, with two units
under construction, was halted by the countryUs new government in
September 1990. The first reactor, based on the Soviet VVER-440/213
design, was still years away from completion when it was cancelled,
even though it was originally scheduled to come on-line in 1982. In
addition, a nuclear moratorium, which precludes construction until
after the turn of the century, was approved by the government, and
continues to enjoy wide public support. In Slovenia there is one
nuclear power station operating at Krsko,the future of which may be
decided in a referendum tentatively scheduled for June 1992. In
1990 the Slovenian Assembly voted to close the plant by 1995.[35]
Romania likewise does not have any operable nuclear reactors,
though it has begun construction on the five units planned at
Cernavoda. The project is eight years behind schedule and only a
C$315 million loan by the government-owned Atomic Energy of Canada
Ltd (AECL) has allowed the project P based on the CANDU heavy water
reactor P to be restarted. Canadian funds, however, are only
earmarked for one of the five reactors; AECL has signed a contract
to complete the remaining four. The project has been plagued by
shoddy construction and cost overruns, according to the IAEA.[36]

The only possible saviours for East European nuclear programs are
Western nuclear companies. The drying up of their domestic nuclear
markets has led the French and German industries to make a strong
pitch to RassistS Eastern Europe with its problem plagued plants.
The French national utility, EdF, has successfully negotiated with
Czechoslovakia to modernize Soviet-designed reactors already under
construction, as has the German company Siemens. In 1991, the
European Community approved spending $13.5 million to begin to
upgrade BulgariaUs reactors alone.[37]

Estimates to bring ten older eastern reactors closer to western
safety standards range up to $3 billion. Bulgaria claims $1 billion
is needed to fully upgrade KozloduyUs six reactors to Western
standards, while the president of Asea Brown Boveri, Percy
Barnevik, says it might take $60 billion to correct the safety
problems at all the Eastern Europe and former Soviet Union
reactors. The World Bank is preparing a $150 million energy and
environmental loan to Bulgaria, in part to fund Rnuclear safety
equipmentS.[38]

Questions are being raised about the cost-effectiveness of these
proposals, particularly considering the long list of capital
improvements needed in Eastern Europe. Modernization of currently
unsafe reactors may also prove technically unfeasible, and building
new plants from scratch would be enormously expensive. In the end,
only meagre remnants of Eastern EuropeUs nuclear programs are
likely to survive, providing little additional business for the
starving global nuclear industry.

Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary are also facing serious
nuclear waste problems. In the past, these countries returned
irradiated fuel to the Soviet Union for reprocessing, without
having to take back the waste. Since the late eighties, however,
the Russians have insisted on charging for a service they used to
provide for free, and shipments from Central Europe have ceased.
Irradiated fuel is now building up in temporary storage facilities
that will be full in two to five years. The three countries are
planning to expand storage capabilities, but eventually they will
need to decide what is to become of the waste. Furthermore, public
confidence has ebbed, with past burials of radioactive materials
already coming back to haunt the new democracies.[39]


Commonwealth of Independent States



Nowhere has nuclear power so failed its promise as an inexpensive
and clean power source than in the former USSR. While five years
ago the Soviet Union appeared to have the worldUs largest nuclear
construction program, it has since become unravelled. Once thought
immune to the morass of political problems that have derailed those
in the West, Russian, Ukrainian, Kazakh, and Lithuanian nuclear
power is now plagued by the haunting memory of Chernobyl,
continuing safety problems, and growing public opposition. The
result: a moratorium on nearly all additional construction, and
pressure to retire many existing plants.

In January 1986, three months before the Chernobyl disaster, the
USSR was operating 51 reactors with a total capacity of 28,000 MW,
and official plans to reach 58,672 MW by 1990, according to IAEA
statistics. But since Chernobyl, the Russians have managed to bring
into commercial operation only an additional 11 plants.
Construction was halted on most of the projects underway and
planned. By the beginning of 1992, only two electric-generating
plants P Balakovo #4 and Kalinin #3 P and two units for heat
production were under active construction. Today, the independent
countries of Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Lithuania have a
combined total of only 45 operating reactors, with 34,083 MW of
generating capacity. Today there are 15 RBMK, Chernobyl design
graphite reactors, four small graphite reactors, 16 VVER-1000,
eight VVER-440, and two fast breeders reactors operating. The
figures for the number of reactors in operation and under
construction were obtained from a meeting with the Chief of the
Information and Public Affairs Department of the Ministry of Energy
and Fuel of the Russian Federation. However, it is clear that there
is widespread confusion as to the exact number of reactors
operating and under construction.

Nuclear reactors provided 12 per cent of CIS electricity P  or four
per cent of the countryUs energy P in 1990.[40] 
The toll of the Chernobyl accident has only begun to be tallied,
partly because there was an organized cover-up of the dimension of
the disaster ordered by the then Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev,
a month after the accident. That summer, officials estimated that
total damages would reach $3-5 billion, but the five-year
evacuation effort alone cost five times that, and official figures
place the first three years of cleanup at $19 billion. By the year
2000, the government estimates the price tag will reach $120
billion. [41]

Even these seemingly astronomical figures are lower than
independent estimates. A study by the Research and Development
Institute of Power Engineering in the former Soviet Union concluded
that the cost of Chernobyl (including lost electricity production
from plants closed in the wake of the accident) will reach $358
billion P 15 per cent of estimated Soviet GNP for 1987. Because
this cost is many times greater than money saved from using
nuclear-generated electricity, the report concludes that the Soviet
economy would be far better off if nuclear reactors had never been
built.[42]

