A hundred years ago radioactivity was discovered. The nuclear science and technology that have followed this discovery have had a tremendous impact in the world - some of it terrifying, most of it beneficial. My comments will illustrate how we are trying to prevent the terrifying uses of nuclear energy and how we can use nuclear energy for our benefit and for sustainable development without harming the environment or compromising the welfare of future generations. To put it differently, how we can use nuclear energy for development that is sustainable.
At the end of the Second World War - almost 50 years after the discovery of radioactivity - the first nuclear bomb was dropped, demonstrating to the world the destructive use that can be made of nuclear energy. The same year - 1945 - the United Nations was established "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war", but facing almost from the outset the cold war and a nuclear arms race which for many years confronted the superpowers with the risk of mutually assured destruction and which threatened to destroy the rest of the world as well.
Some fifty years later - in 1995 and 1996 - the situation is much more hopeful. The cold war is over and the former superpower adversaries are dismantling their nuclear weapons at such a pace that managing and making peaceful use of the fissionable material from the dismantled weapons is a serious problem. The Non-Proliferation Treaty, with some 180 parties, has been prolonged for an indefinite period of time. If nuclear disarmament continues and accelerates and were to extend to all the five declared nuclear-weapon States; if the three threshold States, India, Pakistan and Israel, were - like South Africa - to roll back from their military nuclear potential, whatever it is, and if stronger verification of arms control and disarmament commitments were accepted by all, we would all move out from the horror theatre in which mega-death has stared at us for decades. The next steps in this march are a complete test ban treaty, an agreement prohibiting further production of nuclear material for weapons purposes and - following detente in the areas - nuclear-weapon-free zones in the Middle East and on the Indian subcontinent.
A great deal of credit for pushing us all in the direction of arms control and disarmament goes to Latin America and particularly Mexico whose disarmament diplomacy has been persistently active. The Tlatelolco Treaty for a nuclear-weapons-free Latin America and Caribbean was dynamically advocated by Mexico - with Garcia Robles as the leading negotiator, and my friend Sergio Gonzalez Galvez assisting him. The Latin American treaty was ready before the NPT - showing the world the way to go. For most States in this reglon it has long been in operation and I trust that soon Cuba's ratification and the remaining safeguards agreements will have been completed? allowing the Treaty to enter into force for all its parties.
Let me now turn to the beneficial uses of nuclear energy and recall that Mexico's National Institute of Nuclear Research (ININ) as well as the International Atomic Energy Agency were both established to harness nuclear energy for peaceful development - in line with the Atoms for Peace policy which was declared by President Eisenhower in 1953. ININ is now celebrating its 40th anniversary. Representing the IAEA, which will be 40 only next year, I convey warm and respectful congratulations to the older institution. In the past 40 years the peaceful uses of nuclear energy have become of great importance to Mexico and to the world and they have great potential in our quest for sustainable development. Radiation allows us to detect, trace, image and measure what our own eyes cannot see, to destroy cancer cells and germs, to provoke mutations in plants, and to generate large amounts of electricity, heat and steam economically and without adding dangerous emissions to the world ' s atmosphere. I shall comment on some of these uses, but I must first discuss the issue of safety which is fundamental for all uses of nuclear energy.
The problems of safely disposing of waste that remains radioactive for tens of thousands of years have scared the public at a time when increasing pollution and poisoning have undermined its confidence in high technology. Some opponents of nuclear power try to argue that it is irresponsible to leave any long-lived radioactive waste behind us. They and the public need to become convinced that, due to its limited volume, nuclear waste can technically and economically be safely taken care of and be put into the crust of the earth from where the uranium originally came. It is possible that future techniques will provide us with even better ways of handling - and perhaps even making use of - what today we regard as nuclear waste. We should be aware, however, that our present waste disposal concepts satisfy very high demands for safety and are vastly preferable to the ways we deal - or neglect to deal - with the wastes originating from fossil fuels.
