[SOLVED] Civil Defense, Complete 3 Short Government Discussions, political science homework help – Humanities

DISCUSSION 1:
Based on course material, videos and lessons, analyze if the United States
is prepared for a chemical weapons attack? biological weapon attack?
radiological weapon attack? nuclear weapon attack? Why or why not?
Civil Defense: The War At Home, by Norte, Ruben (A&E Television
Networks), 41:56 mins
Copyright Message: Copyright © 2011. Used by permission of A&E
Television.  For the transcript, please click here.
READINGS:
Confronting an Uncertain Threat. Center for Strategic & International
Studies (Sept 2011)
Combating Terrorism: U.S. Government Should Improve Its Reporting on Terrorist
Safe Havens Government Accounting Office (June 2011)
DISCUSION 2:
Based on course readings from this week, assess the threat of a nuclear
attack; analyze the means by which terrorists could acquire nuclear weapons or
nuclear material; and hypothesize if a radiological (“dirty bomb”) or nuclear
attack would be more likely to be facilitated by a terrorist organization. Why
or why not?
REFERENCE ATTACHED BELOWDISCUSSION 3:
Often radiological bombs (referred to as
“dirty bombs”) are better described as “weapon of mass
disruption,” as the radiological exposure effects to any individual not in
the immediate area of the detonation is limited.  In fact, the explosion
itself eclipses the radiological effects for those in the direct vicinity of
the incident.  From your perspective, based on course material, assess
what particular radiological material pose the most significant threat to the
United States; hypothesize the means by which terrorists could acquire
radiological material to use in a nefarious manner; and hypothesize what
effects on the general public would be (i.e. psychological, physiological,
etc.) in the event of a dirty bomb incident?
Video: A Deterrent Weapon, by Gottschau, Jakob, directed by Gottschau, Jakob
(Filmakers Library, 2008), 38:33 mins
Copyright Message: Copyright © 2008. Used by permission of Filmakers Library.
All rights reserved. For the transcript, please click here.Foto: Jörg Kohn
By Mycle Schneider
and Antony Froggatt
with Julie Hazemann
A Mycle Schneider Consulting Project
Paris, London, July 2012
With the support of
Hatzfeldt
Foundation
 
The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2012
By
Mycle Schneider
Independent Consultant, Paris, France
Project Coordinator and Lead Author
and
Antony Froggatt
Independent Consultant, London, U.K.
Author
With
Julie Hazemann
Director of EnerWebWatch, Paris, France
Documentary Research, Modeling and Graphic Design
Paris, London, July 2012
A
Mycle Schneider Consulting
Project
With the support of
Hatzfeldt Foundation
 
 
About the Authors
 
Mycle Schneider is an independent international consultant on energy and nuclear policy based in
Paris. He is a member of the International Panel on Fissile Materials (IPFM), based at Princeton
University, USA. He has provided information and consulting services to the Belgian Energy
Minister, the French and German Environment Ministries, the U.S. Agency for International
Development, the International Atomic Energy Agency, Greenpeace, the International Physicians for
the Prevention of Nuclear War, the Worldwide Fund for Nature, the European Commission, the
European Parliament’s Scientific and Technological Option Assessment Panel and its General
Directorate for Research, the Oxford Research Group, and the French Institute for Radiation
Protection and Nuclear Safety. Mycle has given evidence and held briefings at Parliaments in
thirteen countries. Between 2004 and 2009, he was in charge of the Environment and Energy
Strategies lecture of an International MSc at the French Ecole des Mines in Nantes. He has given
lectures at fourteen universities around the globe. He founded the Energy Information Agency
WISE-Paris in 1983 and directed it until 2003. In 1997, along with Japan’s Jinzaburo Takagi, he
received the Right Livelihood Award, also known as the “Alternative Nobel Prize.”
Antony Froggatt works as independent European energy consultant based in London. Since 1997,
he has worked as a freelance researcher and writer on energy and nuclear policy issues in the EU and
neighboring states. He has worked extensively on EU energy issues for European governments, the
European Commission and Parliament, environmental NGOs, commercial bodies, and media. He has
given evidence to inquiries and hearings in the parliaments of Austria, Germany, and the EU. He is a
part time senior research fellow at the Royal Institute of International Affairs – Chatham House in
London. He is a regular speaker at conferences, universities, and training programs across the region.
Prior to working freelance, Antony served for nine years as a nuclear campaigner and coordinator for
Greenpeace International.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Amory B. Lovins, Chris Paine, Hermann Hatzfeldt, Yves Marignac,
Reiner Metzger, Bernhard Piller, Philippe Rekacewicz, Philippe Rivière, Luis Speciale, Le Monde
Diplomatique, Paris, Die Tageszeitung, Berlin, Swiss Renewable Energy Foundation and the
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Washington, D.C. for their support for this project.
A big thank you to John Corbett for his extensive research assistance on finances and to Jörg Kohn
for designing the original cover page.
The report has greatly benefitted from proof-reading, editing suggestions and comments by Shaun
Burnie, Amory B. Lovins, Lutz Mez, Walt Patterson, MV Ramana, Sabine von Stockar and Steve
Thomas.
Special thanks to Julie Hazemann, for—besides everything else—repeatedly making extra time
available while there was none left to begin with.
Note
This report contains a very large amount of factual and numerical data. While we do our utmost to
verify and double-check, nobody is perfect. The authors are always grateful for corrections and
suggestions of improvement.
Authors’ Contacts
Mycle Schneider
45, allée des deux cèdres
91210 Paris
France
Phone: +33-1-69 83 23 79
Email: mycle@orange.fr
Mycle Schneider, Antony Froggatt
Antony Froggatt
53a Nevill Road
London N16 8SW
United Kingdom
Ph: +44-20-79 23 04 12
E: a.froggatt@btinternet.com  
World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2012
 
2
 
Table of Contents
Executive Summary & Conclusions……………………………………………………………………………………… 4
Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 9
General Overview Worldwide ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 10
Overview of Operation, Power Generation, Age Distribution ……………………………………………. 11
Overview of Current New Build ……………………………………………………………………………………. 14
Potential Newcomer Countries …………………………………………………………………………………………… 21
Projects and programs officially abandoned in 2011 ……………………………………………………………. 28
Unfulfilled Promises ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 29
Unrealistic Projections……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 29
Construction Times of Past and Currently Operating Reactors ……………………………………………… 30
Construction Times and Costs of Reactors Currently Under Construction ……………………………… 32
Watts Bar-2 – 43 Years Construction ……………………………………………………………………………… 32
EPR – European Problem Reactor …………………………………………………………………………………. 32
Financial Markets and Nuclear Power ……………………………………………………………………………….. 35
Financial Institutions’ Views of Nuclear Power ………………………………………………………………….. 35
Credit Rating Agencies and Nuclear Power ………………………………………………………………………… 36
Market Value ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 38
Book Value …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 39
Nuclear Power vs. Renewable Energy Deployment …………………………………………………………….. 41
Investment ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 41
Installed Capacity ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 42
Electricity Generation ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 45
The Renewables and Nuclear Cost Cross-Over …………………………………………………………………… 48
Grid Parity ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 48
Nuclear vs. Renewable Costs ………………………………………………………………………………………… 49
Annexes …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 51
Annex 1. Overview by Region and Country …………………………………………………………………………… 52
Africa …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 52
The Americas………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 53
United States Focus ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 56
Asia ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 59
China Focus ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 59
Japan Focus ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 63
European Union (EU27) and Switzerland …………………………………………………………………………… 68
Western Europe …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 70
France Focus ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 72
Germany Focus ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 74
U.K. Focus ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 78
Central and Eastern Europe …………………………………………………………………………………………… 81
Former Soviet Union ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 86
Annex 2: Reactor Construction Times 1992-2012 …………………………………………………………………… 90
Annex 3: Construction and Operating License (COL) Applications in the U.S. ………………………….. 91
Annex 4: Construction Times in the U.S. and France ………………………………………………………………. 92
Annex 5: Definition of Credit Rating by the Main Agencies …………………………………………………….. 93
Annex 6: Abbreviations ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 94
Annex 7. Status of Nuclear Power in the World (1 July 2012) ………………………………………………….. 96
Annex 8. Nuclear Reactors in the World Listed as “Under Construction” (1 July 2012) ………………. 97
 
 
Mycle Schneider, Antony Froggatt
 
World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2012
3
 
Executive Summary & Conclusions
Twenty years after its first edition, World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2012 portrays an industry
suffering from the cumulative impacts of the world economic crisis, the Fukushima disaster,
ferocious competitors and its own planning and management difficulties.
The report provides a global overview of the history, the current status and trends of nuclear power
programs in the world. It looks at units in operation and under construction. Annex 1 also provides
detailed country-by-country information. A specific chapter assesses the situation in potential
newcomer countries. For the first time, the report looks at the credit-rating performance of some of
the major nuclear companies and utilities. A more detailed chapter on the development patterns of
renewable energies versus nuclear power is also included.
The performance of the nuclear industry over the 18 months since the beginning of 2011 can be
summed up as follows:
Reactor Status and Nuclear Programs
• Startups and Shutdowns. Only seven reactors started up, while 19 were shut down in 20111
and to 1 July 2012, only two were started up, just compensating for two that were shut down
so far this year. As of end of June 2012 no reactor was operating in Japan and while two
units at Ohi have got restart permission, it remains highly uncertain, how many others will
receive permission to restart operations.
• Nuclear Phase Out Decisions. Four countries announced that they will phase out nuclear
power within a given timeframe: Belgium, Germany, Switzerland and Taiwan.
• Newcomer Program Cancellations. At least five countries have decided not to engage or reengage in nuclear programs, although they had previously planned to do so: Egypt, Italy,
Jordan, Kuwait, and Thailand.
• New Nuclear Countries. Iran became the first country to start commercial operation of a new
nuclear power program since Romania in 1996.
Construction & New Build Issues
• Construction Cancellation. In both Bulgaria and Japan two reactors under construction were
abandoned.
• Construction Starts. In 2011, construction began on four reactors and two so far in 2012.
• New Build Project Cancellation. In Brazil, France, India and the United States new build
projects were officially cancelled. In the Netherlands, the U.K. and the U.S. key utilities
withdrew leaving projects in jeopardy.
• Certification Delays. The certification of new reactor technologies has been delayed numerous
times. The latest announcement concerns the certification in the U.S. of the Franco-German
designed EPR2 that was pushed back by 18 months to the end of 2014.
• Construction Start Delays. In various countries firmly planned construction starts were
delayed, most notably in China, where not a single new building site was opened, but also in
Armenia, Finland and the U.S.
                                                                                                                         
