Nuclear energy policy: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Policy options: expanding this section
Line 25: Line 25:
Nuclear power also has a high [[EROI|energy return on energy investment]]. Using life cycle analysis, it takes 4 to 5 months of energy production from the nuclear plant to fully pay back the initial energy investment<ref name="inf11"/>.
Nuclear power also has a high [[EROI|energy return on energy investment]]. Using life cycle analysis, it takes 4 to 5 months of energy production from the nuclear plant to fully pay back the initial energy investment<ref name="inf11"/>.


But policymakers must also balance their decisions so that the concerns surrounding nuclear power are addressed. These include the problem of storing [[radioactive waste]] for indefinite periods, the potential for possibly severe [[radioactive contamination]] by accident or sabotage, and the possibility that its use could in some countries lead to the [[nuclear proliferation|proliferation]] of [[nuclear weapons]]. Proponents, including some national governments, claim that these risks are small and can be lessened with new technology. They note that [[France]] and all of the industrialised economies of [[Asia]] <ref>[http://www.fuelcellsworks.com/Supppage3541.html]</ref> use nuclear power as a key part of their economic strategy, that the safety record is already good when compared to other energy forms, that it releases much less pollution than coal power, and that nuclear power is a [[sustainable energy]] source. Many [[List of environmental organizations|environmental groups]] claim nuclear power is an uneconomic, unsound and potentially dangerous energy source, especially compared to [[renewable energy]], and dispute whether the costs and risks can be reduced through new technology. Others claim that nuclear power is a renewable source of energy itself.
But policymakers must also balance their decisions so that the concerns surrounding nuclear power are addressed. These include the problem of storing [[radioactive waste]] for indefinite periods, the potential for severe [[radioactive contamination]] by accident or sabotage, and the possibility that its use could in some countries lead to the [[nuclear proliferation|proliferation]] of [[nuclear weapons]].
Proponents, including some national governments, claim that these risks are small and can be lessened with new technology. They note that [[France]] and all of the industrialised economies of [[Asia]] see nuclear power as a key economic strategy, that the safety record is already good when compared to other energy forms, that it releases much less pollution than coal power, and that nuclear power is a [[sustainable energy]] source.
Opponents, including some national governments and many [[List of environmental organizations|environmental groups]], claim nuclear power is an uneconomic, unsound and potentially dangerous energy source and dispute whether the costs and risks can be reduced through new technology. They note that [[Germany]] and [[Australia]] are commercializing [[renewable energy]] and [[energy efficiency]] technologies (see [[Renewable energy in Germany]] and [[Renewable energy commercialization in Australia]]).

Others claim that nuclear power ''is'' a renewable source of energy (see [[Renewable energy#Nuclear power|Renewable energy]]).


==Policies by country==
==Policies by country==

Revision as of 10:44, 31 March 2007

Nuclear energy policy is national and international policy concerning some or all aspects of nuclear energy, such as mining for nuclear fuel, extraction and processing of nuclear fuel from the ore, generating electricity by nuclear power, enriching and storing spent nuclear fuel and nuclear fuel reprocessing.

Nuclear energy policies often include the regulation of energy use and standards relating to the nuclear fuel cycle. Other measures include efficiency standards, safety regulations, emission standards, fiscal policies, and legislation on energy trading, transport of nuclear waste and contaminated materials, and their storage. Governments might subsidize nuclear energy and arrange international treaties and trade agreements about the import and export of nuclear technology, electricity, nuclear waste, and uranium.

Since nuclear energy and nuclear weapons technologies are closely related, military aspirations can act as a factor in energy policy decisions. The fear of nuclear proliferation influences some international nuclear energy policies.

The global picture

The status of nuclear power globally. Nations in dark green have reactors and are constructing new reactors, those in light green are constructing their first reactor, those in dark yellow are considering new reactors, those in light yellow are considering their first reactor, those in blue have reactors but are not constructing or decommissioning, those in light blue are considering decommissioning and those in red have decommissioned all their commercial reactors.

Installed nuclear capacity rose relatively quickly since the 1950s, but since the late 1980s capacity has risen much more slowly, reaching 366 GW in 2005, primarily due to Chinese expansion of nuclear power. Between around 1970 and 1990, more than 50 GW of capacity was under construction (peaking at over 150 GW in the late 70s and early 80s).