Most of the initial clean-up measures are proving insufficient. A
new, more secure shelter must now be built, at a cost of tens of
millions of dollars, to replace the concrete case that was built
around the crippled reactor immediately after the accident. Still
to be answered are the questions of what to do about the millions
of acres of heavily contaminated land, the radioactive Kiev
Reservoir, or the hundreds of shallow burial pits of uncategorized
radioactive waste that remain.[43]

The nuclear industryUs Chernobyl cover-up has out lasted the Soviet
State, though the press is beginning to report on the full health
effects. Although the government still only recognizes 31 deaths,
Chernobyl Union, a public organization collecting figures on the
accident, calculates that 300 people died in the explosion, fire,
and from immediate nuclear fallout. According to Georgii Lepin, a
university professor and cofounder of Chernobyl Union, between
5,000 and 7,000 young clean-up workers have died. However, there is
not even a complete register of the 650,000 or more people who
participated in the initial clean-up campaign. Without careful
records of their exposure and health, the real cost in human lives
may remain unknown.[44]

The legacy of Chernobyl has frozen construction or forced
cancellations at all the remaining Ukrainian projects. In May 1987
it was announced that the two additional units planned at Chernobyl
would not be built. Then in November it was stated by a high Soviet
official that citizen opposition had forced a halt to construction
of two more nuclear plants, one near Odessa and the other near
Minsk. Later, construction was halted on a plant south of Kiev, as
recommended by the Ukrainian Council of Ministers.[45]

In October 1989, it was announced that two Crimean reactors ready
to come on-line would not be used to produce electricity and would
serve instead as a Rtraining unitS. The Ukrainian Supreme Soviet
declared in April 1990 that it would stop building atomic power
plants. Two new reactors in Ukraine were scheduled to come on-line
in 1990, but both of these, at Khmelnitski and Zaporozhe, face
enormous public opposition, and had not begun operation as of March
1992.[46]

The most recent blow to UkraineUs nuclear program came on October
11, 1991, when a major turbine fire roared through the Chernobyl 2
turbo-generator building. Authorities insisted to Kiev residents,
who hid in their closed-up homes, that no radiation had escaped.
Still, in the aftermath of this most recent Chernobyl accident, the
Ukrainian government decided to shut down the damaged unit
permanently, and close the remaining two reactors at Chernobyl by
the end of 1993.[47]

Russia also has seen its nuclear future shrinking. In January 1988,
construction on the Krasnodar plant in the Caucasus was stopped,
reportedly due to seismic dangers that had been neglected earlier.
By June 1990, newly installed Russian Republic President Boris
Yeltsin had issued a decree cancelling future nuclear construction
and forbidding the burial of nuclear waste from other republics.
All nuclear construction projects, with the exception of two power
reactors (one each at Balakovo and at Kalinin) and two heating
reactors (at Voronezh), are on hold, leaving the country with 28
operating units with a capacity of 18,893 megawatts.[48]

In early 1992, accidents temporarily closed reactors at Balakovo,
due to an electrical fire, and at Sosnovy Bor, due to a loss of
pressure in a core channel. The second accident created great
public alarm as the Sosnovy Bor plant is just 100 kilometers from
St. Petersburg, and is of the same design as the Chernobyl reactor.
The Russian Ministry of Nuclear Power said at the time of the
accident that no damage had been done to the fuel assembly, but the
US Nuclear Regulatory Agency later said that fuel damage did
occur.[49] The Financial Times of London called for the immediate
shutdown of all RBMK reactors following the accident. Meanwhile,
the potential for further accidents is increasing as worker morale
declines and the supply of spare parts dwindles.[50] 

The head of the Siemens nuclear energy division, Adolf Huttl,
believes that all 15 of the remaining Chernobyl-type reactors
(known as RBMK) are not worth upgrading and should be scrapped.
According to Carl Bildt, SwedenUs Prime Minister, RThere are now 58
Soviet-designed civilian nuclear power stations operating from
Central and Eastern Europe. Of those, 40 are of older design.... If
they were in the US or Sweden, weUd close them down by yesterday.S
The European Environment Commissioner Ripa di Meana, has suggested
that it would be possible to shut down 24 of Russia's dangerous
reactors by increasing energy efficiency, at a cost of only $15
billion. A plan to replace the nuclear reactors with other
production capacity is expected to cost, according to Russian
officials, $1.2 billion per reactor. An analysis by Stewart Boyle
of Greenpeace has found that all 16 of the regionUs dangerous RBMK
reactors could be economically replaced by a combinaton of improved
efficiency cogeneration and 10 GW of combined cycle gas plants.[51]

ASIA & THE MIDDLE EAST


The anti-nuclear movement is going globalS, proclaimed South
KoreaUs worried energy minister, Bong-Suh Lee, at the 1989 World
Energy Conference in Montreal. RWe have to stop [it] before it...
stop[s] nuclear generation worldwide.S For Lee and his cohorts in
Asia, the battle may already be lost, for their nuclear expansion
plans are being met by stiff public opposition.[52]

Just a decade ago the potential for nuclear power in East Asia
seemed unbounded. Taiwan planned to increase its inventory to 20
plants by the turn of the century, South Korea by 23 plants, China
by ten plants, and Japan to nearly 90 plants. However, anti-nuclear
sentiment catalyzed by the 1986 catastrophe at Chernobyl has
knocked back those projections dramatically.[53]

The prospect of a Chernobyl-type accident in any of the densely
populated Pacific Rim countries was enough to stir up opposition in
the eighties. Greater awareness of nuclear weapons proliferation,
the nagging problem of nuclear waste disposal, and concern for the
safety of food and water have spurred opposition. As a result, the
nuclear power programs of the Far East seem likely to continue
dwindling.