1
We define shut down as definitively taken off the grid. This includes the 10 Fukushima reactors, of which
four are destroyed; units 5 and 6 at Daiichi and the four reactors at Daiini remain in cold shutdown and are
almost certain never to operate again. However, their definitive closure has not yet been officially confirmed.
2
European Pressurized Water Reactor (in Europe) or Evolutionary Pressurized Water Reactor (in the U.S. and
elsewhere).
Mycle Schneider, Antony Froggatt
World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2012
4
 
• Construction License Delays. In the U.S. licensing applications for 28 reactors were received
for the first time in over three decades in a two-year period between July 2007 and June
2009, but nothing since. Of the 28 applications, 16 were subsequently delayed and eight
were suspended indefinitely or officially cancelled. However, for the first time in over 30
years two construction licenses were issued.
• Construction Delays. Of the 59 units under construction in the world, at least 18 are
experiencing multi-year delays, while the remaining 41 projects were started within the past
five years or have not yet reached projected start-up dates, making it difficult to assess
whether they are running on schedule. On construction delays the U.S. Watts-Bar-2 project
holds the record. Construction started in 1973 and grid connection was finally planned for
2012, but was delayed again until “late 2015 or 2016”.
• Newcomer Countries. The analysis of a number of potential newcomer countries3 shows that
few, if any, new members of the nuclear operators club to be expected over the next few
years. No financing agreements are in place for any of the cases studied, many of them have
to deal with significant public opposition, especially after the Fukushima accident and often
they lack a skilled workforce and appropriate legal framework. Some countries have to deal
with particularly adverse natural conditions (earthquake and flooding risks, lack of cooling
water access, etc.). Finally, nuclear power’s principle competitors, mainly renewables and
natural gas on the production side, increasingly are more affordable and much faster to
install.
Economics & Finances
• Cost Increases. Construction costs are a key determinant of the final nuclear electricity
generating costs and many projects are significantly over budget: The U.S. Watts-Bar-2
reactivation project alone increased by 60 percent over the past five years; the EPR cost
estimate has increased by a factor of four (adjusted for inflation) over the past ten years.
• Credit Rating. Of eleven assessed nuclear companies and utilities, seven were downgraded by
credit rating agency Standard and Poor’s over the past five years; four companies remained
stable, while none were upgraded over the same period. Rating agencies consider nuclear
investment risky and “a nuclear project could be the thing that pushes [the utility] over the
edge—it’s just another negative factor”, explains Moody’s. On the contrary, the rating
agency welcomed the decision by German utilities RWE and E.ON to pull the plug on their
U.K. new build plans as they “can instead focus on investment in less risky projects”.
Similarly, electronics giant Siemens announcement to entirely withdraw from nuclear power
“frees up funds that Siemens can redeploy in businesses with better visibility”. Both
decisions are consequently considered “credit positive”.
• Share Value. The assessment of a dozen nuclear companies reveals that all performed worse
than the UK FTSE100 index, the only exception being Scottish SSE, which has recently
pulled out of plans to build nuclear plants in the UK. TEPCO, owner of the devastated
Fukushima site, lost 96% of its share value since 2007. Over the same time period, more
surprisingly, the shares of the world’s largest nuclear operator, French state utility EDF, lost
82 percent of their value, while the share price of the world’s largest nuclear builder, French
state company AREVA, fell by 88 percent.
 
                                                                                                                         
3
Bangladesh, Belarus, Indonesia, Jordan, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and
Vietnam. As indicated, programs were officially abandoned in Egypt, Italy and Kuwait.
Mycle Schneider, Antony Froggatt
World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2012
5
 
Nuclear Power vs. Renewable Energy Deployment
In contrast to many negative indicators for nuclear power renewable energy development has
continued with rapid growth figure. This has taken place during the ongoing international economic
crisis, significant cuts in guaranteed feed-in tariffs and worldwide manufacturing overcapacities.
• Investment. Global investment in renewable energy totaled US$260 billion in 2011, up five
percent from the previous year and almost five times the 2004 amount. Considering a 50 percent
unit price drop over the past year, the performance of solar photovoltaics (PV) with
US$137 billion worth of new installations, an increase of 36 percent, is all the more impressive.
The total cumulative investment in renewables has risen to over US$1 trillion since 2004,
according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, this compares to our estimate of nuclear power
investment decisions of approximately $120 billion over the same time period. The rise and fall
of nuclear investments is essentially due to the evolution of the Chinese program, with
40 percent of current worldwide construction.
• Installed Capacity. Installed worldwide nuclear capacity decreased in the years 1998, 2006, 2009
and again in 2011, while the annual installed wind power capacity increased by 41 GW4 in 2011
alone. China constitutes an accelerated version of this global pattern. Installed wind power
capacity grew by a factor of 50 in the past five years to reach close to 63 GW, five times more
than the installed nuclear capacity and equivalent to the French nuclear fleet.5 Solar capacity was
multiplied by a factor of 47 in those five years to reach 3.8 GW, while nuclear capacity increased
by a factor of 1.5 to 12 GW. Since 2000, within the European Union nuclear capacity decreased
by 14 GW, while 142 GW of renewable capacity was installed, 18 percent more than natural gas
with 116 GW.6
• Electricity Generation. The quantity of electricity produced by nuclear power plants globally has
been increased only slightly over the past decade and as a result its contribution to the global
energy mix is decreasing as other sources accelerate production. In 2011 wind turbines produced
330 TWh more electricity than it did at the turn of the century, which is a four times greater
increase than was achieved by the nuclear sector over the same period. The growth in solar PV
generated power has been impressive in the last decade and especially in the past few years, with
a tenfold increase in the past five years. In Germany, for the first time, power production from
renewables at 122 TWh (gross), only second to the contribution of lignite 153 TWh, exceeded
coal’s 114.5 TWh, nuclear power’s 102 TWh and natural gas’ 84 TWh. The German renewable
electricity generation thus corresponded to 29 percent of French nuclear production. One should
recall that France generates almost half of the European Union’s nuclear electricity. In China,
just five years ago, nuclear plants were producing ten times as much electricity as wind, by 2011
the difference had shrunk to less than 30 percent.
• Grid Parity. Grid parity occurs when the unit costs of renewable energy is equal to the price that
end users pay for their electricity. Grid parity for solar photovoltaic power has already happened
in a number of markets and regions with particular conditions. Several assessments expect that
this will become a worldwide phenomenon within less than a decade. This will radically change
the incentives for further large scale expansion of solar facilities around the world.
Lifetime Extensions and Stress Tests
As a result of insufficient new capacities coming online, the average age of the world’s operating
nuclear fleet continues to increase and now stands at 27 years. Assuming a 40-year lifetime,
67 additional units or 35 GW would have to be ordered, built and commissioned by 2020, beyond the
units already under construction, just to maintain the status quo. This is an unlikely scenario,
                                                                                                                         
4
GW stands for gigawatt or thousand megawatt.
Note that nuclear plants usually generate between two and five times more electricity per installed GWe than
wind turbines.
6
Note that the electricity generation per installed GWe varies considerably between energy sources.
5
Mycle Schneider, Antony Froggatt
World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2012
6
 
although not entirely impossible, if China were to restart building large numbers of reactors.
Furthermore, as our lifetime extension projections illustrate, the systematic prolonged operation of
reactors up to licensed limits (up to 60 years) would not fundamentally change the problem of the
industry.7 An additional 19 reactors would have to begin operation in order to break even by 2020,
but the installed capacity would be slightly positive (+4 GW). This scenario is possible, but will
require a number of specific conditions including that the generalized lifetime extension is
technically feasible, economically attractive and publicly and politically acceptable.
Plant life extension seems the most likely survival strategy of the nuclear industry at this point. The
French case illustrates this. As the French Court of Audits has calculated, eleven EPRs would have
to be built in France by the end of 2022 in order to maintain the current nuclear share. “This seems
highly unlikely, if not impossible, including for industrial reasons”, the Court comments and
concludes: “This implies one of two things: a) either it is assumed that plants will operate for more
than 40 years (…); b) or the energy mix will move towards other energy sources. However, no clear
public decision has been made concerning these major strategic issues, even though they call for
short-term action and major investments.” An appropriate description for the situation in many
nuclear countries.
Serious questions need to be raised about the extent to which the lessons of Fukushima are being
even considered by today’s nuclear operators. There are around 400 nuclear power reactors in
operation and in the absence of a major new build the nuclear industry is pushing to keep those units
operating as long as possible. The fact that one third of the nuclear countries generated their historic
maximum of nuclear electricity in 20118 raises the troubling question of the depth of the nuclear
safety assessments or so-called “stress tests” carried out around the world after 3/11. This study did
not assess safety issues, but if plant life extension becomes the only future for the industry, the
pressure on safety authorities will grow substantially.
Conclusion
Prior to the March 2011 (3/11) Fukushima disaster, the nuclear industry had made it clear that it
could not afford another major accident. Over the past ten years the industry has sold a survival
strategy to the world as the nuclear revival or its renaissance. In reality many nuclear companies and
utilities were already in great difficulties before the triple disaster hit the Japanese east coast in 2011.
Fifteen months after 3/11, it is likely that the decline of the industry will only accelerate. Fukushima
continues to have a significant impact on nuclear developments everywhere. Fifteen years ago,
nuclear power provided over one third of the electricity in Japan, but as of May 2012 the last
operating reactor was closed. The Japanese government is facing massive opposition to nuclear
power in the country, thus making the restart of any reactors difficult. The controversy over the
restart permission for the Ohi reactors in the Kansai region illustrates the dilemma. Germany shut
down half of its nuclear fleet after 3/11. Japan and Germany could be leading a new trend. The
German direction is clear with the possibility of Japan following: an electricity system based on
highly efficient use and renewable energy technologies, even if many questions remain, including the
timescale, local versus centralized, grid transformation and smart system development. It appears
increasingly obvious that nuclear systems are not competitive in this world, whether from systemic,
economic, environmental or social points of view.
The nuclear establishment has a long history of failing to deliver. In 1973-1974, the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) forecasted an installed nuclear capacity of 3,600-5,000 GW in the
world by 2000, ten times what it is today. The latest example was from Hans Blix, former Director
General of the IAEA, who stated two months after 3/11: “Fukushima is a bump in the road…”. The
statement is both crass and far from today’s reality.
                                                                                                                         
