TL: NUCLEAR POWER - WORLD STATUS REPORT 1996 TL: NUCLEAR POWER - WORLD STATUS REPORT 1996 SO: Karen Richardson, Greenpeace International (GP) DT: February 15, 1996 Keywords: environment nuclear power ukraine republics accidents problems chernobyl / 10 Years After the Chernobyl Accident: The continuing decline of the nuclear power industry As of December 31st 1995, there were some 430 commercial nuclear power reactors in operation world-wide. These plants had a collective nominal capacity of nearly 340 gigawatts (GW), producing about 17% of global electricity. At the same time, just 36 plants were under construction (with a nominal capacity of 30 GW), the fewest plants under construction at any one time for a quarter-century. Most are scheduled to be completed in the next few years, though delays in construction continue to plague the industry. In addition many plants have been completed, but remain idle, or have been abandoned while under construction ('mothballed'). While more than 80 reactors (19,000 megawatts) have been permanently shutdown, many questions surrounding long-term decommissioning remain unanswered. North and Latin America In the United States, it has been 18 years since a nuclear reactor has been ordered, and 23 years since one was ordered and not subsequently cancelled. Indeed, over the past 30 years, a total of 123 nuclear plants were cancelled by utilities, representing 135,000 megawatts (MW) of generating capacity--well above the country's total current nuclear capacity (109 reactors and 99,000 MW). In 1995, no reactors were being built in Canada. In 1990, Ontario Hydro had plans to construct ten more reactors by 2014, but these plans have been cancelled. One reactor was shut down in 1995. There are only five nuclear reactors operating in Latin America, two in Argentina, two in Mexico and one in Brazil. Argentina and Brazil both have one reactor under construction. The nuclear reactors in Latin America have all suffered severe technical problems and are frequently shutdown. In 1992, Cuba postponed the completion of two partially constructed Soviet-designed reactors. Western Europe In 1957 the promotion of nuclear energy in Europe was considered to be so important that a European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM), was created. Today, in the European Union, 7 of the 15 member states do not operate commercial nuclear power reactors, i.e. Portugal, Ireland, Luxembourg, Denmark, Italy, Greece and Austria. If Sweden abides by its decision to phase out nuclear power by 2010, as decided after a Referendum in 1980, there will be majority of non-nuclear EU Member states. Sweden's newly elected government has recently called for the closure of one reactor within the next four years. In a 1980 referendum, Swedes voted to phase-out nuclear power, and parliament set a final date based on 25-year reactor lifetime. In February 1995, the Swedish government Commission reviewing the nation's energy policy concluded that although Sweden's 12 nuclear reactors, generating roughly half of the electricity, can be technically decommissioned by 2010, the costs of such decommissioning would be very high. Decommissioning at a later date would result in a much lower economic cost. Despite enormous lobby efforts by the nuclear industry, the Swedish Energy Commission, after completing its Review in December 1995, did not abandon the idea of a nuclear phase-out. The Commission has also suggested that a number of stringent economic measures be legislated. The decision on whether the phase-out date will be maintained at 2010, or postponed, as well as which instruments will be legislated to assume the phase-out, is expected to be made by the Swedish government during the upcoming year. In the whole of the European Union, France is the only country which has reactors under construction. On 13 November 1995, the Franco-German consortium of Framatome and Siemens presented a state of the art of the "European Pressurised Water Reactor" (EPR) project. The EPR is presented by the reactor constructors as the "inherently safe" nuclear reactor of the next generation. The EPR is expected by its promoters to have a 10 to 100 times smaller core meltdown risk than current Pressurised Water Reactors (PWR). This attempt to increase reactor safety standards points to the fact that present levels of safety were wholly inadequate. The start-up of the first demonstration EPR in France is planned by the year 2005. Apart from the French state utility, Electricite de France (EDF) no other company has so far committed to actually order an EPR, not even the German utilities. Since the official construction cost estimates of the EPR are at least 15% higher than for traditional nuclear reactors, the commercial future of the "next generation" reactor remains highly uncertain. After a Review on the privatisation of the British nuclear power industry, it was deemed that there was no economic justification for public funding to build any new reactors. In December 1995, British Energy announced the cancellation of the two proposed stations. In Finland, in September 1993, the Parliament voted against the government proposal for a fifth reactor. While in Spain, in April 1991, the government confirmed the 