DOCSLIB.ORG

Explaining Nuclear Energy Pursuance: a Comparison of the United States, Germany, and Japan Lauren Emily Mckee Old Dominion University

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Explaining Nuclear Energy Pursuance: a Comparison of the United States, Germany, and Japan Lauren Emily Mckee Old Dominion University Old Dominion University ODU Digital Commons Graduate Program in International Studies Theses & Graduate Program in International Studies Dissertations Summer 2014 Explaining Nuclear Energy Pursuance: A Comparison of the United States, Germany, and Japan Lauren Emily McKee Old Dominion University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/gpis_etds Part of the Energy Policy Commons, and the International Relations Commons Recommended Citation McKee, Lauren E.. "Explaining Nuclear Energy Pursuance: A Comparison of the United States, Germany, and Japan" (2014). Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), dissertation, International Studies, Old Dominion University, DOI: 10.25777/8257-af84 https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/gpis_etds/69 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Program in International Studies at ODU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Program in International Studies Theses & Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ODU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. EXPLAINING NUCLEAR ENERGY PURSUANCE: A COMPARISON OF THE UNITED STATES, GERMANY, AND JAPAN by Lauren Emily McKee B.A. May 2004, University of Southern Mississippi M.A. August 2007, University of Southern Mississippi A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of Old Dominion University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL STUDIES OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY August 2014 Approved by: Steve Yetiv (Director) Francis Adams (Member) Heidi Schlipphacke (Member) ABSTRACT EXPLAINING NUCLEAR ENERGY PURSUANCE: A COMPARISON OF THE UNITED STATES, GERMANY, AND JAPAN Lauren Emily McKee Old Dominion University, 2014 Director: Dr. Steve Yetiv Energy is critical to the functioning of the global economy and seriously impacts global security as well. What factors influence the extent to which countries will pursue nuclear energy in their overall mix of energy approaches? This dissertation explores this critical question by analyzing the nuclear energy policies of the United States, Germany and Japan. Rather than citizen opposition or proximity to nuclear disasters, it seems that a country’s access to other resources through natural endowments or trading relationships offers the best explanation for nuclear energy pursuance. For my mother, who always knew I could. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My greatest debt of gratitude is owed to my director and mentor, Dr. Steve Yetiv, whose support and guidance on matters of career, school and “real-life” have proven immeasurably valuable and entertaining. I also have to thank my dissertation committee members, Drs. Heidi Schlipphacke and Francis Adams. Dr. Schlipphacke has been an endless source of encouragement, offering her time and energy as both a teacher and role model. Her combination of professionalism and warmth I constantly try to emulate. Similarly, I owe many thanks to Dr. Adams, who, in addition to offering his time as a dissertation committee member, has also presented me with numerous teaching opportunities in the Political Science and Geography Department for which I will always be grateful. I must also thank Dr. Regina Karp, who has been my go-to “voice of reason” and who gives of herself so freely to help GPIS students. She has been a valuable source of advice for me as a female scholar just starting out, especially in a field and profession where there are still regrettably few women. My international education would have been incomplete without the friendship of my fellow GPIS students, especially Wiebke Lamer, Renata Giannini, Alessandro Shimabukuro, Carlos Teixiera, Degi Betcher, Katerina Oskarsson, Jeff Mistich, and Sagar Rijal. They all deserve my respect for constantly challenging my perceptions of the world and my deepest appreciation for the community we created in a place where we were all from somewhere else. Special thanks to Wiebke for her insights on Germany, her translations of challenging German words over 35 characters, and her willingness to always “conference” with me. Finally, I must thank my friends and family who have long supported my dream of getting a Ph.D. and my sometimes “wild and weird” ideas about seeing and studying the world. Thanks are owed to my father, Michael McKee, who inspired my curiosity for what lay beyond Mississippi when I was very young. My oldest friends each deserve my gratitude: Amanda Mills Blackledge, who always knew I was “going places;” Matt Wilson, who can always offer an American perspective; and Bethany Mills Rigney, who always keeps me humble. I also owe a debt to Reggie Shoemake, who did not get to see me finish but was confident that I would. Lastly and most deeply, I must thank my mother, Sheila Shoemake, who instilled my love of and respect for reading and learning and who has always believed in my capabilities, even and especially when I didn’t believe in myself. I am absolutely sincere when I say this dissertation and Ph.D. would not have been possible without her constant love and support. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES.........................................................................................................................ix LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................................................x Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................1 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................................... 8 Background Literature .............................................................................................................8 Comparative Literature..........................................................................................................14 3: NUCLEAR ENERGY IN THE UNITED STATES.........................................................24 Objective..................................................................................................................................24 Development of Early Energy Policy in the U S ................................................................25 Atomic Energy Acts of 1946 and 1954 ...............................................................................25 Energy Upheaval in the 1970s............................................................................................. 29 Division in the 1980s .............................................................................................................32 1992 Energy Policy A ct........................................................................................................ 33 Nuclear Public Opinion in the United States ..................................................................... 