7
8
It raises a whole range of safety related issues that we have not analyzed in this report.
Brazil, China, Czech Republic, Hungary, India, Iran, South Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Taiwan
Mycle Schneider, Antony Froggatt
World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2012
7
 
Operation and Construction Data as of 1 July 20129
Operation. There are 31 countries operating nuclear power plants in the world10, one more than a year ago,
with Iran finally starting up the Bushehr reactor that had been under construction since 1975. A total of
429 reactors combine an installed capacity of 364 GWe11. These figures assume the final shutdown of the ten
Fukushima reactors. It should be noted that as of 5 July 2012 only one (Ohi-3) of the 44 remaining Japanese
reactors is operating and their future is highly uncertain. This compares to the historical maximum of
444 reactors in 2002. Installed capacity peaked in 2010 at 375 GWe before declining to the level of a decade
ago. Nuclear electricity generation reached a maximum in 2006 with 2,660 TWh and dropped to 2,518 TWh in
2011 (down 4.3 percent compared to 2010), while the nuclear share in the world’s power generation declined
steadily from a historic peak of 17 percent in 1993 to about 11 percent in 2011.
Construction. There are 13 countries currently building nuclear power plants, two fewer than a year ago with
Iran starting up its plant and Bulgaria abandoning construction at the two Belene units where work had started
in 1987. Japan halted construction at two sites (Ohma and Shimane-3) and Pakistan started construction on two
units (Chasnupp-3 and -4). There are currently 59 reactors under construction with a total capacity of 56 GW.
However:
•
Nine reactors have been listed as “under construction” for more than 20 years.
•
Four additional reactors have been listed for 10 years or more.
•
Forty-three projects do not have an official (IAEA) planned start-up date.
•
At least 18 of the 59 units listed by the IAEA as “under construction” have encountered construction
delays, most of them multi-annual. Of the remaining 41 reactor units construction began either within the
past five years or they have not reached projected start-up dates yet. This makes it difficult or impossible
to assess whether they are on schedule or not.
Nearly three-quarters (43) of the units under construction are located in three countries: China, India and
Russia.
                                                                                                                         
9
See table in Annex 7 for a country-by-country overview of reactors in operation and under construction as
well as the nuclear share in electricity generation and primary energy.
10
Unless otherwise noted, the figures indicated are as of 1 July 2012.
11
All figures are given for nominal net electricity generating capacity. GW stands for gigawatt or thousand
megawatt.
Mycle Schneider, Antony Froggatt
World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2012
8
 
Introduction
The Chernobyl disaster “caused such a negative opinion of nuclear
energy that, should such an accident occur again, the existence
and future of nuclear energy all over the world would be
compromised.”
World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO), 1996
The triple disaster earthquake-tsunami-nuclear accident that hit Japan on 11 March 2011 had a
profound impact on environmental, economic and energy policy not just in Japan but far beyond.
The Japanese people were and are deeply traumatized by the aftermath of the tragedy now widely
known as 3/11. Trust in political leaders was shaken, confidence in apparently superior technology
destroyed. In China the government froze all new nuclear projects and the public became aware of
the nuclear power issue through the disastrous events in its neighbouring country. In South Korea
public support for nuclear power plummeted. Governments in many countries are reviewing their
nuclear plans. Belgium and Germany confirmed nuclear phase-out legislation by 2025 and 2022
respectively. The Netherlands and Switzerland have abandoned new reactor build projects.
The expression of opposition to nuclear programs is changing. In Japan, on 28 April 2012,
64 mayors and 6 former mayors from 35 prefectures have started a network with the aim of creating
communities that do not rely on nuclear energy, with the ultimate aim of achieving a nuclear-free
Japan. Members include the heads of the cities of Sapporo, Nagoya, the 3/11-striken town of
Minamisoma and Tokyo’s Setagaya Ward as well as Tokai-mura’s mayor. Tokai-mura hosts the
nuclear power plant closest to Tokyo, which has not operated since 3/11.
On 5 May 2012, the last operating reactor went offline in Japan. The local authorities play a key role
in preventing the restart of nuclear plants in Japan as an unwritten law requires their approval prior to
operating. Local authorities have increasingly raised their voices in other countries. In South Korea
the mayor of Seoul has vowed to reduce energy consumption of the city in order to save the
equivalent of the output of a nuclear reactor. Even in China, a local authority has voiced opposition
to the construction of the Pengze nuclear plant in a neighboring district. In France, several dozen
municipalities, including the city of Strasbourg, have voted a motion requesting the closure of the
Fessenheim nuclear plant.
In 1992, in order to assess the impact of the Chernobyl disaster on the global nuclear industry and the
resultant trends, Greenpeace International, WISE-Paris and the Washington based Worldwatch
Institute jointly published the first World Nuclear Industry Status Report. “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”, we wrote. “It now appears that in the year 2000 the world will have
at most 360,000 megawatts of nuclear capacity – only ten percent above the current figure.” The
actual figure for 2000 was an installed capacity of 356,600 MW. “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”, we concluded twenty years ago. In 2012, reality has confirmed
that assessment and nuclear power’s competitors have most definitely taken over as this latest report
demonstrates.
 
Mycle Schneider, Antony Froggatt
World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2012
9
 
General Overview Worldwide
Even before the Fukushima disaster,
the long-awaited nuclear renaissance in the West
seemed to be running out of steam.
Energy Economist
February 2012
As of the middle of 2012, a total of 31 countries were operating nuclear fission reactors for energy
purposes—one more than in 2010–11, with Iran finally starting up its Bushehr reactor, construction
of which began in 1975. Nuclear power plants generated 2,518 Terawatt-hours (TWh or billion
kilowatt-hours) of electricity in 201112, the same as in 2001 and a 112 TWh or 4.3 percent decrease
compared to 2010, which is 5.3 percent less than the historic maximum in 2006. The maximum share
of nuclear power in commercial electricity generation worldwide was reached in 1993 with
17 percent (see figure 1). It has dropped to 11 percent in 2011, a level last seen in the early 1980s.
This decline in 2011 corresponds to more than the annual nuclear generation in all but five of the
nuclear countries. The decline is exclusively caused by the substantial drop in Japan (124 TWh or
44 percent), Germany (31 TWh or 23 percent) and the United States (17 TWh or 2 percent), since in
all but five countries nuclear generation actually increased or remained stable in 2011. Ten
countries13 even generated their historic maximum in 2011. Considering the decision in many
countries to carry out “stress tests” or other nuclear safety audits at their facilities following the 3/11
events, this is a rather surprising result. It indicates that inspection and analysis did not have any
operational impact in most cases, which might suggest the assessments were brief and limited in
scope.14
The “big six” countries—France, Germany, Japan, Russia, South Korea, and the United States—
generated over 70 percent of all nuclear electricity in the world. Two thirds of the 31 countries
operating reactors are nevertheless past their nuclear generation peak. The three countries that have
phased-out nuclear power (Italy, Kazakhstan, Lithuania), and Armenia, generated their historical
maximum of nuclear electricity in the 1980s. Several other countries’ nuclear power generation
peaked in the 1990s, among them Belgium, Canada, Japan, and the UK. And six additional countries
peaked generation between 2001 and 2005: Bulgaria, France, Germany, South Africa, Spain, and
Sweden. Among the countries with a steady increase in nuclear generation are China, the Czech
Republic and Russia. However, even where countries are increasing their nuclear electricity
production this is often not keeping pace with overall increases in electricity demand leading to a
reduced role for nuclear power.
In fact, all nuclear countries—with the exception of Iran that started up its first nuclear plant only in
2011—reached the maximum share of nuclear power prior to 2010. While five countries peaked in
2008 (China) or 2009 (Armenia, Czech Republic, Romania, Russia), the other 25 countries saw their
largest nuclear share up to 2005. In total, nuclear power in nine countries played its largest role
during the 1980s15, in twelve countries in the 1990s and in thirteen countries in the 2000s.
Increases in nuclear generation are mostly as a result of higher productivity and uprating16 at existing
plants rather than to new reactors. According to the latest assessment by Nuclear Engineering
International 17 , the global annual load factor 18 of nuclear power plants decreased from 77 to
                                                                                                                         
12
If not otherwise noted, all nuclear capacity and electricity generation figures based on International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA), Power Reactor Information System (PRIS) online database,
www.iaea.org/programmes/a2/index.html.
13
Brazil, China, Czech Republic, Hungary, India, Iran, South Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Taiwan
14
The so-called “stress tests” have been subject to multiple criticisms, however, they are not the subject of
analysis in this report.
15
Belgium, Finland, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Taiwan.
16
Increasing the capacity of nuclear reactors by engineering changes like more powerful steam generators or
turbines.
17
Nuclear Engineering International, “Load Factors to end December 2011”, May 2012.
Mycle Schneider, Antony Froggatt
World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2012
10
 