1983 moratorium on nuclear construction. In January 1995, a new law definitively cancelled the five reactors, which were `mothballed' since the moratorium. The Dutch government decided after a parliamentary debate in December 1994 to only approve the operating life of the Borssele reactor until 2004, and this under strict conditions, despite strong pressure from the reactors operator to extend the life until 2007. After the unification of Germany, old reactors in the former Eastern Germany were closed almost immediately. Public protests against radioactive waste transports and repositories have strengthened the general anti-nuclear sentiment amongst the German public. The Energy Consensus talks between the industry, the Federal Government and the SPD-Opposition were broken off in the summer of 1995 without an agreement on new reactor orders. In Belgium, where 7 reactors account for about 55% of the electricity, a special Senate's Commission concluded in 1991 that no new reactors should be built in an area closer than 30 km from the nearest population centre. In this small and densely populated country, such a place simply does not exist. In December 1995, the Belgian electricity utilities presented their new 1995-2005 equipment plan. Although the plan does not foresee new plant orders in the next ten years, it has been broadly criticised for its lack of an effective phase out policy. There are currently five reactors operating in Switzerland. After a Referendum in 1990, the Swiss adopted a moratorium on the construction of new reactors at least until the year 2000. In 1992 and 1994 the reactors Muehleberg and Beznau-2 had their licences extended temporarily for just 10 years, instead of an unlimited period, as demanded by the utilities. Swiss law urges the existence of a final radioactive waste repository before any new reactors can be ordered. In 1995 the people of the Canton of Nidwalden rejected such a radioactive waste repository in a Referendum, which has jeopardised the future of Swiss nuclear power prospects. The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency stated in its 1993 Activities Report that due to the low number of new plant orders in comparison to the closure of reactors, even before the end of their expected life time, the viability of the nuclear industry is at stake, as well as the confidence of nuclear investors. With contracts scarce in western countries, the traditional nuclear construction companies are looking for new markets. In an attempt to survive they have turned to Asia and Eastern Europe for business. However, nuclear power in those regions also continues to be plagued with problems. Central and Eastern Europe In Russia, despite official plans for the completion and construction of up to 10 power reactors by 2005, industry officials are reported to predict that there will only be funding of two reactors, at Kalinin and Rostov, by 2000. In November, the German company Siemens signed a letter of intent to supply the instrument and control systems for the development of the new generation of reactors in Russia, the VVER 640. This reactor will initially be built at the Sosnovy Bor reactor complex, with proposals for further reactors at Kola as well as potential sales overseas. In Ukraine, the operation of units 1 and 3 at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant continues to receive international attention. In December, a "Memorandum of Understanding" between the Ukrainian government and the governments of the G7 and EU countries was signed. This memorandum seeks the closure of Chernobyl by the year 2000 and outlines an international assistance programme, totalling US$2.3 billion. The largest project within this package is for the completion of two new reactors and current estimates by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) estimate that this completion will cost approximately $800 million. In August 1995, the sixth reactor at the Zaporozhe nuclear power plant was started. In 1995 this station had the worst safety record of all Ukrainian plants according UNIAN, the Ukrainian wire service. In October 1995, the second unit of the Medzamore nuclear power plant in Armenia was restarted. The station was closed in 1988 due to public opposition, and had not operated at all since that time. Over the past years Armenia has suffered massive energy shortages due to lack of investment and an energy blockade in its 7-year war with neighbouring Azerbaijan. The restart of the reactor triggered protests from neighbouring Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey, who fear the plant is an environmental threat. US officials also joined the protest, stating that the plant is among the world's most dangerous. In October 1995, Bulgarian authorities restarted reactor number one at it's Kozloduy nuclear power plant. It was restarted despite objections from western governments, the European Commission and western European safety organisations. As a result, one of the main western contractors at the site, Electricite de France, threatened to withdraw it's personnel from the site. Despite the signing of an agreement to fund the completion of two reactors at the Temelin nuclear power station in March 1994 in the Czech