36 Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima .................................................................43 Nuclear Protest in the US ...................................................................................................... 49 Access to Other Resources .................................................................................................... 60 Chapter Conclusions ..............................................................................................................69 4: NUCLEAR ENERGY IN GERMANY..............................................................................73 Objective..................................................................................................................................73 Development of Early Energy Policy in Germany........................................................... 74 The 1959 Atomic Energy A ct...............................................................................................75 Subsequent Amendments to the Atomic Energy Act: 2002 ........................................... 76 Subsequent Amendments to the Atomic Energy Act: 2010 ............................................76 Fukushima in 2011................................................................................................................. 77 Nuclear Public Opinion in Germany....................................................................................80 Polling Results of German Nuclear Opinion ..................................................................... 83 The 1970s and Three Mile Island ........................................................................................ 87 The Early 1980s and Chernobyl..........................................................................................94 The 1990s and the Rise of the Der Griinen P artei ............................................................ 98 Angela Merkel, the CDU, and Fukushima ......................................................................102 Access to Other Resources ................................................................................................ 108 Chapter Conclusions ............................................................................................................113 viii Chapter Page 5: NUCLEAR ENERGY IN JAPAN ..................................................................................... 117 Objective................................................................................................................................117 Development of Early Energy Policy in Japan................................................................119 Atomic Energy Basic
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Progress Report on G7 Energy Sector Support for Ukraine
    The Progress Report on G7 Energy Sector Support for Ukraine Foreword The Energy Ministers of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the EU Commissioner for Energy met in Rome in May 2014. They discussed ways to strengthen collective energy security and issued the Rome Energy Security Initiative, which provided for a number of immediate actions to be taken. On the basis of this initiative, Italy compiled “Rome G7 Energy Initiative for Energy Security Implementation Report” and submitted to the Hamburg G7 Energy Ministerial Meeting in May 2015. At the Hamburg meeting in May 2015, G7 Energy Ministers discussed progress since the meeting in Rome in strengthening collective energy security and decided on a further initiative to effectively improve sustainable energy security of G7 countries and beyond, taking into account recent market developments. In the G7 Hamburg Initiative for Sustainable Energy Security, G7 Energy Ministers declared concrete joint actions with non-G7 countries to further strengthen sustainable energy security. In the G7 Elmau Summit Communiqué published in June 2015, the G7 leaders welcomed the Hamburg Initiative and announced their commitment to continue to support vulnerable countries, including Ukraine, in its efforts to reform and liberalize energy systems and aimed to further diversify its energy mix, fuels, energy sources and routes. This paper aims to report to the G7 Energy Ministers about the outcomes of support for Ukraine by G7 member countries, EU and the IEA after the “Rome G7 Energy Initiative for Energy Security Implementation Report”. Given that our support for reforming and liberalizing energy systems in most vulnerable countries including Ukraine, is one of the concrete actions described in the Hamburg G7 Initiative, this paper organizes the current state and progress of reforming Ukraine’s energy system and identifies unsolved issues.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Security in the Black Sea Region: Contested Spaces
    SIPRI Policy Paper NUCLEAR SECURITY 49 IN THE BLACK SEA December 2018 REGION Contested Spaces, National Capacities and Multinational Potential vitaly fedchenko and ian anthony STOCKHOLM INTERNATIONAL PEACE RESEARCH INSTITUTE SIPRI is an independent international institute dedicated to research into conflict, armaments, arms control and disarmament. Established in 1966, SIPRI provides data, analysis and recommendations, based on open sources, to policymakers, researchers, media and the interested public. The Governing Board is not responsible for the views expressed in the publications of the Institute. GOVERNING BOARD Ambassador Jan Eliasson, Chair (Sweden) Dr Dewi Fortuna Anwar (Indonesia) Dr Vladimir Baranovsky (Russia) Ambassador Lakhdar Brahimi (Algeria) Espen Barth Eide (Norway) Jean-Marie Guéhenno (France) Dr Radha Kumar (India) Dr Patricia Lewis (Ireland/United Kingdom) Dr Jessica Tuchman Mathews (United States) DIRECTOR Dan Smith (United Kingdom) Signalistgatan 9 SE-169 72 Solna, Sweden Telephone: + 46 8 655 9700 Email: [email protected] Internet: www.sipri.org Nuclear Security in the Black Sea Region Contested Spaces, National Capacities and Multinational Potential SIPRI Policy Paper No. 49 vitaly fedchenko and ian anthony December 2018 © SIPRI 2018 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of SIPRI or as expressly permitted by law. ISBN 978-91-85114-95-5 Contents Preface iv Acknowledgements v Summary vi Abbreviations viii 1. Introduction 1 2. The evolution of nuclear security in the Black Sea region 4 The circumstances facilitating nuclear security threats: materials, 4 poverty and conflicts The evolution of nuclear security assistance 5 3.
