World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Nuclear renaissance


Nuclear renaissance

The number of nuclear power plant constructions started each year, from 1954 to 2013. Note the increase in new constructions from 2007 to 2010, before a decline following the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster.

Since about 2001 the term nuclear renaissance has been used to refer to a possible nuclear power industry revival, driven by rising fossil fuel prices and new concerns about meeting greenhouse gas emission limits.[1] However, the World Nuclear Association has reported that nuclear electricity generation in 2012 was at its lowest level since 1999.[2] Globally, more nuclear power reactors have closed than opened in recent years.[3]

In March 2011 the [14][15] Countries such as Australia, Austria, Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Portugal, Israel, Malaysia, New Zealand, and Norway remain opposed to nuclear power. Following the Fukushima I nuclear accidents, the International Energy Agency halved its estimate of additional nuclear generating capacity built by 2035.[16]

The World Nuclear Association has reported that “nuclear power generation suffered its biggest ever one-year fall through 2012 as the bulk of the Japanese fleet remained offline for a full calendar year”. Data from the International Atomic Energy Agency showed that nuclear power plants globally produced 2346 TWh of electricity in 2012 – seven per cent less than in 2011. The figures illustrate the effects of a full year of 48 Japanese power reactors producing no power during the year. The permanent closure of eight reactor units in Germany was also a factor. Problems at Crystal River, Fort Calhoun and the two San Onofre units in the USA meant they produced no power for the full year, while in Belgium Doel 3 and Tihange 2 were out of action for six months. Compared to 2010, the nuclear industry produced 11% less electricity in 2012.[2]


  • Overview 1
  • Economics 2
  • Accidents and safety 3
  • Controversy 4
  • Public opinion 5
  • By region and country 6
    • Africa 6.1
    • America 6.2
    • Asia 6.3
    • Europe 6.4
    • Middle East 6.5
    • Russia 6.6
  • Views and opinions 7
  • See also 8
  • References 9
  • Further reading 10


Various barriers to a nuclear renaissance have been suggested. These include: unfavourable economics compared to other sources of energy,[17][18] slowness in addressing climate change,[18] industrial bottlenecks and personnel shortages in the nuclear sector,[18] and the contentious issue of what to do with nuclear waste or spent nuclear fuel.[18][19] There are also concerns about more nuclear accidents, security, and nuclear weapons proliferation.[18][20][21][22][23]

New reactors under construction in Finland and France, which were meant to lead a nuclear renaissance,[24] have been delayed and are running over-budget.[24][25][26] China has 32 new reactors under construction,[27] and there are also a considerable number of new reactors being built in South Korea, India, and Russia. At the same time, at least 100 older and smaller reactors will "most probably be closed over the next 10-15 years".[28] So the expanding nuclear programs in Asia are balanced by retirements of aging plants and nuclear reactor phase-outs.[29]

In the 2009 World Energy Outlook, the International Energy Agency stated that:

A nuclear renaissance is possible but cannot occur overnight. Nuclear projects face significant hurdles, including extended construction periods and related risks, long licensing processes and manpower shortages, plus long‐standing issues related to waste disposal, proliferation and local opposition. The financing of new nuclear power plants, especially in liberalized markets, has always been difficult and the financial crisis seems almost certain to have made it even more so. The huge capital requirements, combined with risks of cost overruns and regulatory uncertainties, make investors and lenders very cautious, even when demand growth is robust.[23]

As of July 2013, "a total of 437 nuclear reactors were operating in 30 countries, seven fewer than the historical maximum of 444 in 2002. Since 2002, utilities have started up 28 units and disconnected 36 including six units at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan. The current world reactor fleet has a total nominal capacity of about 370 gigawatts (or thousand megawatts). Despite seven fewer units operating in 2013 than in 2002, the capacity is still about 7 gigawatts higher".[30] The numbers of new operative reactors, final shutdowns and new initiated constructions according to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in recent years are as follows:[31]

Annual generation of nuclear power has been on a slight downward trend since 2007, decreasing 1.8% in 2009 to 2558 TWh with nuclear power meeting 13-14% of the world's electricity demand.[32][33] A major factor in the decrease has been the prolonged repair of seven large reactors at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant in Japan following the Niigata-Chuetsu-Oki earthquake.[32]

According to an article in The Times, the world is expected to build 180 nuclear power plants over the next decade, up from only 39 since 1999.[34] Sixty-three reactors with a total capacity of 65 GW are by December 2010 under construction, but several carry over from earlier eras; some are partially completed reactors on which work has resumed (e.g., in Argentina); some are small and experimental (e.g., Russian floating reactors); and some have been on the IAEA’s “under construction” list for years (e.g., in India and Russia).[21] Reactor projects in Eastern Europe are essentially replacing old Soviet reactors shut down due to safety concerns. Most of the current activity ― 30 reactors ― is taking place in four countries: China, India, Russia and South Korea. Iran is the only country which is currently building its first power reactor, but construction began decades ago.[21]

Eight German nuclear power reactors (Biblis A and B, Brunsbuettel, Isar 1, Kruemmel, Neckarwestheim 1, Philippsburg 1 and Unterweser) were permanently shutdown on 6 August 2011, following the Japanese Fukushima nuclear disaster.[35]

A study by UBS, reported on April 12, 2011, predicts that around 30 nuclear plants may be closed world-wide, with those located in seismic zones or close to national boundaries being the most likely to shut.[36] The analysts believe that 'even pro-nuclear countries such as France will be forced to close at least two reactors to demonstrate political action and restore the public acceptability of nuclear power', noting that the events at Fukushima 'cast doubt on the idea that even an advanced economy can master nuclear safety'.[36] In September 2011, German engineering giant Siemens announced it will withdraw entirely from the nuclear industry, as a response to the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan.[37]

The 2011 World Energy Outlook report by the International Energy Agency stated that having "second thoughts on nuclear would have far-reaching consequences" and that a substantial shift away from nuclear power would boost demand for fossil fuels, putting additional upward pressure on the price of energy, raising additional concerns about energy security, and making it more difficult and expensive to combat climate change.[38] The reports suggests that the consequences would be most severe for nations with limited local energy resources and which have been planning to rely heavily on nuclear power for future energy security, and that it would make it substantially more challenging for developing economies to satisfy their rapidly increasing demand for electricity.[38]

John Rowe, chair of Exelon (the largest nuclear power producer in the US), has said that the nuclear renaissance is "dead". He says that solar, wind and cheap natural gas have significantly reduced the prospects of coal and nuclear power plants around the world. Amory Lovins says that the sharp and steady cost reductions in solar power has been a "stunning market success".[39]

In 2013 the analysts at the investment research firm Morningstar, Inc. concluded that nuclear power was not a viable source of new power in the West. On nuclear renaissance they wrote:

The economies of scale experienced in France during its initial build-out and the related strength of supply chain and labor pool were imagined by the dreamers who have coined the term ‘nuclear renaissance’ for the rest of the world. But outside of China and possibly South Korea this concept seems a fantasy, as should become clearer examining even theoretical projections for new nuclear build today.[40]


Nuclear power plants are large construction projects with very high up-front costs. The cost of capital is also steep due to the risk of construction delays and obstructing legal action.[17][41] The large capital cost of nuclear power has been a key barrier to the construction of new reactors around the world, and the economics have recently worsened, as a result of the global financial crisis.[17][41][42] As the OECD’s Nuclear Energy Agency points out, "investors tend to favor less capital intensive and more flexible technologies".[17] This has led to a large increase in the use of natural gas for base-load power production, often using more sophisticated combined cycle plants.[43]

Accidents and safety

Following the 2011 Japanese Fukushima nuclear disaster, authorities shut down the nation's 54 nuclear power plants. As of 2013, the Fukushima site remains highly radioactive, with some 160,000 evacuees still living in temporary housing, and some land will be unfarmable for centuries. The difficult cleanup job will take 40 or more years, and cost tens of billions of dollars.[44][45]

Following an earthquake, tsunami, and failure of cooling systems at Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant and issues concerning other nuclear facilities in Japan on March 11, 2011, a nuclear emergency was declared. This was the first time a nuclear emergency had been declared in Japan, and 140,000 residents within 20 km of the plant were evacuated.[46] Explosions and a fire have resulted in dangerous levels of radiation, sparking a stock market collapse and panic-buying in supermarkets.[47] Other "alarming incidents" continue to occur even in a well regulated industry like that of the U.S.[48]

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, there has been heightened concern that nuclear power plants may be targeted by terrorists or criminals, and that nuclear materials may be purloined for use in nuclear or radiological weapons.[49]

Several studies and energy analysts have suggested that nuclear power is the safest of all the major forms of power production, responsible for fewer deaths per unit of energy produced than any other major energy generating technology.[50][51][52][53][54]


A nuclear power controversy[55][56][57] has surrounded the deployment and use of nuclear fission reactors to generate electricity from nuclear fuel for civilian purposes. The controversy peaked during the 1970s and 1980s, when it "reached an intensity unprecedented in the history of technology controversies", in some countries.[58][59]

In recent years there have been reports of a revival of the [68] and some objections to license renewals for existing nuclear plants.[69][70]

Public opinion

refer to caption and image description
Global public support for energy sources, based on a survey by Ipsos (2011).[71]

In 2005, the International Atomic Energy Agency presented the results of a series of public opinion surveys in the Global Public Opinion on Nuclear Issues report.[72] Majorities of respondents in 14 of the 18 countries surveyed believe that the risk of terrorist acts involving radioactive materials at nuclear facilities is high, because of insufficient protection. While majorities of citizens generally support the continued use of existing nuclear power reactors, most people do not favour the building of new nuclear plants, and 25% of respondents feel that all nuclear power plants should be closed down.[72] Stressing the climate change benefits of nuclear energy positively influences 10% of people to be more supportive of expanding the role of nuclear power in the world, but there is still a general reluctance to support the building of more nuclear power plants.[72] After the Fukushima Disaster, Civil Society Institute (CSI) found out that 58 percent of the respondents indicated less support of using nuclear power in the United States. Two-thirds of the respondents said they would protest the construction of a nuclear reactor within 50 miles of their homes.[73]

There is little support across the world for building new nuclear reactors, a 2011 poll for the BBC indicates. The global research agency GlobeScan, commissioned by BBC News, polled 23,231 people in 23 countries from July to September 2011, several months after the Fukushima nuclear disaster. In countries with existing nuclear programmes, people are significantly more opposed than they were in 2005, with only the UK and US bucking the trend. Most believe that boosting energy efficiency and renewable energy can meet their needs.[74]

By region and country


As of March 2010, ten African nations had begun exploring plans to build nuclear reactors.[75][76]

South Africa (which has two nuclear power reactors), however, removed government funding for its planned new PBMRs in February 2010, pending a decision on the project in August.


Energy Policy Act of 2005, which was designed to promote US nuclear reactor construction, through incentives and subsidies, including cost-overrun support up to a total of $2 billion for six new nuclear plants.[77]

Between 2007 and 2009, 13 companies applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for construction and operating licenses to build 30 new nuclear power reactors in the United States. However, the case for widespread nuclear plant construction was eroded due to abundant natural gas supplies, slow electricity demand growth in a weak US economy, lack of financing, and uncertainty following the Fukushima nuclear disaster.[78] Many license applications for proposed new reactors were suspended or cancelled.[79][80] Only a few new reactors will enter service by 2020.[78] These will not be the cheapest energy options available, but they are an attractive investment for utilities because the government mandates that taxpayers pay for construction in advance.[81][82] In 2013, four aging, uncompetitive, reactors were permanently closed: San Onofre 2 and 3 in California, Crystal River 3 in Florida, and Kewaunee in Wisconsin.[83][84] Vermont Yankee, in Vernon, is scheduled to close in 2014, following many protests. New York State is seeking to close Indian Point Energy Center, in Buchanan, 30 miles from New York City.[84]

Neither climate change abatement, nor the Obama Administration’s endorsement of nuclear power with $18.5 billion in loan guarantees, have been able to propel nuclear power in the US past existing obstacles. 27 nuclear reactors have been leaking radioactive tritium into the watershed. The Fukushima nuclear disaster hasn’t helped either, because radiation from the accident has turned up in water and milk in the United States.[85]

As of 2014, the U.S. nuclear industry began a new lobbying effort, hiring three former senators — Evan Bayh, a Democrat; Judd Gregg, a Republican; and Spencer Abraham, a Republican — as well as William M. Daley, a former staffer to President Obama. The initiative is called Nuclear Matters, and it has begun a newspaper advertising campaign.[86]


As of 2008, the greatest growth in nuclear generation was expected to be in China, Japan, South Korea and India.[87]

As of early 2013 China had 17 nuclear reactors operating and 32 under construction, with more planned. "China is rapidly becoming self-sufficient in reactor design and construction, as well as other aspects of the fuel cycle."[27] However, according to a government research unit, China must not build "too many nuclear power reactors too quickly", in order to avoid a shortfall of fuel, equipment and qualified plant workers.[88]

Following the Fukushima disaster, many are questioning the mass roll-out of new plants in India, including the World Bank, the Indian Environment Minister, Jairam Ramesh, and the former head of the country's nuclear regulatory body, A. Gopalakrishnan. The massive Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project is the focus of concern - "931 hectares of farmland will be needed to build the reactors, land that is now home to 10,000 people, their mango orchards, cashew trees and rice fields". Fishermen in the region say their livelihoods will be wiped out.[89]

South Korea is exploring nuclear projects with a number of nations.[90]


Austria, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Poland and Ireland have no active nuclear plants and none under construction.[91] New reactors under construction in Finland (see Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant) and France, which were meant to lead a nuclear renaissance, have been delayed and are running over-budget.[24][25][26]

On 18 October 2010 the British government announced eight locations it considered suitable for future nuclear power stations.[92] This has resulted in public opposition and protests at some of the sites. In March 2012, two of the big six power companies announced they would be pulling out of developing new nuclear power plants.[93] The decision by RWE npower and E.ON follows uncertainty over nuclear energy following the Fukushima nuclear disaster last year.[93] The companies will not proceed with their Horizon project, which was to develop nuclear reactors at Wylfa in North Wales and at Oldbury-on-Severn in Gloucestershire.[93] Their decision follows a similar announcement by Scottish and Southern Electricity last year. Analysts said the decision meant the future of UK nuclear power could now be in doubt.[93]

The 2011 Japanese Fukushima nuclear disaster has led some European energy officials to "think twice about nuclear expansion".[94] Switzerland has abandoned plans to replace its old nuclear reactors and will take the last one offline in 2034. Anti-nuclear opposition intensified in Germany. In the following months the government decided to shut down eight reactors immediately (6 August 2011) and to have the other nine off the grid by the end of 2022. Renewable energy in Germany is believed to be able to compensate for much of the loss. In September 2011 Siemens, which had been responsible for constructing all 17 of Germany's existing nuclear power plants, announced that it would exit the nuclear sector following the Fukushima disaster and the subsequent changes to German energy policy. Chief executive Peter Loescher has supported the German government's planned energy transition to renewable energy technologies, calling it a "project of the century" and saying Berlin's target of reaching 35% renewable energy sources by 2020 was feasible.[10]

On 21 October 2013, EDF Energy announced that an agreement had been reached regarding new nuclear plants to be built on the site of Hinkley Point C. EDF Group and the UK Government agreed on the key commercial terms of the investment contract. The final investment decision is still conditional on completion of the remaining key steps, including the agreement of the EU Commission.[95]

In February 2014, Amory Lovins commented that:

Britain's plan for a fleet of new nuclear power stations is … unbelievable ... It is economically daft. The guaranteed price [being offered to French state company EDF] is over seven times the unsubsidised price of new wind in the US, four or five times the unsubsidised price of new solar power in the US. Nuclear prices only go up. Renewable energy prices come down. There is absolutely no business case for nuclear. The British policy has nothing to do with economic or any other rational base for decision making.[96]

Middle East

In December 2009 South Korea won a contract for four nuclear power plants to be built in the United Arab Emirates, for operation in 2017 to 2020.[97][98]

On March 17, 2011, Israeli Prime Minister [14][15][99]


In April 2010 Russia announced new plans to start building 10 new nuclear reactors in the next year.[100]

Views and opinions

In June 2009, Mark Cooper from the Vermont Law School said: "The highly touted renaissance of nuclear power is based on fiction, not fact... There are numerous options available to meet the need for electricity in a carbon-constrained environment that are superior to building nuclear reactors".[101]

In September 2009, Luc Oursel, chief executive of Areva Nuclear Plants (the core nuclear reactor manufacturing division of Areva) stated: "We are convinced about the nuclear renaissance". Areva has been hiring up to 1,000 people a month, "to prepare for a surge in orders from around the world".[34] However, in June 2010, Standard & Poor's downgraded Areva’s debt rating to BBB+ due to weakened profitability.[102]

In 2010, Trevor Findlay from the Centre for International Governance Innovation stated that "despite some powerful drivers and clear advantages, a revival of nuclear energy faces too many barriers compared to other means of generating electricity for it to capture a growing market share to 2030".[103]

In January 2010, the International Solar Energy Society stated that "... it appears that the pace of nuclear plant retirements will exceed the development of the few new plants now being contemplated, so that nuclear power may soon start on a downward trend. It will remain to be seen if it has any place in an affordable future world energy policy".[104]

In March 2010, Steve Kidd from the World Nuclear Association said: "Proof of whether the mooted nuclear renaissance is merely 'industry hype' as some commentators suggest or reality will come over the next decade".[105] In 2013 Kidd characterised the situation as a nuclear slowdown, requiring the industry to focus on better economics and improving public acceptance.[106]

In August 2010, physicist Michael Dittmar stated that: "Nuclear fission's contribution to total electric energy has decreased from about 18 per cent a decade ago to about 14 per cent in 2008. On a worldwide scale, nuclear energy is thus only a small component of the global energy mix and its share, contrary to widespread belief, is not on the rise".[28]

In March 2011, Alexander Glaser said: "It will take time to grasp the full impact of the unimaginable human tragedy unfolding after the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, but it is already clear that the proposition of a global nuclear renaissance ended on that day".[107]

In 2011, Benjamin K. Sovacool said: "The nuclear waste issue, although often ignored in industry press releases and sponsored reports, is the proverbial elephant in the room stopping a nuclear renaissance".[108]

