| Nuclear Energy Policy |
Article Index for Nuclear Energy |
Website Links For Nuclear |
Information AboutNuclear Energy Policy |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT NUCLEAR ENERGY POLICY | |
| nuclear technology | |
| energy policy | |
| national electric power policy | |
|
Nuclear energy policy is a Policy concerning all aspects of Nuclear Energy , such as Mining , Enrichment And Storage of burned rods, Electricity Generation by Nuclear Reactor s, and Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing . National energy policy means the regulation of energy use and standards relating to the Nuclear Fuel Cycle . Other measures include efficiency standards, safety regulations, Emission Standard s, Fiscal Policies , and Legislation on energy trading, transport of Nuclear Waste and Contaminated materials, and their storage. Governments can subsidize nuclear energy and arrange international treaties and trade agreements about the import and export of Nuclear Technology , Electricity , Nuclear Waste , and Uranium . An issue that has become prominent in the media is Nuclear Proliferation . Nuclear energy policy influences - and is influenced by - Foreign Relations , including military presence, Embargo es and/or domination. INTERNATIONAL USE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY ''(see also Energy Development , Future Energy Development and Renewable Energy Development )'' Installed nuclear capacity rose relatively quickly since the 1950s. 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). More than two-thirds of all nuclear plants ordered after January 1970 were eventually cancelled. {Link without Title} In 1983 an unexpected fall in fossil fuel prices stopped most new construction of Nuclear Power Plant s. In the 1980s (US) and 1990s (Europe), Electricity Liberalization also played a part in increasing the financial risks of investing in Nuclear Power . Electricity generated from nuclear power plants greatly decreases greenhouse gases compared to coal fired electricity generation and its supporters claim it to be one of the most inexpensive and environmentally friendly means of electrical power generation. countries have abandoned the use of nuclear energy since then. {Link without Title} In 2000, there were 438 commercial nuclear generating units throughout the world, with a total capacity of about 351 gigawatts. As Of 1999 , the countries that rely most on nuclear energy are 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 %). {Link without Title} , but depending on the September 2005 elections Germany may reverse its decision. Australia , Austria , Denmark , Greece , Ireland and Norway have no nuclear plants and have restricted new plant constructions (see Nuclear Power Phase-out ). Poland stopped the construction of a plant. Belgium , Germany , Netherlands , Spain , Sweden and Switzerland decided not to build new plants or intend to phase out nuclear power, although still mostly relying on nuclear energy. The future organized by the United Nations Environment Programme the countries disagreed on the Sustainability of nuclear energy {Link without Title} . According to ) The Hubbert Peak of global Oil production predicts widespread disruptions to conventional Energy supplies of oil and Natural Gas . Some academic and business Research into Hydrocarbon deposits has concluded that the continued usage of this form of energy source will inevitably create widespread reductions in its supply during the 2010s , resulting in a sudden need to switch to alternative energy sources such as Nuclear Energy and "green" sources such as Solar and Wind Power . However, similar predictions about the "end of the age of oil" have been made almost since oil first became a major commodity, and so far no such Predictions have borne out. Africa Asia {Link without Title} are currently building new nuclear power plants. {Link without Title} Oceania Australia Australia has as much as up to 40 % of the world's uranium deposits and is the world's second largest producer of uranium after Canada. While there are no specific plans for domestic nuclear plants, the conservative-controlled federal government is encouraging the expansion of the uranium mining industry, in 2005 using its constitutional powers to take control over approval of new Mines from the anti-nuclear Northern Territory government, and is negotiating with China over safeguard terms for uranium exports to that country. Labor -controlled state governments are blocking the development of new mines in their jurisdictions under a "Three Mine policy." While majority political opinion is still opposed to domestic nuclear power on both environmental and economic grounds (Australia has very