The growth slowed in the 1980s because of environmentalist opposition, high interest rates, and energy conservation prompted by the oil shock in 1973, the energy crisis in 1979 and the Three Mile Island accident and Chernobyl disaster. In 1983 an unexpected fall in fossil fuel prices stopped most new construction of nuclear power plants. Electricity liberalization in the United States and Europe during the 1980s and 1990s increased the financial risk of investing in nuclear power. More than two-thirds of all nuclear plants ordered after January 1970 were eventually cancelled.[1].

Nuclear power plants, however, do not directly generate any greenhouse gases, some governments have therefore returned to nuclear power as part of their strategies on tackling global warming and climate change.

In 1999 the countries that relied most on nuclear energy were France (with 75 % of its electricity generated by nuclear power stations), Lithuania (73 %), Belgium (58 %), Bulgaria, Slovakia and Sweden (47 %), Ukraine (44 %) and South Korea (43 %). The largest producer of nuclear capacity was the USA with 28 % of worldwide capacity, followed by France (18 %) and Japan (12 %) [2]. In 2000, there were 438 commercial nuclear generating units throughout the world, with a total capacity of about 351 gigawatts.

According to IAEA, nuclear power is projected to increase to 17% share of the world's electricity production by 2020. They predict 60 new plants will be installed over the next 15 years.[3][4]

Policy options

See also: Energy policy and Nuclear power controversy
File:Lula nuclear.jpg
Brasilia, Brazil , March, 15, 2005 — Greenpeace balloon in Brasilia and Lula Nuclear. Greenpeace protesting against Brazilian Nuclear Program. Photo:J. Freitas/Abr.

After a period of decline in the use of nuclear technology following the 1979 Three Mile Island accident and the 1986 incident at Chernobyl, there has more lately been renewed interest in nuclear energy. Some policymakers have returned to the 'nuclear option' because they see it as potentially able to address dwindling global oil reserves and global warming with less greenhouse gas emissions than fossil fuel.

For some countries, nuclear power affords energy independence. In the words of the French, "We have no coal, we have no oil, we have no gas, we have no choice." Nuclear power has been relatively unaffected by embargoes, and uranium is mined in reliable countries, including Australia and Canada[5][6]. Nuclear power also has a high energy return on energy investment. Using life cycle analysis, it takes 4 to 5 months of energy production from the nuclear plant to fully pay back the initial energy investment[7].

But policymakers must also balance their decisions so that the concerns surrounding nuclear power are addressed. These include the problem of storing radioactive waste for indefinite periods, the potential for severe radioactive contamination by accident or sabotage, and the possibility that its use could in some countries lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Proponents, including some national governments, claim that these risks are small and can be lessened with new technology. They note that France and all of the industrialised economies of Asia see nuclear power as a key economic strategy, that the safety record is already good when compared to other energy forms, that it releases much less pollution than coal power, and that nuclear power is a sustainable energy source.

Opponents, including some national governments and many environmental groups, claim nuclear power is an uneconomic, unsound and potentially dangerous energy source and dispute whether the costs and risks can be reduced through new technology. They note that Germany and Australia are commercializing renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies (see Renewable energy in Germany and Renewable energy commercialization in Australia).

Others claim that nuclear power is a renewable source of energy (see Renewable energy).

Policies by country

Main article: Nuclear power by country
See also: List of nuclear reactors
A nuclear power plant at Grafenrheinfeld, Germany. All German nuclear plants are scheduled to be shut down by 2020.

Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, Finland, India, Iran, Lithuania, North Korea, Russia, Pakistan, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Ukraine, and the U.S. are currently planning or building new nuclear reactors or reopening old ones. Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Egypt, France, Indonesia, Israel, Romania, Slovakia, South Africa, Turkey, and Vietnam are considering doing this. Armenia, Belgium, Germany, Hungary, Mexico, Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and United Kingdom have nuclear reactors but currently no advanced proposals for expansion[8]. Australia, Austria, Denmark, Greece, Ireland and Norway have no nuclear plants and have restricted new plant constructions. Poland stopped the construction of a plant. Belgium, Germany, Netherlands, Spain and Sweden decided not to build new plants or intend to phase out nuclear power, although still mostly relying on nuclear energy.

Africa

South Africa is the only country in Africa with nuclear power plants and it currently has an expansion policy based upon the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR), with plans to export to China[citation needed]. Several groups, including Earthlife Africa and Koeberg Alert, oppose these measures.

Asia

China has 10 reactors operating, 5 reactors under construction,[9] and is planning or proposing an additional 25[10] [11].