76 percent in 2011. Not surprisingly the biggest change was seen in Japan, where the load factor
plunged from an already modest 69.5 percent to 39.5 percent. This is also due to the fact that
officially 50 of the 54 pre-3/11 units in Japan are still counted as operational—even though some
reactors have not generated electricity for years.19 In Germany eight units have been officially closed
very quickly and thus do not appear in the year-end load factor of 85 percent anymore.
Figure 1: Nuclear Electricity Generation in the World
NUCLEAR ENERGY • World
20%
15%
© Mycle Schneider Consulting
%
Nuclear Electricity Production in the World 1990-2011
TWh
(in TWh and share of electricity production)
4000
3500
max.&17%!
max.&2,660&TWh!
2,518&TWh!
3000
2500
11%#
10%
2000
1500
1000
5%
enlever
2011
2010
2005
2000
1995
0%
1990
500
0
Source : IAEA-PRIS, BP, MSC, 2012  
Taiwan and Romania had the highest load factors in 2011 with 95.5 and 95.4 percent respectively.
Russia is generally on an upward trend (now 80 percent) with load factors of the 15 operating
Chernobyl-type RBMK (light water cooled, graphite moderated) reactors rising from 60 percent to
81 percent between 2010 and 2011. South Korea is fluctuating at a very high level (90 percent). The
U.S. is continuing an excellent average load factor of 86 percent, especially considering its large
operating fleet. France at a load factor of 76 percent has increased productivity but remains on the
lower end of the performance indicator.
Overview of Operation, Power Generation, Age Distribution
There have been two major waves of grid connections since the beginning of the commercial nuclear
age in the mid-1950s. (See Figure 2.) A first wave peaked in 1974, with 26 reactor startups. The
second wave occurred in 1984 and 1985, the years preceding the Chernobyl accident, reaching
33 grid connections in each year. By the end of the 1980s, the uninterrupted net increase of operating
units had ceased, and in 1990 for the first time the number of reactor shutdowns outweighed the
number of startups. The 1992-2001 decade showed almost twice as many startups than shutdowns
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
18
Nuclear Engineering International load factor definition: “Annual load factors are calculated by dividing the
gross generation of a reactor in a one-year period by the gross capacity of the reactor (sometimes called
output), as originally designed, multiplied by the number of hours in the calendar year. The figures are
expressed as percentages. Where a plant is uprated, the revised capacity is used from the date of the uprating.”
19
Three units of the Kashiwazaki Kariwa plant, for example, have been off-line since the earthquake in 2007.
Mycle Schneider, Antony Froggatt
World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2012
11
 
(50/26), while in the past decade 2002-2011 the trend reversed (36/49), notably with 19 units20
closing and only seven starting up in 2011.21
Figure 2. Nuclear Power Reactor Grid Connections and Shutdowns, 1956–2012
 
Source: IAEA-PRIS, MSC, 2012
As of 1 July 2012, under the Baseline Scenario (see hereunder), a total of 429 nuclear reactors were
considered operating in 31 countries, down 15 from the maximum of 444 in 2002. The current world
reactor fleet has a total nominal capacity of about 362.5 gigawatts (GW or thousand megawatts).
However, there are large uncertainties to these figures, mainly stemming from the undefined future
of the 50 Japanese nuclear reactors that are officially still operating but are all shut down as of
1 July 2012. We have therefore considered three scenarios:
• The Baseline Scenario. Only the 10 Fukushima reactors are permanently closed.
• The East Coast Scenario. In addition to the Fukushima units, the seven reactors impacted either
directly or indirectly by 3/11 events remain closed. These include three Onagawa reactors that were
closest to the 3/11 epicenter, the three remaining Hamaoka units, shut down at the request of former
Prime Minister Naoto Kan because of high earthquake risk estimates and the Tokai reactor, the
nuclear plant closest to the Tokyo Metropolitan area (ca. 100 km). The total number of operating
units in the world would drop to 421 and the installed capacity to 356 GWe.
• The German Scenario. In addition to the units considered closed under the Baseline and East
Coast Scenarios the 12 reactors with an operational age in excess of 30 years will remain shut down.
The German government decided in the wake of 3/11 to shut down for good the eight reactors that
had operated for over three decades. That would leave Japan with 25 operating reactors, the
worldwide figure would drop to 409, last seen in 1987, and the installed capacity to 348 GWe, not
experienced since the middle of the 1990s.
                                                                                                                         
20
Ten in Japan, eight in Germany, one in the UK. In Japan, these are the 10 Fukushima reactors, of which four
are destroyed; units 5 and 6 at Daiichi and the four reactors at Daiini remain in cold shutdown and are almost
certain never to operate again. However, their definitive closure has not yet been officially confirmed.
21
Three in China (including an experimental breeder reactor of 20 MW in China, which is counted by the
IAEA, but strangely had never been in its statistics of units “under construction”), plus one each in India, Iran,
Pakistan and Russia.
Mycle Schneider, Antony Froggatt
World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2012
12
 
Considering the opposition in Japan, especially by local authorities under the influence of an
increasingly vocal public opinion, against the restart of any nuclear power plant (see Japan Focus for
details), it is possible that there will be the short-term closure of the majority of the nuclear program
in the country. This would not be a “phase-out” scenario but rather the simple “abandoning” of
nuclear power. Every authorization of restart will be subject to intense battles between promoters and
opposition of the nuclear option. Under these circumstances, the scenarios above could prove quite
conservative.
The total world installed nuclear capacity has decreased only six times since the beginning of the
commercial application of nuclear fission, all in the past 15 years—in 1997, 2003, 2007, 2008, 2009
and 2011. Despite 15 fewer units operating in early 2012 compared to 2002, the generating capacity
is still about identical. This is a result of the combined effects of larger units replacing smaller ones
and, mainly, technical alterations at existing plants, a process known as uprating. In the United
States, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has approved 140 uprates since 1977. These
included, in 2011, five uprates between 1.6 percent (Surry 1 and 2) and 17 percent (Point Beach 1
and 2)22. The cumulative approved uprates in the United States total 6.2 GW.23 Most of these have
already been implemented, and applications for an additional 1.5 GW in increases at 20 units are
pending.24 A similar trend of uprates and lifetime extensions of existing reactors can be seen in
Europe. The main incentive for lifetime extensions is their considerable economic advantage over
new-build, but upgrading and extending the operating lives of older reactors will result in lower
safety margins than replacement with more modern designs.
Figure 3. World Nuclear Reactor Fleet, 1954–2012
Nuclear Reactors & Net Operating Capacity in the World
GWe
250
350
300
© Mycle Schneider Consulting
250
200
150
100
2012
2010
2002
2000
1989
1990
1980
1970
50
1960
0
400
Operable capacity
1954
50
450
Reactors in operation
of which:
Tokai (1) – Hamaoka (3) – Onagawa (3)
Japanese reactors >30 years (12)
300
100
429 reactors
444 reactors
322 GWe
424 reactors
350
150
Number of
Reactors
500
364 GWe
in GWe, from 1954 to 1 July 2012
400
200
NUCLEAR ENERGY • World
0
Sources: IAEA-PRIS, MSC, 2012
                                                                                                                         
22
The fifth uprate (15 percent) was authorized at Nine Mile Point 2.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), “Approved Applications for Power Uprates”, updated 29 March
2012, at www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/power-uprates/status-power-apps/approved-applications,
accessed on 2 May 2012.
24
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), “Pending Applications for Power Uprates”, updated 30 April 2012,
at www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/power-uprates/status-power-apps/pending-applications.html,
accessed on 2 May 2012.
23
Mycle Schneider, Antony Froggatt
World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2012
13
 
Including uprates in many countries, as well as new-build capacity, net of closures, the capacity of
the global nuclear fleet increased by about 30 GWe between 1992 and 2002 to reach 362 GWe; it
peaked in 2010 at 375 GWe before falling back to the level achieved a decade ago.
The use of nuclear energy has been limited to a small number of countries, with only 31 countries, or
16 percent of the 193 members of the United Nations, operating nuclear power plants in early 2012
(see Figure 4). One new country, Iran, started operating its first nuclear power reactor in 2011. Iran is
the first in 15 years to join the list of countries generating electricity from fission since Romania
joined the nuclear club in 1996. Half of the world’s nuclear countries are located in the European
Union (EU), and they account for nearly half of the world’s nuclear production. France alone
generates about half (49 percent) of the EU’s nuclear production.
Figure 4. Nuclear Power Generation by Country, 2011
 
