Publication Laka-library:
The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2013

AuthorMycle Schneider, Antony Froggatt
-
DateJuly 2013
Classification 6.01.0.20/124 (IMPORTANCE WORLDWIDE)
Remarks Download the Status Report 2013 from World Nuclear Report
Front

From the publication:

The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2013
By
Mycle Schneider
Independent Consultant, Paris, France
Project Coordinator and Lead Author
Antony Froggatt
Independent Consultant, London, U.K.
Lead Author
With
Komei Hosokawa
Professor for Environmental and Social Research, Kyoto Seika University, Japan
Contributing Author
Steve Thomas
Professor for Energy Policy, Greenwich University, U.K.
Contributing Author
Yukio Yamaguchi
Co-director of the Citizen's Nuclear Information Center (CNIC), Tokyo, Japan
Contributing Author
Julie Hazemann
Director of EnerWebWatch, Paris, France
Documentary Research, Modeling and Graphic Design
Foreword by Peter A. Bradford
Paris, London, July 2013

Foreword
By Peter A.Bradford*

Nuclear power requires obedience, not transparency. The gap between nuclear rhetoric and nuclear
reality has been a fundamental impediment to wise energy policy decisions for half a century now.
For various reasons in many nations, the nuclear industry cannot tell the truth about its progress, its
promise or its perils. Its backers in government and in academia do no better.
Rhetorical excess from opponents of nuclear power contributes to the fog, but proponents have by
far the heavier artillery. During the rise and fall of the bubble formerly known as “the nuclear
renaissance” in the U.S. many of their tools have been on full display.
Academic and governmental studies a decade ago understated the likely cost of new reactors and
overstated their potential contribution to fighting climate change. By 2006 a few U.S. state
legislatures had been enticed to expose utility customers to all the risks of building new reactors.
Industry-sponsored conferences persuaded businesses and newspapers of an imminent jobs bonanza,
ignoring job losses resulting from high electric rates and passing up cheaper, more labor intensive
alternatives. These local groups added to the pressure on Congress for more subsidies.
France and Japan were held out as examples of countries that had avoided the timidity and
overregulation that had stalled nuclear construction in the U.S. Indeed, it was argued, these nations
had even solved the waste problem through their commitment to reprocessing spent fuel.
At times inconsistent tales were told simultaneously. Thus the U.S. Congress was told that the new
licensing process and the new generic designs were so untried and environmental opposition so
formidable that loan guarantees were needed to lay the risks off on taxpayers. At the same time Wall
Street and state legislatures were assured that these new features had chloroformed public opposition
and otherwise laid to rest the terrifying industry ghosts embodied by the nine figure dollar losses at
Shoreham, Seabrook, WPPSS, and Midland, sites that resonate in U.S. nuclear folklore like Civil
War battlefield names.
The renaissance story line was hard to resist. By early 2009, applications for 31 new reactors were
pending at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The promises came garnished with tales of
remorseful changes of heart from oft-obscure nuclear converts. With few exceptions, the news media
- especially television with its thirst for the short and the simple - fell for the renaissance story line.
It is all in ruins now. The 31 proposed reactors are down to four actually being built and a few others
lingering on in search of a license, which is good for 20 years. Those four are hopelessly uneconomic
but proceed because their state legislatures have committed to finish them as long as a dollar remains
to be taken from any electric customer’s pocket. Operating reactors are being closed as uneconomic
for the first time in fifteen years.

This publication is digitally available in the Laka library, but it's not on-line.
E-mail us (info@laka.org) if you would like the pdf sent to you (with the subject, number and title). Of course you can also come by.