extensive, low-cost coal reserves and substantial natural gas), a number of prominent politicians have begun to advocate for its serious consideration as a means to affordably reduce greenhouse emissions and perhaps allow for Large-scale De-salination Plants . Notable advocates include the recently-retired Australian Labor Party Premier Of New South Wales , Bob Carr , and senior federal Education and Science Minister, Brendan Nelson . Renewed discussion on the topic has not led to policy changes necessary to allow the use of nuclear power in Australia to date. {Link without Title} {Link without Title} Europe Belgium In Belgium the first Pressurized Water Reactor was commissioned in 1962 (in Mol). It was followed by seven reactors in Doel and Tihange from 1975 to 1985. {Link without Title} Belgium's . In July 2005, the National Planning Bureau has published a new report. It states that Oil and other Fossil Fuel s generate 90 % of Belgian Energy use, while nuclear power accounts for 9 % and Renewable Energy for 1 %. It is projected that within 25 years renewable energy will increase to at most 5 % of the energy use, because of high costs. The plan of the Government arranged for all nuclear power stations to shut down until 2025. The report raises concerns about Greenhouse Gases and Sustainability . {Link without Title} Germany In 2000, the of primary energy demand, which corresponds to 5 % of the total electricity demand. By 2010 the German Government wants to reach ten percent. {Link without Title} The CDU won the German Federal Election, 2005 with candidate Angela Merkel She has announced to re-negotiate with energy companies the time limit for a shut down of nuclear power stations [http://rhein-zeitung.de/tickstart.html?/on/05/06/08/ticker/t/rzo157470.html . Sweden Faced with the 1973 Oil Crisis , Energy politics in Sweden were determined to become less dependent on the import of Petroleum . Since then, energy has been generated mostly from Hydropower and nuclear power. In 1980 , 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 . As of 2005, the use of renewables amounted to 26 % of the energy supply in Sweden, most important being hydropower and Biomass . In 1998, electricity from hydropower accounted for 76 TWh and 48 % of the country's production of electricity. At the same time, the use of Biofuel s, Peat etc. produced 92TWh. ( {Link without Title} , pdf) In 1998, the government decided to build no further hydropower plants in order to protect national Water Resources . In spite of extensive efforts to create alternatives for nuclear power, e.g. Fossil Fuels , it is not likely that Sweden can complete the nuclear power phase-out by 2010. It has been estimated that Nuclear Power Plants In Operation will stay in operation until 2050 . Switzerland In Switzerland there were many Referenda on the topic of nuclear energy. In 1990 , the initiative "stop the construction of nuclear power stations," which was asking about a ten-year Moratorium on the construction of new nuclear power plants, was passed. In 2003 "Moratorium Plus," for an extension of the earlier decided moratorium, was rejected. {Link without Title} As of 2005, Switzerland has Four Nuclear Reactors at Beznau (Beznau 1), Gösgen, Leibstadt, and Mühleberg and around 40 % of its electricity is generated by nuclear power. Another 60 % come from hydroelectricity. {Link without Title} . Spain In Spain a Moratorium has been enacted by the socialist government in 1983 ( [http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf85.htm ). Ireland In Ireland , a 1968 plan for a nuclear power plant was dropped after strong opposition from environmental groups, and Ireland has remained nuclear power free since. Italy reopened the nuclear power debate in 2005, noting Italy imports around 85% of its total energy, above the European average. {Link without Title} {Link without Title} . The Netherlands In the report on sustainable energy {Link without Title} . Other parties then conceded. Austria On July 9 , 1997, the Austrian Parliament voted unanimously to maintain the country's anti-nuclear policy. {Link without Title} . Britain North America USA In 2001 , the U.S. 's nuclear share of electricity generation was 19 %. 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 a total of 97,400 megawatts (electric), which is approximately 20 % of the nation's total electric energy consumption ( See List ). 