    [Show full text]
  • From Wilderness to the Toxic Environment: Health in American Environmental Politics, 1945-Present
    From Wilderness to the Toxic Environment: Health in American Environmental Politics, 1945-Present The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Thomson, Jennifer Christine. 2013. From Wilderness to the Toxic Environment: Health in American Environmental Politics, 1945- Present. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:11125030 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA From Wilderness to the Toxic Environment: Health in American Environmental Politics, 1945-Present A dissertation presented by Jennifer Christine Thomson to The Department of the History of Science In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the subject of History of Science Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts May 2013 @ 2013 Jennifer Christine Thomson All rights reserved. Dissertation Advisor: Charles Rosenberg Jennifer Christine Thomson From Wilderness to the Toxic Environment: Health in American Environmental Politics, 1945-Present Abstract This dissertation joins the history of science and medicine with environmental history to explore the language of health in environmental politics. Today, in government policy briefs and mission statements of environmental non-profits, newspaper editorials and activist journals, claims about the health of the planet and its human and non-human inhabitants abound. Yet despite this rhetorical ubiquity, modern environmental politics are ideologically and organizationally fractured along the themes of whose health is at stake and how that health should be protected.
    [Show full text]
  • Losalarms NATIONAL LABORATORY
    LA-12388-M MANUAL UC-714 Issued:No#ember1992 NUCLEARCRITICALITYSAFETY: 5-DAYTRAININGCOURSE offered at The Los AlamosNationalLaboratory Editedand Compiledby JohnA. SchIesser LosAlarms NATIONAL LABORATORY LosAlamos,New Mexico87S45 A’ L P : ., . , LA--12388-M DE93 002308 ABSTRACT This com ilation of notes is .prescnted as a source re?erence for the cri~icahty safety course. It represents the contributions of many people, particularly Tom McLaughlin, the course’s primary instructor. Table of Contents I. General 5-Day Course Objectives Cours,” Critique Il. History Early History of Criticality Safety Criticality Control in Operations with Fissile Material Criticality Risk in Perspective III. Fundamentals Fundamental Concepts and Simple Fissioning Systems Factors AfYectingCriticality Safety IV. Analysis Methods Critical Dimensions of Systems Containing ‘U, WPu, and ‘U Buckling Conversion Example Storage and Transportation v. Administrative Practices Communication Links in Nuclear Criticality Safety American National Standards VI. Accidents and Incidents A Review of Criticality Accidents Process Criticality Accident Likelihoods, Consequences, and Emergency Planning Probabilistic Risk Assessment Applications VII. Glossary Glossary of Nuclear Criticality Terms Reference List vm. Experiments Experimental Plans Revisions Date Description of revision 11/92 Original issue . 5-Day NuclearCriticality Safety Course Objectives At the completion of this training course, the attendee will: be able to define terms commonly used in nuclear criticality) safety. be able to appreciate he fundamentals of nuclear criticality safety. be able to identify facmrs which iiffect nuclear criticality safkty. be able to identify examples 01’criticality contro!s ac;used at k .Alamos. be able to identify examples of circumstances present during criticality acciu~nts. be able to identify examples of computer codes used by the nuclear criticality safety specialist.