Japans nuclear power program has moved forward slowly but more
steadily than most. Japan is one of only three countries (South
Korea and Pakistan are the others) that ordered additional nuclear
capacity in 1990 or 1991. Beyond the 42 plants that supply 27 per
cent of the countryUs electricity, ten are under construction with
an additional order pending. The governmentUs current plan
envisages 80 nuclear reactors by 2010, a goal that already seems
unlikely. Dr. Akira Oyama, vice-chairman of JapanUs Atomic Energy
Commission, says: Rit will be extremely difficult to keep up the
paceS to build the 40 plants. According to the Energy Economist,
the average lead time to site and build a new nuclear power plant
in Japan is now nearly 26 years.[54]

Public concern over nuclear safety has increased dramatically since
Chernobyl, particularly among Japanese homemakers, young people,
fishers and farmers. An organized opposition to the governmentUs
plans has now emerged, and policymakers are considering halting
nuclear plants in response to local opposition. Concerns about
safety and waste disposal are prominent. Government polls show that
47 per cent of the public believe that Japanese-made plants are
Rrelatively unsafeS or Rnot safe at all.S A newer industry poll
found that 62 per cent of those questioned believe nuclear power to
be unsafe P an increase of 12 per cent in one year. Even Japanese
industry is starting to concede that the only places they will be
able to build additional nuclear plants are at existing reactor
sites. Indeed, no new site has been acquired for nuclear power
plants for over five years. Meanwhile, a top nuclear power official
in the government has criticized JapanUs much censured plan to
import large amounts of plutonium for use in light water
reactors.[55]

JapanUs nuclear industry does not have an accident-free logbook,
nor has it been frank with the public about mishaps. Extensive
damage to a key pumping system and to the reactor core at the
Fukushima plant in January 1989 was hidden from the public for a
month, leading to a storm of criticism. In February 1991, a major
accident occurred at Mihama 2 when a steam generator tube ruptured,
leading to the first use in Japan of a reactorUs emergency cooling
system. Public confidence was shattered by inconsistent statements
from utility and government officials. Details were withheld for
days. Only two days later, did the government admit that radiation
had escaped from the site.[56]

 Plans to install a plant in Kochi in southern Japan were scrapped
in early 1989 when an anti-nuclear slate was swept into office in
local elections. And plans for reactors in Hidaka-cho on Honshu
were also suspended due to local opposition. Based on these local
successes, JapanUs anti-nuclear forces have grown confident that
they can stop additional nuclear plant construction. JapanUs
earlier expansion plans, which called for 90 plants by the turn of
the century, was cut back to only 53,000 megawatts in 1987, a goal
that still appears out of reach (as there is only 45,000 megawatts
currently operating or in the construction pipeline).[57]

South Korea is the other nuclear powerhouse of Asia. In a country
characterized by fast economic growth, rapidly rising electricity
demand, and minimal fossil-fuel resources, the development of
nuclear power has been a top priority. Nine nuclear plants supplied
49 per cent of the electricity in South Korea in 1990, with two
more reactors under construction by the end of 1991. Three other
reactors being planned for are in the design stage.[58]

In December 1988 South Korea experienced its first demonstration
against nuclear power when residents near the Kori facility marched
against illegally buried radioactive wastes outside the plantUs
fence. Safety is the main concern of villagers protesting near the
Yonggwang nuclear facility, where there have been reports of
radiation sickness. 16 Korean organizations have since formed a
coalition to eradicate nuclear power from the peninsula. As
reporter Mark Clifford writes in the Far Eastern Economic Review,
RAn anti-nuclear movement has blown in on the winds of democracy,
leaving officials confused about how to dissipate the growing
opposition.S[59]

In Taiwan, six nuclear plants provided 35 per cent of the countryUs
electricity in 1990. While support for nuclear power was once
nearly universal in Taiwan, nuclear RsecretsS are now splashed on
newspaper front pages. In 1988, it was revealed that TaiwanUs
oldest nuclear plant had sprung more than 100 small radiation leaks
during its ten years of operation. The plant is only 24 kilometers
from Taipei and its five million inhabitants.[60]

Construction on two reactors has been halted since 1985 due to
public opposition; almost 80 per cent of villagers near the
proposed Kungliao site 30 miles southeast of Taipei want
construction halted permanently. Last September, protests turned
violent, and one policeman was killed and others wounded. Still,
the government is pushing forward with plans to get construction
going again, with the countryUs parliament scheduled to vote on
funding in 1992.[61]

China has two nuclear power plants under construction at Daya Bay
near Hong Kong. By August 1986, more than 1 million out of 5.5
million Hong Kong residents had signed a petition calling for the
cancellation of the project. The Chinese government stood firm, but
five weeks into construction engineers noticed that more than half
of the vertical reinforcing steel in the foundation had been left
out. Work was halted for nearly two months as corrections were
made.[62]

