An international view of nuclear power plants

By Alan Newman

In the final analysis, it may be the least of many evils. After the environmental and political costs of car- bon-based fuels are added u p , nuc lear power emerges again as an attractive energy source. At the same time, an older and wiser nuclear indus- try may be better posi- tioned to address puh- l ic concerns about safety and construc- tion costs. In its recent international survey of n u c l e a r power plants, the U.S. Coun- cil for Energy Aware- ness (USCEAI-an in- d u s t r y - s p o n s o r e d group in Washington, DC-appears cau - t i ous ly op t imis t i c about the future.

A l though i t h a s been 14 years since a new nuclear power plant was ordered in the United States, oth- er nations have stead- fastly supported nu- clear nower over the last 3dyears.

France, the world's most nuclear-pow- ered country, gener- ates nearly 75% of its electricity through atomic fission. This year France's 55th nu- c lear power p l an t

went online, and five more reactors are scheduled to he connected to that country's electric grid through- out the 1990s. As a result, France emits less CO, per unit gross nation- al product than any other industri- alized nation (0.34 metric tons C0.J

Pr4cis articles are reports of meet- ings of unusual significance, inter- national or national developments of environmental importance, sig- nificant public policy develop- ments, and related items.

1682 Environ. Sci. Technol.. Vol. 25. No. 10. 1991 001 3-936W91/0925

$1000 GNP compared to the U.S. output of 0.98).

To keep construc- tion costs down, most of France's commer- cial nuclear plants are based on only two de- signs: 900-MW and 1300-MW pressurized water reactors. Ac- cording to USCEA, this "cookie cutter" approach allows Elec- tricite de France (EdF), France's national utili- ty company, to now build facilities in 20% less time, on average, than was required to build their earliest fa- cilities. Recently, the US. nuclear industry endorsed a similar ap- proach for future con- struction projects.

Even with the stan- dard designs, EdF's debt stands at around $45 billion, a figure Greenpeace has re- cently labeled exces- sive hut which EdF declares is typical of a capital-intensive in- dustry. Greenpeace also disputes EdF's claim of supplying cheap electricity, ar- guing that the low numbers result from France's hydroelec- tric power plants and unrealistic hookkeep- ing. Finally, the envi- ro-nmenial g r o u p

charges that the existence of generic design faults in France's two stan- dard reactors "multiplies the repair and maintenance requirements, and . . . reinforces the need for added safety features for public accep- tance reasons" (1).

m-1682$02.50/0 0 1991 American Chemical Society

The nuclear club France is not alone in its commit-

ment to nuclear power. Other Euro- pean countries have significant in- vestments in this technology (see Table 1). For many of these coun- tries the alternative to nuclear pow- er plants is coal-fired facilities.

Despite the opposition of groups like Greenpeace, public opinion in European countries seems to favor nuclear power. In 1990 Swiss voters rejected an initiative to close down that country’s five nuclear power plants, and this year Sweden’s Par- liament abandoned a 1988 decision to decommission two nuclear plants in 1995-96.

Safety remains an important issue in Europe, especially in the after- math of the 1986 Chernobyl disas- ter. Saddled wi th Soviet-style plants, the new governments of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, and Poland, along with reunified Germany, have decommissioned, halted construction of, or canceled orders for several nuclear facilities. Significantly, Hungary and Czecho- slovakia are now considering re- placement plants based on designs from the West. Furthermore, the So- viet Union is upgrading many of its own nuclear facilities.

In the same spirit, the World As- sociation of Nuclear Operators, which was formed in 1989 as a re-

sponse to Chernobyl, has sponsored a series of international exchange visits. According to USCEA, the manager or chief engineer of every nuclear power plant in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe has now visited and examined operations at facilities in the West.

Following Europe’s lead, Japan’s powerful Ministry of International Trade and Industry has advocated constructing 40 new plants over the next 20 years. If the plants are com- pleted, Japan would more than dou- ble its production of nuclear-gener- ated electricity (from 179 billion to 474 billion kilowatt-hours). Of course, this program would also sig- nificantly lower Japan’s need for imported oil.

Currently, 25 countries operate commercial nuclear generating plants. Construction and orders for new facilities will add another 13 countries to that list in the upcom- ing years, including some potential- ly worrisome locations such as Israel, Egypt, and Cuba. (USCEA also lists Iran, Libya, and North Ko- rea as countries with plans for nu- clear power plants, but has little in- formation about their progress.) As of 1990, more than 160 plants were either under construction, ordered, or planned.

By comparison, the United States currently has 1 1 2 commercially li- censed nuclear plants which in 1990 generated almost 21% of this coun- try’s electricity. Despite the dearth of new orders, three new nuclear power plants were added that year-sym- bolically, one was the bitterly con- tested Seabrook, NH, facility.

Whither the waste? Nuclear plant construction in the

United States has been held up, in part, because of concern over waste disposal of long-lived radioisotopes. Internationally, the handling of ra- dioactive byproducts from nuclear facilities has varied considerably.

Reprocessing plants in France and Great Britain recycle uranium and plutonium from spent fuel. These operations also reprocess ra- dioactive waste from other nations and return the reclaimed fuel and the remaining waste. France has even built a facility primarily for foreign customers which can pro- cess 800 tons of spent fuel annually.

Germany and Japan reprocess wastes as well, but, lacking suffi- cient facilities, ship some of their spent fuel to France and Great Brit- ain. To handle future demand, a pri- vate concern is now considering

constructing an 800-tonfyear repro- cessing plant in Japan. India also re- processes fuel and has begun con- struction of a second plant to handle 100 metric tons per year.

Until recently, Eastern European countries sent their wastes to the U.S.S.R. for free reprocessing and storage. The Soviet Union now de- mands a fee for these services, and its former clients, unable to pay, are temporarily storing wastes.

Underground burial of high-level radioactive wastes, the approach de- bated in the United States, is also be- ing studied in other countries. Ger- many is investigating its Gorleben salt dome as a possible storage site for vitrified highly radioactive waste, and Canada is constructing an under- ground laboratory to study waste dis- posal deep under the hard rock of the Canadian Shield formation. Since 1985, Sweden has stored spent fuel in cavern water pools 50 m under- ground and is investigating a final storage location 500 m deep.

For low-level radioactive wastes, many countries rely on shallow burial or storage in special sites. For instance, South Africa buries low- and medium-level wastes sealed in either steel or concrete drums 10 m underground in a national deposito- ry north of Cape Town.

England and Pakistan dispose of low-level wastes at sea. The British first pass these materials through an ion exchanger to reduce radioactivity prior to ocean disposal. Mexico, the newest member of the nuclear energy club, is storing low- and medium- level wastes temporarily on site.

Although still dogged by contro- versy, nuclear power clearly is viewed worldwide as a viable tech- nology. The United States, too, re- mains officially committed to nu- clear power. However, the fate of nuclear power plant construction in this country may hinge on the suc- cesses and failures of other nations with similar facilities.

Reference

(1) Nectoux, F. Crisis in the French Nu- clear Industry; Greenpeace: Washing- ton, DC, 1991. [May be obtained from Greenpeace, 1436 U St., N.W., Wash- ington, DC 20009, (202) 462-1177; French version available from Green- peace International, Keizersgracht 176, 1016 DW Amsterdam, The Neth- erlands.]

Alan Newman is an associate editor on the Washington editorial staff of ES&T.

Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 25, No. 10, 1991 1683