From Wikipedia,
the free encyclopedia.
A nuclear power plant at
Grafenrheinfeld,
Germany. All German
nuclear plants are scheduled
to be shut down by 2020.
A nuclear power phase-out
is the discontinuation of usage of
nuclear power for energy
production. It includes the
closing down of
nuclear power plants. It 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, and
Spain have enacted laws not to
build new nuclear power stations.
Concerns about
nuclear energy are of
environmental,
social and
political nature. Often
connected with phase-outs is the
idea to force a shift to
alternative energy.
Introduction
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.[1]
In 1983 an unexpected fall in
fossil fuel prices stopped most
new construction of
nuclear power plants. 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 gerenation and
its supporters claim it to be one
of the most inexpensive and
enviromentally friendly means of
electrical power generation.
A popular movement against
nuclear power also gained strength
in the Western world, based on the
fear of a possible
nuclear accident and on fears
of latent
radiation. The 1979 accident
at
Three Mile Island and the 1986
Chernobyl accident also played
a key role in stopping new plant
construction in many countries.
Several countries, especially
European countries have
abandoned the use of nuclear
energy since 1987.[2]
Austria (1978),
Sweden (1980) and
Italy (1987) voted in
referendums to oppose or phase out
nuclear power, while opposition in
Ireland prevented a nuclear
programme there. Countries that
have no nuclear plants and have
restricted new plant constructions
comprise
Australia,
Austria,
Denmark,
Greece,
Ireland and
Norway.[3][4]
Poland stopped the
construction of a plant.[5][6]
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.[7][8]
Switzerland has had a
moratorium on the construction of
nuclear power plants for ten
years, but in a referendum 2003 it
was decided not to renew it.
The parliamentary decision in
2002 in
Finland to build a
fifth nuclear power station
was seen as very significant in
that it was the first such
decision to build a new nuclear
power plant in Western Europe for
more than a decade.[9]
Nuclear power still continued
in many other countries, notably
France which relies heavily on
safe nuclear power generation,
Japan, the former
USSR and recently
China. The
U.S. is planning new plants.
Around 25 GW of capacity is
planned.
Argentina,
Brazil,
Canada,
China,
Finland,
India,
Iran,
North Korea,
Russia,
Pakistan,
Japan,
South Korea,
Taiwan,
Ukraine,
Romania,
Slovak Republic,
Turkey,
Bulgaria,
Egypt,
Indonesia and the U.S. are
currently planning or building new
nuclear reactors or reopening old
ones.[10][11][12]
According to
IAEA, nuclear power is
projected to increase slightly to
17% share of world electricity
production in 2020. This would be
accomplished by instaling 60 new
plants in next 15 years.[13][14]
(see
future energy development)
If countries shut down
nuclear power plants they have
to find alternatives for energy
generation if they don't want to
become dependent on imports.
Therefore, the discussion of a
future for nuclear energy is
intertwined with a discussion of
renewable energy development.
The most discussed alternatives to
nuclear power include
hydroelectricity,
fossil energy,
solar energy, and
biomass. (see also
alternative energy)
Countries that have initiated
a phase out or have discussed it
(See also
Nuclear energy policy)
Belgium
Belgium's nuclear phase-out
legislation was agreed in July
1999 by the
Flemish Liberals and Democrats-led
Government including AGALEV (now
Groen!), the Belgian
Greens party. The phase-out
law calls for each of
Belgium's seven reactors to
close after 40 years of operation
with no new reactors built
subsequently. When the law was
being passed, it was speculated it
would be overturned again as soon
as an administration without the
Greens was in power.[15]
In 2003, a new government was
elected without the Greens. In
September of 2005, the government
decided to partially overturn the
previous decision, extending the
phase-out period for another 20
years, with possible further
extensions. It remains unknown if
additional new nuclear plants will
be built. The reason given for
revoking the decision to shut
Belgium's reactors is that it is
unrealistic to expect to replace
the electricity being generated by
nuclear plants by alternative
means. The only practical
alternatives being massive
production of new oil- or
coal-fueled electricity plants or
purchase the electricity abroad.
The first option is not feasible
due to restrictions imposed by the
Kyoto Agreement, while the
second has higher associated costs
than continued operation of
Belgium's nuclear plants.