See also


  1. ^ The Nuclear Renaissance (by the World Nuclear Association)
  2. ^ a b
  3. ^
  4. ^ Nuclear Renaissance Threatened as Japan’s Reactor Struggles Bloomberg, published March 2011, accessed 2011-03-14
  5. ^ Analysis: Nuclear renaissance could fizzle after Japan quake Reuters, published 2011-03-14, accessed 2011-03-14
  6. ^ Japan nuclear woes cast shadow over U.S. energy policy Reuters, published 2011-03-13, accessed 2011-03-14
  7. ^ Nuclear winter? Quake casts new shadow on reactors MarketWatch, published 2011-03-14, accessed 2011-03-14
  8. ^ Will China's nuclear nerves fuel a boom in green energy? Channel 4, published 2011-03-17, accessed 2011-03-17
  9. ^
  10. ^ a b
  11. ^
  12. ^
  13. ^
  14. ^ a b Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu: Japan situation has "caused me to reconsider" nuclear power Piers Morgan on CNN, published 2011-03-17, accessed 2011-03-17
  15. ^ a b Israeli PM cancels plan to build nuclear plant, published 2011-03-18, accessed 2011-03-17
  16. ^
  17. ^ a b c d M.V. Ramana. Nuclear Power: Economic, Safety, Health, and Environmental Issues of Near-Term Technologies, Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 2009. 34, p. 130.
  18. ^ a b c d e Trevor Findlay. The Future of Nuclear Energy to 2030 and its Implications for Safety, Security and Nonproliferation February 4, 2010.
  19. ^ George Monbiot "Nuclear vs Nuclear vs Nuclear", The Guardian, February 2, 2012
  20. ^
  21. ^ a b c Trevor Findlay (2010). The Future of Nuclear Energy to 2030 and its Implications for Safety, Security and Nonproliferation: Overview, The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI), Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, pp. 10-11.
  22. ^ M.V. Ramana. Nuclear Power: Economic, Safety, Health, and Environmental Issues of Near-Term Technologies, Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 2009, 34, pp. 144-145.
  23. ^ a b International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook, 2009, p. 160.
  24. ^ a b c James Kanter. Is the Nuclear Renaissance Fizzling? Green, 29 May 2009.
  25. ^ a b James Kanter. In Finland, Nuclear Renaissance Runs Into Trouble New York Times, May 28, 2009.
  26. ^ a b Rob Broomby. Nuclear dawn delayed in Finland BBC News, 8 July 2009.
  27. ^ a b Nuclear Power in China
  28. ^ a b Michael Dittmar. Taking stock of nuclear renaissance that never was Sydney Morning Herald, August 18, 2010.
  29. ^
  30. ^
  31. ^ IAEA Pris. Power reactor information system
  32. ^ a b World Nuclear Association. Another drop in nuclear generation World Nuclear News, 05 May 2010.
  33. ^ Nuclear decline set to continue, says report Nuclear Engineering International, 27 August 2009.
  34. ^ a b Areva rushes to hire workers as demand for nuclear reactors explodes
  35. ^
  36. ^ a b Nucléaire : une trentaine de réacteurs dans le monde risquent d'être fermés Les Échos, published 2011-04-12, accessed 2011-04-15
  37. ^
  38. ^ a b International Energy Agency "World Energy Outlook 2011", International Energy Agency 2011
  39. ^
  40. ^
  41. ^ a b Trevor Findlay (2010). The Future of Nuclear Energy to 2030 and its Implications for Safety, Security and Nonproliferation: Overview, The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI), Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, p. 14.
  42. ^ Mark Cooper. The Economics of Nuclear Reactors: Renaissance or Relapse? Vermont Law School, June 2009.
  43. ^
  44. ^
  45. ^
  46. ^
  47. ^
  48. ^ Trevor Findlay (2010). The Future of Nuclear Energy to 2030 and its Implications for Safety, Security and Nonproliferation: Overview, The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI), Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, p. 23.
  49. ^ Trevor Findlay (2010). The Future of Nuclear Energy to 2030 and its Implications for Safety, Security and Nonproliferation: Overview, The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI), Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, p. 26.
  50. ^ Wang, B. "Deaths per TWH by energy source", Nextbigfuture, March 13, 2011
  51. ^ Markandya, A. and Wilkinson, P. "Electricity generation and health", The Lancet, 2007