As word leaked to the Hong Kong press, more protest rose against
the project. When Chinese nuclear official Jiang Shengjie suggested
in April 1989 that an additional nuclear plant could be built at
Daya Bay, Hong Kong erupted again. A week later, Chinese officials
announced that no additional plants would be built near the colony
before the turn of the century. The expected date of commercial
operation for the Daya Bay reactors was recently pushed back from
1992 to 1993. Meanwhile, the country's third reactor, known as
Qinshan, is expected to enter commercial service in 1992, as it
went critical in December 1991, two years behind the original
date.[63]
In late December 1991, China and Pakistan signed a contract to
build a 288 megawatt reactor based on the Qinshan design in
Pakistan. Construction was due to start in April of this year.
Pakistan, which has had one 125 megawatt reactor operating since
1972, has been boycotted by western governments as the country has
allegedly been pursuing the production of nuclear weapons.[64]
In the Philippines, the saga of the nationUs only built, but never
operated, nuclear plant at Bataan took a new turn in early 1992.
When President Corazon Aquino took over from the deposed Ferdinand
Marcos in 1986, she announced her decision to dismantle the
completed reactor. The new government filed a suit against the
plantUs manufacturer, charging that Westinghouse had bribed former
Marcos officials. In March 1992, the case was resolved out of
court, with Westinghouse agreeing to pay $100 million in cash and
services to the Philippine government, and the Aquino government
deciding to invest $400 million to bring the mothballed plant into
operation. However, opposition to the agreement is strong enough
for Philippine Speaker of the House, Ramon Metra to predict that
the plant Rwill never be operatedS.[65]

Iran had ambitious plans to produce electricity with the atom under
the rule of the Shah. Construction of two German-designed reactors
was started, as well as on two French-supplied reactors.
Altogether, the Shah hoped to have 20 reactors by the end of the
century. However, following the Islamic Revolution of 1979, the
Khomeini government cancelled the nuclear program. Later efforts to
revive it were damaged by repeated aerial bombings of the Bushehr
reactor site by Iraqi aircraft. Although the Iranian government
says it intends to complete the reactors, and the IAEA continues to
list two plants as Runder constructionS, it is uncertain if the
project is salvageable.[66]

In India, technical delays and cost overruns have stalled the
countryUs homegrown nuclear program, leading the government to
recently cut back its goal for 10,000 MW of nuclear power plants by
the year 2000 to 6,050 MW. Yet at the end of 1991 the installed
capacity was only 1,814 megawatts with another 1,100 megawatts of
capacity under construction (representing five other reactors).
Furthermore, technical problems have plagued the domestically
designed reactors, leading to extensive delays and plant
performance that rarely exceeds 50 per cent of rated capacity. The
Indian government plans to build an additional five reactors, with
a combined capacity of 940 MW, which are to be completed shortly
after the turn of the century. Even if all these reactors were
completed on schedule, India would have at most 3,854 MW by the
early part of the next century, far short of the current 6,050 MW
goal.[67]


REVIVING NUCLEAR POWER?



Industry and government reports frequently portray a robust and
expanding worldwide nuclear industry. The statistical facts prove
them wrong. Nuclear power is fading, slowly but surely, as a
realistic future energy option. Although most countries do not yet
have formal policies requiring the phase-out of nuclear power, most
construction programs are coming to a close, as rising costs and
concern over safety have emptied the supply pipeline. Indeed, in
1990, for the first time since the dawning of the commercial
nuclear age in the mid-1950s, a full year passed without
construction starting on a new reactor anywhere in the world.[68]

As nuclear powerUs fortunes have declined, many advocates have
shifted between various arguments for the pursuit of nuclear power.
In the sixties, nuclear power was considered as an inevitable next
step in the evolution of energy technology. Few problems were seen
as beyond the reach of scientists, and it was assumed that nuclear
power would be inexpensive, if not actually Rtoo cheap to meterS.
In the seventies, nuclear power was advocated as an alternative to
dwindling oil supplies, not without its own problems, but essential
to stave off economic collapse. Now, in the early nineties, with
oil prices down and nuclear power programs in disarray, nuclear
advocates try to make a quick environmental conversion, claiming
that nuclear power is needed to prevent acid rain, global warming,
and other threats posed by fossil fuel dependence.[69]

The technological inevitability argument was the first to go. Since
the late seventies, it has become clear that energy technology
evolution is not an either/or question, and that there are many
paths that future developments can take. High energy prices have
encouraged dramatic improvements in hundreds of energy
technologies, ranging from the conventional to the exotic. As these
alternative technologies have improved, nuclear power costs have
skyrocketed, pricing it right out of the power market.
During the past 20 years, improved efficiency of energy use in the
US alone has saved several times as much energy as has been
produced by all the country's nuclear reactors. Many nations now
pursue renewable energy technologies as an alternative both to oil
and nuclear power. Whatever the arguments for its development,
nuclear power must now be fairly weighed against a host of
alternatives, including cogeneration, combined cycle gas plants,
wind power, geothermal energy, and wood-fired power plants. In the
US, these are now less expensive than nuclear power. Meanwhile,
electricity can be saved at less than the cost of any new
generating technologies.[70]  (See chart 4.)

As the magnitude of the problems facing nuclear power have become
clear, nuclear proponents have begun to urge the pursuit of a new
generation of so-called Rpassively safeS reactors. This concept,
which has quickly gained adherents in the past few years, is rooted
in the notion that the industryUs problems are caused by the high
costs, unreliability, and licensing difficulties of todayUs
technologies.

At least eight new reactor designs have been proposed, and while
they vary considerably and offer a number of intriguing features,
they share one characteristic: they are raw, untested concepts that
raise a host of safety problems that could take decades to resolve.
Indeed, 30 years into the era of lightwater reactors, engineers are
still finding new and unexpected problems with them. A recent study
of three of the proposed new reactor designs by the Union of
Concerned Scientists found that all are vulnerable to catastrophic
accidents that can only be avoided by the successful operation of
RactiveS safety systems. And just as at Three Mile Island and
Chernobyl, these reactor designs appear not to be immune to human
mistakes and will produce radioactive waste.[71]

While new reactor designs have been trumpeted loudly, they are a
good deal further from realization than most policy makers seem to
realize. None has advanced beyond the level of early engineering
studies, which makes it difficult to anticipate production problems
and impossible to make accurate cost projections. The industry is
in one sense proposing a 30-year step backwards. Complicating the
picture is the fact that several designs are competing, which means
that no individual design is receiving sufficient support for the
engineering to progress rapidly.