In July 2005, the National
Planning Bureau published a new
report, which states that
oil and other
fossil fuels generate 90% of
Belgian
energy use, while nuclear
power accounts for 9% and
renewable energy for 1%. Note
the fact, however, that
electricity only amounts to 16% of
total energy use, and while
nuclear-powered electricity
amounts to 9% of use in Belgium,
in many parts of Belgium,
especially in
Flanders, it makes out more
then 50% of the electricity
provided to households and
businesses. This was one of the
major reasons to revert the
earlier phase-out, since it was
totally impossible to provide more
then 50% of the electricity by
'alternative' energy-production,
and a revert to the classical
coal-driven eletricity would mean
it's totally impossible to adhere
to the
Kyoto Protocol.
It is projected that within 25
years renewable energy will
increase to at most 5% of the
energy use, because of high costs.
The current plan of the
Government arranges for all
nuclear power stations to shut
down by 2025. The report raises
concerns about
greenhouse gases and
sustainability.[16]
In August 2005, French
SUEZ offered to buy the
Belgian Electrabel, which runs
nuclear power stations.[17]
Germany
In 2000, the
German government, consisting
of the
SPD and
Alliance '90/The Greens
officially announced its intention
to phase out the use of nuclear
energy.
Jürgen Trittin (from the
German
Greens) as 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. This was enacted as the
Nuclear Exit Law. Based on the
calculation of 32 years as the
usual time of operation for a
nuclear power plant, the agreement
precisely tells how much energy a
power plant is allowed to produce
before being closed down.
The power plants in
Stade and Obrigheim were
turned off (November
14,
2003) and
May 11,
2005) - their dismantling is
scheduled to start in 2007.[18]
Anti-nuclear activists
criticize the agreement: they
think of it rather as a guarantee
of operation than a nuclear power
phase-out. They argued also the
time limit for phase-out was too
long and criticized the ban on
building new commercially used
nuclear power plants did not apply
to scientifically used plants,
which since had been put into
operation (e.g. München II) and
also not to stations for
enrichment of uranium, hence
the enrichment station in Gronau
has received permission to extend
operations. Further,
nuclear fuel reprocessing was
not immediately forbidden, but
allowed instead until the middle
of 2005.
Although, the
reactors in Obrigheim had been
shut down, the dismantling of the
plant will only begin in 2007.
Therefore, it remains possible for
the
newly elected
Christian Democratic Union-headed
government to restart the
reactors.
An
Renewable Energy Sources Act
provided for a
tax in support of renewable energy.
The German government, declaring
climate protection as a key
policy issue, announced a
carbon dioxide reduction
target by the year 2005 compared
to 1990 by 25%.[19].
In 1998, the use of renewables in
Germany reached 284
PJ of primary energy demand,
which corresponds to 5% of the
total electricity demand. By 2010
the German Government wants to
reach 10%.[20]
Anti-nuclear activists have
argued the German government had
been supportive of nuclear power
by providing financial guarantees
for energy providers. Also it has
been pointed out, there were, as
yet, no plans for the final
storage of
nuclear waste. By tightening
safety regulations increasing
taxation, a faster end to nuclear
power could had been forced. A
gradual closing down of nuclear
power plants had come along with
concessions in questions of safety
for the population with transports
of nuclear waste throughout
Germany.[21]
This latter point has been
disagreed with by the Minister of
Environment, Nature Conservation
and Nuclear Safety.[22]
Critics of a phase-out in
Germany argue that nuclear power
stations could not be compensated
for, and predict an
energy crisis, or argue that
only coal could possibly
compensate for nuclear power and
CO2 emissions will
increase tremendously (with the
use of oil and fossils) and/or in
energy imports either ironically
of nuclear power from France or of
natural gas from Russia, which is
still not perceived as a safe
partner.[23]
Because of increasing prices
for
fossil fuels, arguments for a
phase-out of the phase-out
were again being discussed. In the
federal election in 2002 the
candidate for
chancellor of the CDU/CSU,
Edmund Stoiber, promised, in
the event he wins, to cancel the
phase-out.[24]
His successor and current German
chancellor
Angela Merkel has announced
plans to negotiate with energy
companies the time limit for a
shut down of nuclear power
stations.[25]
The battle over nuclear energy,
that was set to be a key issue in
coalition talks between CDU and
SPD, was settled in favor of a
phase-out.[26][27]
Italy
Nuclear power has been banned
in
Italy since one year after the
Chernobyl accident in
1986. They held a referendum
in 1987 and it was decided to shut
down the country's
four nuclear power plants and,
following a
moratorium on nuclear energy,
plants were closed down, the last
of which in 1990. The moratorium
was in effect until 1993 but has
since been extended indefinitely.[28]
Italian
Interior Minister
Altero Matteoli announced
interest in switching to
nuclear power as the main
source of energy within 10-15
years in October 2005.
