success paths forward for newcomer states in developing ..._27.08.2012/... · success paths forward...

Success Paths Forward

for Newcomer States

in Developing Sustainable

Nuclear Energy

Man-Sung Yim

Korea Advanced Institute of

Science and Technology

Presented to INPRO Dialogue Forum on

Global Nuclear Energy Sustainability

September 7, 2012

2

Nuclear Power It features: – The promise of abundant supplies of energy

To overcome the handicaps of lack of energy resources

To reduce dependence on foreign energy import

To help diversify energy supplies

– Mastery of highly modern and sophisticated technology A sense of increased national prestige

– Inspiration for rapid industrial, economic, scientific and technological development.

Transformation into technological and affluent societies

– Opportunity for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation

It comes with: – The concern over reactor safety and nuclear waste

– The demand for long-term national commitment

– Dual use possibility

– The demand for establishing the supporting culture

3

Initial Interests under Atoms for Peace

(1954-1962) (37 countries) vs. Current

Status Brazil

India

Argentina

Pakistan

Chile – No Nuclear Power

Philippines – No Nuclear Power

Yugoslavia

Turkey – No Nuclear Power

Egypt – No Nuclear Power

Thailand – No Nuclear Power

Peru – No Nuclear Power

Romania

Korea (ROK)

Greece – No Nuclear Power

Indonesia – No Nuclear Power

Colombia – No Nuclear Power

Mexico

Israel – No Nuclear Power

Uruguay – No Nuclear Power

Ecuador – No Nuclear Power

Taiwan

Costa Rica – No Nuclear Power

Venezuela – No Nuclear Power

Lebanon – No Nuclear Power

Afghanistan – No Nuclear Power

Portugal – No Nuclear Power

Iceland – No Nuclear Power

Spain

Japan

Guatemala – No Nuclear Power

Austria – No Nuclear Power

Italy

Denmark – No Nuclear Power

Federal Republic of Germany

Netherlands

New Zealand – No Nuclear Power

Sweden

(Rank: Cumulative IAEA assistance in 1981)

4

Interests (Under IAEA Support, 1954-1973) (57 countries)

vs.

Current Nuclear Status (as of Feb 1, 2010)

Brazil

India

Argentina

Pakistan

Chile – No Nuclear Power

Philippines – No Nuclear Power

Yugoslavia

Turkey – No Nuclear Power

Egypt – No Nuclear Power

Thailand – No Nuclear Power

Peru – No Nuclear Power

Romania

Korea (ROK)

Greece – No Nuclear Power

Indonesia – No Nuclear Power

Colombia – No Nuclear Power

Mexico

Israel – No Nuclear Power

Uruguay – No Nuclear Power

Ecuador – No Nuclear Power

Taiwan

Costa Rica – No Nuclear Power

Venezuela – No Nuclear Power

Lebanon – No Nuclear Power

Afghanistan – No Nuclear Power

Portugal – No Nuclear Power

Iceland – No Nuclear Power

Spain

Japan

Guatemala – No Nuclear Power

Austria – No Nuclear Power

Italy

Denmark – No Nuclear Power

Federal Republic of Germany

Netherlands

New Zealand – No Nuclear Power

Sweden

Hungary

Ghana– No Nuclear Power

Morocco– No Nuclear Power

Cuba– No Nuclear Power

Sri Lanka– No Nuclear Power

Iraq– No Nuclear Power

Poland– No Nuclear Power

Bulgaria

Nigeria– No Nuclear Power

Sudan– No Nuclear Power

Madagascar– No Nuclear Power

Burma– No Nuclear Power

Malaysia– No Nuclear Power

Bangladesh– No Nuclear Power

Zaire– No Nuclear Power

Iran– No Nuclear Power

Bolivia– No Nuclear Power

Zambia– No Nuclear Power

Tunisia– No Nuclear Power

Kenya– No Nuclear Power

5

Capacity of Nuclear Power Countries (as of Feb. 1, 2010)

USA – 101,119 MWe (104 units, 197.5)

France – 63,236 MWe (58 units, 76.2%)

Japan – 47,102 MWe (54 units, 24.9%)

Russia – 21,821 MWe (31 units, 16.9%)

Germany – 20,339 MWe (17 units, 28.3%)

Korea (ROK) – 17,716 MWe (20 units, 35.6%)