  52. ^ Harvey, F. "Nuclear is the safest form of power, says top UK scientist", The Guardian, March 29, 2011
  53. ^ Twomey, D. "Leading scientist says more energy reforms needed", Eco News, September 6, 2012
  54. ^ Starfelt, N. and Wikdahl, C-E."Economic Analysis of Various Options of Electricity Generation- Taking into Account Health and Environmental Effects", Report based on the data given in the EU ExternE project
  55. ^ James J. MacKenzie. Review of The Nuclear Power Controversy by Arthur W. Murphy The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Dec., 1977), pp. 467-468.
  56. ^ J. Samuel Walker (2004). Three Mile Island: A Nuclear Crisis in Historical Perspective (Berkeley: University of California Press), pp. 10-11.
  57. ^ In February 2010 the nuclear power debate played out on the pages of the New York Times, see A Reasonable Bet on Nuclear Power and Revisiting Nuclear Power: A Debate and A Comeback for Nuclear Power?
  58. ^ Herbert P. Kitschelt. Political Opportunity and Political Protest: Anti-Nuclear Movements in Four Democracies British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 16, No. 1, 1986, p. 57.
  59. ^ Jim Falk (1982). Global Fission: The Battle Over Nuclear Power, Oxford University Press.
  60. ^ The Renaissance of the Anti-Nuclear Movement Spiegel Online, 11/10/2008.
  61. ^ Anti-Nuclear Protest Reawakens: Nuclear Waste Reaches German Storage Site Amid Fierce Protests Spiegel Online, 11/11/2008.
  62. ^ Simon Sturdee. Police break up German nuclear protest The Age, November 11, 2008.
  63. ^
  64. ^ Thousands march in Paris anti-nuclear protest ABC News, January 18, 2004.
  65. ^
  66. ^ Protest against nuclear reactor Chicago Tribune, October 16, 2008.
  67. ^ Southeast Climate Convergence occupies nuclear facility Indymedia UK, August 8, 2008.
  68. ^ Anti-Nuclear Renaissance: A Powerful but Partial and Tentative Victory Over Atomic Energy
  69. ^ Maryann Spoto. Nuclear license renewal sparks protest Star-Ledger, June 02, 2009.
  70. ^ Anti-nuclear protesters reach capitol Rutland Herald, January 14, 2010.
  71. ^ Ipsos 2011, p. 3
  72. ^ a b c International Atomic Energy Agency (2005). Global Public Opinion on Nuclear Issues and the IAEA: Final Report from 18 Countries pp. 6-7.
  73. ^
  74. ^
  75. ^ Africa looks to nuclear power
  76. ^ Africa and nuclear
  77. ^
  78. ^ a b
  79. ^ Eileen O'Grady. Entergy says nuclear remains costly Reuters, May 25, 2010.
  80. ^ Terry Ganey. AmerenUE pulls plug on project Columbia Daily Tribune, April 23, 2009.
  81. ^
  82. ^
  83. ^
  84. ^ a b
  85. ^ Sovacool, BK and SV Valentine. The National Politics of Nuclear Power: Economics, Security, and Governance (London: Routledge, 2012), p. 82.
  86. ^
  87. ^ Asia's Nuclear Energy Growth
  88. ^
  89. ^
  90. ^ South Korea’s nuclear ambitions
  91. ^ Michael R. James. Nuclear economics just don't add up The Age, December 23, 2009.
  92. ^
  93. ^ a b c d
  94. ^
  95. ^
  96. ^
  97. ^ Seoul's U.A.E. Deal Caps Big Sales Push
  98. ^ A new nuclear reactor nucleus
  99. ^ Netanyahu: We'll reconsider nuclear power plans Ynetnews, published 2011-03-18, accessed 2011-03-17
  100. ^ Russia prioritizes development of nuclear energy
  101. ^ Mark Cooper. The Economics of Nuclear Reactors: Renaissance or Relapse? Vermont Law School, June 2009, p. 1 and p. 8.
  102. ^
  103. ^ Trevor Findlay (2010). The Future of Nuclear Energy to 2030 and its Implications for Safety, Security and Nonproliferation: Overview, The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI), Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, p. 9.
  104. ^ Donald W. Aitken. Transitioning to a Renewable Energy Future, International Solar Energy Society, January 2010, p. 8.
  105. ^ Stephen W. Kidd. WNA Director: Nuclear Reborn? Nuclear Street, March 11, 2010.
  106. ^
  107. ^
  108. ^ Benjamin K. Sovacool (2011). Contesting the Future of Nuclear Power: A Critical Global Assessment of Atomic Energy, World Scientific, p. 145.

Further reading

This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.

Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from World Library are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.