India has 16 reactors operating, 8 reactors under construction, and is planning an additional 24[12] [13] [14].

South Korea has 18 operational nuclear power reactors, with two more under construction and scheduled to go online by 2004.

Taiwan has three operational reactors, but support for nuclear energy is strongly split between the KMT and the Democratic Progressive Party. As long as the DPP is in power, no new reactors will be built.

North Korea had two PWRs at Kumho under construction until construction was suspended in November 2003. On September 19, 2005 North Korea pledged to stop building nuclear weapons and agreed to international inspections in return for energy aid. The agreement hinted that this aid might in future include one or more light water reactors[15].

In July 2000, the Turkish government decided not to build the controversial nuclear plant in Akkuyu.

Japan has 55 reactors operating and 3 reactors under construction[9].

In the Philippines, in 2004, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo outlined her energy policy. It included plans to convert the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant, one of their two reactors, into a gas powered facility.[16]

Oceania

New Zealand enacted the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act of 1987 which prohibits the stationing of nuclear weapons on the territory of New Zealand and the entry into New Zealand waters of nuclear armed or propelled ships. This Act of Parliament, however, does not prevent the construction of nuclear power plants.

Wikinews has related news:

Australia has up to 40% of the world's uranium deposits and is the world's second largest producer of uranium after Canada. Australia's extensive, low-cost coal and natural gas reserves have historically been used as strong arguments for avoiding nuclear power. But more recently a number of prominent politicians have begun to advocate for its serious consideration as a means to affordably reduce greenhouse emissions and allow for large-scale de-salination plants.

In 2005, the Australian government threatened to use its constitutional powers to take control of the approval process for new mines from the anti-nuclear Northern Territory government. They are also negotiating with China to weaken safeguard terms so as to allow uranium exports there[citation needed]. States controlled by the Australian Labor Party are blocking the development of new mines in their jurisdictions under the ALP's "No New Mines policy." The Uranium Mining, Processing and Nuclear Energy Review (UMPNER), an inquiry run by the department of the Prime Minister in Cabinet, is expected to pave the way for nuclear power in Australia,[17] providing the government is returned to power after the election later this year.

Europe

In Spain a moratorium was enacted by the socialist government in 1983[18][19] and plans for a phase-out are being discussed anew.[20]

In Ireland, a nuclear power plant was first proposed in 1968. It was to be built during the 1970s at Carnsore Point in County Wexford. The plan envisioned four plants to be built at the site, but was dropped after strong opposition from environmental groups, and Ireland has remained without nuclear power since. Despite opposing nuclear power and nuclear fuel reprocessing at Sellafield, Ireland is due to open an interconnector to the mainland UK to buy electricity, which is, in some part, the product of nuclear power.

The Slovenian nuclear plant in Krško (co-owned with Croatia) is scheduled to be closed by 2023, and there are no plans to build further nuclear plants. But the debate on whether and when to close the Krško plant intensified after the 2005/06 winter energy crisis. In May 2006 a Slovenian newspaper claimed the government had held internal discussions on adding a new 1000MW block into Krško after 2020.

In 1999 Belgium's Government, then a coalition which included the Green party Groen!, passed legislation which stipulated that no new reactors would be built and that Belgium's seven reactors would close after a further 40 years of operation[21]. When the law was being passed, there was speculation it would be overturned again as soon as an administration without Groen! was in power[22]. A report published in 2005 by the National Planning Bureau noted that in many parts of Belgium nuclear power makes up more than 50% of the electricity generated. It would therefore be difficult for Belgium to adhere to the emissions targets of the Kyoto Protocols without nuclear power[23].

Finland's program has four nuclear reactors, which provides 27% of the country's electricity. Two VVER-440 pressurized water reactors built by Soviet Atomenergoeksport and commissioned in 1977 and 1980, locate in Loviisa. They are operated by Fortum Oyj. Two boiling water reactors built by Swedish Asea-Atom (nowadays ABB) and commissioned n 1978 and 1980, locate in Olkiluoto plant in Eurajoki, near Rauma. They are owned and operated by Teollisuuden Voima, a subsidiary of Pohjolan Voima Oy. In 2002, the cabinet's decision to allow the construction of fifth reactor (third in Olkiluoto) was accepted in the parliament. Economic, energy security and environmental grounds were given as reasons for the decision. The reactor will be the new European Pressurized Reactor, built by French company Areva, which is scheduled to go on line in 2011.

