The decline of civil nuclear power programs: Why state-owned enterprises hold the key to success in the Post-Fukushima Era. John Lambert A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in International Studies University of Washington 2021 Committee: Christopher Jones Halvor Undem 2021 Program Authorized to Offer Degree: Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies ©Copyright 2021 John Lambert ii | Page University of Washington Abstract The decline of civil nuclear power programs: Why state-owned enterprises hold the key to success in Post-Fukushima Era. John Lambert Chair of the Supervisory Committee: Christopher Jones Department of International Studies Civil nuclear power is declining in Canada, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States, and rapidly expanding in China, France, India, Russia, and South Korea. The disaster at the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear power plant changed the future of nuclear power. For some states that means drastic shifts away from nuclear, and for others it means that the future of nuclear just became more difficult and expensive. This paper seeks to examine the role that state-owned enterprises play in advancing nuclear programs, and the difficulties that states without state-owned enterprises will face in this new future. A state-owned enterprise is a corporation that conducts the business of the state, and is either wholly owned by the government, or controlled by a government ownership of majority shares in a private corporation. (e.g., Amtrak, Freddie Mac, etc.) I posit that the presence of state-owned enterprises, or a government’s controlling interest in a private nuclear energy corporation, enables governments to advance their state’s civil nuclear power programs. This will be analyzed by examining nuclear power plant construction times, and completion rates for states that operate nuclear state-owned enterprises against those of private corporations. The results show that states operating state-owned enterprises have higher completion rates and quicker completion times. iii | Page Table of Contents Introduction Hypothesis ................................................................................................................................................ 4 Chapter 1 The path to civil nuclear power ............................................................................................................... 8 Chapter 2 The role of State-owned enterprises in nuclear industry ..................................................................... 15 Chapter 3 Case Studies—Analysis of ten civil nuclear power states United States....................................................................................................................................... 35 Russian Federation/Soviet Union ....................................................................................................... 55 Canada ................................................................................................................................................ 68 United Kingdom .................................................................................................................................. 81 France ................................................................................................................................................. 93 Germany ........................................................................................................................................... 105 China ................................................................................................................................................. 117 Japan ................................................................................................................................................. 137 South Korea....................................................................................................................................... 150 India .................................................................................................................................................. 156 Chapter 4 - Conclusion Findings ................................................................................................................................................. 163 Appendices ...................................................................................................................................... 172-185 iv | Page Introduction Three Mile Island. Chernobyl. Fukushima. No matter which generation you grew up in, one of these three names has become synonymous with civil nuclear power1. For Baby Boomers it is Three Mile Island, for GenXers it is Chernobyl, and for Millennials it is Fukushima. These three events have shaped nations’ energy policies, as well as the world nuclear energy industry. The long-standing effects of the Three Mile Island accident of 1979 can be seen in the United States’ de jure and de facto moratorium on building new nuclear power plants. The effects of the 1986 Chernobyl accident can be readily seen in the strong anti-nuclear movements present in Germany and western Europe. On March 11, 2011, disaster struck at the Fukushima civil nuclear power plant. In 2021, the effects of the Fukushima disaster are still being felt around the world. Anti- nuclear sentiment heightened once again. Legislation has been passed, tighter regulations imposed, and in some cases, drastic shifts in energy policy have been made. The Japanese government responded to Fukushima by shutting down fifty-four nuclear reactors. 2 Anti-nuclear movements, capitalizing on the media attention, organized massive political protests in cities across the country. Sixty-thousand citizens took to the streets of Tokyo to march against civil nuclear power plants.3 German citizens organized and formed a forty-five-kilometer human chain of 60,000 anti-nuclear protesters stretching between the Stuttgart and Neckarwestheim nuclear power plants.4 States, politicians, and corporations attempted to distance themselves 1 Note: To draw a distinction between nuclear power programs and nuclear weapons programs, this paper will use the terms ‘civil nuclear power’ or ‘nuclear energy’ to refer to electrical power generated from nuclear fission—with one exception. ‘Nuclear power plant’, being the accepted industry nomenclature for nuclear plants, will continue to be used. ‘Nuclear power’ will refer to a nuclear weapons program, and ‘nuclear state’ will refer to states with ‘civil nuclear power plants’. 2 Martin Fackler, “Japan’s Nuclear Energy Industry Nears Shutdown, at Least for Now”, New York Times, March 8, 2012, https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/09/world/asia/japan-shutting-down-its-nuclear-power-industry.html 3"Sayonara, nukes, but not yet; An anti-nuclear protest in Japan." The Economist, September 24, 2011, 52(US). https://www.economist.com/asia/2011/09/24/sayonara-nukes-but-not-yet 4 “Thousands protest against Germany's nuclear plants”, BBC News, Mar 12, 2011, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-12724981 1 | Page from nuclear energy to avoid the bad press or a stroke of financial misfortune. Civil nuclear power projects that were once in discussion have now been put aside. Even large engineering corporations preemptively exited the nuclear industry—thinking they had seen the writing on the wall. Germany’s largest nuclear engineering company, Siemens, left the nuclear industry following the events of Fukushima.5 Japan and Germany were not alone in their strong reactions to the events of Fukushima. South Korea’s then-President elect Moon Jae-in stated that the events of Fukushima would lead South Korea to shift its energy policy and begin phasing-out nuclear power plants.6 Western European states that had previously committed to distant benchmarks for civil nuclear power phase-outs, reaffirmed their stance or had advanced the phase-out timelines following Fukushima. Germany’s Chancellor, Angela Merkel, shifted from a pro-nuclear stance to an anti- nuclear stance immediately following the events of Fukushima.7 This took the phase-out deadline for civil nuclear plants from 2036 (for plants that had come online after 1980) to the originally proposed 2022 from the Red-Green phaseout law.8 Based on reactions to the events of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, a similar reaction towards the events of Fukushima would be expected from states operating civil nuclear power plants. More states would follow in Germany and Japan’s footsteps—holding massive anti- nuclear protests, calling for a nuclear moratorium, or an immediate and complete phase out 5“Siemens to Exit Nuclear Energy Business”, Der Spiegel, September 19, 2011, https://www.spiegel.de/international/business/response-to-fukushima-siemens-to-exit-nuclear-energy-business- a-787020.html. 6 Christine Kim, “South Korea's president says will continue phasing out nuclear power”, Reuters, October 21, 2017, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-southkorea-nuclear-moon/south-koreas-president-says-will-continue- phasing-out-nuclear-power-idUSKBN1CR04U. Chloe Sang-Hun, “South Korea Will Resume Reactor Work, Defying Nuclear Opponents”, New York Times, October 20, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/20/world/asia/south-korea-nuclear-plants.html. 7 “Merkel Gambles Credibility with Nuclear U-Turn”, Der Spiegel, March 21, 2011, Der Spiegel, https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/out-of-control-merkel-gambles-credibility-with-nuclear-u-turn-a- 752163.html. 8 Craig Morris, and