No accidents in the world have had more publicity than those at Three Mile Island and at Chernobyl. This has tended to overshadow the fact that by now the world has the experience of some 7700 reactor years of operation without any other major accidents. Through national regulatory organizations, through the World Association of Nuclear Operators and through the IAEA these many years of experience are made available for all to learn from.
The Three Mile Island accident in 1979, which was an economic disaster, but spread no radioactivity into the environment, triggered extensive safety reviews, strengthening nuclear safety in the non-Communist world. And the Chernobyl accident, which occurred 10 years ago, similarly led to reviews and new safety measures in Russia and Eastern Europe. Thus these two major nuclear accidents, which provoked so much opposition to nuclear power, also set in motion determined and extensive action in the field of safety - at the national and international level, at the design level and at the operations level. Nuclear power safety became an important international concern and the IAEA became a central instrument through which governments co-operate to establish important elements of what is now termed an " international nuclear safety culture".
A first, fundamental, component of this safety culture consists of a number of international conventions which lay down binding rules on safety, liability, physical protection. waste management and disposal, the notification of nuclear accidents and emergency assistance. A next component consists of a large number of more detailed norms - standards and guides regarding nuclear safety, radiation safety and radioactive waste safety - NUSS. RADWASS. etc. Although they are not legally binding on States, these standards build on the continuously updated collective experience of the international community. They have considerable authority and often serve as basis for or input to national regulations. The third component consists of a series of international safety services provided by the IAEA: at the request of individual governments the IAEA sends international teams of experts to review and advise on plant safety, incidents or other events and waste disposal programmes. The fourth component is the worldwide exchange of experience that goes on continuously in the nuclear field within the IAEA and elsewhere
Today 17% of the world's electricity is generated by nuclear power with minimal environmental consequences. It is almost as much electricity as we get from hydro power. Toward the end of my presentation I shall come back to the benefits of nuclear power in the context of sustainable development. But I should first like to discuss a number of other uses that can be made of nuclear energy for our development - in the fields of medicine, agriculture and industry. In this context I want also to give some examples from the excellent co-operation between Mexico and the IAEA in several projects.
Let me begin with health and medicine.
There is probably no area in which nuclear techniques are so well accepted as in the medical fields of diagnosis, imaging and cancer treatment. The existence in Mexico of some 70 radiotherapy installations comprising some 92 Cobalt 60 therapy units and 15 clinical linear accelerators shows the dimensions of the use of these nuclear techniques in Mexico. You also have some 25 000 X-ray diagnostic units. Needless to say a high professional competence of all those who operate these installations is vital to maximize their benefits to the population. It is against this background that the lnstituto Nacional de Investigaciones Nucleares (ININ) of Mexico and the IAEA have combined forces in a project, the goal of which is to improve quality in both diagnosis and radiation therapy throughout Mexico. Phase I of the project aims at updating the knowledge and practical skills of medical physicists who are currently working in radiology, radiotherapy and nuclear medicine. Successful completion of this programme will require 1480 hours work of the participants plus a stringent examination before a diploma is awarded. The project's second phase, which begins in Mexico City in September 1996, consists of a Master's degree (M.Sc.) programme. It is to be followed by a Ph.D. in Medical Physics from the Autonomous University of Mexico (UAEM) School of Medicine. The top-flight graduates of this programme will also become the teachers of Mexico's future medical physicists. This, briefly, is a project to assure the development of a high quality radiation diagnosis and treatment infrastructure for Mexico. Our hope is that the project - and the IAEA's assistance - will be of benefit to large numbers of Mexico's citizens for decades to come.