Nor is nuclear power an effective response to global warming. To
offset even five per cent of current global carbon emissions would
require that worldwide nuclear capacity be nearly doubled from
todayUs level P something that is inconceivable in the next few
decades. Because nuclear power is so much more expensive than other
options such as energy efficiency, pursuing nuclear power
aggressively would waste resources that could be devoted to more
effective means of reducing the emission of greenhouse gases.
Whether nuclear power might one day be revived as a practical
long-term energy option could only be determined by decades of
government subsidies and research that would focus on problems of
cost, safety, proliferation, waste and decommissioning. The
question for policymakers is whether the hundreds of billions of
dollars needed to achieve a new generation of reactors is worth the
highly uncertain returns P particularly considering the other, more
attractive alternatives that are available.[72]

There are many practices of the immediate post-war era that will
not survive into the twenty-first century. These include casual
disposal of toxic wastes, production of cars without pollution
controls, and nuclear weapons testing. Difficult as this may seem
to nuclear power supporters, the large scale commercial use of
nuclear energy is set to join this list. In just 15 years nuclear
power has gone from a near-term, conventional option to one that is
problematic and long-term at best. It provides no immediate or
reliable solution to any of the pressing economic or environmental
problems that the world faces. Indeed, continued pursuit of nuclear
power could deepen the worldUs economic problems while further
fouling the global environment on which we all depend. 




Nuclear Industry Status Report 1992 notes:



1. R. Spiegelberg, Division of Nuclear Power, International Atomic
Energy Agency, private communication and printout, March 18, 1992;
International Atomic Energy Agency, Power Reactor Information
System (PRIS), May 1992 (data for January 1, 1992). Current number
of plants and capacity in operation and under construction is based
on RWorld List of Nuclear Power PlantsS, Nuclear News, February
1992; International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Nuclear Power
Reactors in the World, (Vienna: April 1992); RNuclear Power Plant
Capacity in 1991S, IAEA Newsbriefs, January/February 1992, and
other sources listed in country specific sections.
2. International Atomic Energy Agency, Annual Report (Vienna:
1974).
3. RWorld List of Nuclear Power PlantsS, Nuclear News, February
1992.
4. RNew Chernobyl Data ReleasedS, Wall Street Journal, April 19,
1991; Matthew L Wald, REastern EuropeUs Reactors DonUt Seem so
Distant NowS, New York Times, October 13, 1991.
5. RWorld List of Nuclear Power PlantsS, Nuclear News, February
1992; RElectricityS, Energy Economics, November 1991; Matthew L
Wald, RMassachusetts Nuclear Power Plant to Stay ClosedS, New York
Times, February 27, 1992; Nicholas Lenssen, Nuclear Waste: The
Problem That WonUt Go Away, Worldwatch Paper 106 (Washington, DC;
Worldwatch Institute, 1991). 
6. DOE, EIA, Commercial Nuclear Power (Washington, DC: 1990);
Modern Power Systems, March 1992.
7. RWorld List of Nuclear PlantsS, Nuclear News, February 1992;
RNRC Allows TVA to Resume Construction on Unit 1S, Nuclear News,
January 1992; Safe Energy Communication Council, RAmericans Speak
out on Energy PolicyS, A National Energy Opinion Survey, conducted
by Frederick/Schneiders, Inc., Washington DC, March 18-21, 1992. 
8. RWorld List of Nuclear PlantsS, Nuclear News, February 1992;
Matthew L Wald, RMassachusetts Nuclear Power Plant to Stay ClosedS,
New York Times, February 27, 1992.
9. James Cook, RNuclear FolliesS, Forbes, February 11, 1985
10. Charles Komanoff, Komanoff Energy Associates, New York, private
communication and printout, February 14, 1989.
11. DOE, EIA, Electric Plant Cost and Power Production Expenses
1989 (Washington, DC March 1991).
12. Charles Komanoff, Komanoff Energy Associates, New York, private
communication and printout, February 14, 1989; California Energy
Commission, Energy Technology Status Report (Sacramento, Calif.:
October 1990); Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) et al.,
The Potential of Renewable Energy; An Interlaboratory White Paper,
prepared for the Office of Policy Planning and Analysis, DOE, in
support of the National Energy Strategy (Golden, Col.: Solar Energy
Research Institute (SERI), 1990).
13. By 2010, 61 reactors that are currently operating in the United
States will have been in operation for 30 or more years (this
number includes San Onofre 1, whose closure in the next year has
already been announced). Another 22 reactors will have been in
service between 30 and 35 years; RWorld List of Nuclear Power
PlantsS, Nuclear News, February 1992.
14. Arjun Makhijani and Scott Saleska, High Level Dollars;
Low-Level Sense (New York: The Apex Press, 1991); Bob Miller,
Governor of Nevada, Testimony before the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, US Senate, Washington, DC, March 21, 1991; Paul
Slovic et al., RLessons from Yucca MountainS, Environment, April
1991; Victor Gilinsky, RNuclear Power: What Must be Done?S Public
Utilities Fortnightly, June 1, 1991.
15. RCanada and Romania: Cernavoda CashS, IAEA Bulletin, Vol 33, No
4 1991.
16. RCanadian Nuclear Industry Expects Orders to IncreaseS,
Multinational Environmental Outlook, January 23, 1990; RHydroUs
Nuclear Plans FrozenS, Petroleum Economist, March 1991; Government
of Saskatchewan, RProvince to Evaluate All Electrical OptionsS,
News Release, March 11, 1992. RHydro Nuclear Plan Bites the Dust as
Ontario Opts to Control DemandS, Nucleonics Week , January 23,
1992.
17. RWho will Buy Angra 3?S Nuclear Engineering International,
March 1991; Carlos Cardosos Aveline, UPAN, Sao Leopoldo, Rio Grande
do Sul, private communications, March 4, 1992; Richard Kessler,
RArgentina may Shutter Atucha 2 to Slash Mounting Cost OverrunsS,
Nucleonics Week, July 5, 1990; Orlando Polo, Sendero Verde, Miami,
Florida, private communication, February 25, 1992; Associated Press
(Moscow), April 4, 1992.
18. Christopher Flavin, Reassessing Nuclear Power: The Fall-out
from Chernobyl. Worldwatch Paper 75 (Washington, DC: Worldwatch
Institute, May 1987); RParliament Decides to Dismantle Two
remaining Nuclear Power FacilitiesS, International Environment
Report, August 1990.
19. Christopher Flavin, Reassessing Nuclear Power: The Fall-out
from Chernobyl. Worldwatch Paper 75 (Washington, DC: Worldwatch
Institute, May 1987); RSwiss to vote on Nuclear and New Energy
FrameworkS, European Energy Report, September 7, 1990; RSwiss Vote
for Nuclear Standstill and Approve Energy ArticleS, European Energy
Report, October 5, 1990: RSwiss Reject Muehleberg PlanS, European
Energy Report, February 21, 1992; RFinancieel Economische tijdS,
March 3, 1992. 
20.John Burton. RSweden Seek Finnish OrderS, Financial Times ,
November 1991; RHelsinki to Postpone Decision on Fifth Finnish
Nuclear PlantS, European Energy Report, April 3, 1992; Christopher
Flavin, Reassessing Nuclear Power: The Fall-out from Chernobyl,
Worldwatch Paper 75 (Washington, DC: Worldwatch Institute, May
1987); RSweden to Drop Nuclear Shutdown but Retain Overall 2010
DeadlineS, European Energy Report , January 25, 1991. 
21. Peter Glazier, RNuke Freeze Makes Gas GlowS, Petroleum
Economist, June 1991; RMoratorium on New Nuclear Units to Continue
to 2000, Government AnnouncesS, International Environment Reporter,
May 1991; FTEER, April 3, 1992;  RSpain to Link Gas Grid Extension
with Nuclear Plant ConversionS, European Energy Report S, April 3,
1992.
22. Steve Dickman, RWackersdorf Finally DiesS, Nature, June 8,
1989; REast German Nuclear Plant Hopes Fade as Minister Changes