Ukraine – 13,168 MWe (15 units, 47.4%)

Canada – 12,652 MWe (18 units, 14.8%)

UK – 11,035 MWe (19 units, 13.5%)

Sweden – 9,399 MWe (10 units, 42.0%)

China – 8,587 MWe (11 units, 2.2%)

Spain – 7,448 MWe (8 units, 18.3%)

Belgium – 5,712 MWe (7 units, 53.8%)

Taiwan – 4,885 (6 units)

India – 3,981 (18 units, 2.0%)

Czech Republic – 3,686 MWe (6 units, 32.5%)

Switzerland – 2,985 MWe (5 units, 39.2%)

Finland – 2,696 MWe (4 units, 29.7%)

Bulgaria – 1,906 MWe (2 units, 32.9%)

Brazil – 1,901 MWe (2 units, 3.1%)

Hungary – 1,880 MWe (4 units, 37.2%)

South Africa – 1,842 MWe (2 units, 5.3%)

Slovakia – 1,760 MWe (4 units, 56.4%)

Mexico – 1,310 MWe (2 units, 4.0%)

Romania – 1,310 MWe (2 units, 17.5%)

Argentina – 935 MWe (2 units, 6.2%)

Slovenia – 696 MWe (1 unit, 41.7%)

Netherlands – 485 MWe (1 unit, 3.8%)

Pakistan – 400 MWe (2 units, 1.9%)

Armenia – 376 MWe (1 unit, 39.4%)

Are there objective quantitative

understanding of the national

attributes that associate with

successful development of civilian

nuclear power program (e.g., the

reliance on nuclear energy)?

Historical Analysis:

Earlier Quantitative Modeling

Nelson and Sprecher Study (Atoms for Peace, 3, 2, 93, 2010)

Based on 86 nuclear candidate states

Using data on 5 independent variables

Results – Nuclear reliance promoters

International commercialization

Level of democracy

Unable to provide nuclear materials and technology domestically

– Nuclear reliance inhibitors Indigenous coal reserve

Presence of fuel cycle production plants

8

Historical Analysis:

New Quantitative Modeling

By using 66 predictor variables

– Technology Capability

– Economic Capability

– Domestic Politics/Security Situation

Group I: The Initial “Atoms for Peace”

Countries – 37 countries

Group II: The Expanded “Atoms for Peace”

Countries – 57 countries

Factors that might have contributed positively to

the success of civilian nuclear power development Group I – The Initial “Atoms for

Peace” Countries

Group II – The Expanded “Atoms

for Peace” Countries

Non-nuclear

technological

factors

GDP (0.728)

Industrial capacity (0.622)

GDP per capita (0.410)

Major power status (0.383)

Rival’s nuclear weapon program

(0.285)

NPT ratification (0.208)

Level of democracy (0.190)

IAEA safeguards (0.177)

GDP (0.713)



Major power status (0.381)

Rival’s nuclear weapon program

(0.296)




Nuclear techno-

logical factors

Fuel fabrication (0.878)

Zr tubing/alloy (0.872/0.319)

U conversion (0.683)

Research reactors (0.581)

U ore (0.308)

Spent fuel storage pool (0.249)

Latent nuclear weapons production

capability (0.185)

U enrichment (0.156)





U ore (0.313)

Spent fuel storage pool (0.254)

Latent nuclear weapons production

capability (0.190)


(The estimated Pearson correlation coefficients are in the parenthesis)

Factors that might have contributed negatively to

the success of civilian nuclear power development

Group I – The Initial “Atoms for Peace”

Countries

Group II – The Expanded “Atoms for

Peace” Countries

Nonnuclear

techno-

logical

factors

Diplomatic isolation (-0.136)

IAEA assistance (-0.0666)

Presence of nuclear defender (-0.0643)

Presence of nuclear weapons program

(-0.0431)

Decision for nuclear weapons (-0.0428)

Frequency of military disputes (-0.034)

5-yr changes in economic openness

(-0.0313)

De facto status of nuclear weapon

possession

(-0.0153)

5-yr changes in the level of democracy

(-0.003)



Presence of nuclear weapons program

(-0.0293)

Frequency of military disputes (-0.027)

Decision for nuclear weapons (-0.0247)

5-yr changes in economic openness

(-0.0236)

Presence of nuclear defender (-0.020)

De facto status of nuclear weapon

possession (-0.006)


Observations The economic capability of a country, represented by GDP, GDP per capita, and industrial capacity, was a dominant factor in the success of civilian nuclear power development.