    [Show full text]
  • Ukraine Chornobyl Chronology
    Chornobyl Chronology Last update: December 2008 This annotated chronology is based on the data sources that follow each entry. Public sources often provide conflicting information on classified military programs. In some cases we are unable to resolve these discrepancies, in others we have deliberately refrained from doing so to highlight the potential influence of false or misleading information as it appeared over time. In many cases, we are unable to independently verify claims. Hence in reviewing this chronology, readers should take into account the credibility of the sources employed here. Inclusion in this chronology does not necessarily indicate that a particular development is of direct or indirect proliferation significance. Some entries provide international or domestic context for technological development and national policymaking. Moreover, some entries may refer to developments with positive consequences for nonproliferation. Nuclear Waste: 2008-1995 OVERVIEW Spent fuel is generally stored on site in cooling ponds at the nuclear power plants at which the fuel assemblies were used. Ukraine previously sent its spent fuel to Russia to be reprocessed, but this course became a contentious issue after Russia passed a law in 1992 prohibiting the import of radioactive material into Russia. This action resulted in storage crisis at Ukrainian power plants. In 6/93, however, Russia passed a new law that allows Ukrainian spent fuel to be reprocessed, but not stored, in Russia. The law does not allow the import of nuclear waste into Russia, but allows the import of Russian-origin spent fuel as long as the resulting waste is returned to the territory of the state which delivered it.
    [Show full text]
  • High Cost of Fear V2
    The High Cost of Fear Understanding the Costs and Causes of South Korea’s Proposed Nuclear Energy Phase-Out By Michael Shellenberger, Mark Nelson, Madi Czerwinski, Michael Light, John Lindberg, and Minshu Deng August 2017 The High Cost of Fear Page !1 of !62 Cover photo credit: Kenneth Lu/Flickr The High Cost of Fear Page !2 of !62 Table of Contents Executive Summary About the Authors Introduction I. South Korea’s Proposed Nuclear Phase-out A. Political Reform and Democratization B. Challenges and Opportunities 1. Methodology 2. Findings II. Understanding Anti-Nuclear Fear A. Why Prosperity Breeds Paranoia B. Why Environmentalists Turned Against Nuclear in the 1970s C. Foreign Funding and Misinformation in South Korea D. The Truth About Fukushima E. Fukushima as Panic F. Hyping Earthquake and Corruption Fears III. Lessons and Recommendations A. Lessons Learned B. Recommendations IV. Appendix A: Environmental Progress Donors V. Appendix B: Open Letter to President Moon from Climate Scientists and Conservationists VI. Appendix C: “Why I Changed My Mind about Nuclear Power” by Michael Shellenberger. Chosun Ilbo. July 21, 2017. VII. Appendix D: Supplementary Charts and Figures The High Cost of Fear Page !3 of !62 Executive Summary “The High Cost of Fear” uses publicly available data, the best-available peer-reviewed scientific research and simple methods to calculate economic and environmental impacts of a nuclear phase-out in South Korea. We find a nuclear phase-out would: • Cost at least $10 billion per year for additional natural gas purchases
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear and Coal in the Postwar US Dissertation Presented in Partial
    Power From the Valley: Nuclear and Coal in the Postwar U.S. Dissertation Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University By Megan Lenore Chew, M.A. Graduate Program in History The Ohio State University 2014 Dissertation Committee: Steven Conn, Advisor Randolph Roth David Steigerwald Copyright by Megan Lenore Chew 2014 Abstract In the years after World War II, small towns, villages, and cities in the Ohio River Valley region of Ohio and Indiana experienced a high level of industrialization not seen since the region’s commercial peak in the mid-19th century. The development of industries related to nuclear and coal technologies—including nuclear energy, uranium enrichment, and coal-fired energy—changed the social and physical environments of the Ohio Valley at the time. This industrial growth was part of a movement to decentralize industry from major cities after World War II, involved the efforts of private corporations to sell “free enterprise” in the 1950s, was in some cases related to U.S. national defense in the Cold War, and brought some of the largest industrial complexes in the U.S. to sparsely populated places in the Ohio Valley. In these small cities and villages— including Madison, Indiana, Cheshire, Ohio, Piketon, Ohio, and Waverly, Ohio—the changes brought by nuclear and coal meant modern, enormous industry was taking the place of farms and cornfields. These places had been left behind by the growth seen in major metropolitan areas, and they saw the potential for economic growth in these power plants and related industries.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Shadow of Russia? Nuclear Power in Ukraine Zuzanna Nowak
    No. 96 (691 ), 3 Ju ly 201 4 © PISM Editors: Marcin Zaborowski (Editor-in-Chief) . Katarzyna Staniewska (Managing Editor) Jarosław Ćwiek-Karpowicz . Aleksandra Gawlikowska-Fyk . Artur Gradziuk . Piotr Kościński Łukasz Kulesa . Roderick Parkes . Patrycja Sasnal . Marcin Terlikowski In the Shadow of Russia? Nuclear Power in Ukraine Zuzanna Nowak While the recent discussion about Ukrainian energy dependence on Russia has focused on the question of gas, in reality the nuclear industry in Ukraine is equally sensitive and vulnerable to external pressures. Historical and technological conditions mean that Ukraine is and will continue to be forced to cooperate with Russia in the field of nuclear energy. However, Ukraine can take the initiative to move out of the shadow of Russia through the consistent implementation of their nuclear strategy and strengthening relations with Western partners. Furthermore, support for Ukraine's nuclear energy development can bring benefits to European and Polish energy security. A Problematic Relationship. The Ukrainian nuclear industry was established in the seventies as part of the Soviet nuclear programme. After the collapse of the USSR, Ukraine inherited 16 reactors, including four RMBK-1000 reactors in Chernobyl (currently closed due to structural defects), and 12 VVER reactors. After Ukraine’s declaration of independence in 1991, Ukrainian-Russian relations in the field of nuclear energy remained relatively stable. As a consequence, a further three reactors were also built under Russian licence. To this day, Ukraine remains a valuable partner for Russia, constituting the biggest external market for Russian nucear technology. Nevertheless, the gas crises of 2006 and 2009, and especially the current destabilisation of the country, have highlighted Ukraine’s excessive and problematic dependence on energy from Russia.