After the oil crisis of the early 1970s, the French government decided in 1974 to move towards self-sufficiency in electricity production, primarily through the construction of nuclear power stations. France today produces around 75% of its electricity through nuclear power[24]. Because France produces an overall electricity surplus, it exports nuclear-produced energy. Some of this goes to countries which are ostensibly against the use of nuclear energy, such as Germany[citation needed]. The Board of Electricité de France (EDF) has approved construction of a 1630 MWe EPR at Flamanville, Normandy. Construction is expected to begin in late 2007, with completion in 2012[25].

In 2000, the German government, consisting of a coalition including the Green party Alliance -90 officially announced its intention to phase out nuclear power in Germany. Jürgen Trittin, the Minister of Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, reached an agreement with energy companies on the gradual shut down of the country's nineteen nuclear power plants and a cessation of civil usage of nuclear power by 2020. Legislation was enacted in the Nuclear Exit Law. The power plants in Stade and Obrigheim were turned off on November 14, 2003, and May 11, 2005, respectively. Dismantling of the plants is scheduled to begin in 2007[26]. But the Nuclear Exit Law did not ban enrichment stations - one in Gronau has received permission to extend operations. There have been concerns over the safety of the phase-out, particularly in terms of the transport of nuclear waste[27] [28]. In 2005 Angela Merkel won the German federal election with the CDU party. She has subsequently announced to re-negotiate with energy companies the time limit for a shut down of nuclear power stations [29]. But as part of her pact with the SDP, with whom the CDU form a coalition, the phase-out policy has for now been retained [30] [31].

In 2006, Lithuanian, Latvian and Estonian power companies carried out the feasibility study for construction of the new nuclear power plant in Lithuania to replace existing Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant, scheduled to be shut down in 2009. The study shows that the nuclear power plant project is feasible.[32]

Following the Three Mile Island accident in the United States in 1979, the Swedish Government decided, after a referendum, that no further nuclear power plants should be built and that a nuclear power phase-out should be completed by 2010. But in 1998, when electricity from hydropower accounted for 48 % of the country's production of electricity[33] the government decided to build no further hydropower plants in order to protect its national water resources. This is likely to set back the planned phase-out of Sweden's nuclear reactors, perhaps until 2045[citation needed]. Indeed the current Swedish government is proposing to end the nuclear phase-out, while still maintaining a moratorium on new construction at least until 2010. In August 2006 three of Sweden's ten nuclear reactors were shut down due to safety concerns following an incident at Forsmark Nuclear Power Plant, in which two out of four emergency power generators failed causing power shortage.

There have been several referenda on nuclear energy in Switzerland. In 1990, the people passed a motion to halt the construction of nuclear power plants (for a moratorium period of ten years) but rejected a motion to initiate a phase-out. In 2003 a motion calling for an extension to this moratorium (for another ten years) and another asking again on the question of a phase-out, were both rejected[34]. Around 40 % of Switzerland's electricity is generated by nuclear power[35]

Italy held a referendum the year after the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, deciding to shut down Italy's four nuclear power plants. The last was closed in 1990 [36]. A moratorium on the construction of new plants, originally in effect from 1987 until 1993, has since been extended indefinitely.[37]. But Premier Silvio Berlusconi reopened the nuclear power debate in 2005, noting Italy imports around 85% of its total energy, above the European average.[38]. In October 2005 the Environment Minister Altero Matteoli announced interest in switching the country's main source of energy to nuclear power within 10-15 years[citation needed]. As of 2006, Italy was an importer of nuclear-generated electricity, and its largest electricity utility Enel SPA was investing both in reactors in France and Slovakia to provide this electricity in the future, and also in the development of the EPR technology.

In 1994, the Dutch parliament voted to phase out nuclear power after a discussion of nuclear waste management. In 1997 the power station at Dodewaard was shut down and the government decided it was planning to end Borssele's operating license in 2003. But in 2003, with a new government in power, the shut down was postponed to 2013 [39]. In 2006 the government decided that Borssele will remain open until 2033, if it can comply with the highest safety standards. The owners, Essent and Delta will invest 500 million euro in sustainable energy, together with the government - money which the government claims otherwise should have been paid to the plants owners as compensation.

