Budapest, Hungary
WANO Biennial General Meeting
In keeping with the theme of this conference, I was asked to speak on the topic: "Nuclear Energy: 21st Century Promise." There are a number of ways to look at this theme.
The term "promise", in one definition, refers to "positive potential". In that sense, nuclear power, like many other applications of nuclear technology, has since its discovery held great potential for benefiting humankind. Many of us would argue that nuclear power, for various reasons, has not yet lived up to its potential.
But "promise" also can mean "guarantee". Here, as with any prediction, I would be more careful. If recent trends are any indication, the 21st century "promises" a second chance for nuclear energy. But in my view, that promise is conditional. The degree to which nuclear power contributes to the 21st century global energy mix depends on multiple factors. Some of those factors — such as those related to safety and innovation — will be heavily influenced by the actions of the nuclear industry and organizations such as WANO and the IAEA.
Today I would like to briefly review the factors that are driving a reconsideration of nuclear energy, as well as factors that, in my view, must be addressed if nuclear energy is to fulfill its global promise.
The Global Energy Imbalance
Any discussion of 21st century energy trends should begin by understanding the current global energy imbalance. I was personally reminded of this imbalance on visits to Ghana and Nigeria this past January. Per capita electricity consumption in Ghana is only about 300 kilowatt-hours per year, and in Nigeria it´s closer to 70 kilowatt-hours per year. That translates to an average availability of 8 watts — less than a normal light bulb — for each Nigerian citizen. These numbers stand in stark contrast with, for example, the OECD average of 8000 kilowatt-hours per year, a factor of more than 100 times greater.
Energy is clearly the fuel for development. This energy shortage in developing countries is a basic impediment to development and to efforts to eradicate poverty and hunger. The disparity in energy supply is directly related to the disparity in standards of living, which in turn creates disparities in opportunity and hope — and, I would contend, leads to the sort of despair and insecurity that give rise to tensions in many regions of the developing world.
And what is the scope of this energy imbalance? Approximately 1.6 billion people — one in four of our fellow world citizens — lack access to modern energy services. As we look to the "promise" of the century that lies before us, "connecting the unconnected" will be a key measure of our success.
Growth In Demand
Three factors are driving an expectation of substantial growth in energy demand in the coming decades — namely: the drive to raise living standards in the developing world; continued population growth; and the never-ceasing expansion in consumer products and technologies that increase the quality of life but consume additional energy.
Let me put this in comparative terms. If the energy consumption rate in the developing world were raised to the global average, the net result would be a 35% increase in global energy use. If we add the population growth predicted by 2020, the net increase would be 60%. So it should be no surprise that even the most conservative estimates predict at least a doubling of energy usage by mid-century.
The Emerging Expansion In Nuclear Energy Use
What role will nuclear energy play in meeting this increased demand? No one can answer such a question definitively, but IAEA projections for the coming decades are markedly higher than they were even five years ago.
Nuclear reactors currently generate electricity for nearly 1 billion people, producing about 16% of the world’s electricity. This percentage has held relatively steady for more than a decade, keeping pace with the steady expansion in the global electricity market.
But in just the past few years, we have witnessed a significant change in attitudes towards nuclear power. Fast growing global energy demands, an increased emphasis on the security of energy supply, and the risk of climate change are driving a renewed consideration, in many quarters, towards investment in nuclear power. This past March, at an international ministerial conference in Paris, participants from 65 countries were upbeat regarding the role of nuclear power in meeting 21st century electricity and energy needs.
Near term nuclear growth remains centred in Asia and Eastern Europe, which together account for 22 of the 24 units now under construction. The Russian Federation intends to double its nuclear generating capacity by 2020; China plans nearly a six-fold expansion in capacity by the same date; and India anticipates a ten-fold increase by 2022.
Elsewhere, plans remain more modest, but it is clear that nuclear energy is regaining stature as a serious option. When Finland began pouring concrete for Olkiluoto-3 earlier this year, it was the first new nuclear construction in Western Europe since 1991. France will likely be next, with construction of a European Pressurized Water Reactor (EPR) at Flamanville scheduled to start in 2007. Some "newcomer" developing countries, such as Indonesia and Vietnam, are also moving steadily forward with plans for nuclear power investment. And at last month´s IAEA General Conference in Vienna, a host of countries were discussing plans and possibilities for initiating or expanding nuclear power programmes.