    [Show full text]
  • Copies of Environmental Assessment (EA) References
    4c Wm Proiect // Department of Energy Docket No. Nevada Operations Office P 0RL V'( ý..-;(-.T CONTRCL- P. 0. Box 14100 Distr b ytý U- Las Vegas, NV 89114-4100w'- - Z 3 (Re'turnto Wf, 623-SSj MAR 2 7 1986 N. K. Stablein Division of Waste Management U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7915 Eastern Avenue Silver Spring, MD 20910 COPIES OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA) REFERENCES Enclosed are the EA references that you recently requested. This set represents those references that are expected to be cited in the final EA that did not appear in the December 1984 draft EA. Enclosure 1 is an alphabetical listing of all the references in this shipment. Enclosure 2 is a list of references expected to be cited in the final EA which are not yet available. The references on enclosure 2 will be shipped to you as soon as possible. Donald L. Vieth, Director WMPO:MBB-928 ,Waste Management Project Office Enclosure: As stated cc w/encl 1 and 2 only: V. J. Cassella, DOE/HQ (RW-22), FORS M. B. Blanchard, WMPO, DOE/NV J. C. Rotert, WMPO, DOE/NV J. D. D'Lugosz, WMPO, DOE/NV M. D. Voegele, SAIC, Las Vegas, NV M. I. Foley, SAIC, Las Vegas, NV M. A. Glora, SAIC, Las Vegas, NV J. L. Younker, SAIC, Las Vegas, NV M. L. Brown, SAIC, Las Vegas, NV S. B. Jones, SAIC, Las Vegas, NV 0. K. Lewis, SAIC, Las Vegas, NV P. T. Prestholt, NRC, Las Vegas, NV 8604210090 860327 PDR WASTE WM-L1 PDR ENCLOSURE 1 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER NEW Test Data for Test Well Barr, G.
    [Show full text]
  • 70 Years of and Counting
    Federation of American Scientists 70 years of and counting Alexander DeVolpi Retired, Argonne National Laboratory Freeman Dyson Retired, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University Charles D. Ferguson President, FAS Richard L. Garwin IBM Fellow Emeritus, IBM Thomas J. Watson CHARLES D. FERGUSON Research Center Editor in Chief Frank von Hippel ALLISON FELDMAN Co-Director, Program on Science and Global Managing and Creative Editor Security, Princeton University ___________ Robert S. Norris Senior Fellow for Nuclear Policy, FAS B. Cameron Reed Charles A. Dana Professor of Physics, Alma FAS Public Interest Report College 1725 DeSales Street NW Megan Sethi Suite 600 U.S. Historian and Adjunct Professor, Cal Poly Washington, DC 20036 Pomona and Southern New Hampshire PHONE: 202.546.3300 University FAX: 202.675.1010 Daniel Singer EMAIL: [email protected] Of Counsel, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & The PIR welcomes letters to the editor. Letters Jacobson LLP should not exceed 300 words and may be edited Jeremy J. Stone for length and clarity. Founder, Catalytic Diplomacy ___________ Annual print subscription is $100.00. An archive of FAS Public Interest Reports is available online at: http://fas.org/publications/public-interest- reports/. Cover image: U.S. military observe the explosion during Operation Crossroads Baker, a nuclear test conducted on Bikini Atoll on July 25, 1946. Source: U.S. Department of Defense. PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE: REINVENTION AND RENEWAL Charles D. Ferguson………………………………………………………………………………..1 THE LEGACY OF THE FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SCIENTISTS Megan Sethi………………………………………………………………………………………...5 SCIENTISTS AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS, 1945-2015 Robert S. Norris…………………………………………………………………..…………….....12 GOVERNMENT SECRECY AND CENSORSHIP Alexander DeVolpi……………………………………………………………………………......15 FAS HISTORY, 1961-1963 Freeman Dyson…………………………………………………………………………...………23 FAS IN THE 1960s: FORMATIVE YEARS Daniel Singer………………………………………………………………………………...……26 REVITALIZING AND LEADING FAS: 1970-2000 Jeremy J.