Source: IAEA-PRIS, MSC, 2012
Overview of Current New Build
Currently, 13 countries are building nuclear power plants, which is two less than a year ago:
• Iran finally started operating its only reactor that had been under construction at Bushehr since
1975. No further active building is currently ongoing.
• Bulgaria abandoned the construction of the only two units at Belene, which it had been
building since 1987.
• Japan halted work at two units following the 3/11 events, Ohma and Shimane-3, which had
been under construction since 2007 and 2010 respectively. No further project is underway or
planned at this stage.
• Pakistan started construction at Chasnupp-3 in late May 2011, two months after the connection
of Chasnupp-2 to the grid in March only three days after 3/11.
In addition we have removed the Russian Kursk-5 unit from the list, following reports that the
builder, Rosatom, confirmed abandoning the project. It was intended to be an upgraded version of
Mycle Schneider, Antony Froggatt
World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2012
14
 
the Chernobyl RBMK design.25 As of 1 May 2012, we consider 59 reactors under construction. The
current number compares with a peak of 234 units in building progress—totaling more than
200 GW—in 1979. However, many of those projects (48) were never finished (see Figure 5.) The
year 2004, with 26 units under construction, marked a record low for construction since the
beginning of the nuclear age in the 1950s.
Over the past year, the most spectacular construction freeze took place in China. No new concrete
base has been poured in the country after 3/11. The World Nuclear Association assumes that at least
five authorized construction starts did not happen, with at least another ten that were in the pipeline
for that year.26
Figure 5. Number of Nuclear Reactors under Construction
Number of Nuclear Reactors Listed as “Under Construction”
225
200
Number of Reactors
175
150
125
by year, 1954 – 1 July 2012
© Mycle Schneider Consulting
250
234
48
Cancelled or Suspended Projects!
Completed and Ongoing Projects!
100
186
62
75
3
50
59
25
0
1954
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010 12
Source: IAEA-PRIS, MSC 2012
The total capacity of units now under construction in the world is about 56 GWe, down by about
6 GWe compared to a year ago, with an average unit size of around 955 MW. (See Table 1 and
Annex 4 for details.) A closer look at currently listed projects illustrates the level of uncertainty
associated with reactor building, especially given that most constructors assume a five year
construction period:
•
Nine reactors have been listed as “under construction” for more than 20 years. The U.S. Watts
Bar-2 project in Tennessee holds the record, as construction started in December 1972, but was
subsequently frozen. It has now failed to meet the latest startup date in 2012 and is now
scheduled to be connected to the grid in 2015. Other long-term construction projects include
three Russian units, two Mochovce units in Slovakia, and two Khmelnitski units in Ukraine. The
construction of the Argentinian Atucha-2 reactor started 31 years ago.
•
Four reactors have been listed under-construction for 10 years or more. These are two Taiwanese
units at Lungmen for about 13 years and two Indian units at Kudankulam for around 10 years.
•
Forty-three projects do not have an IAEA planned start-up date, including nine of the 10 Russian
projects and all of the 26 Chinese units under construction.
                                                                                                                         
25
The WNA states on its website: “In February 2012 Rosatom confirmed that the project was terminated.” see
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf45.html, accessed 4 May 2012.
26
www.world-nuclear.com/info/inf63.html, accessed 3 May 2012.
Mycle Schneider, Antony Froggatt
World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2012
15
 
•
At least 18 of the units listed by the IAEA as “under construction” have encountered
construction delays, most of them significant. All of the 41 remaining units were started within
the last five years or have not reached projected start-up dates yet. This makes it to assess
whether they are on schedule.
•
Nearly three-quarters (43) of the units under construction are located in just three countries:
China, India and Russia. Furthermore, there are only these three countries, plus South Korea,
that have construction taking place at more than one power plant site. None of these countries
has historically been very transparent or reliable about information on the status of their
construction sites. It is nevertheless known that half of the Russian units listed are experiencing
multi-year delays.
The geographical distribution of nuclear power plant projects is concentrated in Asia and Eastern
Europe, continuing a trend from earlier years. Between 2009 and 1 May 2012, a total of 14 units
were started up, all in these two regions.
The lead time for nuclear plants includes not only construction times but also lengthy licensing
procedures in most countries, complex financing negotiations, and site preparation.
In most cases the grid system will also have to be upgraded—often using new high-voltage power
lines, which bring their own planning and licensing difficulties. In some cases, public opposition is
significantly higher for the long-distance power lines than for the nuclear generating station itself.
Projected completion times should be viewed skeptically, and past nuclear planning estimates have
rarely turned out to be accurate.
Table 1: Nuclear Reactors “Under Construction” (as of 1 July 2012)27
Country
China
Russia
India
South Korea
Pakistan
Slovakia
Taiwan
Ukraine
Argentina
Brazil
Finland
France
USA
Total
Units MWe (net) Construction Start
26
27,400
2007-2010
10
8,258
1983-2012
7
4,824
2002-2011
3
3,640
2008-2009
2
630
2011
2
782
1985
2
2,600
1999
2
1,900
1986-1987
1
692
1981
1
1,245
2010
1
1,600
2005
1
1,600
2007
1
1,165
1972
59
56,336
Grid Connection
2012-2016
2013-2017
2013-2016
2013-2014
2016-2017
2012-2013
2016
2015-2016
2012
2018
2014
2016
2015
1972-2012
2012-2018
Source : IAEA-PRIS, MSC, 2012
Past experience shows that simply having an order for a reactor, or even having a nuclear plant at an
advanced stage of construction, is no guarantee for grid connection and power supply. The French
Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) statistics on “cancelled orders” through 2002 indicate
253 cancelled orders in 31 countries, many of them at an advanced construction stage. (See also
Figure 5.) The United States alone account for 138 of these cancellations.28 Many U.S. utilities
incurred significant financial harm because of cancelled reactor-building projects.
In the absence of any significant new build and grid connection over many years, the average age
(since grid connection) of operating nuclear power plants has been increasing steadily and now
                                                                                                                         
27
28
For further details see Annex 8.
CEA, “Elecnuc – Nuclear Power Plants in the World”, 2002.
Mycle Schneider, Antony Froggatt
World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2012
16
 
stands at about 27 years. 29 Some nuclear utilities envisage average reactor lifetimes of beyond
40 years and even up to 60 years.
In the United States, reactors are initially licensed to operate for a period of 40 years. Nuclear
operators can request a license renewal for an additional 20 years from the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC). As of March 2012, 72 of the 104 operating U.S. units have received an
extension, another 15 applications are under review by the NRC.
Many other countries, however, have no time limitations to operating licenses. In France, where the
country’s first operating PWR started up in 1977, reactors must undergo in-depth inspection and
testing every decade. The French Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) evaluates on a reactor-by-reactor
basis whether a unit can operate for more than 30 years. At this point, ASN considers the issue of
lifetimes beyond 40 years to be irrelevant, although the French utility EDF has clearly stated that, for
economic reasons, it plans to prioritize lifetime extension over large-scale new build. In fact, only
two plants (Fessenheim, Tricastin) have so far received a permit to extend operational life from 30 to
40 years, but only under the condition of significant upgrading. President François Hollande vowed
during his election campaign, to close down the Fessenheim reactors during his term of office.
However, even if ASN gave the go-ahead for all of the oldest units to operate for 40 years, 22 of the
58 French operating reactors will reach that age by 2020. The French Cour des Comptes (Court of
Audits) has calculated that 11 EPRs would have to be built by the end of 2022, if the same level of
nuclear generation was to be maintained. “This seems highly unlikely, if not impossible, including
for industrial reasons”, the Cour des Comptes comments before concluding: “This implies one of
two things: a) either it is assumed that plants will operate for more than 40 years (…); b) or the
energy mix will move towards other energy sources. However, no clear public decision has been
made concerning these major strategic issues, even though they call for short-term action and major
investments.”30 It remains to be seen how the incoming administration will deal with the issue in
France.
In assessing the likelihood of reactors being able to operate for up to 60 years, it is useful to compare
the age distribution of reactors that are currently operating with those that have already shut down.
(See Figures 6 and 7.) At present, 20 of the world’s operating reactors have exceeded the 40-year
mark.31 As the age pyramid illustrates, that number will rapidly increase over the next few years.
Twelve additional units have reached age 40 in 2011 (one of which is now retired), and two in the
beginning of 2012, while a total of 159 units have reached age 30 or more, and 17 more will do so in
2012.
The age structure of the 145 units already shut down confirms the picture. In total, 43 of these units
operated for 30 years or more; and within that subset, 19 reactors operated for 40 years or more. (See
Figure 7.) The majority of these were Magnox reactors located in the U.K.. As they had been
designed to produce weapons-grade plutonium, these were all small reactors (50–490 MW) that had
operated with very low burn-up fuel. Therefore there are significant differences from the large
900 MW or 1,300 MW commercial reactors that use high burn-up fuel that generates significantly
more stress on materials and equipment.
Many units of the first generation have operated for only a few years. Considering that the average
age of the 145 units that have already shut down is about 24 years, plans to extend the operational
lifetime of large numbers of units to 40 years and beyond seem rather optimistic.
 
                                                                                                                         
29
Here, reactor age is calculated from grid connection to final disconnection from the grid. In this report,
“startup” is synonymous with grid connection and “shutdown” with withdrawal from the grid.
30
Cour des Comptes, “The costs of the nuclear power sector”, Summary of the Public Thematic Report,
January 2012.
31
We count the age starting with grid connection, and figures are rounded by half years.
Mycle Schneider, Antony Froggatt
World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2012
17
 
Figure 6. Age Distribution of Operating Nuclear Reactors, 2012
Sources: IAEA-PRIS, MSC, 2012
Figure 7. Age Distribution of Shutdown Nuclear Reactors, 2012
Sources: IAEA-PRIS, MSC, 2011
After the Fukushima disaster questions have been raised about the wisdom of operating older
reactors. .The Fukushima-I units (1 to 4) were connected to the grid between 1971 and 1974. The
license for unit 1 was extended for another 10 years in February 2011. Four days after the
accidents in Japan, the German government ordered the shutdown of seven reactors that had
started up before 1981. These reactors, together with another unit that was closed at the time,
Mycle Schneider, Antony Froggatt
World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2012
18
 
never restarted. The exclusive selection criterion was operational age. Other countries did not
follow the same way, but it is clear that the 3/11 events had an impact on previously assumed
extended lifetimes also in other countries, including Belgium, Switzerland and Taiwan.
For the purposes of capacity projections, in a first scenario (40-Year Lifetime Projection), we
have assumed a general lifetime of 40 years for worldwide operating reactors, with a few
adjustments, while we take into account authorized lifetime extensions in a second scenario
(PLEX Projection). In our scenarios in the previous report, in order to remain conservative, we
had assumed, for example, that all 17 German units would be operated with remaining lifetimes
between 8 and 14 years. Eight of these have now been shut down definitively. Similarly, in the
present projections there are several individual cases where continued operation or lifetime
extensions are in question and earlier shutdowns have been officially decided.32 (See Figure 8.)
Figure 8. The 40-Year Lifetime Projection
 