A nuclear power station was built during the 1970s at Zwentendorf, Austria, but its start-up was prevented by a popular vote in 1978. On July 9, 1997, the Austrian Parliament voted unanimously to maintain the country's anti-nuclear policy.[40]

The future of nuclear power in the United Kingdom is currently under review. The country has a number of reactors which are currently reaching the end of their working life, and it is currently undecided how they will be replaced. The UK is also currently failing to reach its targets for reduction on CO2 emissions, a situation which may be worsened if new nuclear power stations are not built. The UK also uses a large proportion of gas fired power stations, which produce relatively low (compared to coal) CO2 emissions, but there have been recent difficulties in obtaining adequate gas supplies. The UK government has just appointed a new pro-nuclear energy minister.

North America

Main article: Nuclear power in the United States

In 2004, there were 104 (69 pressurized water reactors, 35 boiling water reactors) commercial nuclear generating units licensed to operate in the United States, producing approximately 20 % of the country's energy needs. In absolute terms, the United States is the world's largest supplier of commercial nuclear power. Future development of nuclear power in the U.S. was enabled by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 [41] and is co-ordinated by the Nuclear Power 2010 Program [42]. On September 22, 2005 it was announced that two sites had been selected to receive new power reactors.

South America

In Brazil, nuclear energy, produced by two reactors at Angra, accounts for about 4% of the country's electricity [43]. Brazil plans to build seven more reactors by 2025.[44].

In Argentina, about 6% of the electricity comes from 2 operational reactors: The Embalse Río Tercero plant, a CANDU6 reactor, and the Atucha 1 plant, a PHWR German design. In 2001, the plant was modified to burn Slightly Enriched Uranium, making it the first PHWR reactor to burn that fuel worldwide. Atucha originally was planned to be a complex with various reactors. Atucha 2 (similar to Aucha 1 but more powerful) is actually more than half-built, however it never entered into operation. Argentina also has some other research reactors, and exports nuclear technology.

See also

References

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ [2]
  3. ^ [3]
  4. ^ [4]
  5. ^ http://www.platts.com/Nuclear/Resources/News%20Features/nukeinsight/
  6. ^ http://www.esat.kuleuven.ac.be/electa/publications/fulltexts/pub_1225.pdf
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference inf11 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ [5] [6][7]
  9. ^ a b "Plans For New Reactors Worldwide - Nuclear Issues Briefing Paper 19". April 2005. Retrieved 2006-05-19.
  10. ^ http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.htm
  11. ^ [8]
  12. ^ http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.htm
  13. ^ http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2005/07/28/stories/2005072800021000.htm]
  14. ^ [9]
  15. ^ http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050919/ap_on_re_as/koreas_nuclear
  16. ^ http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2004/aug/09/yehey/opinion/20040809opi5.html
  17. ^ [10][11] [12]
  18. ^ "Spain halts nuclear power". WISE News Communique. May 24, 1991. Retrieved 2006-05-19.
  19. ^ "Nuclear Power in Spain". World Nuclear Association. May 2006. Retrieved 2006-05-19.
  20. ^ "404 error". Retrieved 2006-05-19. {{cite web}}: Cite uses generic title (help)
  21. ^ [13]
  22. ^ Ruffles, Philip (July 2003). "An Essential Programme to Underpin Government Policy on Nuclear Power" (PDF). Nuclear Task Force. Retrieved 2006-05-19. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  23. ^ http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=48&story_id=21976&name=Addicted+to+nuclear+energy%3F
  24. ^ [14]
  25. ^ "Significant nuclear-related news items in perspective". Uranium Information Centre weekly digest. 2006. ISSN 1326-4907. Retrieved 2006-05-19. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  26. ^ http://www.terradaily.com/2003/031114130333.jlvf6wjx.html
  27. ^ http://www.pds-coesfeld.de/anti%20atom.gronau2.htm
  28. ^ http://www.bmu.de/english/nuclear_safety/doc/3420.php
  29. ^ [15]
  30. ^ http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1760476,00.html
  31. ^ http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/051114/w111436.html
  32. ^ Nuclear Power Plant Project in Lithuania is Feasible, press release on 25 October 2006
  33. ^ [16] , pdf
  34. ^ [17]
  35. ^ [18]
  36. ^ [19]
  37. ^ http://energytrends.pnl.gov/italy/it004.htm
  38. ^ [20][21]
  39. ^ [22] [23]
  40. ^ "Coalition of Nuclear-Free Countries". WISE News Communique. September 26, 1997. Retrieved 2006-05-19.
  41. ^ [24], pdf
  42. ^ [25]
  43. ^ http://www.uic.com.au/nip95.htm
  44. ^ http://www.mercopress.com/Detalle.asp?NUM=9036

External links

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nuclear_energy_policy&oldid=119241443"