    [Show full text]
  • THE FUTURE of NUCLEAR ENERGY to 2030 and ITS IMPLICATIONS for SAFETY, SECURITY and NONPROLIFERATION Part 1 – the Future of Nuclear Energy to 2030
    THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY TO 2030 AND IT’S IMPLICATIONS FOR SAFETY, SECURITY AND NON PROLIFERATION: PART 2 – THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY TO 2030 TO THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY 2 – PART AND NON PROLIFERATION: SECURITY FOR SAFETY, AND IT’S IMPLICATIONS 2030 TO THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY TO 2030 AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR SAFETY, SECURITY AND NONPROLIFERATION Part 1 – The Future of Nuclear Energy to 2030 57 Erb Street West TREVOR FINDLAY Waterloo, Ontario N2L 6C2, Canada tel +1 519 885 2444 fax +1 519 885 5450 www.cigionline.org CIGIONLINE.ORG Addressing International Governance Challenges The Future of Nuclear Energy to 2030 and its Implications for Safety, Security and Nonproliferation Part 1 – The Future of Nuclear Energy to 2030 Trevor Findlay CIGI’s Nuclear Energy Futures Project is conducted in partnership with the Canadian Centre for Treaty Compliance (CCTC) at the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, Carleton University, Ottawa. The project is chaired by CIGI Distinguished Fellow Louise Fréchette and directed by CIGI Senior Fellow Trevor Findlay, director of CCTC. CIGI gratefully acknowledges the Government of Ontario’s contribution to this project. The opinions expressed in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Centre for International Governance Innovation, its Board of Directors and/or Board of Governors, or the Government of Ontario. Copyright © 2010 The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI), Waterloo, Ontario, Canada (www.cigionline.org). This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution — Noncommercial — No Derivatives License.
    [Show full text]
  • Icone24-60336
    Proceedings of the 2016 24th International Conference on Nuclear Engineering ICONE24 June 26-30, 2016, Charlotte, North Carolina ICONE24-60336 STUDY ON CURRENT STATUS AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS IN NUCLEAR-POWER INDUSTRY OF UKRAINE Alexander Zvorykin Igor Pioro Raj Panchal National Technical University of Faculty of Energy Systems and Faculty of Energy Systems and Ukraine Nuclear Science Nuclear Science “Kiev Polytechnic Institute” University of Ontario Institute of University of Ontario Institute of Technology Technology 37 Prospect Peremogy, Kiev 03056 2000 Simcoe Str. N., Oshawa ON 2000 Simcoe Str. N., Oshawa ON Ukraine L1K 7K4 Canada L1K 7K4 Canada E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Keywords: Nuclear Power Plant, Thermal Efficiency, Pressurized-Water Reactor, Plant Systems ABSTRACT left without the basic and vital source of electricity generation. Nuclear power in Ukraine is the most important source of Also, current problems of Ukrainian NPPs are: 1) lower electricity generation. Currently, Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs) capacity factors (around 80%) compared to those in other generate 45.5% of the total electricity in the country followed countries (~90%); 2) uncertainties with nuclear-fuel supply due with coal generation ‒ 38%, gas generation 9.6% and the rest is to political situation; and 3) service and repairs of relatively old based on renewable sources, mainly on hydro power plants – reactors. 5.9%. Nuclear-power industry is based on 4 NPPs including the largest one in Europe ‒ Zaporizhzhya NPP with about 6,000 1. INTRODUCTION MWel gross installed capacity. It is well known that electrical-power generation is the key factor for advances in industry, agriculture, technology and the These NPPs are equipped with 13 VVER-1000 and 2 VVER- level of living (for details, see Table 1 and Fig.
    [Show full text]