The use of nuclear techniques in the field of nutrition is less well known to the public. A separate presentation will be given on it,-but let me briefly mention that the application of isotope techniques for evaluating human nutritional status and measuring the effects of nutritional programmes is a subject of increasing interest in our Member States. These techniques have many advantages over alternative procedures. The IAEA is involved in some pioneering work using these techniques to evaluate Vitamin A and iron deficiencies, bone disease, undernutrition and nutritional requirements of mothers and children. The isotope techniques which are used, help us to know exactly what nutritional deficiencies there are and thus facilitate devising the right remedies. The IAEA gives assistance in nutritional evaluation programmes in many countries throughout the world.
Let me turn to another - very special - nuclear technique used to improve food production through the eradication of certain insect pests. I have in, mind the Sterile Insect Technique - championed both by Mexico and the IAEA. Each year great losses in crop and ivestock production are caused throughout the world by such insect pests as the Mediterranean Fruit Fly and the New World Screwworm. The Medfly alone attacks 260 varieties of fruit and vegetables in 82 countries. The New World Screwworm attacks and causes large losses of livestock and wildlife. While insecticides are mostly indispensible for a full-scale onslaught on a large insect population, the environmental and health disadvantages of a continuous use of insecticides are well known
Mexico is presently world leader in the Sterile Insect Technique (SIT), which involves the sterilization of male insects by irradiation prior to hatching and thereafter massive aerial releases of the sterile insects into infested areas. The mating which then occurs between sterile males and native fertile females produce no offspring and the insect population can thus be gradually decimated and finally eradicated. It is a technique which releases no chemicals into the envlronment.
The SIT requires large-scale rearing and sterilization of insects in factories, such as the one in Tapachula, Mexico, which is the largest sterile Medfly rearing facility in the world. Mexico has also a large Screwworm rearing facility at Tuxtla and was able to declare final eradication of the New World Screwworm in 1991.
Over a 30-year period the cost benefit ratio of the screwworm eradication is conservatively estimated at 1 to 10. A few years ago the IAEA and the EAO, together with Libya, succeeded in eradicating the screwworm in Libya where a large infestation had occurred. We flew huge quantities of sterile flies from Mexico to Tripoli by Boeing 707 - tourist class - and then released them weekly over the infested area in Libya. Mexico is presently providing sterile screwworm flies for the eradication campaign in Central America and will provide flies for similar campaigns in the Caribbean.
The use of isotope techniques in hydrology is of great use to seGure sustainable development. Water deficits throughout the world have become increasingly troublesome and isotopic techniques are often of great help to trace and measure underground water resources. Let me give an example. The aquifer between Chapala and Guadalajara is the main source of drinking water in the area and it has been found that it is being overexploited. A study is now being undertaken by the Institution of Mexican Water Technology (IMTA) and the IAEA using chemical and isotope hydrological techniques to map this area's water patterns . The results will allow recommendations for the planning and management of the sustainable use of these water resources.
For the sustainable exploitation of geothermal sources a precise knowledge of the location and quantities of underground hot,water is crucial. Geothermal field exploration is costly, so care must be taken in locating optimum sites for drilling. Geology, geophysics and geochemistry - including isotopes - techniques are used to get information prior to even drilling the first well. I need not remind you that geothermal energy provides about 5% of Mexico's electricity.
Let me now turn to agriculture. Nuclear techniques offer some of the most effective methods for assessing availability and losses of plant nutrients and water. The IAEA is promoting the transfer of such nuclear techniques to a number of agriculture institutes in Mexico. The goal is to increase food production and protect the environment, e.g. by optimizing fertilizer nitrogen applications to irrigated wheat; and by carrying out field experiments for measuring the biological nitrogen fixing potential of beans.
Increasing the genetic variability of plant species through mutations provoked by irradiation is another nuclear technique of great importance in Mexico and throughout the world. The School of Agronomy and Zootechnia, University of Guanajuato, has used ionizing radiation for mutation breeding for several years to meet changes in the economic situation for agriculture in the Bajio region. The school is doing research on crops which are of great importance to Mexico. I am glad to note that funding from the IAEA has been used to good advantage on a project which includes the establishment of a phytopathology laboratory. Combining mutation and in vitro plant propagation strategies, the school has successfully produced new genotypes/mutant lines of sorghum, garlic, wheat and beans. Building on these successes, the school recently initiated work on avocado and pepper, two food items which are very valuable for Mexican agriculture.