Sources: IAEA-PRIS, WNA, MSC 2012
The lifetime projections make possible an evaluation of the number of plants that would have to
come on line over the next decades to offset closures and maintain the same number of operating
plants. Inspite of the 59 units under construction—as of 1 July 2011, all of which are considered
online by 2020—installed nuclear capacity would drop by 35 GW. Therefore in total 67 additional
reactors would have to be finished and started up prior to 2020 in order to maintain the status quo.33
This corresponds to two new grid connections every three months, with an additional 209 units
(192 GW) over the following 10-year period—one every 19 days.
This achievement of the 2020 target appears unlikely given existing constraints on the manufacturing
of key reactor components, the difficult financial situation of the world’s main reactor builders and
utilities, the general economic crisis and generally hostile public opinion—aside from any other
specific post-Fukushima effects. As a result, the number of reactors in operation will decline over the
coming years unless lifetime extensions beyond 40 years becomes widespread. The scenario of such
generalized lifetime extensions is in our view even less likely after Fukushima, as many questions
                                                                                                                         
32
The Japanese reactors constitute the largest contingency of uncertainty. In this scenario all but the
10 Fukushima reactors would return to operation.
33
We decided to adjust the scenarios to 2020 and ten-year intervals after that, while previous scenarios started
at the time horizon of 2015.
Mycle Schneider, Antony Froggatt
World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2012
19
 
regarding safety upgrades, maintenance costs, and other issues would need to be much more
carefully addressed.
Developments in Asia, and particularly in China, do not fundamentally change the global picture.
Reported figures for China’s 2020 target for installed nuclear capacity have fluctuated between
40 GW and 120 GW. However, the average construction time for the first 15 operating units was
5.8 years. At present, about 27 GW are under construction. While there has been considerable
acceleration of construction starts in the past—with 18 new building sites initiated in 2009 and
2010—not a single new construction site was initiated since 3/11. The prospects for significantly
exceeding the original 2008 target of 40 GW for 2020 now seems unlikely, even if an 80 GW target
has resurfaced recently (see China Focus). China has reacted surprisingly rapidly and strongly to the
Fukushima events by temporarily suspending approval of nuclear power projects, including those
under development.
We have modeled a scenario in which all currently licensed lifetime extensions and license renewals
(mainly in the United States) are maintained and all construction sites are completed. For all other
units we have maintained a 40-year lifetime projection, unless a firm earlier or later shutdown date
has been announced. The net number of operating reactors would still decrease by 16 units even if
installed capacity would grow by 6.5 GW in 2020. The overall pattern of the decline would hardly be
altered, it would merely be delayed by some years. (See Figures 9 and 10).
Figure 9. The PLEX Projection
Sources: IAEA-PRIS, US-NRC, WNA, MSC 2012
 
Mycle Schneider, Antony Froggatt
World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2012
20
 
Figure 10. Forty-Year Lifetime Projection versus PLEX Projection (in numbers of reactors)
Sources: IAEA-PRIS, US-NRC, MSC 2012
Potential Newcomer Countries
In 2010, the IAEA announced that 65 countries had expressed an interest, were considering, or were
actively planning for nuclear power, up from an estimate of 51 countries in 2008.34 Since 2010 the
IAEA has not published a comprehensive updated analysis, but it stated it expects Vietnam,
Bangladesh, United Arab Emirates, Turkey and Belarus to start building their first nuclear power
plants in 2012 and that Jordan and Saudi Arabia could follow in 201335. This would seem extremely
optimistic given the current situation in these countries.
In the 25 years since the accident at Chernobyl, only four countries—Mexico, China, Romania and
Iran—have started new nuclear power programs36. (See Figure 11.) While over the same period three
others—Italy, Kazakhstan, and Lithuania—have closed all their reactors.
The IAEA continues its activities to support the introduction of nuclear power programs and tries to
overcome the negative Fukushima impact on public opinion. Participants from 43 countries attended
the Sixth Annual Workshop on Nuclear Power Infrastructure at the IAEA in January 2012. “Those
countries with a strong national position on introducing nuclear power, however, are still committed
to developing their national nuclear infrastructure” said Masahiro Aoki37 from the IAEA’s Integrated
Nuclear Infrastructure Group (INIG)38, and the Scientific Secretary of the meeting. “The factors that
contribute to interest in nuclear power in these countries have not changed, such as energy demand,
                                                                                                                         
34
IAEA, “International Status and Prospects of Nuclear Power,” Report by the Director General, Board of
Governors General Conference (Vienna: 2 September 2010); IAEA, “International Status and Prospects of
Nuclear Power,” Report by the Director General, Board of Governors General Conference (Vienna: 12 August
2008).
35
Enformable.com, “IAEA – Vietnam and 4 other countries to incorporate nuclear energy after Fukushima”,
Lucas W Hixson, February 24th 2012, http://enformable.com/2012/02/iaea-vietnam-and-4-other-countries-toincorporate-nuclear-energy-after-fukushima/; accessed 5 May 2012.
36
Armenia closed its two reactors in 1989, following a referendum, but re-opened unit 2 in 1995.
37
Aoki is the former Director of the Radiation Protection and Accident Management Division of the Japanese
Nuclear Safety Commission.
38
INIG was set up in 2010 in order to improve development and delivery of IAEA nuclear infrastructure
related guidance and support.
Mycle Schneider, Antony Froggatt
World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2012
21
 
concerns about climate change, volatile fossil fuel prices and security of the energy supply”, Aoki
explained.39 There are many stages to the development of nuclear power and many countries that
propose or even embark upon nuclear construction, such as Austria and the Philippines, which in the
end do not start up a reactor. In fact, under the headline “what are the problems we are trying to
solve?”, INIG’s Aoki in a 2011 presentation40 appropriately lists:
• Never moving beyond planning stage
• Focusing on specific issues but missing the big picture
• Inviting bids with no appropriate response
• Developing unsustainable nuclear power programme
Figure 11. Start-ups and Closures of National Nuclear Power Programs, 1950–2011
Sources: IAEA-PRIS 2012, MSC, 2012
Below is an assessment by country of the status of the projects that the IAEA has referred to, which
indicates that most are much further from the launch of their program than the IAEA frequently
suggests.
Press reports indicate that Bangladesh has agreed to build two nuclear power plants with Russian
assistance; they quote Science Minister Yeafesh Osman as saying “we have signed the deal… to ease
the power crisis”. He said that construction of the plants would start by 2013 and would take five
years to complete41. The agreement is for two 1 000 megawatt-electric (MWe) units as well as fuel
supply, take-back of spent fuel, training and other services. The Government of Bangladesh is
considering either a government-owned turnkey project or a Build-Own-Operate-Transfer (BOOT)
contract 42 . The Russian contractor would be Rosatom subsidiary Atomstroyexport and the
Bangladesh Atom Energy Commission the client. No information is available on the value of the
                                                                                                                         
39
Nuclear Power Newsletter, “IAEA Annual Workshop on Nuclear Power Infrastructure”, IAEA, May 2012.
Masahiro Aoki, “IAEA Milestone Approach and Recent Developments”, INIG, 27 July 2011.
41
BBC, “Bangladesh agrees nuclear power deal with Russia”, 2nd November 2011,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-15552687, accessed 5 May 2012.
42
IAEA, “Bangladesh Progresses Towards Nuclear Power”, 21 November 2011,
http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2011/bangladeshprog.html; accessed 5 May 2012.
40
Mycle Schneider, Antony Froggatt
World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2012
22
 
contract. Negotiations started in February 2012.43 The trade journal Nuclear Intelligence Weekly
reported the same month that there was “no financing yet” for implementing the agreement.44
In mid-2006, the government of Belarus, which, 20 years before, was heavily impacted by the
Chernobyl accident, approved a plan for construction of a nuclear power plant in the Mogilev region
in the country’s east. An agreement with Russia on cooperation in the construction of a nuclear
power plant in Belarus was signed on 15 March 2011, four days after 3/11. Expressions of interest
were sought from international companies, and, not surprisingly given the existing economic and
political ties, a bid from Russia’s Atomstroyexport was taken forward. Under a financing agreement,
Russia would provide a $9 billion45 loan. Prior to 3/11, the two countries reportedly aimed at the
signature of an agreement on plant construction in spring 2011, with construction starting that
September.46 In November 2011 it was agreed that Russia would lend up to $10 billion for 25 years
to finance 90 percent of the contract between Atomstroyexport and the Belarus Directorate for
Nuclear Power Plant Construction. In February 2012 Russian state-owned Vnesheconombank (VEB)
and Belarusian commercial bank Belvnesheconombank signed an agreement needed to implement
the Russian export credit facility47. A contract has reportedly been signed for the design of the
nuclear power plant with Atomstroyexport starting working on the design. This phase is scheduled to
be completed by mid-2013 with concreting work to start in September 2013. The first unit is to be
operational in 2017. 48 In August 2011, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental
Protection of Belarus stated that the first unit would be commissioned in 2016 and the second one in
2018. Both would be of the Generation-3+ VVER “NPP-2006”type with a capacity of 1170 MW
each. 49 Apparently, Rosatom has offered 100 percent financing. 50 Opposition to the project is
increasing. On the 26th anniversary of the Chernobyl catastrophe, about one thousand people
demonstrated in the Belarussian capital Minsk against the nuclear project.51
Turkey has a long history of attempting to build a nuclear power program, starting in the early
1970s. In 1996, a call for tender was launched for the construction of 2 GW of nuclear capacity at the
Akkuyu site along the eastern Mediterranean. Several international bids were received, including
from Westinghouse, AECL, Framatome, and Siemens. In 2000, however, the bid was abandoned.52
In 2006, the government revised the nuclear initiative and announced plans for up to 4.5 GW of
capacity at Akkuyu and at the Black Sea site of Sinop. The plans met with large-scale local protests.
The following year, Turkey approved a bill introducing new laws on the construction and operation
of nuclear power plants, which led in March 2008 to a revised tender process for the Akkuyu plant.
Only one bid was received jointly from Atomstroyexport and Inter RAO (both from Russia) and Park
Teknik (Turkey) for an AES-2006 power plant with four 1200 MW reactors. In May 2010, the
Russian and Turkish heads of state signed an intergovernmental agreement for Rosatom to build,
own, and operate the Akkuyu plant with four 1200 MW AES-2006 units—a project reported to be
                                                                                                                         