The Netherlands
In the
Netherlands, in 1994, the
Dutch parliament voted to
phase out after a discussion of
nuclear waste management. The
power station at
Dodewaard was shut down in
1997. In 1997 the government
decided to end
Borssele's operating license,
at the end of 2003. In 2003 the
shut-down was postponed by a
conservative government to 2013.[29][30]
In 2005 the decision was reversed
and research in expending nuclear
power has been initiated. Reversal
was preceded by the publication of
the
Christian Democratic Alliance's
report on sustainable energy.[31]
Other parties then conceded.
Philippines
In the
Philippines, in 2004,
President
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
outlined her
energy policy. She wants to
increase indigenous
oil and
gas reserves through
exploration, develop
alternative energy resources,
enforce the development of
natural gas as a fuel and coco
diesel as
alternative fuel, and build
partnerships with
Saudi Arabia,
Asian countries,
China and
Russia. She also made public
plans to convert the
Bataan Nuclear Power Plant
into a gas powered facility.[32]
Sweden
After the partial meltdown at
the
Three Mile Island Nuclear
Generating Station (United
States) in 1979, there was a
referendum in
Sweden. After that the Swedish
parliament decided in 1980 that no
further nuclear power plants
should be built, and that a
nuclear power phase-out should be
completed by 2010. Some observers
have condemned the referendum as
flawed because people could only
vote "NO to nuclear" although
three options were basically
harder or softer "NO".
After the 1986
Chernobyl accident in
Ukraine, the question of
security of nuclear energy was
again called into question. In
1997 the
Riksdag, the Swedish
parliament, decided to shut down
one of the
reactors at
Barsebäck by
July 1,
1998 and the second before
July 1,
2001, although under the
condition that their energy
production would be compensated.
The next conservative government
tried to cancel the phase-out,
but, after protests, did not
cancel it but instead decided to
extend the time limit to 2010. At
Barsebäck, block 1 was shut down
on
November 30,
1999 and block 2 on
June 1,
2005.
The nuclear energy phase-out is
controversial in Sweden. It is
feared that Sweden will lose its
international competititiveness.
The energy production of the
remaining nuclear power plants has
been considerably increased in
recent years to compensate for the
turn off of Barsebäck. 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 to nuclear power,
such as
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.
In March 2005, an opinion poll
with 1027 persons asked, showed
83% support for maintaining or
increasing nuclear power.[33]
Another poll in May that polled
residents that lived around
Barsebäck found that 94% wanted it
to stay. In June, 2005,
radioactive water was leaking from
the nuclear waste store in
Forsmark, Sweden. The content of
radioactive caesium in sampled
water was ten times the normal
value.
wikinews:Radioactive leakage at
Swedish nuclear waste store.