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 . ( {Link without Title} , pdf) There are plans for new nuclear plants. The , 2005 it was announced that two sites in the U.S. had been selected to receive new power reactors (exclusive of the new power reactor scheduled for INL ) - see Nuclear Power 2010 Program . South America NUCLEAR POWER PHASE-OUT A Nuclear Power Phase-out was introduced in Sweden (1980), in Italy ( 1987 ), in Belgium (1999), and in Germany ( 2000 ) and has been discussed in several other European countries. Austria, the Netherlands , Poland , and Spain have enacted laws not to build new nuclear power stations. One idea behind a nuclear phase-out is to force a shift to Renewable Energy , because of Environmental Concerns With Electricity Generation , Social and/or Political hazards of nuclear energy and of Fossil Fuel s. DISCUSSION OF NUCLEAR ENERGY ''(see also: Nuclear Power and Nuclear Power Phase-out#Pros And Cons Of The Phase-out )'' Arguments against nuclear energy Anti-nuclear politicians state Environmental Concerns With Nuclear Power as arguments for a phase-out. A main concern against the use of Nuclear Power for energy production is primarily Safety of the Environment and people. Activists refer to Nuclear Accidents In The Past that have released large amounts of Radioactive Contamination killing and hurting many people and rendering large amounts of land unusable for the next few centuries, like e.g. the Zone Of Alienation . {Link without Title} {Link without Title} Environmental Groups criticize the environmental aspects of Radiation . They criticize Mining, Enrichment And Long-term Storage of spent Nuclear Fuel and the disposal of Nuclear Waste . Groups warn from Radioactive Contamination and demand a strict adherence to the Precautionary Principle where technologies are rejected unless they can be proven to not cause significant harm to the health of living things or the Biosphere . ( {Link without Title} ) Plutonium , which is contained in the fuel rods, is extracted in COGEMA La Hague Site (France) and Sellafield (Great Britain). In this process great amounts of radioactive waste have in the past been dumped in the sea. The practice of Ocean Floor Disposal is now banned ( {Link without Title} ). Nuclear power plants cannot be insured solely by private insurers, because of the possible high costs in case of a severe accident. For ths reason governments must back the insurance (see for example the U.S. 's Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act ). This practice is similar with banks, who are also backed with government guarantees. Nuclear power plants have also frequently been speculated to be possible targets for Terrorist Attack s (e.g. in Germany {Link without Title} ). It is not decided in some countries, who should pay for the supervision of areas where nuclear waste is stored. At the moment it seems likely, at least in Germany, that the costs caused by direct waste (burned rods), contaminated materials from power plants and from the extraction of plutonium and uranium, as well as other nuclear waste, and costs for storage of , utility companies pay a fixed fee per kilowatt-hour into a disposal fund administered by the Department Of Energy . Another argument against nuclear energy is the potential for close connection of civil and military usage (which in most countries are kept strictly separate). In manufacturing nuclear fuel rods, the fraction of the fissile uranium isotope 235 has to be (except in CANDU reactors) increased from originally 0.7 % to up to 5 % in order to be able to create a chain reaction. A station for the enrichment of uranium (German station at Gronau ) could - with extreme difficulty - increase the amount of U-235 to above 80 % so it could be used as a Weapon . Therefore, some of the techniques of uranium enrichment are kept secret (e.g. Gaseous Diffusion , Gas Centrifuge , AVLIS and Nuclear Reprocessing ). Opponents of nuclear power argue it is not possible to discern between civil and military usage, and therefore that nuclear power contributes to the Proliferation Of Nuclear Weapons . This has happened in Israel , India , Iran , North Korea , Pakistan and South Africa (which later gave up its nuclear weapons). Plutonium in high concentration can be used for building Nuclear Weapon s, but in practice it has been used again in nuclear power plants in MOX fuel rods. {Link without Title} Arguments for nuclear energy There is recently a renewed interest in nuclear energy as a solution to es than popular alternatives, such as Coal . Germany has combined the phase-out with an initiative for Renewable Energy and wants to increase the efficiency of Fossil Power Plants in an effort to reduce the reliance on coal. According to the German Minister Jürgen Trittin , in 2020, this will cut Carbon Dioxide emissions by 40 % compared with 1990 levels. Germany has become one of the leaders in the effords to fulfill the Kyoto Protocol . Critics of the German way however, have called it a contradiction to abandon nuclear