Let me return now to nuclear power. The view that I am presenting is that nuclear power must and will be an important part of future sustainable development. I shall explain why.
There is absolutely no doubt that global energy use will increase sharply, in part because the world population is increasing so much, in part because energy - and especially electricity use - is a vital part of the higher living standard that we all seek.
Let me give you some figures: Bangladesh and Tanzania use less than 100 kWh electricity per capita and year. My own country, Sweden, uses 15 000 kWh per capita and year. Mexico uses about 1250. It is not surprising that the World Energy Council predicts that the world use of electricity will increase by 50 to 75% by the year 2020. From which sources will this electricity come? At present 63% of the world's electricity comes flom thermal power (coal, oil and gas), 19% from hydro, 17% from nuclear, 0.5% from geothermal and less than 0.1% from solar, wind power and biomass. Is nuclear power sustainable?
In the 1970s there was great enthusiasm for nuclear power and expectations for rapid growth, not least to reduce dependence on oil. As increase in energy demand was slower than expected, due to slow international economic development, and as resistance to nuclear power began to build up after the Three Mile Island accident, nuclear power was slowed in its development. The contemplated large programmes in Mexico and Brazil, for instance, were not realized. With the many safety related changes and additions required after Three Mile Island, nuclear power also lost some of its economic competitive edge. There is at present a stagnation in the construction of further nuclear plants in Western Europe and in the Americas. Construction is continuing vigorously only in East Asia: Japan, Republic of Korea and China.
The reasons why I predict a nuclear power revival are the following:
- From the economic point of view nuclear power is at present roughly on par with coal. However, nuclear plants require larger up front investments, which is a drawback in capital starved developing countries. As nuclear technology is relatively young there should be scope for rationalization, standardization, modular construction, higher burnup, simpliflcation - all resulting in greater efficiency and lower cost. Prices of oil and gas are likely to rise over time, while uranium is likely to remain cheap. Even though opponents of nuclear power often ignore the economic side of energy choices, the economic competitiveness of energy options remains important to countries, utilities and the consumers;
- The objections advanced to nuclear power on the grounds of safety, I trust, will gradually weaken. The impact of the nuclear safety culture, which is developing, can be seen in the improved production figures for nuclear power plants around the world, lower doses to their personnel and fewer unplanned stoppages. There will, of course, be incidents and accidents, but the risk for core melts will be - not zero - but extremely small. The International Nuclear Event Scale, which the IAEA has helped to create, and which is now adopted everywhere, will make it easier for media and the public to realize that most accidents - like most earthquakes - are very minor. Also new types of advanced reactors, some of them available in the market today, have new safety features which build on our experience. These reactors can be expected to have even better records on reliability and safety than the current dominant reactor types;
- Energy independence is an important factor. Not all countries have abundant energy resources - hydrocarbons or waterfalls. To France, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Sweden and Finland, all without oil and gas, the measure of self-reliance and the measure of immunity against international crises which nuclear power offers, has been and remains important;
- To me it appears quite likely that another important factor for a nuclear revival will be the environment. Maybe even green movements will change their attitude to nuclear power, when they see that it is the least damaging of the realistic energy options. The Club of Rome changed its attitude to nuclear power several years ago. Indeed, it is not nuclear power plants - but an excessive burning of fossil fuels - that have caused acid rains, dead forests and a threat of global climate change. Nuclear power is exceptionally clean in operation. Concern is usually focussed on the highly toxic and radioactive spent fuel and nuclear waste. What is characteristic of these, however, in addition to their toxicity and radioactivity, is, as I noted earlier, that they are so limited in volume which facilitates waste disposal.
