Nuclear Energy

(1)

Nuclear Energy

A new nuclear power plant; fiction or feasible?

A study into additional terms

Name: Marten Minnema Study: Economics

(2)

(3)

3

Foreword

This is not a typical master’s thesis for an economics student. Most theses use models to test economic models. This thesis contains fields of sociology, law and economics. For me, some of the fields of interest are relatively new. One pays close attention to the news when there are elections to be held, almost daily public opinion surveys try to forecast the votes and corresponding seats in parliament a political party is to expect. Your basic law education is part of the curriculum, now a part of Dutch law needed to be analyzed even friends of mine who study law never even studied. This results in some kind of an interdisciplinary study .

Writing my thesis I received a lot of interesting questions concerning this study. People could be really interested in this topic, or just are kind to inform to the topic of my thesis. Either way, it was nice to see how people react.

At first, I was convinced I was in favor of nuclear energy. I felt that global warming is a more current threat than nuclear waste was. Writing this thesis, my opinion became more balanced. Now I feel that there are certainly advantages that can be attributed to nuclear energy. However, we should not underestimate the threats nuclear energy poses on society, as well in field of economics as well as environmental aspect.

I would like to thank Dr. D. Wiersma and Ms. Drs. E. Kamphuis, of the faculty of economics of the University of Groningen, who really guided me well through the whole process of writing a thesis. I would also like to thank Ms. H. Kip, H. Mous, and J. Pellens, from Essent The Netherlands, for the eye opening meetings we had and the critiques and suggestions the handed me. I would like to thank everyone who took the time to read the numerous draft versions and suggested necessary corrections. Many thanks to them, and to my sister especially who read almost every version.

I trust you will read this thesis with the necessary attention. Be it in professional sense, or just on the couch enjoying a night cap and some bedtime literature, enjoy!

(4)

4

1. Introduction

1.1 Background information

People are constantly trying to improve their own wealth. They do so by optimizing their budgets constraints. Every time they evaluate their situation, they would like to see that their standard of living has been raised again, or even better: that it is still rising. In order to let our standards of living rise we need to pursue a product which we do not directly buy in order to consume: energy.

There are two kinds of energy generation: base load and intermitting. Base load energy is generated in large plants that are less flexible in the amount of energy they generate, such as nuclear power plants and coal fired plants. Intermitting energy generation supplies energy of which the demand is not stable, the demand is fluctuating. This energy can best be generated in a plant that is able to increase or decrease its production easily, such as a gas fired plant and a wind turbine. Both generation types are needed to come to a balanced supply of energy.

A large share of the base load energy is produced by burning carbon based fuels. This leads to the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses (GHGs). These GHGs have impact on the climate. In order to reduce global warming and a rising sea level the world needs to act, as mainly recognized around the whole world. A great number of countries have underwritten the Kyoto treaty (1997) and thereby have obliged them to mitigate GHG emissions.

Energy production causes GHG emissions. For the period coming, there are only a few realistic options for reducing the emission of GHGs from electricity demand1_:

• Increase energy saving in consumption; • Increase the efficiency in electricity generation; • Expand the use of renewable energy sources;

• Capture carbon dioxide emissions at fossil-fuelled electric generating plants and permanently isolate the carbon;

• Increase the use of nuclear power.

(9)

9 According to MIT, all five options together can result in a sustainable long term development in the energy sector. At the moment it would not be wise to exclude one of the options above.

Section 1.2 will describe the world situation of nuclear power, section 1.3 will discuss the European situation of nuclear power. The situation for The Netherlands will be discussed in section 1.4. The relevance of the topic will be assessed in section 1.5. The research question and the outline of this study will be presented in section 1.6.

1.2 World Situation

Governments around the world have an energy policy. According to the OECD, governments should focus their energy policy on the next elements2_:

• secure and adequate supplies; • competitive costs;

• acceptable environmental impacts.

For countries with abundant resources of coal, generating electricity by burning coal will certainly fulfill the first two objectives. When a country does not have a rich soil, energy needs to be imported. This energy can following be used as fuel in power plants. One way of generating electricity can satisfy all three objectives: nuclear power.

Worldwide 443 nuclear power plants (NPPs) are operational3_{. The NPPs provide} approximately 15% of the demand for electricity. In addition to this amount, 21 NPPs are under construction the moment and 37 NPPs are planned4_{. On the other side, some countries, such as} Germany and Belgium, have decided to phase out nuclear energy completely, although this is seen by

2_{NEA (2004), Government and nuclear energy, NAE/OECD} 3_{OECD (2006), World Energy Outlook 2006}

(10)

10 some as a mistake at this time1_{. Italy already phased out nuclear energy and has no NPP left} operational.

Although worldwide nuclear energy is a common generating method, there is no harmonious policy regarding nuclear power, for instance there is no single policy regarding nuclear waste. However, there is consensus with respect to the policy objectives of nuclear power. The recognized policy objectives of nuclear power are5_:

• energy security of supply; • reducing import dependence;

• reducing GHG or pollution emissions.

The policy objectives are quite similar at first sight. The third point of government policy objectives is only partially satisfied by nuclear power. There are no GHG emissions, but there is nuclear waste. Noted should be that uranium also needs to be imported, but countries6_{that have large} supplies are more political stable than countries which have abundant supplies of natural gas and oil. The big plus of nuclear power is that no GHGs are emitted. If all electricity in the world would be generated with nuclear power, there would be one-third less GHG emissions worldwide.

1.4 Situation in Europe

In the European Union (EU), some 1533_{NPPs are operational, which provide 38% of the} demand for energy. Although this percentage is significantly higher than the world wide figure, not all member states of the EU have operating NPPs, for instance Italy and Denmark have no operational NPP. Other member states are planning to phase-out the operational plants. Other countries generate more than 50% of their electricity using nuclear power plants, such as France and Belgium.

(11)

11 At the moment, the EU is covering 45%

of its oil consumption with imports from the Middle-East and 40% of its natural gas consumption with imports from Russia. These percentages are likely to rise in the coming decades and might reach values up to 70% in the 2020 – 2030. This implies the EU needs to act in order to become less dependent on fossil fuels, one of the options here, again, is nuclear energy. The challenges for the future are numerous. The first is already mentioned, reducing the emission of GHGs. A second challenge could very well be reducing import dependence. The largest natural gas reserves are in Russian soil, over the past few years already signs of an energy political game have come to surface. Furthermore the Middle-East has enormous gas and oil reserves. This region is not politically stable and it is wise to reduce the dependency on this region. A third challenge is to further implement renewable energy sources into the energy generation cycle. The EU has recently decided to raise the part of renewable in the energy generation mix.

1.4 Situation in The Netherlands

Total energy production for The Netherlands amounts to approximately 95 TWh. This is not enough to meet the home demand of 124 TWh, thus 27 TWh is imported from

(12)

12 abroad. Figure 1.1 charts the supply and demand of electricity for The Netherlands7_{. Figure 1.2 charts the breakdown of the fuel sources for total} electricity production in The Netherlands for 2006. Small consumers, households fall under this group, accounted for 34% of electricity consumption. The price small consumers pay for one kilowatt-hour is € 0.21, households pay 0.23 €/kWh. Large consumers account for the other 66% of consumption, the price they pay per kWh is dependent upon their consumption7_.

Imports supplied 21% of the electricity demand in 2006. In 2004 import amounted to 16.2% of total energy consumption8_{. In 2004, the two} largest exporters of electricity to The Netherlands are Germany (36% of total import) and Belgium (28% of total import). Energy is also imported from France (7% of total import). All three countries generate a larger share of electricity in nuclear power plants. The number of operating NPPs present in Germany9_{is 17 (26.3% of domestic generating capacity), Belgium has 7} operating NPPs (55.2% of domestic generating capacity), and France 59 (78.5% of domestic generating capacity). Imported electricity from these countries will most certainly also include nuclear energy.

With the increased import of energy, The Netherlands have succeeded in reducing the emissions of greenhouse gasses. In 2006 the total emissions of GHGs in The Netherlands amounted to 208 billion kilograms, which is 3% beneath the 1990 level10_{. This reduction is mainly due to the} increased import of electricity and not due to energy savings or cleaner production methods. This leaves The Netherlands with the challenge to really reduce GHG emissions themselves. One of the ways to do this is by constructing a new NPP.

7_{EnergieNed (2007), Energy in The Netherlands}

8_Source:_{www.energie.nl}_{, energy in digits (in Dutch).} 9_{OECD (2006), World Energy Outlook 2006}

10_{NRC 08-08-2007, GHG emissions further reduced} Figure 1.2 – Breakdown

(13)

13

1.5 Relevance of the topic

Mitigating GHG emissions is a hot topic nowadays. The Dutch government has reduced the maximum speed for cars on several highways, the A13 for instance, in order to increase the quality of the air. This is a way of mitigating GHG emissions.

The reduction of GHG emissions from 2005 to 2006 is mainly due to the increased imports of electricity and a warm winter, which led to less need to heat houses. When The Netherlands want to really reduce GHG emissions, generating electricity without emitting GHGs is an option. Worldwide the electricity companies account for one third of total GHG emissions.

Generating electricity free of GHG emissions leads to a couple of options. First there are several intermitting ways to generate electricity, like solar and wind power. These two methods are free of GHG emissions, but are not able to provide base load electricity yet. Base load electricity generation free of GHG emissions, can be done in a large hydro plant, in a nuclear power plant, and with the capture of GHGs. The Netherlands are a country below sea level and do not have high mountains necessary for large hydro plants, this option is eliminated. This leaves nuclear power and capture of GHGs. This study will focus upon nuclear energy.

In The Netherlands public acceptance towards nuclear energy has been shifting over the last decade. In 1994 the Dutch parliament voted to phase out the Borssele plant in 2003. This decision, however, was reversed in 2003, the plant then had to be closed in 2013. In 2005 the phase-out decision was completely abandoned and now the plant is allowed to be in operation until 2033.

In 2006 the assistant secretary of the department of housing, spatial planning, and environment (VROM) set out additional terms when constructing a NPP11_{. These additional terms} cover a wide range, the terms apply to: 1) the type of NPP, 2) nuclear waste, 3) decommissioning, 4) spatial planning, locations for a NPP, 5) uranium, 6) non-proliferation, 7) security and anti terror measures, 8) nuclear knowledge within The Netherlands, 9) license procedures, and 10) general and social aspects.

(14)

14

1.6 Research question and thesis outline

The question that this study will answer is:

• Is the construction of a new nuclear power plant in The Netherlands economical and

social feasible?

The main research question drives on two different aspects, public acceptance of nuclear energy and the economics of the nuclear fuel cycle. Public acceptance, the social factor, can be measured in several ways, this study will chart the opinion of European and Dutch citizens, the opinion of political parties represented in Dutch parliament, and will take a look at three nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Chapter 2 will assess the public opinion.

The second feature of the social factor is legislation. This might seem a bit awkward at first, however this is not. The Netherlands are a democracy. This implies that the parliament have the right and power to make laws. When constructing a nuclear power plant, the law sets all kinds of requirements. When nuclear law does not prove to be sufficient, the Dutch government can permit or prohibit the construction of the NPP on basis of national importance. Chapter 3 will dig into the Dutch nuclear legislation and the requirements from outside the country, such as European and International Atom and Energy Agency (IAEA) guidelines.

The second aspect of the main research question focuses on the economics of the nuclear fuel cycle. Chapter 4 sets out the complete nuclear fuel cycle. This chapter will pay extra attention to the waste issue. The waste issue is twofold, there is the used nuclear fuel that needs to be handled and the plant to be decommissioned. These two topics will receive extra attention.

Once the complete cycle has been set out, the economics of generating electricity in a NPP will be investigated. Unfortunately, it is not possible to exactly compute the costs per kilowatt-hour (kWh), chapter 5 will explain this problem and also provide a close estimate of the costs.

(15)

15

1. What is the level of public acceptance of nuclear energy?

2. Which requirements does the Dutch law set at the moment and which changes can be expected? Will the European legislator change the rules?

3. Which location is best suited to build a new nuclear power plant?

4. Nuclear waste: What are the possible ways of recycling and who is responsible and bares the costs?

5. What are the economics of a new nuclear power plant in the Netherlands?

(16)

16

2. Public Opinion

2.1 Introduction

According to the additional terms set by the department of VROM, public acceptance of nuclear power is a prerequisite. This implies that throughout society, citizens as well as political parties and NGOs, there must be a solid basis. The Netherlands have a political system of democracy, which means that theoretically Dutch citizens have a voice in all the state affairs. Though the precise regulations and procedures will be discussed in chapter 3, it is necessary to explain the role of the Dutch public in the decision making process.

In short, when building a NPP the next procedure is followed. When a party decides to construct a new NPP, it needs to acquire a construction license. When someone, a private or public party, files a request in order to acquire a license, there are moments where every stakeholder can object to the planned construction. These objections can lead to a situation where the required permits are not accorded for.

Consumers buy energy from the energy companies. At the moment, they cannot choose which kind of electricity to buy: coal generated, gas generated, or nuclear. If parties do not want to purchase nuclear energy, for whatever reason, they might want to object to the build of an additional NPP.

The public can be divided into several segments: 1) The citizen, 2) The governmental representatives which are chosen in democratic elections by the public, and 3) Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs).

The first group, the economic agents, or citizens, can be divided into two groups: 1) national, in this case Dutch, and 2) international, in this case European. The Netherlands are (founding) member of the European Union (EU). The opinion of citizens in other regions around the world is less interesting, since institutions are different around the globe.

(17)

17 political parties towards nuclear energy should be a clear representation of the opinion of the Dutch public. Furthermore, the representatives in the houses of parliament are also law making, and hereby have the power to adjust nuclear legislation, or even put nuclear technology into a moratorium.

The last group, NGO`s, are interesting since citizens join these organizations free and willingly in order to achieve more of their preferences. People can oppose to nuclear power by joining NGO`s that object and protest to nuclear power and that demands bans on nuclear sites. Naturally, people also can join NGO`s who support the use of nuclear energy in order to put a halt on global warming and the exhaustion of GHGs.

Although the figures come from the most recent publications, they are most likely to be outdated. In spring 2007 climate change was a hot and actual topic. The IPCC presented a publication regarding the influences of the green-house effect on the climate. Furthermore the EU organized a meeting to set GHG-reduction goals for all the member states. The Deutsche Bank stated that closing the NPPs in Germany is unwise12_{, and a professor in nuclear physics at a university in The} Netherlands held an interview with a national paper13_{. In Japan an incident with a NPP in}

Kashiwazaki occurred after an earth quake. Radioactive water leaked from the plant into the sea, the amount of water was underestimated at first by the operator14_{. In Germany}_several incidents occurred at two NPPs, one in Krümmel and one in Brunsbüttel, both operated by Vattenfall were hold back15_{. All these events in the media must have impact upon public opinion. Which way, up} or down, public acceptance of nuclear power has gone is not known at the moment.

Section 2.2 will discuss the public acceptance towards nuclear power of the citizens, 2.2.1 will look at the European citizens and 2.2.2 at the Dutch citizens. Section 2.3 will discuss the position of the political parties in Dutch parliament. Section 2.4 will assess the opinion of three NGO’s towards nuclear power.

2.2 Citizens

12_{Financial Times (22-01-2007), Germans warned on nuclear energy phase-out} 13_{De Pers (24-05-2007), Nuclear energy is indispensable (in Dutch)}

(18)

18 2.2.1 European Citizens

The Netherlands are the largest of the small member countries in the EU. Decisions made within Dutch territory can affect neighboring countries and constructing a NPP anywhere in The Netherlands is most likely to do so. Whether the NPP is build close to the shore, whether it is constructed close to the border with Belgium, objections could also come from abroad. In this perspective it is important to see what the attitude of European citizens is towards nuclear power.

Nuclear power has, as mentioned above, some advantages with respect to climate change and security of supply. However, few citizens recognize that global warming is a current threat and they do not always realize that reduction in emission of GHG can limit the effects of global warming. Next to this, public confidence in nuclear power depends mainly on nuclear waste generated in NPPs. Finding a solution to the nuclear waste issue is then the key to raise public acceptance.

As figure 2.1 shows, once the waste matter is solved, European citizens have more confidence in nuclear power. A majority of them, 58%, would be in favor of nuclear energy, compared to 37% now. Europeans, however, are not confident that the disposal of nuclear waste can be done in a safe manner, only 39% believe that a solution exist for nuclear waste. The F/O ratio above the chart, indicates the rate of in favor (F) vs. opposed (O), so 37% vs. 55%, equals a ratio that is 0.67 in favor.

Public opinion in countries that have operating NPPs, one or more, tends to be more positive16_.

(19)

19 As figure 2.2 indicates, citizens who do have affiliation with nuclear power, in the ways indicated, tend to have a less negative association with nuclear power. This is a general tendency, the higher the level of knowledge, the better the perception of risk. This leads to a higher level of acceptance of nuclear power.

To obtain all the information from figure 2.2, more explanation is needed. The population was divided into two groups each question, a ‘yes’ and a ‘no’ group. Looking at the first two columns, this leads to the following observations.

The ‘yes’-group once visited a NPP. From this sub-section 47% feels that the advantages of nuclear power as an energy source outweigh the risks it poses, 43% feels that the risks are larger than the advantages, 6% can`t identify with neither propositions, and 4% does not have an opinion (DK stands for Don`t Know), the total adds up to 100% per column. From the subsection that never visited a NPP, the ‘no’- group, 31% thinks that the advantages are larger than the risks, 54% disagrees, 6% can`t identify with the propositions and 8% doesn’t know. This leads to a preliminary conclusion: people who visited a NPP have a more positive attitude towards nuclear energy.

The second subdivision is based upon the question whether people live within a radius of 50 kilometers of a NPP. Again the left column answered this question positive, the right column negative. We now see that people living near a NPP tend to have a more positive attitude towards nuclear power in comparison with people not living near to a NPP.

The final subdivision is based upon whether the interviewed people know someone who works, or has been working, with nuclear energy. The left column is the group who answered this question positive, and the right one, the population that does not known any one working on nuclear energy.

Figure 2.2 indicates that people who are better acquainted with nuclear energy tend to have a more positive attitude towards nuclear energy. Support for nuclear power lies around 31% when citizens are uninformed, and round 45% when citizens are informed, which means an increase around 15%. There is one exception, the group who lives near a NPP shows lower support. Of the uninformed citizens, 54% objects to the use of nuclear power, while at informed group, only 47% opposes. We can

(20)

20 see that there is no absolute support for nuclear energy, since none of the groups has a support ratio of above 50%, but still informed citizens have a more positive attitude in this matter.

European citizens also see the advantages of nuclear power. A slight majority, 46% vs 31%, agrees that nuclear power can help to limit global warming. A majority of 69% agrees that nuclear power is a tool in assure security of energy supply for the EU. Half of the Europeans feel that nuclear energy ensures lower and more stable energy prices. Striking is the resemblance with the goals of the energy policy of the European Commission, that covers these three topics.

2.2.2 Dutch citizens

The second group to be discussed is the Dutch citizens. Two findings of a public opinion survey17_{immediately grasp the attention. First, Dutch citizens are not autonomously interested in} nuclear energy and NPPs, but once involved in a debate they all are very passionate about the topic. Second, the accident in Chernobyl still mainly dominates the public opinion. In general, safety is the keyword for Dutch citizens, nuclear energy is viewed upon as a ‘necessary evil’ and GHG-emissions are not seen as a direct problem. These are in short the main findings, this section will further deepen these topics.

The majority of the Dutch public thinks that the NPP in Borssele (KCB) is closed and out of service. This is one signal of a common finding namely that citizens have no accurate knowledge, but do mainly have negative associations regarding nuclear power and NPPs. Mentioning facts concerning nuclear power leads to a more nuanced opinion. For instance, naming the number of NPPs abroad, especially in Belgium, leads to an increase in acceptance for the construction of a NPP in The Netherlands. However, people do want precaution in the process of deciding to build an additional NPP. By this they mean that every step has to be evaluated thoroughly and precision is demanded in every step.

The public specifies the following topics as risks:

1) The attitude of the owner or proprietor of the NPP; the public feels that a commercial party will want to optimize profits and hereby neglect the safety regulations, they feel that the government

(21)

21 should be (partly) owner of the NPP. About 50% of the Dutch feel that the construction of a new plant should not be left to market parties, but that the government should build the new NPP,

2) Waste; this is somewhat more complex, since there are more topics related with waste. People feel that the responsible parties are very careful in treating the waste, but they still are frightened about the consequences if something were to go wrong. Connected to waste is the transport of waste. People think nuclear waste is stored abroad. Inherent to this mistake is the problem they see concerning waste transports. The spontaneous knowledge on nuclear waste is low, summing up the facts leads to concern and sharpening of conditions for NPPs: 80% wants safe storage for nuclear waste, before the build of a new NPP is commenced,

3) Terrorism; the fear for terrorism does not focus on a hit on the plant, but mainly on the safety of waste. People feel that the chance that terrorists will use nuclear waste to fabricate a ‘dirty bomb’ is greater than flying a high jacked plain into a nuclear site,

4) Transport of raw materials, 5) Qualified personnel,

6) Procedures and safety checks of a NPP,

7) Technology and the state of maintenance, and concluding

8) Proliferation; this is a clear and present risk18_{, but general consensus is that ‘if someone} wants to, you can’t stop him’.

In addition to these risks, the Dutch public also sees advantages of nuclear power. The public names the following advantages, when the necessity of building a new NPP is discussed:

1) Exhaustion of fossil fuels; interesting here is that the public has no clue what the current perspectives are in case of how many years we still can use, for instance, coal,

2) Costs; people see rising oil- and gas-prices and feel that nuclear energy is cheap,

3) Reduction of GHG emissions; people feel that nuclear waste is a huge problem, but see global warming and the rising sea level as a less urgent threat,

4) Desired independence of political less stable energy exporting countries, and finally

(22)

22 5) Let The Netherlands be an important player on the global playing field of nuclear science; citizens feel that, ‘politicians’ won’t let The Netherlands be some country that has fallen behind in knowledge development and that has become backward.

In Favor Indifferent Oppose Don`t Know

Nuclear energy (12-2005) 33% 20% 46% 0%

Nuclear energy (02-2006) 49% 19% 31% 1%

New NPP 52% 13% 35% 1%

Table 2.1 – opinion towards nuclear energy and new NPP19

Table 2.1 shows an increase in public acceptance of nuclear power, in three months time the support for nuclear increased with 16%. Although there is not a majority in favor of nuclear energy, there is a majority in favor of construction anew NPP within The Netherlands. From the population in favor of an additional NPP, a majority of 55% states that Borssele is the best place to construct a new NPP and 54% does not want a NPP near where they live. The moment of the second interview, February 2006, was two days after the letter containing the additional terms for constructing a NPP by VROM.

2.3 Dutch political parties

20

Dutch citizens are allowed to vote for their national representatives once every 4 years. The representatives take place in Dutch parliament which is a legislative institute. At the moment 9 parties are represented in the Dutch parliament. The government is a coalition formed between three parties: the Christian democrats (CDA), labor party (PVDA), and a conservative Christian party, the Christian Union (ChU).

19_{From: www.tns-nipo.nl (03/07/2007)}

(23)

23

Party CDA PVDA ChU SP VVD PVV GL D66 SGP PVDD

Seats 41 33 6 25 22 9 7 3 2 2

Political orientation

Centr. Left Right Left Right Right Left Centr. Right left

Nuclear power

Yes No No No Yes Yes No Not

clear

Yes No

Table 2.2 – Overview of political parties

2.3.1 Christian Democrats, CDA

The CDA is the largest political party represented in the Dutch parliament. The additional terms for building a new NPP are set out by an assistant secretary from this party. The CDA wants to keep the KCB open as long as it can operate safely. In 2005 the KCB was amongst the safest plants in the world21_{. One of the arguments to construct a new NPP in The Netherlands is that there is import of} electricity at the moment from Belgium and France. This energy is mostly generated in NPPs, which are backward installations, according to the CDA. The CDA points out that nuclear waste is a threat. Hence there should be funding in order to start research programs to solve the waste problem. Since energy production is in a transition phase from fossil fueled to renewable sources, nuclear option should still be an option since it is not GHG-exhausting.

2.3.2. Labor Party, PVDA

The second party within The Netherlands and in government is the Dutch Labor Party (PVDA). The PVDA opposes to the use of nuclear power within The Netherlands. The PVDA states that the risks of nuclear power weigh more than the advantages do. As risks they formulate: 1) Safety risks, 2) nuclear waste, and 3) proliferation.

(24)

24 It seems that the meltdown of the reactor in Chernobyl still has influences on the opinion of the PVDA. They are willing to accept NPPs only when the reactor is inherently safe, so the chance of a meltdown is zero. Also the transports of nuclear products used within the fuel cycle are regarded as a large risk.

Waste is the main objection according to the PVDA. Although the arguments are not all accurate, the main reasoning is that waste needs to be stored for 200.000 years. There is no final disposal facility yet. The interim storage is a way of storage which is not satisfactory. The bunkers used are quickly filled to the max, and new facilities are not on the wish list of the PVDA. They desire, deducted from this line of reasoning that the KCB needs to be shut down immediately.

Another risk mentioned by the Dutch labor party is proliferation. Although The Netherlands never had any nuclear arms, the PVDA is convinced this is a valid argument. In a way, they are right. The nuclear technology currently present in Pakistan has been brought there by Mr. Kahn, who ‘acquired’ this knowledge in The Netherlands. Also plutonium can undermine proliferation treatments. Plutonium can be used to fabricate nuclear arms. However, the plutonium produced during energy generation is not enriched enough to produce those arms.

The PVDA acknowledges that nuclear energy is a great way to generate base load energy without the emissions of GHGs.

2.3.3 Christian Union, ChU

The smallest of the 3 coalition partners, the ChU, first demands solutions for the waste and safety issues. There are no long-term solutions for waste, the waste is stored in interim facilities. A new NPP to be constructed needs to be inherent safe.

2.3.4. Socialist Party, SP

(25)

25 2.3.5 Liberal party, VVD

The Dutch liberal party (VVD) is the third largest party in The Netherlands and is situated at the right of the political median. The VVD is in favor of nuclear energy. The VVD would like to see an energy mix where nuclear energy provides for a third of the electricity demand. An advantage mentioned by the liberals is the stable prices for electricity generated in a NPP. The VVD feels that The Netherlands are far too reliant on natural gas. The proven gas resources in The Netherlands are limited, and this will eventually result in dependency on foreign nations. The risks the VVD mentions are in the fields of: 1) politics, 2) economy, and 3) strategy.

The VVD recognizes that nuclear waste is a major issue. They would like to see increased funding for research, which should lead to a solution. Nuclear power is safe, as long as there are safety procedures and very strict supervision.

2.3.6 Freedom party, PVV

The freedom party (PVV) is one of the two new parties in the Dutch parliament. The PVV does not have a complete program, but does have a list of point they want to achieve. The party is situated on the utter right of the spectrum. Their opinion is that new NPPs are needed, although any explanation is missing.

2.3.7 Green party, GL

(26)

26 2.3.8 Social liberals, D66

The social liberals (D66) are the second smallest party in Dutch parliament. They are somewhat flowing around the centre of the political landscape, some points are to be seen as social, where others are liberal. D66 does regard nuclear energy as a second option: 1) the technology is not sustainable, 2) the costs of a plant are very high, and 3) it is an interim option. D66 sees a role for nuclear energy in the energy transition phase. Their position is not clear, they do have objections but are also interested in the benefits.

2.3.9 Reformed Christian party, SGP

The reformed Christian party (SGP) is with 2 seats on of the two smallest fractions in Dutch parliament. The political position of the party is social with strong religious influences in the political ideals. The state that nuclear energy is an option in the transition phase. They see Borssele as an excellent site for another NPP.

2.3.10 Animal rights party, PVDD

The other party with 2 seats in the Dutch parliament is the animal rights party (PVDD). Their opinion concerning nuclear power is that it places a heavy burden on society. The risks are high, mainly due to waste and safety issues, nuclear energy needs to be banned.

2.3.11 concluding statement

(27)

27 party is not a homogenous group. Not many voters will vote on a party only based upon the position of the party concerning nuclear power, economic theory states that agents vote on basis of the effects on the party program on the economic wellbeing of the agent. Hence, political parties are not likely reflect the opinion of the public with respect to nuclear power.

Dutch parliament is not obvious against or in favor of nuclear power. The in favor fraction has 74 seats, the fraction against nuclear power holds 73 seats, D66 is viewed upon as floating in this matter.

2.4 Nongovernmental organizations (NGO`s)

In The Netherlands people are free to organize their social life in whatever way they like. This means they can oppose to almost everything, theoretically even everything. This also means citizens are free to enter into an organization. Three organizations will be discussed, first an anti-lobby party, Greenpeace, second a pro-nuclear party will be discussed, Greenspirit, and finally the Confederation of Netherlands Industry and Employers.

The most known NGO within the anti-nuclear lobby is probably Greenpeace. Greenpeace is represented in over 40 countries around the globe, and has many aims. One of those aims is to ban nuclear energy, in The Netherlands it is even one of the statutory goals22_{. Greenpeace determines three} objections to nuclear power: 1) nuclear waste, 2) nuclear energy leads to nuclear arms, and 3) nuclear power plants are inherently not safe. Greenpeace would like to see the world ban nuclear energy and focus on renewable energy sources. Greenpeace does acknowledge that nuclear energy has an advantage in the sense that it does not exhaust GHGs.

One of the founders of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, left the organization and started a new one: Greenspirit. Most striking difference between the two organizations is that Greenspirit encourages the use of nuclear power in energy production. In the view of Greenspirit nuclear energy is ‘the only non GHG emitting power source that can effectively replace fossil fuels and satisfy global demand’23_. Furthermore, other environmental activists ‘have become so blinded by their extremism that they fail to consider the enormous and obvious benefits of harnessing nuclear power to meet and secure

22_{Sources: www.greenpeace.nl and www.greenpeace.com (08/05/2007)}

(28)

28 America’s growing energy needs’. He also mentions two other advantages of nuclear power: 1) It is the key to the “hydrogen economy”; In order to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, energy is needed, nuclear power can produce this energy (in the form of heat or electricity), 2) Nuclear energy could provide fresh water; globally, desalinization processes are used to transform seawater into fresh water which can then be consumed or used for irrigation. Excess heat from nuclear reactors can foster these processes.

The Confederation of Netherlands Industry and Employers (known as VNO-NCW) is the largest employers’ organization in the Netherlands. This organization states that nuclear energy is a need in the coming decades. It should be cheap, enhance security of supply, and there are no emissions of GHGs. This is somewhat the general pro talk. However, the chairman of VNO-NCW stated in an interview24_{that nuclear waste is not an issue. VNO-NCW feels in the recent past large sums are spent} on research and that the time has come that nuclear waste can be stored in a safe way, this should, preferably, be coordinated by the European Commission. We should also focus on energy saving policies and invest in research in renewable energy sources, but nuclear energy is a technology which is available and has many advantages.

2.5 Conclusions

This chapter assessed the public opinion towards nuclear power. There is no absolute support for nuclear power among European citizens. Once the waste problem is solved, support for nuclear energy will rise, 58% of the European citizens will then support nuclear energy. Citizens acquainted with nuclear power, by visiting, living close to a NPP, or worked with nuclear technology, are more positive towards nuclear energy. The Dutch citizens do not support nuclear energy with an absolute majority. The most recent public opinion survey shows that 49% of the Dutch citizens are in favor, where 31% opposes.

Public acceptance of nuclear energy can be raised by educating the public. This chapter shows that citizens somehow acquainted with nuclear energy tend to have a more positive attitude towards

(29)

29 nuclear energy, also once citizens know how many NPPs Belgium has operational at the moment, public support increases.

(30)

30

3. Regulations

3.1 Introduction

Law and regulations are the basis of a state. The constitution sets out the most important rights of citizens and organizations. The rights are specified in different sections of the law. Regulations are part of the institutions of a country. They should provide a safe live for every citizen and a stable market for companies.

The most important sections of regulations will be discussed as well as the relevant expected changes in law. This chapter will dig into the different levels of regulations. Section 3.2 will discuss the Dutch legislation, section 3.2 the international regulations that an operator is bound to. Section 3.3 provides the main conclusions of this chapter.

3.2 Dutch Law

This section will give a concise overview of all the laws the operator needs to meets in order to acquire the needed licenses. Section 3.2.1 will discuss the current legislation and section 3.2.2 will asses expected changes in Dutch nuclear and other important laws.

3.2.1 Current legislation

(31)

31 moment there are no EU-regulations. From Dutch law, two stages can be distilled preceding the operational phase of a NPP. The first stage is the planning stage, the second the organizational stage.

In the planning stage, spatial planning is the main issue. In this stage the locations that are marked as possible nuclear sites are selected. This begins with national spatial planning, a so-called spatial core lay-out (PKB). The PKB is designed by the national government under supervision of the department of VROM.

The second step in this stage is that regional governments use this PKB in order to formulate a regional plan. The third step is that local governments use the guidelines set out by the regional plan to formulate a local zoning plan.

In the planning stage the future operator is obliged to hand over an environmental effect report (MER). This report investigates the possible impact of the operational stage of the NPP on the environment, especially the disadvantages. These disadvantages might be leakages of radioactive fluids or radioactive gasses.

The second stage in pre-construction is the organizational stage. In this stage the most relevant procedures to acquire a license to operate a NPP are clustered. Only the most relevant procedures will be discussed here25_{, these are; 1) Licenses based on nuclear law (KEW), 2) Law on pollution in water} surface (WVO), 3) construction license, and 4) law on nature preservation (NBW).

The Dutch nuclear law deviates from other Dutch laws. In most situations, a law serves as juridical basis. The main objective is to let every situation get the same outcome and that there is fair play. The KEW leaves has several blind spots, issuing a construction license for a NPP is one of them. These blind spots are willingly left in the KEW, this provides the government with more freedom. This creates a situation where a royal decree is needed. In this case a royal decree implies that the secretaries of the responsible departments have to decide what will happen. In the case of nuclear installations this embraces the following departments: 1) VROM; 2) Economic Affairs; and 3) Social Affairs and Employment, as main responsible departments. They have to deliberate with the departments of: 1) Traffic and Aquatic Affairs (V&W); 2) Agriculture, Nature Preservation and Food

(32)

32 quality (LNV); and 3) Health, Wellbeing and Sports (VWS). The second group of departments is only needed when the case handled overlaps with their policy area.

According to article 15 sub b of Dutch Nuclear Law, a permit can only be refused on grounds of: 1) Protection of man, animals, plants, and assets; 2) National security; 3) The detainment and security of nuclear fuel and ores; 4) Supply of energy; 5) The degree of certainty concerning future damage payments to third parties for damage or injuries inflicted by the permit holder; and 6) Due to international obligations. These 6 grounds are as broad as can be, many issues can be interpreted to fall under one of the 6 grounds. An other important factor, although non juridical, is acceptance of nuclear power by the government. When political parties are in office that oppose to nuclear power, a royal decree might be hard to obtain.

The license request also is bound to full fill the requirements set by the WVO and NBW. The WVO deals with discharges of non radioactive water into the environment. During operation, a NPP needs to discharge thermal polluted water. For these discharges, a license based on the WVO is necessary. The effects of these discharges need to be incorporated within one MER. Since the effects of these discharges are likely to influence more than one region, this license needs to be issued by the national government and not by the regional government.

The NBW requires that any project that is likely to affect the natural habitat of plants and wildlife is not permitted without a license. This differs per location. Constructing a NPP near a natural reserve is prohibited. The information needed to issue a license based on the NBW corresponds for a large share with the information that is required within a MER.

Once the plant has been constructed an operation license needs to be acquired. This is only a formality, most considerations have been made in issuing the construction license. This license will be for a period of 40 years, the economical lifespan of the plant. In the period of 40 years, all the costs made for generating electricity need to be accounted for. After this period, a license for an additional 20 years can be obtained. The technical lifespan of a NPP is 60 years. The legislator might set additional terms, for instance oblige the operator to refurbish the plant, before issuing the license.

(33)

33 construction license. Dutch law uses a principle called the ‘polluter pays’. This implies that the operator needs to pay for decommissioning the plant and storage of the waste.

This section assumes that the application for all the different licenses needs to happen separate. However, there is a procedure called the state project procedure, this possibility is enclosed in article 39a of the WRO. Requirement of this procedure is that the national government wants to hold control of the complete procedure, as it is deemed to be of national importance. During the state project procedure it is important that the juridical protection and appeal possibilities of stakeholders. The Dutch parliament needs to agree with the decisions made by the government within the state project procedure. However, it is not certain that constructing a NPP can be handled in a state project procedure, the possibilities for this option need to be further explored.

3.2.2 Expected changes in Dutch nuclear law

Changes can be expected in the situation described in section 3.2.1. The last commercial NPP that was constructed in The Netherlands is the KCB in 1973. Expected changes will affect all the stages in the pre-operational and some in the operational phase. The most important changes will be in the WRO. Second, Dutch law is expected to set requirements on waste management and decommissioning.

(34)

34 provides this opportunity. This change is meant to make spatial planning more efficient and to let procedures run more fluent.

The implications of this change in law might benefit an operator. When the Dutch government supports the construction of one or more nuclear power plants, it can force de-central government bodies to cooperate.

Dutch nuclear law does not set any requirements on waste management at the moment, this is expected to change. The Dutch parliament indicated that it will want to decide what happens with nuclear waste. This will probably result in a law, or perhaps a royal decree, that obliges the operator to manage its waste in a specific way, be it direct disposal or reprocessing. A new technique for reprocessing nuclear waste called partitioning and transmutation (P&T) is expected to be able to reduce the radioactivity of a part of the waste and herby reduce the storage time to 200 years. The technique of P&T is expected to be operational around 2025. Till 2025, the Dutch government does not want to decide upon the definitive rules and laws. When there is enough progression with developing the technique, the route for P&T will be anchored in the Dutch law. When P&T is not operational in 2025 other ways of managing nuclear waste need to be explored.

Another change in the Dutch nuclear law also concerns reprocessing. In the current situation, when the operator hands over the used nuclear fuel for reprocessing there is no license needed. The legal relief for handing over used nuclear fuel for reprocessing will be replaced with a license. In this new situation, the operator needs approval of the Dutch government when he wants to reprocess used fuel. This license will be for a period of 10 years per license. The grounds on which a license can be refused are also broadened. In the current situation licenses can be refused based on the following arguments: 1) protection of man and environment; 2) state safety; and 3) international obligations. When reprocessing used nuclear fuel is deemed to conflict common interests, the secretaries of the departments of VROM and Economic Affairs together can refuse this license. This new term will be added to the Dutch law.

The implications of the first change is not clear at the moment. The development of P&T is still in motion and the progress is not known to the author when writing this study.

(35)

35 The grounds on which the license can be refused are not that frightening though, chapter 4 will dig further into used nuclear fuel and nuclear waste, however some arguments need to be presented here.

Once nuclear fuel is reprocessed, the uranium and plutonium are separated from the other parts and are recycled in the nuclear fuel cycle. The other part of the waste now needs to be stored for 10.000 years, while used nuclear fuel that is not reprocessed needs to be stored for 200.000 years. While reprocessing, the plutonium is separated from the other particles and this might provide the responsible departments with ground to refuse the license. The Netherlands are bound to non proliferation terms, discussed in section 3.3.3, and separating plutonium might give ground to refuse the license. The considerations for the reprocessing license will have to be made at the moment the operator files the construction application. At that moment risks and benefits will need to be considered.

The section of Dutch nuclear law on decommissioning of nuclear facilities is expected to change. At the moment there is no preferred strategy on decommissioning within the law. It is to be expected that the law will set direct dismantling as the preferred way, for details on decommissioning see section 4.12.

The requirements on the funding for decommissioning are expected to be formalized in Dutch law. Based on the estimated costs for decommissioning, the operator will be obliged to donate a yearly sum to a fund, for more information see section 5.6. This fund will be used to pay for decommissioning. When the plant is put out of service before the fund is filled, the operator still needs to pay for the total decommissioning costs. This poses a risk on the financials. However, when the operator is prudent the chance that the NPP will be put out of service in the first 40 years are small.

3.3 International regulations

(36)

36 This section will discuss the most relevant regulations and changes. Section 3.3.1 will discuss the EU regulations, 3.3.2 the IAEA regulations, and section 3.3.3 will discuss the non-proliferation treaty (NPT).

3.3.1 European regulations

There are three different organizations that set regulations within the EU. An operator in The Netherlands needs to oblige to all the regulations set by these three organizations. The organizations are: 1) The European Union, 2) Euratom, 3) WENRA.

The EU regards nuclear energy as a national affair26_{. This results in a situation where there is} not much legislation on nuclear installations. One of the most important rules from the EU in the case of constructing a NPP might be creating a level playing field. This implies that national states are not allowed to facilitate operators with low interest loans in order to reduce capital costs.

Euratom was established in 1957 by the Treaty of Rome. Euratom’s responsibility is civilian, or commercial, nuclear technology. The main goals of the Euratom treaty are27_{: 1) facilitating and} establishing an European nuclear industry, 2) facilitate member states to gain from these developments; and 3) overview the continuity of nuclear power. At the same time, the treaty ensures a high level of safety for the population of the member states and the treaty is aimed at keeping nuclear technology a non military technology. The main goals of the Euratom treaty are still the same as in 1957, five member states of the EU have noticed this with the concept European constitutional treaty, the Euratom treaty is likely to be brought up-to-date. The expected changes coinciding with this update are not known to the author.

WENRA28_{is an organization that strives to harmonize the legislation on civilian nuclear} technology in the member states and was established in 1999. This organization mainly focuses on

(37)

37 decommissioning and waste, and on reactor safety. The main objectives of WENRA are: 1) to develop a common approach to nuclear safety; 2) to provide an independent capability to examine nuclear safety in applicant countries; and 3) to become a network of chief nuclear safety regulators in Europe exchanging experience and discussing significant safety issues.

This harmonization of regulations is likely to have impact upon Dutch nuclear law. The exact implications are not known to the author.

3.3.2 The International Atom and Energy Agency

The IAEA is nuclear regulator of the world. Among other things, the IAEA works for the safe, secure and peaceful uses of nuclear science and technology, and helps countries to upgrade nuclear safety and security, and to prepare for and respond to emergencies. The IAEA could be viewed upon as the guardian of nuclear technology.

The IAEA is responsible for the implementation of the NPT. Inspectors visit nuclear installations and check if there are any deficiencies. The KCB is also under auspice of the IAEA. The IAEA checks the safety and state of maintenance of the NPP. Furthermore the IAEA needs to be informed of any transfers of radioactive materials going to or coming from a NPP.

3.3.3 The United Nations

The UN sees to compliance of the non proliferation treaty (NPT)29_{. The NPT is mainly aimed} at countering the spreading of nuclear arms. The NPT is also aimed at nuclear technology. Before constructing a NPP, the operator needs to file a report on the use of nuclear technology and the compliance with the NPT30_.

By ratifying the NPT, The Netherlands are obliged to put the nuclear industry under auspices of the IAEA. The operator needs to account for the nuclear fuel, used nuclear fuel, nuclear waste, and nuclear technology.

29_www.un.org

(38)

38 When used nuclear fuel is reprocessed, plutonium is separated. The KCB is not suited to use plutonium as fuel. This causes the stock of plutonium to rise. Some of plutonium has been sold. Plutonium can be used to fabricate nuclear arms. The separation of plutonium might be viewed upon as violation of the NPT. In order to let reprocessing be compliant with the NPT, a new reprocessing technology is developed. This technology does separate the uranium and plutonium for the real waste, but does not separate the plutonium and uranium31_.

3.4 Conclusions

Many regulations and laws concerning nuclear technology are dated. The Dutch nuclear law dates back to the mid 1970s, the Euratom treaty dates back to the end 1950s. Most of the original text is still in place although the world has changed. This calls for an update of these regulations. This update is in progress, the rules are bound to change. Not all changes can be predicted. This chapter tries to give a concise overview of the relevant regulations.

When an operator decides to construct a NPP the following procedures will have to be went through. First the operator files an application for a construction license. He needs to perform an environmental effect study and file this in a MER. Once the NPP is constructed an operation license needs to be acquired. This license will be valid for 40 years. After these 40 years, the operational life of a plant could be stretched to 20 years maximum, since the technical lifetime of a NPP is 60 years. A change in Dutch law is likely to facilitate a situation where all the applications can be filed at once and will be judged in one procedure.

The operator needs to account for used nuclear fuel. With every transfer of radioactive materials the nuclear regulator needs to be informed. A change in Dutch law will establish a reprocessing license. The operator needs this license to be able to transfer his used nuclear fuel to a reprocessing facility. This license needs to be renewed every 10 years. When this license is not issued by the government, the operator can operate the NPP until the temporary storage is filled. This creates a risk for the operator, the exact implications are not known to the author.

(39)

39 Once the operation license has expired, the operator needs to file an application for putting the reactor out of service. The next step is to acquire a license to decommission the plant. The operator will be bound by law to donate a yearly sum of money to a fund that is established to pay the decommissioning costs.

(40)

40

4. Nuclear Fuel Cycle

4.1 Introduction

To specify the different steps in the energy production process a life-cycle assessment is performed. This is useful a analysis, since every step in the process affects the total chain. One of the additional terms to be solved prior to starting the built process is solving the waste issue. An overview of all the steps in the nuclear fuel cycle is represented in figure 4.1.

(41)

41 Figure 4.1 shows concessive what the different sequential steps32_{in the production process} are. Usually the chain only represents the steps taken during production. Figure 4.1 contains three extra steps, these are step 1: construction, step 11: decommissioning and, not assigned in the figure, step 10: transport. All the lines connecting the different steps in the production process is transport. Therefore, three steps are added to complete the cycle.

All these steps are basic steps for nuclear energy production at the moment. In the USA stage 7, reprocessing, is not included in the nuclear fuel cycle and used fuel is directly stored. In The Netherlands, nuclear fuel is reprocessed.

The following steps are present in The Netherlands: 1) enrichment, this takes place at URENCO in Almelo, 2) energy production, this takes place in the NPP in Borssele, and 3) storage, there is a storage facility for nuclear waste near the site in Borssele. All the other steps take place outside The Netherlands.

The stages of the nuclear cycle will be discussed in a subsequent order. Section 4.2 will take a closer look at constructing a NPP. Section 4.3 will investigate the supply of uranium now and in the future. Section 4.4 will deal with conversion, section 4.5 with enrichment, and section 4.6 with fuel fabrication. The operational phase of a NPP will be discussed in section 4.7. Waste reprocessing is the topic of section 4.8, section 4.9 deals with vitrification. Section 4.10 discusses the current practice of storing nuclear waste, the options of final disposal will also be discussed in this section. Transport will be assessed in section 4.11. Section 4.12 completes the cycle by discussing the different decommissioning options.

4.2 Constructing a NPP

This section will discuss the different types of NPPs that are serious options to be constructed in The Netherlands. The second part of the paragraph will take a closer look at the possible locations, based on a short list provided by the department of VROM.

(42)

42 4.2.1 Types of NPPs

The first NPPs date back to the 1940`s, this were the prototypes. Since then a lot has changed, for an overview of the characteristics of the subsequent generations33_{see table 4.1.}

Gen Characteristics Era Example

I Prototypes 1945 - 1965 Shippingport (US), Magnoxreactors (UK) II Production reactors, mainly based

on LWR-technology 1965 - 1995 All LWRs in the US and West-Europe III Evolutionary successor of

GEN-II.

More sophisticated active security systems.

Higher efficiency.

Increased generation capacity per unit (‘economy by scale’).

1995 - 2025 ABWR (General-Electric, Hitachi, Toshiba),

EPR (AREVA)

III+ LWR

Evolutionary successor of GEN-III.

Increased passive regress heat transport.

Relatively cheap through simple design and modular production.

From 2010 ESWBR (GE),

AP1000 (Westinghouse)

III+ HTR (pebble-bed)

Pebble-bed reactors cooled with helium.

Relatively small generation capacity per unit.

Inherent safety regress heat transport.

From 2010 PBMR (ESKOM), HTR-PM (CHINERGY)

(43)

43 IV Other cooling materials besides

helium, melted salt and liquid metals.

High operational temperature combined with high efficiency. New applications as production of hydrogen.

Reactor types that coherently close the nuclear cycle.

VHTR and SFR from 2020

Rest from 2030

Very High Temperature Reactor (VHTR)

Molton Salt-cooled Reactor (MSR) Super Critical Water-cooled Reactor (SCWR)

Sodium-cooled Fast Reactor (SFR) Lead-cooled Fast Reactor (LFR) Gas-cooled Fast Reactor (GFR) Table 4.1 – Schematic overview of different generations of NPPs

Before discussing the different ‘candidates’, first table 4.1 needs some extra explanation. The safety of a NPP is frequently noted as the chance a meltdown occurs, these chances nowadays lay beneath 1 * 10-6_{, that is less than once in a million years. This number is somewhat hollow; other} incidents may also pose a threat on the nearby residents. For the residents it might be more important to know the chance of exhaustion of radioactive materials, be it in the air or in water.

There are three different types of safety for NPPs; 1) active safeguards, 2) passive safeguards, and 3) inherently safe. Active safeguards refer to systems that need outside energy and that operate when something goes wrong in the generation process. Passive safeguards do not need outside energy to operate. When for instance the pressure in a pipeline exceeds the safety boundaries, a cover will open due to the overpressure and the system itself will restore the situation. Inherent safety is a form of passive safety. In this case the reactor is designed to restore everything. When a reactor overheats, it automatically shuts down and will cool down instead of melt down, which results in a situation where no radioactive materials are emitted.

There are four candidate plants to be built in The Netherlands. A prerequisite is that the plant is state of the art and that the type is proofed to be safe. This leaves the EPR, the AP1000, and the ESWBR, if the building date is in the near future. A type of Pebble-Bed Reactor, PBMR or HTR-PM, is a serious option when the date lays more into the future. The following section is mainly based upon: Kloosterman, J.L (2006), Overview of new NPPs, (In Dutch).

Nuclear Energy

Nuclear Energy

A new nuclear power plant; fiction or feasible?

A study into additional terms

Foreword

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

1.1 Background information

1.2 World Situation

1.4 Situation in Europe

1.4 Situation in The Netherlands

1.5 Relevance of the topic

1.6 Research question and thesis outline

2. Public Opinion

2.1 Introduction

2.2 Citizens

2.3 Dutch political parties

2.4 Nongovernmental organizations (NGO`s)

2.5 Conclusions

3. Regulations

3.1 Introduction

3.2 Dutch Law

3.3 International regulations

3.4 Conclusions

4. Nuclear Fuel Cycle

4.1

Introduction

4.2 Constructing a NPP