This has, however, not led to a
major change in public opinion.[34]
Sweden's largest powerplant
with 4 reactors,
Ringhals, located about 10 km
south of
Göteborg, delivers
approximately 24
TWh a year, the equivalent of
21% of Swedish electricity
consumption.[35]
Switzerland
In
Switzerland there have been
many
referenda on the topic of
nuclear energy, beginning in 1979
with a
citizens' initiative for
nuclear safety, which was
rejected. In 1984, there was a
vote on an initiative "for a
future without further nuclear
power stations" with the result
being a 55 to 45% vote against. On
September 23,
1990 Switzerland had two more
referenda about nuclear power. The
initiative "stop the construction
of nuclear power stations," which
proposed a ten-year
moratorium on the construction
of new nuclear power plants, was
passed with 54.5% to 45.5%. The
initiative for a phase-out was
rejected with by 53% to 47.1%. In
2000 there was a vote on a
Green Tax for support of
solar energy. It was rejected
by 67-31%. On
May 18,
2003, there were two
referenda: "Electricity without
Nuclear," asking for a decision on
a nuclear power phase-out, and
"Moratorium Plus," for an
extension of the earlier decided
moratorium on the construction of
new nuclear power plants. Both
were turned down. The results
were: Moratorium Plus: 41.6% Yes,
58.4% No; Electricity without
Nuclear: 33.7% Yes, 66.3% No.[36]
The program of the "Electricity
without Nuclear" petition was to
shut down all nuclear power
stations until 2033, starting with
Unit 1 and 2 of Beznau nuclear
power stations, Mühleberg in 2005,
Gösgen in 2009, and Leibstadt in
2014. "Moratorium Plus" was for an
extension of the moratorium for
another 10 years, and additionally
a condition to stop the present
reactors after 40 years of
operation. In order to extend the
40 years by 10 more years another
referendum would have to be held
(at high administrative costs).
The rejection of the Moratorium
Plus had come to surprise to many,
as opinion polls before the
referendum have showed acceptance.
Reasons for the rejections in both
cases were seen in the worsened
economical situation.[37]
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% comes from
hydroelectricity.[38]
In 2004 and 2005 the station in
Leibstadt had to be shut down
twice after technical
difficulties.[39][40]
Other countries
(See also
Nuclear energy policy and
List of nuclear reactors)
Europe (including Russia)
In
Spain a
moratorium has been enacted by
the socialist government in 1983[41][42]
and plans for a phase-out are
being discussed anew.[43]
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
called for first one, then
ultimately four plants to be built
at the site, but it 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 to
open an interconnector to the
mainland UK to buy electricity,
which is, in some part, the
product of nuclear power.
On
July 9,
1997, the
Austrian Parliament voted
unanimously to maintain the
country's anti-nuclear policy.[44]
In
France,
as of 2002,
EDF - the country's main
electricity generation and
distribution company - produces
about 78% of its electricity with
58 nuclear power plants.
Critics have been pointing out the
disproportionate means provided
for nuclear energy and fossiles
compared to that for nuclear
energy. Others have complained the
power lines from nuclear
plants to consumers would
disfigure the countryside.
In
Bulgaria, the
Kozloduy NPP operates
six
pressurized water reactors
with a total output of 3760
MW-electricity at the present.
Four are old
VVER-440 V230 reactors, are
considered dangerous, and under a
1993 agreement between the
European Bank for Reconstruction
and Development (EBRD) and the
Bulgarian Government had to be
closed by the end of 1998. Units 5
and 6 are newer VVER-1000
reactors.
In the early 1990s concern was
raised in the
United Kingdom about the
effect of nuclear power plants on
unborn children, when clusters of
leukemia cases were discovered
nearby to some of these plants.
The effect was speculative because
clusters were also found where no
nuclear plants were present, and
not all plants had clusters around
them. The latest studies carried
by
COMARE, Compete on Medical
Aspects of Radiation in the
Environment, in 2003 found no
evidence between nuclear power and
childhood leukemia.[45][46]
An opinion poll in
Britain in 2003 on behalf of
Greenpeace showed large
support for wind energy and a
majority for putting an end to
nuclear energy.[47]
Recently, there has been a heated
discussion about
nuclear waste.BBC
news In reaction, in
April 2005, the
Nuclear Decommissioning Authority
(NDA) was set up under the Energy
Act 2004 to to ensure that
Britain's 20 civil public sector
nuclear sites under are
decommissioned and cleaned up
safely, securely, cost effectively
and in ways that protect the
environment for this and future
generations.[48]
In April 2005, advisers to
British Prime Minister
Tony Blair were suggesting
that constructing new nuclear
power stations would be the best
way to meet the country's targets
on reducing emissions of gases
responsible for
global warming. The government
has a near-term target of cutting
emissions below 1997 levels by
20%, and a more ambitious target
of a 60% cut by 2050. Critics of
nuclear power say that it will not
be able to help meet the 2010
target due to the length of time
needed to plan, construct and
commission such power plants.
However backers say nuclear power
will help meet the 60% cut by 2050
target.
wikinews:British government
considering new nuclear power
stations
Slovenia will close down