TackS, European Energy Report, April 19, 1991.
23. Francois Nectoux, Crisis in the French Nuclear Industry
(Amsterdam: Greenpeace 1991). For the year 1989, see Claude Mandil
Director Generale de lUEnergie et des matieres premieres ministere
de lUindustrie, Dossier de presse, February 10, 1992.
24. REdF Profits Soar on Back of 12% Export Surge in 1991S,
European Energy Report, March 6, 1992.
25. RFrance May Shut Down Superphenix PermanentlyS, European Energy
Report, August 24, 1990; RFrance Plant New Nuclear Waste Law Amid
Flurry of Security ReportsS, European Energy Report, February 22
1991.
26. Matthew Parris, RThe End of the Nuclear AffairS, London Times,
November 10, 1989; RElectricity Privatisation; NukesS, The
Economist, November 11, 1989. 
27. Steve Prokesch, RSale of British Industries Runs into Nuclear
SnagS, New York Times, November 10, 1989.
28. RSizewell B Canellation?S, Power In Europe, May 24, 1990;
Editorial RCancel Sizewell BS, London Times, June 26, 1990;
RBritish Gas Call on Long Term Interruptible SchedulesS, Power in
Europe, February 27, 1992.
29. RCzechs Halt Construction at TemelinS, European Energy Report,
January 26, 1990; RHungary Cancels Nuclear ExpansionS, European
Energy Report, December 1, 1989.
30. IAEA, RThe Safety of Nuclear Power Plants in Central and
Eastern EuropeS, An Overview and Major Findings of the IAEA Project
on the Safety and VVER 440 Model 230 Nuclear Power Plants, undated;
John Willis, RRisk Finance; Backfit Vs Shutdown of VVER Nuclear
ReactorsS, Greenpeace International, Amsterdam, November 1991.
31. Clive Cookson, RSuspect Units Look SafeS, Financial Times,
November 21, 1991; IAEA, RThe Safety of Nuclear Power Plants in
Central and Eastern EuropeS, An Overview and Major Findings of the
IAEA Project on the Safety and VVER 440 Model 230 Nuclear Power
Plants, undated; Matthew L Wald, RRising Peril Seen at Europe
A-SitesS, New York Times, October 8 1991; Juliet Sychrava and Clive
Cookson, REaster Danger ZoneS, Financial Times, August 30, 1991;
RNuclear Reactors Called Unsafe; Toepfer says Unit has TNo
FutureUS, International Environment Reporter, September 25, 1991.
32. Matthew L Wald, RRising Peril Seen at Europe A-SitesS, New York
Times, October 8 1991; Juliet Sychrava and Clive Cookson, REaster
Danger ZoneS, Financial Times, August 30, 1991; RNuclear
Switch-OffS, Petroleum Economist, August 1991.
33. Luchesar Toshev, Ecoglasnost, Sofia, private communication,
December 1, 1991; RBulgaria Suspends Nuclear Unit BuildingS, Wise
News Communique, March 9, 1990.
34. RAustria to Pursue Nuclear-Free Zone Despite Setback with
CzechoslovakiaS, International Environment Reporter, February 13,
1991; RCzechs Halt Construction at TemelinS, European Energy
Report, January 26, 1990.
35. RPoland Will Scrap Its Nuclear PlansS, Energy Daily, September
6, 1990. RNew Governments of Croatia and Slovenia Argue Over
KrskoS, Wise News Communique, March 6, 1992; RNuclear NotesS, Wise
News Communique, April 27, 1990. 
36. RCanada and Romania: Cernavoda CashS, IAEA Bulletin, Vol. 33,
No 4, 1991; RIAEA Slate Romanian Nuclear PlantsS, Eastern European
Supplement, (of European Energy Report), November 2, 1990; RRomania
Built Candu with Forced LabourS, Wise News Communique, February 9,
1990; RAtomic Energy Sells to South KoreaS, Petroleum Economist,
March 1991.  RCanada Signs Contract to Complete Remaining N-Plants
in RomaniaS, Wise News Communique , April 21, 1992. 
37. RSiemens to Equip Slovakian PlantS, Eastern Europe Supplement,
to the European Energy Report, November 2, 1990; REC Signs Accord
with Bulgaria to Improve Nuclear SafetyS, Associated Press wire
story, July 31, 1991.
38. RBulgaria Starts Nuclear ClosureS, Wall Street Journal,
September 4, 1991; Andrew Baxter, RCall For More Aide to Eastern
EuropeS, Financial Times, March 19, 1992; RUS Firm Wins Bank
Contract for Bulgarian Nuclear WorkS, World Bank Watch, January 20,
1992.
39. Michael Wise, RNuclear Waste Piles Up in Eastern EuropeS,
Washington Post, July 17, 1991; RResolution on Nuclear Waste State
Program ViewedS; RRadioactive Waste Found in Cesky KrasR,
Zemedelske Noviny, Prague, December 4, 1990, translated in Foreign
Broadcast Information Service (FBIS) Daily Report/East Europe,
Rosslyn, Va., February 13, 1991; RPollution Found at Bulgarian
N-PlantS, Financial Times, July 25, 1991; RElectricityS, Energy
Economist, October 1991.
40. IAEA Nuclear Power: Status and Trends (Vienna: 1986); RWorld
List of Nuclear Power PlantsS, Nuclear News, February 1992;
Greenpeace meeting with Anatloly Zemskov, chief of the Information
and Public Affairs Department, Ministry of Energy and Fuel, Russian
Federation, and Tatyana Kalinichenko, main specialist of this
department; Igor Bahmokov, Moscow Centre for Energy Efficiency,
Moscow, personal communication, March 26, 1992.
41. Deborah Steward, RChernobyl Documents Show Gorbachev Gagged
PressS, Associated Press (Kiev), April 17, 1992; RChernobyl Costs
put at $3 billionS, Journal of Commerce, September 22, 1986; David
Remnick, RSoviet Officials Detail Budget, Paint Grim Economic
PictureS, Washington Post, October 28, 1988; Marnie Stetson,
RChernobylUs Deadly Legacy RevealedS, World Watch,
November/December 1990.
42. RState of the Soviet Nuclear IndustryS, Wise News Communique,
May 19, 1990 ; Marnie Stetson, RChernobylUs Deadly Legacy
RevealedS, World Watch, November/December 1990.
43. Vladimir Chernousenko, Chernobyl: Insight from the Inside (New
York: Springer Verlag, 1991); Thomas W. Lippman, RChernobyl
Contamination Still Spreading, Soviet SaysS, Washington Post, July
5, 1991.
44. Vladimir Chernousenko, Chernobyl: Insight from the Inside (New
York: Springer Verlag, 1991).
45. Marko Bojcun, RThe USSR is Changing Its Plans As Quietly as
PossibleS, Energy Economist, April 1988.
46. Information supplied by the information centers at each of the
Nuclear Power plants. Material gathered by Greenpeace. Greenpeace
meeting with Anatloly Zemskov, chief of the Information and Public
Affairs Department, Ministry of Energy and Fuel, Russian