43
Nucleonics Week, “Russia develops plan for Bangladesh’s first nuclear plant”, 8 March 2012.
Nuclear Intelligence Weekly, “Newbuild – Fighting Over Risk”, 13 February 2012.
45
All dollar (equivalent) amounts are expressed in U.S. dollars unless indicated otherwise.
46
Voice of Russia, “Belarus Nuclear Deal to be Signed on March 15,” 16 February 2011.
47
World Nuclear Association, “Nuclear Power in Belarus”, February 2012.
48
Itar-Tass, “Belarus NPP cost should not exceed funds for Kaliningrad NPP construction – Semashko”,
17 February 2012, see http://www.itar-tass.com/en/c154/346054.html, accessed 1 June 2012.
49
V.V. Kulik, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection of the Republic
of Belarus, Letter to the European Commission, dated 9 August 2011.
50
Nucleonics Week, “Rosatom offers up to 100 percent financing for Temelin plant expansion: VP”,
22 March 2012.
51
Nuclear Intelligence Weekly, 17 April 2012.
52
World Nuclear Association, “Nuclear Power in Turkey”, December 2011; see http://www.worldnuclear.org/info/inf128-nuclear_power_in_turkey.html, accessed 5 May 2012.
44
Mycle Schneider, Antony Froggatt
World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2012
23
 
worth $20 billion.53 In December 2011, the project company filed applications for construction
permits and a power generation license, as well as for an environmental impact assessment, with a
view to starting construction in 2013. The reactors are planned to enter service at yearly intervals in
the period 2018–21.54 If this project was fully realized, then nuclear power would represent five
percent of the installed electricity generating capacity by 2023. In March 2010, Turkey also signed
an agreement with Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO) to prepare a bid for the Sinop plant.
However, the parties failed to reach an agreement because of “differences in issues including
electricity sales price.” 55 Negotiations switched to Toshiba, with the support of the Japanese
government, and in December 2010 the parties signed an agreement to prepare a bid for
development. A French consortium of AREVA and GDF Suez has also indicated an intention to bid
for the project, as has French state utility EDF and the Chinese Guangdong Nuclear Power Company
(CGN). In November 2011 the prime minister requested the South Korean president to renew the
KEPCO bid56. Yet another candidate entered the process when, on 24 April 2012, Turkish state
utility EUAS signed a memorandum of understanding with the Canadian firm CANDU –AECL (now
owned by SNC-Lavalin) that covers a feasibility study for a 4-unit nuclear plant at Sinop. There are
still ongoing discussions about the reactor technologies involved in the various offers. However, as
the trade journal Nuclear Intelligence Weekly points out, “the deciding factor in Ankara will almost
certainly not be the technology as much as the financing that comes with it”.57 After all, even 100
percent pre-financing arrangements have not allowed for the decades long nuclear project in Turkey
to be implemented. In addition, state owned utility EUAS could very well suffer from the
downgrading by credit-rating agency Standard & Poor’s of Turkey’s credit rating BB long-term
outlook from positive to stable.
Opposition to nuclear power in Turkey remains very high. In June 2011, 80 percent of people polled
were in favour of abandoning all new nuclear construction, with 77 percent considered nuclear
power only a “limited and soon obsolete” option.58
To date, Jordan has signed nuclear cooperation agreements with 12 countries. In February 2011, the
country’s energy minister announced that the Jordan Atomic Energy Commission (JAEC) had
preselected designs from AECL of Canada, Atomstroyexport of Russia, and a joint venture between
AREVA and Mitsubishi—called ATMEA—for the country’s first nuclear reactor, located at Majdal.
On 30 June 2011, JAEC accepted the technical bids and the winning firm was supposed to be
announced in December 201159. On 1 May 2012, JAEC issued a statement saying it had “concluded
that ATMEA-1 and AES-92 [Atomstroyexport] technologies are the best two evaluated contenders
in meeting the requirements and needs of Jordan”, as specified in the terms of the tender.60 A
potential site, located in the Mafraq Governorate, 40 km from the capital, was announced in
February 201261.
However, on 30 May 2012, the Jordanian parliament voted a recommendation to shelve the program,
which “will drive the country into a dark tunnel and will bring about an adverse and irreversible
environmental impact”. The parliament also recommended suspending uranium exploration until a
                                                                                                                         
53
WNN, “Russia’s Plans for Akkuyu,”, 13 May 2010.
WNN, “Site Work to Start for Turkish Plants,” 25 February 2011.
55
Bloomberg, Tsuyoshi Inajima, “Turkey Holds Nuclear Talks With Japan After South Korean Discussions
Fail,” Bloomberg.com, 23 December 2010.
56
World Nuclear Association, “Nuclear Power in Turkey”, December 2011.
57
Nuclear Intelligence Weekly, “Candu Down in Jordan, Up in Turkey”, 4 May 2012.
58
IPSOS, “Global Citizen Reaction to the Fukushima Nuclear Plant Disaster”, June 2011.
59
Jordan Times, “Jordan receives nuclear reactor bids”, Taylor Luck, Jordan Times, 21 December 2011.
60
JAEC, “JAEC Concludes Technology Evaluation Phase for Jordan Nuclear Power Plant”, 1 May 2012; see
http://www.jaec.gov.jo/News/NewsDetails.aspx?nid=30, accessed on 6 May 2012.
61
MENAFN.com “Jordan selects nuclear reactor site”, Jordan Times, 14 February 2012,
http://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story_s.asp?storyid=1093483594, accessed 6 May 2012.
54
Mycle Schneider, Antony Froggatt
World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2012
24
 
feasibility study is done.62 Prior to the vote, the Parliament’s Energy Committee had published a
report accusing JAEC of deliberately “misleading” the public and officials over the program by
“hiding facts” related to costs63. Nuclear power has the highest water consumption of all electricity
generating technologies, while Jordan is amongst the world’s most water poor nations. The Jordanian
electricity grid is far below the minimum size necessary to be able to take up a large power plant.
Total installed generating capacity was 2,750 MW by the end of 2010. Financing remains unclear
and opposition to the project reaches into the royal family64.
In August 2009 the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia announced that it was considering launching a
nuclear power program, and in April 2010 a royal decree said: “The development of atomic energy is
essential to meet the Kingdom’s growing requirements for energy to generate electricity, produce
desalinated water and reduce reliance on depleting hydrocarbon resources.”65 The King Abdullah
City for Atomic and Renewable Energy (KA-CARE) is being set up in Riyadh to advance this
agenda and to be the competent agency for treaties on nuclear energy signed by the Kingdom. It is
also responsible for supervising works related to nuclear energy and radioactive waste projects. In
June 2010 it appointed the Finland- and Switzerland-based Pöyry consultancy firm to help define
“high-level strategy in the area of nuclear and renewable energy applications” with desalination. In
June 2011 the coordinator of scientific collaboration at KA-CARE said that it plans to construct 16
nuclear power reactors over the next 20 years at a cost of more than 300 billion riyals ($80 billion).
The first two reactors would be planned to be on line in ten years and then two more per year until
2030.66 However, according to a World Energy Council survey, “Saudi Arabia reported that using
nuclear is still under consideration and that the WNA figures given above [16 reactors, 20 GW] are
speculative.”67 The assessment confirms reports that the KA-CARE nuclear proposal has still not
been approved by the country’s top economic board, headed by King Abdullah.68
Saudi Arabia has very large electricity expansion projects. It plans to double installed capacity to
100 GW by 2021, mainly through fossil fuels, but with a 10 percent renewable target by 2020. There
is a US$100 billion state spending commitment over the next ten years on renewables and nuclear
combined.69
Senior Saudi Arabian diplomats have reportedly stated that “if Iran develops a nuclear weapon, that
will be unacceptable to us and we will have to follow suit”, and officials in Riyadh have said that the
70
country would reluctantly push ahead with their own civilian nuclear program. Independent experts
have suggested that the drive for civil nuclear power in the region is seen by some as a “security
hedge”, and that “if Iran was not on the path to a nuclear weapon capability you would probably not
71
see this [civil nuclear] rush”.
                                                                                                                         
62
Jordan Times, “Deputies vote to suspend nuclear project”, 30 May 2012, see
http://jordantimes.com/Deputies+vote+to+suspend+nuclear+project-48497, accessed 1 June 2012.
63
Idem.
64
On 28 June 2011, Princess Basma bint Ali gave a stinging anti-nuclear speech in a public event in Amman,
Jordan, entitled “Pros and Cons of Nuclear Energy”.
65
World Politics Review, “Saudi Arabia’s Nuclear Ambitions Part of Broader Strategy”, 16th June 2011,
http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/9186/saudi-arabias-nuclear-ambitions-part-of-broader-strategy,
accessed 6 May 2012.
66
World Nuclear Association, “Emerging Nuclear Energy Countries”, February 2012, see http://www.worldnuclear.org/info/inf102.html, accessed 7 May 2012.
67
WEC, “World Energy Perspective: Nuclear Energy One Year After Fukushima”, 9 March 2012.
68
Nuclear Intelligence Weekly, “Saudi Arabia – Nuclear Plans Remain Stalled”, 13 February 2012.
69
Ernst&Young, “Renewable energy country attractiveness indices”, February 2012.
70
Guardian, “Riyadh will build nuclear weapons if Iran gets them, Saudi prince warns”, Jason Burke,
29 June 2011.
71
The Times, “Six Arab States join rush to go nuclear”, Richard Beeston, 4 November 2006.
Mycle Schneider, Antony Froggatt
World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2012
25
 