Let me give you a concrete example. Austria decided in a referendum in 1978 not to operate the nuclear plant which it had constructed, and built instead two coal fired units of about the same capacity. The nuclear plant would have consumed about 30 tons of low-enriched uranium per year. The coal plant consumes about five train loads of coal per day! The volumes of wastes are accordingly: from the uranium a very limited quantity of nuclear waste that can be isolated in its entirety, and from the coal huge quantities of CO2 and ashes containing heavy metals which remain toxic forever. The disposal site for all this waste from burnt coal - as from other fossil fuels - is our atmosphere and the surface of our world.
It is true that the scientists are not yet certain that there will, indeed, be a global warming as early as S0 years from now as a result of emissions of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels, the leakage of methane from gas production and transportation etc. Because of this uncertainty many advocate that the world should pursue so-called "no regret" policies, by which they mean energy policies which we would not regret even if the fear of global warming were to prove unfounded. I think the nuclear power option fits the requirement of a no regret policy, as it does not contribute to global warming and is roughly competitive with the fossil fuels. That is not true of the energy that can be obtained from the renewable sources - apart from hydropower. Photovoltaic cells for solar energy, windmills, biomass are all favoured by green movements and further research and development of these sources should certainly be encouraged.
However, serious energy institutions, like the World Energy Council and the International Energy Agency of the OECD do not predict that these sources will become economically competitive in the foreseeable future. For that and other reasons they are forecast to play only a minor role in the decades to come. Conservation on the other hand, meaning both a more efficient generation and use of energy, remains very important to restrain demand for more energy generating capacity. However, this, too, is no panacea. As we become more efficient in our energy generation and use, we also increase our demands. Cars will use less gasoline per mile, yes, but there will be more cars. New light bulbs may use much less electricity, yes, but we may use more lights, etc.
I am not suggesting that nuclear power, alone, is a solution to the threat of global warming. Many different approaches will be needed, including renewables and conservation, but I submit nuclear power is the single most promising element in the response policies which need to be worked out. At present there is much talk about the need to reduce CO2 emissions. I am sorry to note that the reality goes in the opposite direction. The tendency in the world at large is mirrored in Mexico. Mexico has built two nuclear units in Laguna Verde but has many more oil and coal fired plants. Of Mexico's electricity, 65% is oil-fuelled; 5-6% is coal-fuelled; 23% is hydro; and 6% is nuclear. Let me use this occasion to congratulate Mexico on the completion of the two nuclear units at Laguna Verde. Admittedly it took much too long a time, but once they were operative, they have operated very well indeed with very high availability factors. I am happy to note that Laguna Verde is making full use of IAEA safety services. Last April a seminar was held at Laguna Verde, devoted to an "Evaluation of Operational Safety" with some 70 participants from the plant, from the regulatory body and supporting organizations. Next April an international IAEA team is invited to review the operational safety of the plant.
Is it not against the interest of oil producing countries to promote nuclear power? I don't think so. For one thing we all live in the same atmosphere! Moreover, if oil consumption were to slow somewhat, this resource does not disappear! It stays in the ground as a capital left to coming generations. Groucho Marx said he did not understand why we should do something for the coming generations. They never did anything for us! Well, I think most of us feel a kind of responsibility not to leave the earth depleted and poisoned. We want development that is sustainable. There are ample supplies of uranium. And should it get scarce we could build breeder reactors - as the French and Russians have done on a fairly large, albeit experimental scale. These fast reactors use the energy content of uranium 60 times as much as the common light water reactors. And should uranium nevertheless get scarce we could use thorium of which there is ample supply.
Let me conclude by congratulating not only ININ but Mexico on the country's harnessing of nuclear energy for sustainable development - in medicine, agriculture and power production. The use of nuclear techniques is a spearhead for the future. This use is demanding - as regards safety standards and management. Only industrialized countries and technologically advanced developing countries can use the whole spectrum of nuclear energy technology Mexico is among them.