Republic, little work appears to be ongoing. The work to be undertaken by Westinghouse and in part funded by the United States Government Export-Import Bank has stalled in part due to liability concerns and in part due to legal problems. In December 1994, a public participation process began to evaluate the technical, economic and public viability of the completion of the first two units at the Mochovce Nuclear power plant in Slovakia. The reactor completion, to be undertaken using French, German, Russian, Czech and Slovakian technology, to be funded by the EBRD, the European Commission and French and Germany government credit agencies, would have been the first western European completion of Soviet-designed reactors. In March 1995, following the completion of the public participation project, the Slovakian government requested that the project be suspended by the Bank. It later transpired the Slovakian Government was dissatisfied with the total price of the project, nearly $1 billion, and the conditions that the EBRD had placed upon the loan. The utility is still looking for finances to complete the project and is preparing a package with greater involvement from Russia's Minatom, Czech banks and companies as well as Siemens. However, the future of Mochovce is still far from secure. Asia In East Asia, Japan, South Korea, China, and Taiwan have plans to expand their nuclear power programmes. However, in South Korea it is estimated that completion costs for the five reactors currently under construction could be almost double that of some of the country's older reactors. In addition, public opposition to nuclear power and particularly radioactive waste dump sites in South Korea is continuing to increase. In Taiwan, disputes over how to deal with the radioactive waste from the country's six nuclear plants continues to plague the industry. While plans for two new reactors have been delayed due to public opposition and escalating costs. At the end of 1995, Japan had 50 operating nuclear reactors with a further 4 under construction. The official long- term energy supply and demand outlook published by the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) in 1992, was for the construction of 40 more nuclear reactors. However, it has recently become obvious that this `official plan' is quite unrealistic. The nine electricity utilities are all staggering under the weight of debt accumulated from constructing nuclear plants in the past: this resulted in the utilities unilaterally withdrawing from the plan to construct the `advanced thermal reactor' (ATR) in August 1995. In addition, new measures to de-regulate the electricity market which came into effect on January 1st 1996, made the outlook for nuclear power in Japan even worse. The biggest change was that utilities could no longer charge a standard 8% premium to ensure their `investment return'; in future the price of electricity sold to the consumer will be regulated, and generators will only make a profit according to how low they can push their own costs. This will inevitably reveal the cost disadvantages of nuclear power. In December of 1995 Japan also experienced a massive public loss of confidence when sodium leaked from it's Fast Breeder Reactor, Monju, and the Japanese nuclear industry attempted to cover up the full extent of the damage. The close proximity of China's Daya Bay reactors to Hong Kong has always provoked strong concern from the Hong Kong residents. Fears over the plant were heightened when shortly after construction began, engineers discovered that more than half of the vertical reinforcing steel in the foundation had been left out. Although this was corrected, confidence in Daya Bay suffered long-term damage. Plans for expansion at Daya Bay continue to face delays. Western governments, led by the United States, have promised North Korea as much as $400 million worth of fuel oil and two large western-style reactors, in exchange for a pledge to curtail nuclear weapons development. India is in the process of constructing five new reactors. In 1993 India's nine operating reactors had a capacity factor of only 39 percent in 1993, far below the 60-80 percent average of most countries. Meanwhile, a 130-ton concrete slab of the containment dome collapsed at a reactor under construction at Kaiga in 1994, increasing uncertainties about the safety of India's nuclear reactors. Recently Vietnam, Thailand and the Philippines have expressed some interest in nuclear power. These plans, however, remain very much in the early planning stages. While Indonesia continues to move slowly on orders long anticipated by vendors. In total, Asian countries account for half of all new plants under construction. Although nuclear power is the only energy source actively promoted by a United Nations agency, it has never fulfilled its promise to bring energy security to newly industrialising countries. Contrary to the small share of nuclear power in the electricity production, it contributes very significantly to the foreign debt of newly industrialising nations. In addition, all commercial nuclear reactors produce sizeable amounts of plutonium, and most nuclear technology can by put to dual civil-military uses. As nuclear technology spreads