While not every country shares the view that these rising expectations for nuclear power are warranted — and some current nuclear power users, such as Germany and Sweden, are continuing to endorse policies of phasing out their programmes — nuclear power is clearly re-emerging in a way that few would have predicted just a few years ago.
Increased Availability, Sustained Safety Performance, Improved Economics
Many analysts attribute this resurgence of interest in nuclear power to concerns regarding climate change and security of energy supply, as I just mentioned. But we should not underestimate the importance of another factor: namely, the improvements in global safety performance.
The accident at Chernobyl in 1986 prompted the creation of the World Association of Nuclear Operators, and revolutionized the IAEA approach to nuclear power plant safety. Both organizations created networks to conduct peer reviews, compare safety practices, and exchange operating information to improve safety performance. The IAEA updated its body of safety standards to reflect best industry practices, and put in place legally binding norms in the form of international safety conventions. And a more systematic analysis of risk has been used to ensure that changes made were in areas that would bring the greatest safety return.
Although the focus of these international efforts was on improving safety, a secondary benefit was the steady increase in nuclear plant availability and productivity — an increase also supported by improved management, liberalized electricity markets, better preventive maintenance practices and technological enhancements. In 1990, nuclear plants on average were available for generating electricity 71% of the time. As of 2004, that figure stood at 83% — an improvement in productivity equal to adding more than 30 new 1000 megawatt nuclear plants — at relatively minimal cost.
Managing Safety In A "Mature" Nuclear Industry
Unfortunately, nuclear safety is not the type of issue that can ever be regarded as "fixed". While the steady, strong safety performance of recent years is reassuring, noteworthy events continue to take place, even in countries with extensive operating experience and strong regulatory oversight. These events make clear a number of points: that lessons learned in one country or at one nuclear facility must be effectively and thoroughly communicated to others; that economic pressures at nuclear facilities cannot be allowed to trump sound safety investments; and that a strong safety culture for both operators and regulators must always be viewed as a "work in progress".
To quote Dr Richard Meserve, Chairman of the International Nuclear Safety Group: "Nothing is more corrosive to continued safety performance than a belief that the safety challenge has been ´solved´ and that attention can be focused on other matters."
In this context, let me mention a few points relevant to managing safety in a "mature" nuclear industry.
Addressing the "Weak Links"
First, I believe it is vital that we improve our performance in fixing the so-called "weak links" in the nuclear safety chain. Since the 1986 accident at Chernobyl, enormous efforts have been made in upgrading reactor safety features, but facilities still exist at which nuclear safety assistance should be made a priority. The symptoms at such facilities are readily evident: less than optimal design safety features; the lack of strong, independent regulatory oversight; and poorly coordinated, narrowly focused international safety assistance. For such facilities, the international nuclear safety community should move expeditiously, with coordination between WANO, the IAEA, and other relevant organizations, to clarify the actions needed, the expected costs, and a strategy and schedule for proceeding.
Aging Issues (Facilities)
A second challenge, natural to a maturing industry, relates to the aging of nuclear facilities. As licences are extended, and some major components are replaced, the type and frequency of equipment safety issues may begin to shift. In addition, older plants may not have all the safety features of modern designs. For these reasons, it is important that insights related to aging are thoroughly shared among operators and regulators.
Aging Issues (Workforce)
Aging of the nuclear workforce is also becoming a challenge in some countries. One aspect of this challenge is sometimes referred to as "maintaining the safety case" at operational reactors. The IAEA recently participated in a joint assistance mission with WANO at the Krško nuclear plant in Slovenia, focused on helping plant management to systematically capture undocumented information — such as the safety and technical insights of retiring workers. Building on a recommendation from that visit, we hope to develop policy guidance on this topic for nuclear power plants, with strategies and procedures based on best industry practices.
A second aspect of the aging workforce challenge is more straightforward: namely, developing the next generation of nuclear scientists and engineers. While some countries (such as China and India) are turning out science and engineering graduates at record rates, the same does not hold true for others. The creation of the World Nuclear University (WNU), as a global network of relevant industrial, educational and research institutions, has been a step in the right direction. However, this issue demands more engagement on all sides, in my view — particularly if the projected expansion of nuclear power is to occur.
Managing the Nuclear Expansion
One additional challenge we face relates to the prospects of new nuclear construction in countries that are just developing their nuclear energy infrastructure.