Federation, and Tatyana Kalinichenko, main specialist of this
department; Igor Bahmokov, Moscow Center for Energy Efficiency,
Moscow, personal communication, March 26, 1992.
47. RElectricityS, Energy Economist, November 1991.
48. Marko Bojcun, RThe USSR is Changing Its Plans As Quietly as
PossibleS, Energy Economist, April 1988; RResolution on Nuclear
Waste State Program ViewedS, Sovetskaya Rossiva, Moscow, June 28,
1990, translated from the Russian by Foreign Broadcast Information
Service (FBIS), Rosslyn, Va., July 3 1990; Thomas B. Cochran and
Robert S. Norris, RA First Look a the Soviet Bomb ComplexS,
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, May 1991; Frank P. Falci,
RForeign Trip Report: Travel to USSR for Fact Finding Discussions
on Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, June 15-28,
1990S, Office of Technology Development (OTD), DOE, July 27, 1990.
49. Thomas W. Lippman. RRussian Nuclear Mishaps Revives FearsS,
Washington Post, April 23, 1992.
50. Editorial, RNuclear AccidentsS, Financial Times, March 25,
1992; Natural Resources Defence Council (NRDC) and University of
California at Irvine, RStrengthening Nuclear Regulation in RussiaS,
A report on the First Workshop on Nuclear Waste and Safety with the
Committee on Ecology of the Supreme Soviet of the Russian
Federation, December 15-20, 1991, NRDC, Washington, DC, undated.
51. Andrew Fisher, RSiemens Urges More Money to Make Nuclear Plants
in East Safe, Financial Times, February 19, 1992; John M. Goshko,
RE. Europe Nuclear Plants Worry SwedenUs LeaderS,Washington Post,
February 21, 1992; RGreenpeace Proposal for Emergency Programme to
Shut Down RBMK Nuclear ReactorsS, Greenpeace Interntional, April 8,
1992.
52. John Egan, RTDeclare War on Anti-Nuclear EnvironmentalistsUS,
Energy Daily, September 22, 1989.
53. Donald Shapiro, RNuclear power Program on HoldS, Journal of
Commerce, October 10, 1986; Namiki Nozomi, RSouth Korea; The
Nuclear IndustryUs Last HurrahS, Japanese-Asia Quarterly Review,
Vol. 13, No 1, 1981; Doran P. Levin, RWestinghouse Expects Business
Windfall from a U.S.-China Nuclear Plants AccordS, Wall Street
Journal, April 26, 1984; A.E.Cullision, RJapan Cuts Back on Plan to
Hike Nuclear CapacityS, Journal of Commerce, June 23, 1987.
54. RWorld Status: A Grid For East AsiaS, Energy Economist,
February 1992.
55. Keiko Kambara, RFoes of Nuclear Power Make Gains in JapanS,
Christian Science Monitor, July 19, 1988; RFor the RecordS, Energy
Economist, March 1992; ROutlook for 1992; A Year of Plutonium
IssuesS, Nuke Info Tokyo, January/February 1992; T.R. Reid, RTokyo
Official Criticized Nuclear Power ProgrammeS, Washington Post,
April 22, 1992.
56. RIncident Forces TEPCO PaymentsS, Power in Asia, June 19, 1989;
David Swinbanks, REmergency Shutdown of Oldest ReactorR, Nature,
February 14, 1991; David E. Sanger, RJapan Now tells of Radiation
ReleaseS, New York Times, February 12, 1991.
57. RTGreensU Force Plant CancellationS, Power in Asia, June 19,
1989; A.E. Cullison, RJapan Cuts Back on Plan to Hike Nuclear
CapacityS, Journal of Commerce, June 23, 1987.
58. Byng-Koo Kim, RKorea: Going for More Home-Grown PlantsS,
Nuclear Engineering International, April, 1992.
59. Mark Clifford, RCracking upS, Far Eastern Economic Review,
December 14, 1989; Mark Clifford, RA Nuclear Falling OutS, Far
Eastern Economic Review, May 18, 1989.
60. RElectricityS, Energy Economist, March, 1989; RElectricityS,
Energy Economist, July, 1989.
61. Jonathan Moore, RNuclear ShutdownS, Far Eastern Economic
Review, June 2, 1988; Carl Goldstein, RNuclear QualmsS, Far Eastern
Economic Review, July 4, 1991; Chris Brown, RDeadly Anti-Nuclear
Protest Further Stalls Taiwan PlantS, Journal of Commerce, October
4, 1991; P.T. Bangsberg, RFight Looms as Taiwan Cabinet Approves
4th Nuclear PlantS, Journal of Commerce, February 21, 1992.
62. RFirst Power for QinshanS, Nuclear Engineering International,
February/March, 1992; Micheal C. Gallagher, RHong Kong Fears
Chinese ChernobylS, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, October
1991.
63. P.T. Bangsberg, RChinese Deny They Will Build Second Reactor at
Daya BayS, Journal of Commerce, April 12, 1989; James L Tyson,
RChina Turns to Nuclear PowerS, Christian Science Monitor, March
25, 1992.  Enerpresse, December 20, 1991.
64. Tai Ming Cheung and Salamat Ali, RNuclear AmbitionsS, Far East
Economic Review, January 23, 1992; James L Tyson, RChinese Nuclear
Sales Flout Western EmbargoesS, Christian Science Monitor, March
10, 1992.
65. Matthew L Wald RU.S. Companies Settle Manila Reactor SuitS, New
York Times, March 1992; Casiano Mayor, RManila Revives Nuclear
Plants, Marcos GhostsS, Depthnews Asia, Manila, March 1992;
RN-Plant Anger Grows in PhilippinesS, Financial Times, March 6,
1992.
66. RStunted Growth of Nuclear PlantsS, South, April 1989; David
Degal, RAtomic AyatollohsS, Washington Post, April 12, 1987; RBonn
refuses nuclear ordersS, The Guardian, July 1, 1991.
67. N. Vasuki Rao, RIndia Sharply Reduces Target for Nuclear Power
CapacityS, Journal of Commerce, August 30, 1991.
68. Number of nuclear power plants under construction is a
Worldwatch Institute estimate based on RWorld List of Nuclear Power
PlantsS and other sources; construction starts is from IAEA,
Nuclear Power Reactors in the World, April 1991.
69. Quote is by Lewis Strauss, commissioner of the US Atomic Energy
Commission, before the National Association of Science Writers, New
York, September 16, 1954, as cited by Daniel Ford, The Cult of the
Atom (New York; Simon and Schustser, 1982). 
70. Christopher Flavin and Nicholas Lenssen, Beyond the Petroleum
Age: Designing a Solar Economy, Worldwatch Paper 100 (Washington,
DC: Worldwatch Institute, December 1990).
71. MHB Associates, RAdvanced Reactor StudyS, prepared for the
Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, Mass., July 1990.
72. Worldwatch Institute estimate based on global nuclear
generating capacity of 322,000 megawatts and global carbon
emissions of 7.3 billion tons.
----------
Command: