Abandonment of nuclear energy

The abandonment of nuclear energy is a political option consisting of stopping using nuclear energy for the generation of electricity. The idea includes in some countries the closure of existing nuclear power plants. Sweden was the first country where it was proposed (1980), although as of July 2021 it maintains them. Italy (1987), Belgium (1999), Germany (2000) and Switzerland (2011) followed and it has been discussed in other European countries. Austria, the Netherlands, Poland, and Spain enacted laws that halted the construction of new nuclear reactors, although in some of them this option is currently being debated (see image). New Zealand has not used nuclear reactors for power generation since 1984. Theoretically, the abandonment of nuclear energy should promote the use of renewable energy sources (it should be noted that in the situation of global warming the International Energy Agency, IEA defends the use of nuclear energy to compensate for the variable nature of renewable energies) but in practice it promotes more the use of oil and coal.

Arguments in favor of abandonment

Security

Risk of accidents and terrorism

• Based on the estimates of the German Government, (4 °Consumer of nuclear energy) using the probability of damage to the core that was obtained in 1980 in the security studies of the German reactors of 2.9*10^-5 a year, it is possible to calculate that the risk of a nucleus fusion over a period of 40 years is 16 % for Europe and 40% worldwide. For new reactor designs, probabilistic safety studies obtain values of between 5*10^-7 and 3*10^-8. Using these values, the likelihood of an accident in a nuclear power plant that would result in damage to the core under the same conditions as that study would be 0.3 % for Europe or 0.9 % for the world in 40 years. The probability of two of these accidents in those 40 years would be 0.0005 % for Europe and 0.004 % for the world.
• With the data of the German study, the probability that one of these accidents would occur in Spain would be 0.005 % at most, for a maximum life of 20 years (which is the useful life that would theoretically subtract the most modern of the Spanish nuclear power plants).
• The consequences of an accident at a nuclear power station could be serious.
  • The Chernobyl accident was the most serious nuclear accident in history. To find out about it, it is advisable to consult the article about the accident, where data are provided on the topic of the most recent reports. The estimates of the deceased to date range from the 41 estimating recognized and global institutions such as IAEA, WHO and others to tens or hundreds of thousands according to others (Greenpeace, and others such as TORCH, AIMPGN). The estimates of deaths due to the accident (mainly due to an increase in the incidence of cancer) also range from 4,000 to tens or hundreds of thousands.
  • Fukushima's accident the following up to now in gravity with severe economic implications and policies so far.
• Nuclear power plants can target terrorist attacks:
  • Most of the nuclear power plants were built in the 1960s and 1970s, and like the World Trade Center, they were designed to resist the impact of smaller planes. David Kyd, spokesman for the IAEA, literally stated in 2001 that "If the risk of a jumbo loaded with fuel is posed, it is clear that the design was not designed to resist such impact." Edwin Lyman, Scientific Director of the Washington Nuclear Control Institute (USA) notes that "if a commercial plane crashes into a nuclear power plant, the reactor would not explode, but the cooling systems could be destroyed. In such a case, nuclear fuel rods would overheat and produce a steam explosion that could release lethal amounts of radioactivity into the atmosphere." There are reports of experiments carried out by the Electric Power Research Institute, in which these claims were tested, concluding that a containment such as those used in Western nuclear power plants would resist the direct impact of a Boeing 767-400 aircraft.
  • Dr. Lyman himself, also a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, explains that "if a well-trained terrorist team were able to force itself into a nuclear power station, in a matter of minutes it could cause enough damage to cause the fusion of the core and a failure in the containment structure. Such an attack would have devastating and lasting consequences on public health, the environment and the economy." David Lochbaum, from the same organization, adds that "the Atomic Regulatory Commission (NRC) requires the 103 US headquarters. that have prevention plans against the sabotage of a single person within the center. However, the abductions (of the 11-S aircraft) were carried out by 3 to 5 terrorists on each plane, and the NRC regulations allow hundreds of people to be working on nuclear power stations before their security controls have been completed." These assertions, however, stem from the lack of knowledge of the operation of a commercial nuclear power plant, for which expertise is required, given only to a small number of persons annually (the operators of nuclear power plants)^{[chuckles]required]}and considerable time to achieve the fusion of the core^{[chuckles]required]}. In Spain, for example, it is impossible hundreds of people working in nuclear power stations before their security controls have been completed.^{[chuckles]required]} In fact, before being able to have authorised access to one of these facilities as a worker, the facility requests a series of information from each subject including a criminal report.
• There is also the danger of accidents (or sabotage) in other facilities related to the nuclear fuel cycle.

• Another possible risk is the transport by train of wastes and radioactive materials, which usually cross large cities ^{[chuckles]required]}.

• There is also the possibility of diversion of nuclear materials for the manufacture of nuclear weapons for terrorist purposes. This assumption can only occur in countries where nuclear spent fuel reprocessing facilities are in place, such as France, United Kingdom, USA. or uranium enrichment facilities.

• Also some radioactive substances from waste could be removed by terrorists for the manufacture of dirty bombs.

Nuclear proliferation

According to antinuclear groups, the use of nuclear energy contributes to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Israel, India, North Korea and South Africa began "peaceful" of nuclear energy with research reactors that were later used to make atomic weapons, and there is suspicion (supported by the fact of the refusal of an IAEA inspection) that Iran's program has a similar objective.

A nuclear weapon can be built from:

• Uranium: requires uranium enrichment facilities. According to Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of IAEA, "if a country has uranium enrichment facilities, it could develop a nuclear weapon in a few months."
• Plutonium: requires reprocessing facilities, a part of the nuclear cycle that is used only in countries with a very high level of nuclear technology, such as France or the United Kingdom. Plutonium is a substance of variable properties, depending on its origin. There are several different isotopes, including Pu-238, Pu-239, Pu-240, and Pu-241, but not all are fissile: only Pu-239 and Pu-241 can be fixed in a light water reactor (such as most Westerners), with plutonium-239 preferred as nuclear fuel and for the production of nuclear weapons, because it has a relatively low spontaneous fission rate, as well as a low critical mass. The "useful" plutonium (mostly Pu-239) is divided, depending on its content of Pu-240, in degrees (Super.2-3 %; weapons: ≤7 %; fuel7-19 %; reactor: 19 % or higher). The "grade of armament" plutonium was used in the Nagasaki bomb in 1945 and in many other nuclear bombs. On the other hand, the "reactor degree" plutonium (as is usually produced in all commercial nuclear power reactors) contains up to 40% of the heaviest plutonium isotopes, especially Pu-240, because it has remained in the reactor for a relatively long period. However, the distinction of grades is somewhat arbitrary: the degrees of fuel and reactor are less appropriate to build nuclear weapons, but not unavailable for that purpose (although the results are less predictable). The U.S. Ministry of Energy. United States: U.S. Department of Energy) has confirmed that in 1962 his country successfully performed an atomic test with reactor grade plutonium.

Environment and health

Radioactive waste

• According to anti-nuclear groups, there is no satisfactory solution to the generation of nuclear waste because of the large amount of pollution they produce, which remain radioactive for tens of thousands of years and constitute the greatest problem of nuclear energy. Some countries extract plutonium (and other useful isotopes) from fuel rods at the COGEMA Center in La Hague (in France) or Sellafield (United Kingdom), which are the only reprocessing plants in Europe. Both plants pour huge amounts of radioactive waste to the sea:
  • The Sellafield plant pours about 8 million litres of radioactive waste every day in the Sea of Ireland. This sea presents one of the highest radioactive contamination rates on the planet.^{[chuckles]required]} Pollution levels in the area around Sellafield are higher than those in the Chernobyl exclusion zone.^{[chuckles]required]} Infant leukemia is about ten times more common in the area than in the rest of the United Kingdom. In two small villages of the Menai Strait (North of Wales), 43 cases of childhood cancer have been detected, which is 15 times more than the British average.
  • The center of The Hague pours hundreds of thousands of cubic meters of radioactive wastes annually on the Channel of the Blade. Pollution spreads across the North Sea and can be measured even in the Arctic Glacial Ocean. The risk of childhood leukemia is in the vicinity of the center three times higher than the average of France.
• One of the existing technically viable solutions to get rid of radioactive wastes called "high activity" (the only ones that remain very radioactive over 300 years) is to bury them in deep geological storages (AGP).

• There are other developing solutions to eliminate the volume of high-activity waste that would remain after reprocessing. The most advanced to date is transmutation.

Radioactivity emissions

• In its routine operation, nuclear power plants emit radioactive material to the environment: radioactive gaseous emissions by the fireplace built to the effect and radioactive liquid emissions to the sea, the reservoir or the river on which it depends for cooling. Routine emissions generate very low doses^{[chuckles]required]}, due to the pre-vert treatments and dilution produced both in the atmosphere and in the aquatic environments. However, several studies indicate that these dosage levels could be harmful to health:
  • Studies of 1999 and 2001 of the Carlos III Institute of Health also detected the existence of an unexpectedly higher rate of stomach cancer in people of both sexes in the environment of the Garoña nuclear power plant.^{[chuckles]required]} This increase, linked to the proximity to this facility, occurred in the period after the start of activity of the nuclear power plant, after comparing with the situation prior to its entry into operation.
  • In a study of the same institute in July 2001 it was found that lung cancer mortality showed a greater increase in areas in the environment of 30 km in the vicinity of uranium cycle facilities. The study notes that A well-defined pattern does not appear in the vicinity of nuclear power plants studied. This study points to the need for more specific studies.
  • In July 2003 he was published in the magazine Occupational & Environmental Medicine an epidemiological study carried out by scientists from the University of Alcalá de Henares and the University Hospital of Guadalajara in which it is concluded that the risk of cancer increases linearly with the proximity to the nuclear power plant of Trillo, but not in the proximity of the nuclear power plant of Zorita, and that the risk of having a tumor is 71 % higher in the environment closest to the first nuclear power plant (in a radius of 10 km around this) than
• Other studies however point to the opposite.
  • So Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation on the Environment (COMARE) conducted a comprehensive study of all nuclear power plants in the United Kingdom in 2005 on the incidence of cancer in children. Its main conclusion indicates that: [Student] the incidence of childhood cancer in the vicinity of all nuclear production plants in Britain [...] there is no evidence of an increase in the number of cases in any area of 25km, which may include both the primary exposure to radioactive discharges and the secondary ones due to the resuspension of materials.
  • The National Cancer Institute American obtained similar results in 1991. Noting that a study conducted by this institute does not show a general increase in the risk of death due to cancer for people living in 107 U.S. counties. containing or adjacent to 62 nuclear facilities.
  • A study by the National Center for Epidemiology (dependant to the Carlos III Health Institute of the Ministry of Health) of 1999 states that None of the plants record an excess in the risk of leukemia-induced mortality in any of the surrounding areas[...] none of the tumors studied showed evidence of increased risk. This study was published in the October issue of the magazine Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

CO2 emissions and greenhouse effect

Nuclear energy can help comply with the Kyoto Protocol agreements since it does not cause CO₂ emissions. However, a certain amount of CO₂ is emitted during the nuclear fuel production cycle and during the construction and dismantling of nuclear power plants. A study by the Öko Institute in Germany shows that, taking into account the entire energy generation cycle (including the construction and decommissioning of power plants), nuclear energy emits about 34 grams of CO₂ per each kWh of electricity produced. This is much less than what a coal-fired power plant emits (which emits around 1000 g/kWh). Wind energy, for example, emits around 20 g/kWh, and hydroelectric energy around 33 g/kWh. Other studies estimate CO₂ emissions due to nuclear energy between 30 and 60 g/kWh. Worldwide, the CO₂ emitted in the production of electrical energy is no more than 9% of the total annual greenhouse gas emissions of human origin, with transportation being the largest producer of these gases.

To produce a notable effect in reducing CO₂ emissions, it would be necessary to build 2,000 new large reactors (1,000 MW) around the world. In the US, between 300 and 400 new reactors in the next 30-50 years, including those needed to replace those that are removed from service during that period. Uranium is not a renewable resource and this option would require consuming the world's reserves much more quickly. The current reserves are sufficient for 50 years of nuclear energy production through the consumption of uranium 235, at the current consumption rate^{[citation needed]}; If all fossil fuel in the production of electrical energy were replaced by nuclear energy, uranium reserves would be exhausted in three or four years. However, there are nuclear alternatives in development, such as the use of the most abundant isotope of uranium (the 238, about 1,400 times more abundant than 235), thorium (its isotope 232), 20,000 times more abundant, or fusion.^{[citation needed]} Furthermore, seawater contains uncountable amounts of uranium, but it is not profitable to use it today compared to uranium in mines, which is very economical.

Economic reasons

• Another argument is the high cost of nuclear energy. According to this argument, nuclear energy has only been able to survive through public subsidies. The World Council for Renewable Energies estimates that the nuclear industry has received about $1 trillion (compared to the current value) of public money around the world, while the whole of renewable energies has received only about $5 billion. Today, the generation of electricity through nuclear energy is more expensive than wind, comparable in price to hydroelectric power and cogeneration with gasified wood, but cheaper than the thermals that consume fossil fuels (including the combined cycle). However, the costs of renewable energies are rapidly diminishing thanks to the progress in increasing efficiency and reducing costs. The European "Externe" study, dedicated to the external costs associated with electricity production technologies, all indirect components (called externalities), states that only wind energy has lower external costs than nuclear, and that hydropower has lower or higher costs, depending on the country. The rest of electrical production systems would always have higher external costs.
  • The cost of the management of radioactive wastes in Spain (which is paid through the electricity rate and by the companies that require their services, whether electrical, hospitals, research laboratories, etc.), according to the calculations of the National Radioactive Waste Company S.A. in its 6.o General Plan of Radioactive Wastes will be about €13.8 billion. This calculation extends to 2070, and does not include the costs or revenues of later years (the radiotoxicity of the waste is maintained for tens of thousands of years).
  • In Germany it is the State that pays the costs derived from direct waste (expended fuel rods)^{[chuckles]required]}, contaminated materials in energy plants and the extraction of plutonium and uranium, as well as other radioactive wastes, such as those generated in hospitals or universities, and for the storage costs of these wastes, since industry lacks sufficient funds to do so^{[chuckles]required]}.
  • The construction costs of nuclear power plants have traditionally been much higher than estimated. In the U.S., a study of 75 of its nuclear reactors shows that its construction costs were more than 322 % of the budgeted. Also in India, the country with the most recent experience in nuclear reactor construction, its last 10 facilities have exceeded its budget by an average of 300 per cent. Part of the increase in construction costs is due to the increase of time required for it: of the 66 months of average required in the mid 70s it has been in practice at an average of 82 months (almost 7 years) between 2000 and 2005.
  • The cost of dismantling nuclear power plants has proved to be much higher than expected. For example, the dismantling of the Yankee Rowe plant (Massachusetts, USA) cost some $450 million, compared to the $120 million originally planned. Although so far few plants have been dismantled, in the coming years many will reach the end of their expected lives, and will have to be dismantled.
• According to the Secretariat of the International Conference on Renewable Energies of 2004, nuclear power is the source of energy that less employment generates per energy unit produced. Less than any renewable energy. But it is also true that it is something of technology, there are more workers available and also the ones used are of high intellectual capacity with which, as a non-low salary, the GDP does not decrease, that is, that it favors the intellectual occupation, which is the highest of the occupations and little valued, thanks to which the computers exist.
• It is excluded from the financial mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol, which imposes penalties on greenhouse gas emitting companies, as nuclear energy generates them indirectly. This decision was made in July 2001 at the Bonn Summit of the Framework Convention on Climate Protection.
• Nuclear power plants cannot be secured only by private insurers. In 2005, the maximum amount of insurance for a nuclear plant in the US. It was $300 million. The costs of a potential serious nuclear accident could be much higher, so a fund (called Price-Anderson fund) was established, which is funded by the companies themselves, which would cover any excess of that $300 million (in 2006 that fund was $9.5 billion). In the case of Spain, according to a draft of the Draft Law on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage, which reflects the international conventions regulating this activity, the nuclear power plant management companies must establish a civil liability coverage of 1200 million euros, but the insurance companies operating in the country (as in others) do not have sufficient capacity to provide the guarantee, so the electricity rate will have to cover that guarantee for the non-insurable damages.
• According to the American business magazine Forbes, "the failure of the U.S. nuclear program is considered to be the biggest business disaster in business history."

• The World Bank states that "to grant a bank loan to the energy sector requires a review of the sector's policies, institutions and investments. Nuclear power plants in the energy sector are not economical; they are a huge waste."

Non-renewable resource

• uranium-235 is a limited resource. According to available studies (such as the latest edition of the Red Book of the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency) the reserves of fissionable uranium-235, one of the fuels of the nuclear reactors, will reach only for a few more decades, even considering levels of consumption such as current ones (today, fifty years after their birth, nuclear energy covers only 7 % of the world's energy needs, while oil reaches up to 80% in most cases). However, there are alternatives to U-235, which have failed to implement:
  • Use the plutonium that was produced for the manufacture of armament in MOX fuels with a content of between 3 and 10 % plutonium. The idea has lost a lot of strength after the Fukushima accident because one of the 3 crashed reactors, the number 3 reactor, was one of the two reactors that experimentally operated with MOX and turned out to be one of the most aggravated.
  • Use the U-238 in fast reactors. The rapid reactors that have been built so far have been closed.

• Its price also increases quickly. In 2005 it was five times more expensive than in 2002. According to the Red Book of the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, known and recoverable reserves at a cost less than $80 and $130 (per kilogram of uranium) are about 3 and 4 million tons respectively, i.e. less than half of what is meant to meet the demands of the nuclear industry.
  • There is more uranium in Nature, but its extraction cost would be even greater and, more importantly, its obtaining will be much more intensive in fossil energy, with the consequent generation of CO2. Studies indicate that, using uranium of menas of wealth less than 100 ppm, more carbon dioxide is issued from which the same electricity would be generated using natural gas.

Existence of alternatives

• According to the detractors of nuclear energy, there is an effective solution to climate change: a sustainable energy model whose fundamental axis are clean energies (renewable along with savings and efficiency technologies). Applied in all areas - electricity generation, transportation, household consumption... - can effectively reduce CO emissions₂. Some studies indicate that investments aimed at promoting energy efficiency are seven times more effective than those directed at nuclear energy when avoiding CO emissions₂^{[chuckles]required]}.
• According to some groups, nuclear energy is disposable. The cases of Germany and Sweden (4th and 9th globally sourced electricity consumers) seem to indicate that, if there is political will, it is possible to abandon nuclear energy while reducing CO emissions₂ pursuant to its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. This argument seems to be overwhelmed by the facts, as in reality these countries begin to rethink their policy of abandoning this alternative by failing to find a method of supplying the energy produced by these facilities.^{[chuckles]required]}.
  • On the contrary, France, a country that has waged nuclear power for electricity generation (has 59 nuclear power plants, and more than 75% of its electricity is of nuclear origin) is not fulfilling its commitments to the Kyoto Protocol. It is increasingly moving away from the agreed target (increase of 0 % for the period 2008-2012) and this is mainly due to the growth of CO emissions₂ in the transport sector, absolutely dependent on oil. The solution to dependence on fossil fuels, for certain groups, is in other measures: such as the development of collective transport, the management of the territory, the ecosocial management of mobility, the use of biofuels, an increase in motor efficiency, or the promotion of the bicycle.
• In Spain, for example, there is enormous potential without taking advantage of energy efficiency and renewable energy (according to a study carried out for Greenpeace by the Institute of Technological Research, in Spain renewables could cover with their maximum development all the energy demand planned for the year 2050 and about 56 times the demand for electricity). In Spain there is an excess of electrical power installed that would allow it to do so without suffering supply problems. Spain is the world's second largest renewable power country: it produced 53,565 GWh (of which 29,978 came from hydroelectric power) in 2004 compared to 63,153 GWh of nuclear production in the same year.

Arguments against abandonment

Ecological and greenhouse gas protection

• Recently there has been a renewed interest in nuclear energy as a solution to the depletion of oil reserves and global warming since the demand for electricity is increasing and nuclear energy does not directly generate greenhouse gases, in contrast to the usual alternatives such as coal. However, mining, the uranium process, the transport of parts and fuel, the dismantling and treatment of waste do involve greenhouse gas emissions. According to the World Nuclear Association, emissions from the full life cycle of a nuclear power plant are comparable to those of wind energy and much less than any other electricity generation system.
• Germany has combined the shutdown with an initiative for renewable energy and wants to increase the efficiency of fossil energy plants in an effort to reduce their dependence on coal. According to German Minister Jürgen Trittin, in 2020, this will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 40% compared to 1990 levels. Germany has become one of the leaders in the efforts to comply with the Kyoto Protocol. Critics with German policy have highlighted the alleged contradiction between abandoning nuclear energy and renewable energy facilities, when both have very low CO emissions₂. For the time being, Germany is the world's fourth nuclear power consumer country.

• It is also alleged that nuclear reactors, as well as other types of energy plants, raise the temperature of rivers used as refrigeration, which poses a danger to the health of fish in certain ecosystems. This threat is reduced by the use of cooling towers, which are located in places where additional warming is deemed unacceptable.

• All radioactive wastes are classified, packaged and stored (due to their danger), compared to other sources such as coal or oil, the discharges of which are issued directly to the environment.

• Nuclear waste loses its radioactivity over time. After 50 years, 99.1 percent of the radiation has already been emitted, which has a strong contrast to arsenic, sulfur and other chemical elements that are stable and will exist forever, and are released from coal burning. Despite being very controversial, nuclear energy defenders maintain that the burying solution for waste is very proven. This is the natural example of Oklo, a natural nuclear reactor, in which such waste has been stored for approximately 2 billion years with minimal contamination of the surrounding ecosystem. Nuclear waste is generated in a small volume, with less than 1% of toxic waste in industrialized countries. In certain countries, 96 per cent of nuclear waste could be recycled and reused, if additional proliferation risks were acceptable.
• According to antinuclear groups, radioactive contamination leaks generally question the safety of nuclear production plants. It is also argued that nuclear power plants are a health hazard. To know these risks, all nuclear installation operators are required to make radiation measurements in and around their locations as well as to report all the particles and radiation that they emit, having to be certified by the regulatory authority (the CSN in the Spanish case). This practice is more or less the same in all IAEA member countries. In the event of significant emissions, this is above the limits prescribed by the NCRP, and being mandatory for IAEA members, the IAEA must be informed and assigned a 5 or higher INES rating, which is very rare. All facilities in IAEA member countries are regularly checked. In addition, all operators are obliged to make all measures available to the public. On average, a person living near a nuclear plant will receive 1 percent of the total natural radiation from it, which is within the security limits.
  • In Great Britain, studies conducted by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Environmental Radiation (COMARE) in 2003, found no evidence of an increase in childhood cancer around nuclear plants. They did find an excess of leukemia and non-Hodgkinian lymphomas (NHL) near other nuclear facilities including the plants of: AWE Burghfield, UKAEA Dounreay and BNFL's Sellafield. COMARE has stated that linking with nuclear materials is unlikely, but admits that "the excess around Sellafield and Dounreay does not seem to be due to chance, even though there is currently no convincing explanation."

Energy independence

• According to the supporters of nuclear energy, in some developed nations, such as Spain, there are no viable alternatives. In the words of the French: “We have no coal, we have no oil, we have no natural gas, we have no choice.” A Greenpeace study defends that, in Spain, renewable sources could generate much more energy than is consumed.

• Critics with shutdown claim that the energy produced by nuclear power plants could not be compensated, predicting an energy crisis or indicating that only coal could offset nuclear energy with the consequent increase in CO emissions₂ and the necessary increase in imports of coal or oil. Nuclear energy has not been affected by international embargoes, since uranium ore is imported from politically stable countries, such as Australia or Canada, unlike major oil, coal or natural gas suppliers, where countries of the Middle East and the new republics from the former Soviet Union are included.

• In addition, the Uranium Information Centre defends that nuclear energy has better energy performance on its investment (EROI in English). Performing a life cycle analysis, 5 months of energy production is required to reimburse the initial energy investment. Defenders also argue that a relatively rapid increase in the number of facilities is possible. New reactor designs have a construction period of three to four years.

Economy

• An argument for nuclear energy defenders is the energy economy. Nuclear energy defenders claim that this is an economically competitive energy and a way of producing friendly energy with the environment, as opposed to fossil fuels. They also claim that in some places, especially where coal mines are far from plants, nuclear energy is cheaper, although in other cases it is roughly equivalent or more expensive. The same comparisons can be made with gas and oil ^{[chuckles]required]}.

• A study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology of 2003 concludes that the nuclear option should be maintained because it is an important source of carbon dioxide-free power generation. It also indicates that, under current conditions, nuclear power is not competitive against the use of fossil fuels. The study indicates several alternatives in which this energy would be competitive against the burning of these fossil fuels, for example by charging a tax on emissions of polluting gases, reducing construction costs by 25 %, operating and maintenance costs by more than 25 %, shortening the construction deadlines of the 5-year plants (since considered "optimist" in the report) to the 4-year environment, or reaching a nuclear condition. According to Greenpeace, it takes about 7 years of average. However the manufacturers of the plants ensure that the construction of the new generation plants is around 3-4 years of construction (e.g. AP1000 3 years, EPR and CANDU 3.5 years old).
• In addition, according to the European Externe project, nuclear energy has one of the lowest external costs, i.e. costs to the environment and people. They are not included in the price but are paid by society and will be partly included by the Kyoto Protocol. In the United Kingdom, for example, the external nuclear costs are of a quarter of euro per kWh, which is a little more than for the wind power that is priced to 0.15 cents of euro per kWh, but considerably less than for the coal that stands from 4 to 7 cents of euro per kWh, for the oil (3 to 5 cents of euro per cent) In other European nations the situation is more or less similar.
• In addition, the cost of many renewable energies would increase if the necessary sources of support were included given their intermittent nature. It has been estimated that wind energy, for example, has a cost of three times more than the average electricity in Germany^{[chuckles]required]}. Although nuclear energy in many countries is unpopular, at times when oil prices grow, the arguments for nuclear energy are re-thinking.

Security levels

• Nuclear energy defenders maintain that nuclear power plants are safe and protected against terrorist or military attacks. The containment buildings are heavily reinforced and extremely protected.

• These also argue that the Chernobyl accident was a unique case that could only occur due to the combination of poor reactor design and the conduct of unauthorized testing. This argument was refuted after the Fukushima accident, before which 3 reactors from the same plant were merged, releasing large amounts of radiation. Chernobyl-type reactors do not have containment buildings that protect the reactor from external attacks or persons outside of potential nuclear accidents. This is different in Western reactors, which are the most widely designed ones. The Three Mile Island accident did not release significant amounts of radioactive particles (although it is actually estimated that the accident caused a radioactive gas emission equivalent to 2.5 million curios). This is mainly due to the existence of the containment of the reactor of this nuclear power plant, not existing at the Chernóbyl plant. However, Fukushima's nuclear reactor had a containment wall, which could not prevent the release of more than 10% of the Chernobyl-released radiation into the atmosphere.

• They also highlight the high level of safety for workers in this industry. In nuclear reactors there were 8 deaths due to electric shocks, significantly lower than accidents in the coal industry (342), natural gas (85), or hydroelectric power (883).

Countries that have taken some option towards abandonment

Japan

In July 2011, several months after the Fukushima accident, the Prime Minister of Japan Naoto Kan gave a controversial speech for the gradual elimination of nuclear energy in his country. Among his comments stand out: & # 34; We have to fight for a society that does not depend on nuclear energy, & # 34; "Nuclear technology is not something that can be managed by conventional security measures." In May 2012, all 54 Japanese nuclear power plants remained idle due to various reviews and stress tests required by the government.

By July 2022, 33 reactors with a total capacity of 31,679 MW(e) continue to operate, there are 2 more under construction and 27 permanently shut down.

Belgium

The Belgian abandonment legislation was approved in July 1999 by the liberal parties (VLD and MR), the socialists (SP.A and PS) and the environmental parties (Groen! and Ecolo). The law provides for the country's seven nuclear reactors to close after 40 years of operation (which is the design life of a nuclear power plant), and prohibits the construction of new plants. When the law was approved, there was speculation about its future under a government not associated with the Green Party.

In 2003 a new government was elected without the Greens. In September 2005, the decision was partially revoked, extending the abandonment period by an additional 20 years, with the possibility of further subsequent extensions. It is still unknown whether new nuclear facilities will be built. The reason given for revoking the decision to stop the Belgian reactors was the impossibility of replacing the electricity that is currently generated by nuclear power plants with alternative energies^{[citation required]} , the only practical alternatives being the massive use of new oil or coal thermal power plants or the purchase of electricity from other countries. The first option does not seem feasible due to the restrictions imposed by the Kyoto protocol, while the second has higher associated costs than the continued use of the Belgian nuclear power plants themselves.

In July 2005 the National Planning Bureau published a report stating that oil and other fossil fuels generate 90% of the energy used in the country, while nuclear energy generates the 9% and renewable energy 1%. It should be noted that only 19% of the total energy consumed is electrical (the rest is consumed in transport), and that in certain areas of Belgium such as Flanders nuclear energy provides up to more than 50% of electrical energy to homes and companies. This was the main reason given for the extension of the deadline for abandoning nuclear energy, as it was impossible to achieve 50% of electricity generation through the use of renewable energy, and the use of fossil fuels would lead to the impossibility of compliance of the Kyoto protocol.

It is estimated that within 25 years, renewable energy will increase by a maximum of 5%, due to the high associated costs. The Belgian government's current plan foresees the closure of nuclear plants by 2025. That report raised some concerns regarding greenhouse gases and the sustainability of the system. In August 2005, France's Suez Group offered to buy Belgium's Electrabel, which operates the nuclear reactors. At the end of 2005, Suez owned 98.5% of Electrabel's shares. At the beginning of 2006, Suez and Gaz de France announced their merger.

Germany

In 2000, the German government, formed by the SPD and the '90/Green alliance, officially announced its intentions to abandon nuclear energy. Jürgen Trittin (of the German Greens) as Minister of the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, reached an agreement with the energy companies for the gradual shutdown of the country's 19 nuclear reactors, and the cessation of civil use of nuclear energy by 2020. Based on calculations of 32 years of typical reactor operating time, the agreement stipulates precisely how much energy a plant is allowed to generate before its closure.

The reactors at Stade and Obrigheim were closed on November 14, 2003 and May 11, 2005 respectively. The start of their dismantling is scheduled for 2007. It is not ruled out that the reactors could be put back into operation by the recently elected government led by the Christian Democratic Union party.

Antinuclear activists criticize the agreement since they believe that it is more of a guarantee of operation than an abandonment of nuclear energy. They also argue that the time limit for abandoning nuclear energy is too long, and that the agreement prohibits only the construction of commercial nuclear plants, and is not applicable to nuclear plants for scientific use, which have since begun operation. nor to uranium enrichment facilities. Furthermore, the reprocessing of nuclear fuel was not immediately prohibited, but was allowed until mid-2005.

A new law for renewable energy sources created a new tax to support renewable energy. The German government, which declares climate protection a key issue of its policy, announced a target of reducing CO₂ emissions by 25% compared to 1990. In 1998 The use of renewable energy reached 284 PJ of primary energy demand, which corresponds to 5% of the total electricity demand. By 2010 the government plans to reach 10%.

Anti-nuclear activists argue that the German government has supported the use of nuclear energy by giving financial guarantees to suppliers. They also state that so far there are no plans for the final storage of nuclear waste. And they believe that tightening safety regulations and increasing taxes could have forced a more rapid abandonment of nuclear energy. It is also suggested that the closure has been carried out at the cost of concessions on safety issues due to having to transport nuclear waste throughout Germany. This point has been denied by the Minister of the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety.

Critics of plans to abandon nuclear energy in Germany argue that nuclear power plants cannot be compensated, and predict an energy crisis, or argue that only coal or oil could compensate for nuclear energy, increasing tremendous CO₂ emissions. In addition, electricity imports should grow, which would ironically come from nuclear energy generated in France or Russian natural gas, which some do not perceive as a safe supplier. Due to the rising prices of fossil fuels, discussions about an abandonment of abandonment flourished. In the 2002 federal election, the CDU/CSU candidate for chancellor, Edmund Stoiber, promised to cancel plans to abandon nuclear energy if he won. In the 2005 federal elections, Angela Merkel, CDU candidate and current chancellor, won, and has announced negotiating with energy companies the time limit for the closure of nuclear reactors. The battle over nuclear energy that was raised as a key element in the coalition between the CDU and the SPD was decided in favor of abandonment.

At the beginning of 2008, surveys show a favorable attitude of Germans towards maintaining nuclear energy (54% of those surveyed). Chancellor Merkel states that "as soon as possible, we must reassess the decision to abandon nuclear energy.

On September 6, 2010, the German government put into practice the agreement reached 8 months earlier with the electricity companies - on January 21, 2010 - by which the 2002 closure agreement - of the social democratic and green government - was revoked. of the 17 nuclear power plants in 2022. On September 18, popular antinuclear pressure became manifest - one hundred thousand people surrounded the government quarter of Berlin - before the German government.

On March 14, 2011, 3 days after the Fukushima accident in Japan, Chancellor Merkel froze the decision taken on September 6 for 3 months. On March 15, 2011, the 7 oldest nuclear power plants were provisionally closed for 3 months. At that time, 71% of the population was in favor of abandoning nuclear energy.

On May 30, 2011, at the proposal of Merkel's conservative government, the Bundestag (German parliament) approved by a large majority the complete abandonment of nuclear energy by 2022 at the latest. The only party that voted against was < i>Die Linke since he wanted to introduce the ban on nuclear energy in the Constitution, as stated in the Austrian Constitution.

The Siemens AG group announced on September 17, 2011 the total abandonment of the nuclear energy business as a result of the Fukushima catastrophe in Japan and the approval by the Bundestag of the nuclear blackout in Germany for 2022.

Italy

The abandonment of nuclear energy in Italy began a year after the Chernobyl accident in 1986. After a referendum in 1987 it was decided to close the four nuclear power plants, closing the last one in 1990. In addition, the construction moratorium of new nuclear power plants, which originally ran from 1987 to 1993, was eventually extended indefinitely.

Italy is a net importer of primary energy, importing all oil, gas, coal and electricity from foreign countries.

In 2006, Italy is an importer of electricity from nuclear generation, and its largest electricity company, Enel, invests in nuclear reactors in France and Slovakia so that they can provide it with electricity in the future, in addition to being part of the development of the technology. of the EPR.

Abandonment has always been a highly debated issue in Italian politics. The Italian Minister of the Environment, Altero Matteoli, announced in October 2005 the interest in using nuclear energy as the main source of energy in about 10-15 years.^{[citation needed]< /sup>}

However, in the 2011 referendum (June 12-13), in which 57% of Italians called to the polls participated, more than 95% of voters voted against the construction of new nuclear power plants. In theory, this means definitive abandonment. The Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi, thus suffered a severe setback, having invited the electorate not to vote with the political objective of not reaching the 50% quorum required for the consultation to be considered valid - as stipulated in the Italian Constitution. of 1948 - and to be able to carry out million-dollar contracts with the French government. This referendum took place three months after the accident at the Japanese Fukushima plant.

Netherlands

In 1994 Parliament voted to abandon it after a discussion on the management of nuclear waste. The power plant in Dodewaard was shut down in 1997. In 1997 the government decided to terminate the operating license of the Borssele nuclear power plant at the end of 2003.

In 2003 the shutdown was postponed by the conservative government until 2013.

In 2005 the decision was revoked and an investigation into the expansion of the use of atomic energy was initiated. This revocation was preceded by the publication of a report on sustainable energy by the CDA (main party of the government coalition, Christian Democrats). Other political parties supported her at that time.

In 2006 the government decided that Borssele would remain open until 2033, as long as it can meet increased safety standards. The owners, Essent and Delta, will invest with the government 500 million euros in sustainable energy, money that the government says they should have paid to the plant owners as compensation anyway.

Philippines

In the Philippines, in 2004, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo defined her energy policy. She wanted to increase the national oil and gas reserves through exploration, the development of alternative energy sources, reinforce the development of natural gas as a fuel and coconut diesel as an alternative fuel. She also established collaborations with Saudi Arabia, Asian countries, China and Russia. She also made public her plans to convert the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant into a gas-fired plant.

Sweden

After the partial meltdown of the core of the Three Mile Island nuclear generating plant in the United States in 1979, a referendum was held in Sweden in which people could only vote 'No to nuclear'# 3. 4;. Although there were 3 solutions, they were all basically a soft or a hard 'No'. Then the Swedish parliament decided in 1980 that the nuclear plants that were to be built were not going to continue, and that the phase-out of nuclear energy should be completed by 2010. After the Chernobyl Accident of 1986 (in present-day Ukraine) the issue of the safety of nuclear energy was called into question again. In 1997 the Riksdag, the Swedish parliament, decided to stop one of the Barsebäck nuclear reactors on July 1, 1998 and the second before July 1, 2001, although under the condition that their energy production be compensated. The next Conservative government tried to cancel the nuclear power plant shutdown process, but its decision was revoked due to protests. Instead, they decided to extend the life limit of the plants until 2010. In Barsebäck, group 1 was turned off on November 30, 1999, and group 2 on June 1, 2005.

The process of abandoning nuclear energy in Sweden has been controversial. Some people fear that Sweden will lose its international competitiveness^{[citation needed]}. The energy production of the remaining nuclear plants has been considerably increased in recent years to compensate for the closure of Barsebäck. In 1998, the government decided not to build more hydroelectric plants to protect water resources.

On July 25, 2006, an electrical failure occurred in reactor number 1 of the Forsmark plant, an incident preliminarily classified as level 2 on the INES scale (7-level scale) by the Swedish regulatory authority SKI. Lars-Olov Höglund, former director of the plant, stated that "it was pure luck that a core meltdown did not occur." Three other nuclear reactors of identical design (Forsmark II, Oskarshamns I and Oskarshamns II) were shut down. on August 4, 2006 to conduct an investigation by the regulatory body. The investigation resulted in changes to the electrical installation of Forsmark-I, II and Oskarhamns-II being necessary. As of September 14, 2006, the restart of Oskarshamns-II was imminent, and it had not yet been requested. permission for the restart of Oskarshamns-I. Currently, the Swedish Government has revoked the ban on building new nuclear power plants.

Switzerland

In Switzerland they have held many referendums on the issue of nuclear energy, starting in 1979 with a citizen initiative in favor of nuclear safety, which was rejected. In this country, nuclear power plants do not have an established life limit as has been done in other countries with nuclear energy.

Other countries

(See also Nuclear Energy Policy and List of nuclear reactors)

Spain

In Spain in 1983 the socialist government enacted a nuclear moratorium (now repealed) and the discussion began (as in the rest of Europe) about what should be done with nuclear energy. In 2005, with a socialist government and in the face of the unstoppable rise in the prices of imported fossil fuels, the debate on the need for nuclear energy was reopened.

In the 2006 state of the nation debate the Spanish Government confirmed the decision to abandon nuclear energy.

In 1993 the Vandellós-I nuclear power plant was closed due to the damage caused in the accident due to a fire that had occurred on October 29, 1989. On April 30, 2006 the Zorita nuclear power plant was closed, the oldest in the country. In December 2012, activity in Santa María de Garoña ceased, despite the intentions and facilities provided by the Popular Party government, the electricity companies decided to let the license expire due to the lack of profitability involved in making the improvements &# 34;post-Fukushima. In Spain there are 7 nuclear reactors in operation with a combined power of 7,400 MW and there are 3 inactive reactors with a total power of 1,106 MW.

The government announced the closure of the Garoña nuclear power plant in 2009. Its useful life initially ended in 2011, making it the oldest construction plant in Spain after Zorita. Spain is now looking for a location for a Centralized Temporary Warehouse (CTC) for high-level radioactive waste, which should be operational in 2011 (the year in which it should begin to house spent fuel from of the dismantling of the Vandellós, Garoña and Zorita plants). The municipality that agrees to host it will receive 700 million euros, 300 jobs in construction and 110 during its maintenance (expected to be 60 years), apart from the compensation contemplated in current legislation (11.5 million euros annually). The date for submitting applications from municipalities began the third week of September. The 69 municipalities integrated into the AMAC (Association of Municipalities in Nuclear Power Plant Areas) requested information about the ATC. A news item from the free newspaper "20 minutes" states that of the 9 municipalities that were interested in the proposal, almost all have already given up after listening to neighborhood opinion.

Ireland

In 1968 it was proposed to build a nuclear plant for the first time. It was to have been built during the 1970s at Carnsore Point in County Wexford. The plan initially envisaged a single plant, which was later expanded to four on the same site, but it was abandoned due to strong opposition from environmental groups, and Ireland has continued without nuclear power ever since. Despite opposition to nuclear energy (and the reprocessing of nuclear fuel at Sellafield) Ireland established a connection with Great Britain to buy electricity, which is partly a product of nuclear energy.

Austria

On July 9, 1997, the Austrian Parliament voted unanimously to maintain its national antinuclear policy.^[1]

France

Based on 2002 figures, EDF - France's largest state-owned electricity generation and distribution company - produces around 78% of its electricity from 58 nuclear power plants. Critical sectors have highlighted the disproportion of means supplied by nuclear energy in relation to that coming from other means - basically imported coal and oil - however, the whole of French society accepts nuclear energy.

Francois Hollande, president of France since 2012, intends to reduce nuclear energy production by a third over the next 20 years.

If fully implemented, the idea could force the closure of up to 20 of the country's 58 reactors, according to Professor Laurence Tubiana, a former government adviser whom the president appointed as the official in charge of facilitating a national debate, paving the path for what they call le transition energetique.

In 2016 France will close its first nuclear power plant, it is the Fessenheim Nuclear Power Plant, which has a total power of 1800 MW.

Bulgaria

The Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant has six pressurized water reactors with a total power of 3760 MWe currently. Four are old VVER-440 V230 reactors, considered dangerous, and which according to a 1993 agreement between the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and the Bulgarian government were to be closed at the end of 1998. Units 5 and 6 are newer VVER-1000 reactors.

United Kingdom

In the early 1990s, concern grew about the effects of nuclear power plants on the human fetus, when a higher incidence of leukemia cases was detected in the vicinity of some of these plants. The effect was speculative given that other increases were also found in places where there were no nuclear plants and not all plants recorded increases in their surroundings. Studies conducted by COMARE, Compete on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment, in 2003, found no evidence of a link between nuclear energy and childhood leukemia. An opinion poll carried out in 2003 in Britain by MORI on behalf of Greenpeace showed broad support for wind power, with a majority in favor of ending nuclear power on an equal cost basis. Recently, there has been a heated discussion about nuclear waste. In reaction, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) was created in April 2005 under the Energy Act 2004 to ensure that 20 British public sector nuclear sites were decommissioned and decontaminated. safely and in a way that protects the environment for future generations.

In April 2005, British Prime Minister Tony Blair's advisers suggested that building new nuclear power plants would be the best way to meet national targets for reducing emissions of gases responsible for global warming. The government has a short-term goal of cutting 1997 levels below 20% and a more ambitious 60% cut by 2050. Critics of nuclear power say this move will not help meet the 2010 target, because to the long period necessary to plan, build and install such power plants. However, supporters of the idea say nuclear power will help meet the 60% cut by 2050^{[citation needed]}.

Slovenia

In 2003, its only nuclear plant, located in Krško, was closed, deciding not to build new plants.

Finland

The Parliament of Finland voted on May 24, 2002 to build its fifth nuclear power plant. Economic, energy security and environmental (climate policy) motivations were given as reasons. While hydroelectric power generation is curtailed in drought years, nuclear power supplies constant volumes of energy. With growing demand (projections point to the need for 7,500 MW of additional capacity by 2030) and the need to ensure reliable economic supply for the long term, several studies show that nuclear energy is the cheapest option for Finland. >[citation required].

The Greens left the government in reaction to this decision, with the resignation of the Minister of the Environment, Satu Hassi. Other sources see the construction as a hidden subsidy for the powerful Finnish paper industry, which is a voracious consumer of electrical energy.

The vote was considered very significant in the construction, after more than a decade, of a new nuclear power plant in Western Europe. The electricity company TVO, which intends to operate the new reactor, managed to impose extremely favorable conditions on the construction of the reactor, due to its strategic importance for the nuclear industry: fierce competition between manufacturers caused the price of the project to drop to 3.2 billion euros (although this price still exceeded by 700 million euros the maximum cost foreseen during the political debate). Areva, the French public company that will build the new reactor, is currently planning to build a similar one in France, although its cost will be 25% higher than that agreed for Finland. Another fact to take into account is that TVO and Areva established a fixed price contract, which implies that if the total costs exceed 3.2 billion euros (something quite likely given the new design, the ambitious deadlines and the already accumulated delay of 18 months), Areva will have to cover the additional costs. This and other reasons have led the European Commission to investigate the existence of illegal state aid in the financing of the new reactor, according to the complaint from the European Renewable Energy Federation. Despite all these advantages for the TVO company, Standard & Poor's revised TVO's credit rating from "stable" to "negative", after the decision to build the new reactor was announced. According to credit analyst Andreas Zsiga of Standard & Poor's, this "reflects the increasing financial and commercial risk that may occur if TVO decides to move forward. Finnish environmental groups have set up a website to provide information on the construction of this nuclear reactor: (in English) www.olkiluoto.info.

However, in July 2009 the project was 3 years behind schedule.

Russia

Plans have been made to increase the number of reactors in operation from twenty-nine to fifty-nine, financed with the help of loans from the European Union. Old reactors will be maintained and upgraded, including RBMK units similar to the Chernobyl reactor. In August 2005, Russia and Finland agreed to export nuclear energy from Finland to Russia. China and Russia agreed to strengthen cooperation in the construction of nuclear plants in October 2005.

Oceania

New Zealand enacted the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act in 1987, which prohibits the parking of weapons nuclear weapons in the territory of New Zealand and the entry into New Zealand waters of nuclear-armed or nuclear-powered vessels. This Act of Parliament, however, does not prohibit the construction of nuclear power plants.

There is no nuclear plant in Australia. Australia has extensive, low-cost coal reserves and considerable reserves of natural gas. The majority of political opinion opposes domestic nuclear power on both environmental and economic grounds. However, a number of prominent politicians have begun to invoke nuclear energy as an affordable means of reducing polluting emissions and perhaps facilitating the installation of large-scale desalination plants^{[citation needed]} .

Asia

China and India are currently building new nuclear power plants.

In Taiwan, oil accounts for 48% of total energy consumption. This is followed by coal at 34%, followed by nuclear power at 9%, natural gas at 8%, and hydropower (below 2%). Nuclear energy is the subject of controversy and the privatization of the energy market (with Taipower which is a state company), which was initially planned for 2001, was postponed in 2002 until 2006. Taipower has an installed capacity of 31,915 MW, of which of which 69% corresponded to thermal, 16% to nuclear and 14% to hydraulic. In early 2000, the Democratic Progressive Party government was elected, with promises to approve only liquefied natural gas power projects for the future, and to increase the share of liquefied natural gas in Taiwan's power generation to reach about a third of the total by 2010. An attempt was made to stop ongoing construction of the 2,700 MW Kungliao nuclear plant, but a court ruled that construction could not be stopped.

In Japan, according to the situation as of 2005, 55 reactors generate 30% of its electricity. 80% of its energy comes from imports. Since 1973, nuclear energy has been a national strategic priority.

With data as of 2005, South Korea has 18 operational nuclear energy reactors, and two more under construction and scheduled for inauguration in 2004. Slowly, renewable energy, mainly hydroelectric, is gaining share.

In North Korea, two pressurized water reactors, in Kumho, were under construction, which was suspended in November 2003. On September 19, 2005, it committed to suspending the construction of nuclear weapons and allowing international inspections. in exchange for aid in the energy sector, which would include one or more light water reactors (The agreement stated: "The other parties expressed their respect and agreed to discuss at the appropriate time the issues for the supply of reactor(s) of light water").

Iran has two nuclear power plants under construction and, like any other country, the legal right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Starting in 2005, the United States and the European Union began to denounce that the Treaty had been violated by the secret nuclear program that was discovered in 2002. Iran claims that nuclear energy is necessary for an expanding population that has more than doubled its size. number in the last twenty years, as well as for its growing industrialization. The country routinely imports gasoline and electricity, and the burning of large quantities of fossil oil drastically damages the Iranian environment. Iran questions that it is not allowed to diversify its energy sources, especially when there are fears that its oil fields could be running out. Furthermore, it claims that its oil should be used to obtain high-value products, and not simply in conversion into electricity. Iran also raises financial issues, claiming that developing excess capacity in its oil industry could cost $40 billion just to pay for power plants. The provision of elements for nuclear energy would cost only a part of this figure, taking into consideration its abundant accessible resources of uranium ore.

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

United States

In the United States, exploitation began when President Dwight D. Eisenhower opened the Shippingport nuclear power plant on May 26, 1958 as part of his Atoms for Peace program. The Shippingport Reactor was the first nuclear power plant built in the United States.

In 2004 in the United States, there were 69 commercial pressurized water and 35 steam reactors with units permitted to operate in total, 104 producing a total of 97,400 MW, which is approximately 20% of the total. national electricity consumption. The United States is the world's largest commercial supplier of nuclear energy.

Several US nuclear plants have been shut down ahead of their expected operating lives, including the Rancho Seco plants in 1989 in California, San Onofre Unit 1 in 1992 in California (units 2 and 3 are still operating), Zion in 1998 in Illinois and Trojan in 1992 in Oregon. However, a large number of plants have recently received a 20-year extension to their authorized life periods.

In the US, As of 2005, no nuclear plant has been commissioned without subsequent cancellation for twenty years. However, on 22 September 2005 it was announced that two new sites had been selected to receive new power reactors (excluding the new reactor scheduled for INL) - see Nuclear Energy Program 2010, and two other sites had plans for new ones. reactors. There was also a facility for a previous permit at Exelon's Clinton Nuclear in Clinton, Illinois to install another reactor as well as a restart of a reactor at the Tennessee Valley Authority's Browns Ferry nuclear plant. On February 17, 2010, President Barack Obama announced the construction of 2 new nuclear power plants in the state of Georgia, the first to be built in the United States in 30 years, with which this country restarts its commitment to nuclear energy.

Mexico

In Mexico, after a period in which it was thought about stopping the use of nuclear energy, it was finally decided in 2007 to repower the Laguna Verde nuclear power plant, which has 2 reactors of 683MW each, after the repowering the reactors will increase their production to 817MW each. On May 14, 2010, the Secretary of Energy Georgina Kessel announced that Mexico fully contemplates the development of nuclear energy in its energy matrix as an alternative to discourage the use of fossil fuels and increase the generation of clean electricity. The project director of the CFE (Federal Electricity Commission) revealed the 4 scenarios that Mexico contemplates: One that rules out the use of nuclear energy and instead the construction of 14 coal plants between 2019 and 2028; another that involves the construction of two nuclear power plants that would come into operation in 2027 and 2028 in addition to limits on the use of coal and natural gas, while increasing the use of wind energy; a third scenario that rules out the use of coal and limits the construction of new gas-fired combined cycle plants, thus allowing the construction of 6 nuclear plants that would begin operating between 2024 and 2028; and a fourth scenario, which rules out the use of coal, imposes limits on combined cycles and includes 10 nuclear plants that would be operating between 2022 and 2028.

South America

In Argentina there are three nuclear power plants, two in the town of Lima, Province of Buenos Aires, and another in Embalse, Province of Córdoba.

In Brazil, nuclear energy, produced by two reactors in Angra, provides around 4% of the country's electricity - around 13,000 GWh per year.

Journalistic reports (I half of 2006) indicate that both countries are considering completing the plants that were on a decelerated construction schedule.

Africa

In Africa, South Africa is the only country that has a nuclear power plant and it is located in Koeberg.

Review

Several countries, mostly European, considered abandoning the use of nuclear energy starting in 1987. Austria (1978), Sweden (1980) and Italy (1987) voted in referendums to oppose or abandon nuclear energy. nuclear energy. Countries that do not have nuclear plants and have banned the construction of new plants include Australia, Austria, Denmark, Greece, Ireland and Norway (the latter has two research reactors). Poland stopped construction of a reactor. Belgium, Germany, Holland, Spain and Sweden have decided not to build new reactors or intend to abandon nuclear energy, although most still depend on it to a greater or lesser extent. Switzerland had a moratorium on stopping construction of nuclear plants for 10 years, but in a referendum in 2003 it was decided not to renew it.

The Finnish parliament approved the construction of a fifth nuclear power plant in 2002. This was the first decision made in this regard in a decade in Western Europe.

If countries abandon nuclear energy, they will have to find alternatives for energy generation, if they do not want to depend on the import of fossil fuels (mostly from politically unstable countries). For this reason, discussions of future abandonment are often linked to discussions about the development of renewable energy. Among the most discussed alternatives to nuclear energy are hydroelectric, wind energy, solar energy and biomass. Fossil fuels could also be considered if existing technology were improved so as not to produce polluting effects.

In 2009, the European Parliament ruled in favor of nuclear energy.