power and build up renewable energy as both have very low CO2 emissions. {Link without Title} Nuclear reactors do not emit greenhouse gasses or ash during normal operation; however the mining and processing of uranium involves emissions. Emissions that arise from whole life cycle are well comparable to wind energy. Nuclear reactors and other types of power plants raise the temperature of the rivers used to cool them, which can pose a health hazard for fish in certain eco systems. This can include species of fish already near extinction as a consequence of hydropower and other human activities. This can be greatly reduced by using Cooling Tower s, which are deployed in places where excessive warming is deemed unacceptable. All waste products are contained and stored. This is opposite to other energy sources (e.g. Coal, Gas, Oil) where pollution is pumped directly into atmosphere. Without [Nuclear Power Plants would have released nearly 700 million metric tons more carbon dioxide into the air each year. That's about the same amount of carbon dioxide that now comes from all USA's cars and trucks [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/06/20050622.html . Nuclear waste becomes less radioactive over time. After 50 years 99.1% of radiation disappears. This is in sharp contrast with arsenic and other chemicals that are stable and will exist forever and are released burning coal. Despite being most controversial, proponents of nuclear energy contend that the underground solution for permanent disposal of waste is well tested and proven. They point out the natural example of Oklo , nature’s own nuclear waste repository, where waste was stored for millions of years.[http://www.curtin.edu.au/curtin/centre/waisrc/OKLO/index.shtml . Nuclear waste is small in volume and nuclear waste accounts for less than 1% of heavily toxic waste in industrial countries 96% of high nuclear waste could be recycled and reused, were the additional risks of proliferation deemed acceptable. [http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf69.htm . In some nations there may be no viable alternatives. In the words of the French, "We have no Coal , we have no Oil , we have no Gas , we have no choice." Critics of a phase-out everywhere argue that nuclear power stations could not be compensated for and predict an Energy Crisis or argue only coal could possibly compensate for nuclear power and CO2 emissions will increase tremendously or an increase in energy imports either of nuclear power or of natural oil. Nuclear power has been relatively unaffected by Embargo es, as uranium is mined in reliable countries such as Australia and Canada unlike, for example, some large natural gas suppliers, which include states of the former Soviet Union ( {Link without Title} {Link without Title} , pdf). An argument for proponents of nuclear power is Energy Economics . They state that nuclear energy is the only power source which explicitly factors the estimated costs for waste containment and plant decommissioning into its overall cost, and that the quoted cost of Fossil Fuel plants is deceptively low for this reason. Also, the cost of many renewables would be increased if they included necessary back-up power sources due to their intermittent nature. It has been calculated that Wind Power , one of the major hopes for proponents of the phase-out, costs three times as much as average electricity in Germany. {Link without Title} Proponents of nuclear energy state nuclear plants are safe and protected against attacks. Containment Building s are strongly reinforced and highly guarded (see [http://www.world-nuclear.org/news/resistance.htm ). Proponents of nuclear power also believe that the Chernobyl Accident was unique and occurred only because of a combination of poor design and unauthorized tests - also, the Chernobyl reactors did not have full containment buildings. They point out that no such accidents have occurred in Western reactors, which are now by far the most common design. A commonly cited example is the Three Mile Island accident, which did not release significant amounts of radioactive particles despite a Nuclear Meltdown comparable in magnitude to Chernobyl; this is attributed to better design and containment at Three Mile Island. These are two only major accidents in civilian nuclear power plant accidents. {Link without Title} Proponents of nuclear energy also point out the great safety level for workers in the industry. Nuclear power resulted in 8 immediate deaths per TWy of electricity. That is significantly lower than the figure for Coal 342, Natural Gas 85, and Hydro 883. Data is gathered in period 1970-1992 {Link without Title} SEE ALSO
REFERENCES
FURTHER READING
EXTERNAL LINKS
|
|
|