When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Economy

Post-Fukushima: Signs Of A New Surge In Nuclear Plant Construction

Fukushima raised serious questions about nuclear safety and prompted a global building freeze on new atomic power plants. But as 2012 begins, it is becoming clear that the freeze is beginning to thaw. And the BRICS nations will lead the way.

A nuclear power plant being built in Liangshan Yizu, China (CookieEvans5)
A nuclear power plant being built in Liangshan Yizu, China (CookieEvans5)

PARIS -- Last year's tsunami in Japan and the nuclear accident that followed at the Fukushima reactor threw up an unprecedented roadblock for the world's atomic power industry.

Prior to the disaster, nuclear power had been enjoying a global "renaissance" thanks in large part to higher commodity prices and growing energy demand in developing economies. The Fukushima catastrophe – the world's worst since the Chernobyl disaster of 1986 – stopped that resurgence dead in its tracks.

Over the months that followed the March 11, 2011 quake and tsunami, citizens and politicians in numerous countries – particularly in Europe – aired concerns about nuclear safety and managed to place the atomic energy issue back on the table. Germany's decision to get out of the nuclear energy business was the most notable example. And in Europe, at least, that decision seemed to forecast a real decline for the industry.

Seven months later, however, nuclear power suddenly looks as if it may be on the comeback trail.

Prior to the Fukushima accident, the United States had been looking to revive its nuclear power program.In February 2010, U.S. President Barack Obama grantedpublic subsidiesto buildthird-generationplantson American soil. These reactors were to be the first since the 1980s in America, which halted nuclear plant construction after the accidentat Three Mile Islandin 1979.

Even if the Japanese disaster didn't mobilize anti-nuclear activists in the United States the way it did in Europe, U.S. authorities still decided to put new nuclear power plant projects on hold. That construction freeze, however, is now beginning to thaw. On Dec. 22, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) announced its approval of the latest version of Westinghouse Electric's AP1000 reactor design. Analysts hailed the move as a symbolic step toward new atomic power plant construction in the United States.

The United States isn't the only large western power ready to delve back into nuclear energy. The British government, concerned about diminishing North Sea oil reserves and keen to limit its dependence of foreign fossil fuels, has decided to build a dozen nuclear plants between now and 2020. The decision had almost universal support in the British parliament, where it was supported by both the Conservative and Labour parties.

More nukes for the BRICS

The principal emerging powers – notably China, India, Brazil and South Africa – likewise put their respective nuclear programs on hold during the months that followed Fukushima. That's not to say, however, that they ever really considered turning their backs on nuclear energy.

With growth rates of more than 5%, these emerging economies are going to need more and more energy, especially given their role as the globalized world's new centers of manufacturing. Nuclear energy offers these countries obvious benefits, particularly in terms of cost.

In China, there are no fewer than 25 nuclear reactors currently under construction. Authorities are considering even more nuclear projects that together could make China the world's biggest nuclear energy producer by 2030.

India has proposed upping the percentage of electricity it generates from nuclear plants from the current 3% to 25% by 2050. And between now and 2030 Brazil plans to build between four and eight new atomic power plants.

According to the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA), between 90 and 350 new reactors will be built worldwide over the next 20 years. Most of those will be in emerging countries.

Read the original article in French

Photo - CookieEvans5

You've reached your monthly limit of free articles.
To read the full article, please subscribe.
Get unlimited access. Support Worldcrunch's unique mission:
  • Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.
  • Stories from the best international journalists.
  • Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries
Already a subscriber? Log in

When the world gets closer, we help you see farther

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!
Geopolitics

Minsk Never More: Lessons For The West About Negotiating With Putin

The longer the war in Ukraine continues, the louder calls will grow for a ceasefire . Stockholm-based analysts explain how the West can reach a viable deal on this: primarily by avoiding strategic mistakes from last time following the annexation of Crimea.

"War is not over" protests in London

Hugo von Essen, Andreas Umland

-Analysis-

Each new day the Russian assault on Ukraine continues, the wider and deeper is the global impact. And so with each day, there is more and more talk of a ceasefire. But just how and under what conditions such an agreement might be reached are wide open questions.

What is already clear, however, is that a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine must not repeat mistakes made since the open conflict between the two countries began more than eight years ago.

Stay up-to-date with the latest on the Russia-Ukraine war, with our exclusive international coverage.

Sign up to our free daily newsletter.

Contrary to widespread opinion, the so-called Minsk ceasefire agreements of 2014-2015 were not meant as a definitive solution. And as we now know, they would not offer a path to peace. Instead, the accord negotiated in the Belarusian capital would indeed become part of the problem, as it fueled the aggressive Russian strategies that led to the escalation in 2022.

In early September 2014, the Ukrainian army suffered a crushing defeat at Ilovaisk against unmarked regular Russian ground forces. Fearing further losses, Kyiv agreed to negotiations with Moscow.

The Minsk Protocol (“Minsk I”) – followed shortly thereafter by a clarifying memorandum – baldly served Russian interests. For example, it envisaged a “decentralization” – i.e. Balkanization – of Ukraine. An uneasy truce came about; but the conflict was in no way resolved.

Keep reading...Show less

When the world gets closer, we help you see farther

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!
You've reached your monthly limit of free articles.
To read the full article, please subscribe.
Get unlimited access. Support Worldcrunch's unique mission:
  • Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.
  • Stories from the best international journalists.
  • Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries
Already a subscriber? Log in
Writing contest - My pandemic story
THE LATEST
FOCUS
TRENDING TOPICS

Central to the tragic absurdity of this war is the question of language. Vladimir Putin has repeated that protecting ethnic Russians and the Russian-speaking populations of Ukraine was a driving motivation for his invasion.

Yet one month on, a quick look at the map shows that many of the worst-hit cities are those where Russian is the predominant language: Kharkiv, Odesa, Kherson.

Watch VideoShow less
MOST READ