Saudi public opinion remains surprisingly critical and 70 percent oppose nuclear construction.
However, a majority of 54 percent considers nuclear power a viable long-term option, only one of
two countries (with Russia) with an optimistic majority in a 24-country opinion survey.72
In October 2010, Vietnam signed an intergovernmental agreement with Russia’s Atomstroyexport to
build the Ninh Thuan 1 nuclear power plant, using 1200 MW sized reactors. Construction is slated to
begin in 2014, and the turnkey project will be owned and operated by the state utility Electricity of
Vietnam (EVN), with operations beginning in 2020.73 Rosatom has confirmed that Russia’s Ministry
of Finance is prepared to finance at least 85 percent of this first plant, and that Russia will supply the
new fuel and take back used fuel for the life of the plant. An agreement for up to $9 billion finance
was signed in November 2011 with the Russian government’s state export credit bureau, and a
second agreement covered the establishment of a nuclear science and technology center.74
Vietnam has also signed an intergovernmental agreement with Japan for the construction of a second
nuclear power plant in Ninh Thuan province, with its two reactors to come on line in 2024–25. The
agreement calls for assistance in conducting feasibility studies for the project, low-interest and
preferential loans for the project, technology transfer and training of human resources, and
cooperation in the waste treatment and stable supply of materials for the whole life of the project. In
July 2011 the government issued a master plan specifying Ninh Thuan 1 & 2 nuclear power plants
with a total of eight 1000 MWe-class reactors, one coming on line each year 2020-27, then two more
larger ones to 2029 at a central location. By 2020 nuclear power is supposed to represent 1 percent of
the Vietnamese electricity production. However, already in November 2010, Wood Mackenzie
analysts stated that the lack of finances and skilled labor would delay the first plants to come online
to 2028 at the earliest.75
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has the most advanced new nuclear development plans in the
Middle East. In April 2008, the UAE published a nuclear energy policy that stated that nuclear
power was a proven, environmentally promising and commercially competitive option that “could
make a significant base-load contribution to the UAE’s economy and future energy security.”76 The
policy proposed installing up to 20 GW of nuclear energy capacity, including 5 GW by 2020, which
would then represent about 22 percent of total planned installed power generating capacity. This
would require the operation of four reactors, two between Abu Dhabi city and Ruwais, one at Al
Fujayrah, and possibly one at As Sila.
A joint-venture approach, similar to that developed for the water and conventional power utilities,
was proposed in which the government would retain a 60 percent share and a private company a 40
percent share. A call for bids in 2009 resulted in nine expressions of interest and the short listing of
three companies: AREVA (France) with GDF-SUEZ, EDF, and Total, proposing EPRs; GE-Hitachi
(U.S.-Japan), proposing ABWRs; and a South Korean consortium, proposing APR–1400 PWRs. In
December 2009, the Korean consortium was awarded the $20 billion contract for the construction
and first fuel loads of four reactors, reportedly because the consortium could demonstrate the highest
capacity factors, lowest construction costs, and shortest construction times. The trade press considers
that “it remains to be seen whether South Korea’s bid was realistic, or whether it was seriously
                                                                                                                         
72
IPSOS, op. cit.
Global Energy Magazine, “Japan and Russia to Build Ninhthuan Nuclear Power Plants for Vietnam,” 3
November 2010.
74
World Nuclear Association, “Nuclear Power in Vietnam”, January 2012 http://worldnuclear.org/info/vietnam_inf131.html
75
Bloomberg, “Thai, Vietnamese Nuclear Plans Face Delays on Labor, Wood Mackenzie Says”,
18 November 2010, see http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-18/thai-vietnamese-nuclear-plans-facedelays-wood-mackenzie-says.html, accessed 10 May 2012.
76
ArabianOilandGas.com “Abdullah Al Mutawa Explains How the UAE is Preparing to Meet Future Power
Demands,”, 10 June 2008.
73
Mycle Schneider, Antony Froggatt
World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2012
26
 
under-priced”. The outcome might be fatal: “If things go wrong, Korea’s entry to the nuclear export
market could be short-lived.“77 Indeed, updated cost estimates are reportedly already skyrocketing
between $36 billion and “closer to $40 billion”.78 Financing negotiations have been delayed into the
second half of 2012 and a final approval for construction is now unlikely before the end of the year.
The public in the UAE has raised almost no objection to the announced nuclear energy policy, which
has been sold as a way to relieve pressure on the country’s fossil fuel resources, increase the security
of electrical power supply, create employment and a high-tech industry, and reduce carbon
emissions. In July 2010, a site-preparation license and a limited construction license were granted for
four reactors at a single site at Braka, along the coast 53 kilometers from Ruwais.79 The application
is based substantially on the safety analysis prepared for South Korea’s Shin–Kori units 3 and 4, the
“reference plant” for the UAE’s new build program. A tentative schedule published in late
December 2010, and not put into question since, projects that Braka-1 will start commercial
operation in 2017 with unit 2 operating from 2018. In March 2011 a groundbreaking ceremony was
held to mark the start of construction.
Other countries that have undertaken steps to develop a nuclear program include:
Since the mid-1970s, Indonesia has discussed and brought forward plans to develop nuclear power,
releasing its first study on the introduction of nuclear power, supported by the Italian government, in
1976. The analysis was updated in the mid-1980s with help from the IAEA, the United States,
France and Italy. Numerous discussions took place over the following decade, and by 1997 a Nuclear
Energy Law was adopted that gave guidance on construction, operation, and decommissioning. A
decade later, the 2007 Law on National Long-Term Development Planning for 2005–25 stipulated
that between 2015 and 2019, four units should be completed with an installed capacity of 6 GW.80
Discussions with nuclear vendors have included the possibility of using Russian floating reactors but
appear to be dominated by Japanese and South Korean companies; however, neither financing nor
detailed planning appear to be in place. In contrast to this nuclear stasis, in 2011, Indonesia showed
the fastest growth rate—520 percent—in clean energy investments of any G20 country, exceeding
the $1 billion mark for the first time. Much of the investment went into the exploitation of the
country’s vast resources in geothermal energy (40 percent of the world’s known resources).81
Poland planned the development of a series of nuclear power stations in the 1980s and started
construction of two VVER 1000/320 reactors in Zarnowiec on the Baltic coast, but both construction
and further plans were halted following the Chernobyl accident. In 2008, however, Poland
announced that it was going to re-enter the nuclear arena. In November 2010, the government
adopted the Ministry of Economy’s Nuclear Energy Program, which was submitted to a Strategic
Environmental Assessment. Poland aims to build 6 GW of nuclear power with the first reactor
starting up by 2020. Officials have revised the planning in the meantime targeting 2022-23 for the
startup of the first reactor. Financing of the ambitious project remains unclear and public opinion is
highly uncertain. While Poland was the only country showing a majority in favor of nuclear new
build in a 24-country opinion survey in June 201182, a local referendum in February 2012 in Mielno,
one of three pre-selected, potential sites, showed a surprising 94 percent opposed to the plan. The
Polish government reacted by starting a $6 million public propaganda campaign, labeled “Meet the
                                                                                                                         
77
Energy Economist, “Prospects for Nuclear Power in 2012”, Platts, February 2012.
Nuclear Intelligence Weekly, “United Arab Emirates: No Plans for Second NPP”, 20 April 2012.
79
ArabianBusinesss.com, “ENEC Welcomes Regulator’s License Approval,” 11 July 2010.
80
Hanan Nugroho, “Development of Nuclear Power in Indonesia: Stop or Go?” Jakarta Post, 5 May 2010.
81
PEW, “Who’s winning the clean energy race? – 2011 Edition”, 2012.
82
IPSOS, op. cit.
78
Mycle Schneider, Antony Froggatt
World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2012
27
 
Atom”. “We want to make sure that the first Polish nuclear power plant is established with the
approval of Polish society”, Hanna Trojanowska, vice minister and government commissioner for
nuclear energy stated late March 2012.83 The director of external relations for the state utility PGE,
that promotes the project, stated that “obviously we will not proceed against the will of local
people”.84 The technology selection process is supposed to reduce the choice to three potential
designs by the end of 2012 with first concrete to be poured by 2017. Potential vendors are expected
to present “an optimum mix of ECA [Export Credit Agency] support and local delivery of the
project”.85
In its Power Development Plan for 2010–30, approved in 2010, Thailand proposes the construction
of 5 GW of nuclear capacity. Currently, five locations are being considered as part of a feasibility
study that was supposed to be completed by the end of 2010 but which has now been delayed. This
may be due in part to “vociferous opposition” 86 to proposed plant sitings, which reportedly have
reduced the number of possible locations to two or three areas.87 Consultancy firm Wood Mackenzie
estimates that Thailand will not even be able to introduce a nuclear safety regulatory framework until
2026. Other key problems are the lack of financing and skilled personnel.88 Following the Fukushima
accident, plans were put on hold so that the first reactor would now be expected on line in 202389. In
reality, prospects for Thailand building a nuclear plant seem to be finished. “Prospects for nuclear
power likely saw the final nail in the coffin with the Fukushima disaster”, concludes Power
Engineering International.90
While public opposition and financing remain two of the key problems of any new-build projects, it
is remarkable that the Russian group Rosatom has offered up to 100 percent financing at least in the
cases of new build projects in Belarus, Czech Republic, Turkey and Vietnam. Rosatom remains also
a contender in Jordan. It remains to be seen whether cross-subsidization from the gas sector will be
sufficient to …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment

Why Choose Us

• 100% non-plagiarized Papers
• 24/7 /365 Service Available
• Affordable Prices
• Any Paper, Urgency, and Subject
• Will complete your papers in 6 hours
• On-time Delivery
• Money-back and Privacy guarantees
• Unlimited Amendments upon request
• Satisfaction guarantee

How it Works

• Click on the “Place Order” tab at the top menu or “Order Now” icon at the bottom and a new page will appear with an order form to be filled.
• Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER DETAILS" section.
• Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline, and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
• Click “CREATE ACCOUNT & SIGN IN” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record-keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
• From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.