IAEA Assessment Services
For many developing countries, the starting point is a systematic assessment of energy needs. One of the IAEA´s lesser known contributions to energy development is our effort to build our Member States´ capacities for national energy analysis and energy planning, with consideration of economic, environmental and social implications. We develop and transfer planning models tailored to a country’s particular circumstances. We transfer the latest data on technologies, resources and economics. We train local experts. We help with the analysis of national options for meeting energy demands. And we help to establish the continuing local planning expertise. IAEA energy planning tools are now used in more than 100 countries around the world. Our energy assessment models treat all energy supply options equally. Each country or region faces a different array of resources, alternatives and priorities when choosing its energy strategy.
Developing Creative Approaches to Meeting Energy Needs
But if nuclear energy is to be a viable option over a broader range of applicability, it will require additional innovation — both in terms of technology and in terms of policy and infrastructure development.
As one example, the international nuclear community could be more creative in developing regional approaches to energy needs. Regional approaches could be useful in addressing many issues that have made nuclear energy impractical for developing countries, including: electrical grid capacity, upfront capital costs, infrastructure and workforce needs, design certification, licensing, operation and maintenance, and perhaps even safety regulation. This approach is consistent with concepts we are already exploring on multilateral control of fuel cycle facilities — and brings similar advantages related to safety, security, proliferation resistance and economies of scale.
At the IAEA, we work hard to support our Member States in developing and maintaining the technological aspects of nuclear power. We are also considering whether we could make more substantial contributions to the so-called "soft features" of a nuclear power programme, which would include: the development of effective management systems; support of institutions; the development of national and regional infrastructures; and the buildup of human resource capabilities.
As a related point of emphasis, we are pressing for increased harmonization in national regulatory approaches, to ensure high quality, independent oversight for nuclear activities. In February 2006, in Moscow, we will hold an International Conference for Senior Regulators — the first attempt to bring together in a common forum all senior regulators with oversight in nuclear safety, radiation safety and nuclear security.
Technological Innovation
The degree to which nuclear power fulfills its 21st century "promise" will also be a function of technological innovation — the development of new reactor and fuel cycle technologies. In nuclear R&D projects around the world, technological innovation is being used to address nuclear safety, proliferation, waste generation and economic considerations. This implies a greater reliance on passive safety features, enhanced control of nuclear materials through new fuel configurations, and design features that allow reduced construction times and lower operating costs.
For some developing countries, small and medium-sized reactors may be a more attractive option. They allow a more incremental investment, provide a better match to smaller capacity grids, and are more easily adapted to a broad range of industrial settings and applications — such as district heating and seawater desalination.
Several innovative and evolutionary approaches are moving towards implementation. Russia has licensed the KLT-40, a 60 megawatt reactor design that can be floated and transported by barge, takes advantage of Russian experience with nuclear powered ice-breakers and submarines, and can also be used for district heating. The Republic of Korea intends to construct by 2008 a one-fifth-scale demonstration plant of its 330 megawatt SMART pressurized water reactor, which will also include a demonstration desalination facility. And South Africa recently approved initial funding for developing a demonstration unit of the 168 megawatt gas cooled Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR), to be commissioned around 2010. Major research initiatives (in China, Europe, Japan, the Republic of Korea and the USA) are also focused on innovative nuclear systems to produce hydrogen for fuel cells that could be used in transportation.
Public Perceptions and Misconceptions: Shaping Energy Choices
Last but certainly not least, public perceptions — including perceptions of risk — have a considerable impact on energy choices. The failure of the nuclear community — both scientists and technical experts, operators and regulators — to effectively "market" the strength of nuclear power in comparison with other sources, has contributed to a lack of public understanding regarding risks and benefits of nuclear energy. How a given nation balances the risk of a nuclear accident against other factors — such as air pollution, dammed rivers, mining accidents, or dependency on foreign fuel supplies — is already a matter of complexity and legitimate debate. It is important for the nuclear community to make every effort to provide comprehensible, accurate information to support that debate, to ensure that the risks and benefits of nuclear technology are clearly and fairly understood.
Conclusion
While it is difficult to predict with any confidence what the 21st century holds for nuclear power, the factors that will shape its future are evident. It is my hope that, during this conference, we can consider how each of these factors can be addressed, to ensure that nuclear energy remains a viable source of safe, secure and environmentally benign energy.