around the globe so does the risk of nuclear proliferation. Finally, the rising cost of decommissioning retired facilities continues to cloud the industry's future. The Yankee Rowe reactor in western Massachusetts, USA which cost over US$186 million to build in 1960, was closed in 1991. To fully dismantle the plant will cost some US$370 million. If governments and utilities have had a difficult time justifying the cost of building and operating reactors, closing them could be an even harder sell. Conclusion In the past two decades there has been a steady decline in the fortunes of the nuclear industry around the world. The decline started in the United States in the 1970's and resulted in the cancellation of over 120 nuclear power plants. Subsequently, we have seen the cancelling of nuclear power programmes and reactors around the world. Today, in Western Europe only France has any reactors under construction, while in Central and Eastern Europe only a handful of reactors are being built. Even in Asia, which is often touted as the next region of the world to build large numbers of nuclear power plants, reactor programmes are being slimmed down and cancelled. In the next decade this downward trend is likely to continue, and as the true economic and environmental costs of decommissioning and radioactive waste management come to light it could even accelerate more rapidly. However, the nuclear industry has not given up. It intends to design a new generation of reactors which it states will be safe and cheap. This is already being undertaken in Europe with the development of the European Pressurised Water Reactor (EPR) and in Russia with the VVER 640. The nuclear industry has had almost 50 years to prove that nuclear technology is safe, clean and cheap and has failed to do so. Far from producing electricity that is "too cheap to meter", the environmental and economic costs of nuclear power are now too huge to measure. Now is not the time for further government subsidy to develop a new series of nuclear reactors. As we approach the 21st century, renewable energy sources have clear environmental and economic advantages over nuclear power. The time has come to stop all further developments in the nuclear industry and to start to implement a new Solar Age. TEXT FOR GRAPHS - WORLD STATUS REPORT Text for Graphs Nuclear Orders This graph illustrates the decline in orders for nuclear power. The steady decline, which began in the 1970s in the United States, has continued throughout the rest of the world. This downward trend is likely to continue as the economic and environmental burdens of nuclear power come to light. [Source: Worldwatch Institute 1995] Reactor Starts vs Shutdowns The above graphs shows the decline in the nuclear power industry. The comparison between new reactors starting up -- which tailed off in the early 1990s -- and old reactors being shutdown, shows the true extent of the downward trend. In fact, there was a major reversal of tradition in the 1989- 1991 period, when more reactors were shutdown than were brought on-line. This will be the trend for the future, particularly in the early part of the next century. It is important to note that up to the present date, reactors being shutdown have been mainly smaller prototype and early commercial plants, while the upcoming wave of shutdowns will be full-size commercial plants. Thus the overall energy contribution of nuclear power is due for a major decline as the reactors commissioned in the early 1970s are closed. [Sources : the primary source is the Power Reactor Information System of the IAEA (1993 and 1994), with additional material and analysis by Worldwatch Institute, 1994 and 1995; Greenpeace International 1995; World Information Service on Energy - Paris (WISE - Paris, 1995). GOING DOWN...... In contrast to the downward trend of nuclear power (See Starts vs Shutdowns graph), the official voice of nuclear promotion - the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) - maintained for many years a rosy outlook for the industry. This graph shows the IAEA's predictions of nuclear capacity for the year 2000, according to the year in which they were made. For example, in 1976 the IAEA expected that total nuclear capacity by the year 2000 would be about 2300 Gigawatts. As time passed the IAEA slowly caught up with reality, and in 1994 the Agency predicted that capacity six years later would be just barely above the actual 1994 capacity. [Sources: Worldwatch Institute 1994]. World Nuclear Capacity and Spent Fuel Arising As more reactors were constructed the huge volume of highly- radioactive irradiated or `spent' nuclear fuel has massively increased. Despite the huge scientific and economic input of a civil nuclear programme spanning four decades, there is still no accepted technique for disposing of the waste which inevitably results from the operation of nuclear reactors. Reaching a total of over 130,000 tons, the spent fuel from nuclear plants is simply accumulating in pools of water at reactor sites. Meanwhile, national governments continue to delay the final reckoning in the face of major public opposition. The `dark side' of the nuclear dream appears today as intractable as ever. [Source : Worldwatch Institute 1994]