– High capital cost requirements is closely related to the long lead-time involved with nuclear power program establishment and project realization.

– Financing initial capital expenditures may present a major challenge to a developing nation.

– There are also the very heavy preparatory and infrastructure costs involved in creating a nuclear power program.

– A cadre of skilled manpower must be created and sustained.

– Institutions to own and operate nuclear power plants and to regulate their safe operation must be established and sustained.

Major power status of a country was found to be important in the success of civilian nuclear power development.

– This may simply reflect that all of the countries with major power status were successful in the development of civilian nuclear power infrastructure.

Rival’s nuclear weapons program appears to provide motivation for civilian nuclear power program.

– The motivation for a country to develop civilian nuclear power may be dual purpose.

NPT ratification and IAEA safeguards were important factors in the success of civilian nuclear power development.

– This indicates the importance of state level commitment to nuclear nonproliferation.

– Interference with IAEA safeguards may hamper civilian nuclear power development.

Observations Mature level of democracy was found to be important for the success of civilian nuclear power program.

– Civilian nuclear development demands establishing and running administrative and regulatory institutions with strict safety requirements and strict standards for design, manufacturing, construction, operation and maintenance of nuclear reactors.

Nuclear technological capability (especially fuel manufacturing capability), research reactor operating experiences, and the capacity for spent fuel storage, was found to be important.

– The fact that a country was capable of developing these facilities indicates high levels of financial, technological, and political commitment to civilian nuclear power development, which are important for the success of the nuclear program.

A country with diplomatic isolation was found to experience difficulty in civilian nuclear power development.

– Starting a new nuclear power program in a country requires a high level of industrial and technical dependence on foreign design, manufacturing, and consulting.

“Presence of IAEA assistance” was found to have a potentially negative effect on civilian nuclear power development.

– This may be due to the negative track records many of the countries had on the IAEA assistance list.

“Presence of nuclear defender” was found to be a potentially negative factor for civilian nuclear power development.

– A state with no need for nuclear weapons is not strongly motivated to develop a civilian nuclear power program.

Observations

“Presence of nuclear weapons” was found to be potentially a negative factor.

– A non-nuclear weapon state with nuclear weapons is likely to be under major sanction that prevents the country from acquiring the necessary assistance for civilian nuclear power development.

Frequency of military disputes was found to have a negative impact on civilian nuclear power program.

– A state with frequent dispute involvement with neighboring state(s) finds it difficult to make long-term financial and political commitment to a high capital cost intensive civilian nuclear power project.

The 5-year change in economic openness and the 5-year change in the level of democracy were both found to be potentially a negative factor for civilian nuclear power development.

– A country with fast changes in international trade may lack maturity to sustain long-term commitment to civilian nuclear development.

– Rapid changes in democratic development of a country may initially bring in instability, making the long-term commitment to civilian nuclear power development difficult.

The de-facto status of nuclear weapon possession was found to be potentially a negative factor in civilian nuclear power development.

– Difficulty in obtaining outside support aid for the domestic civilian nuclear development.

14

Refinement of the List

Hypothesis

– Lessons from the developed countries may

not be applicable to the developing world.

– The past nuclear power development in the

Eastern European countries may not be

readily applicable to the developing world.

15

Selected Countries

Group III: 13 countries

– Countries who initiated major civilian nuclear power

project as a developing nation

– Argentina, Brazil, India, Iran, Iraq, Mexico, Pakistan,

Philippines, South Korea, Taiwan, Turkey, Yugoslavia

Group IV: 8 countries

– Countries currently owns civilian nuclear power

program, starting as a developing country

– Argentina, Brazil, India, Mexico, Pakistan, South

Korea, South Africa, Taiwan

Factors that might have contributed positively to

the success of civilian nuclear power development Group III - Initiated major civilian nuclear

power project

Group IV – Currently owns civilian nuclear

reactors

Non-nuclear

techno-logical

factors


Economic openness (0.397)


Rival’s nuclear weapon (NW) program

(0.383)

GDP (0.322)


5-yr change in the level of democracy

(0.220)

Domestic unrest (0.220)

Conventional threat (0.197)



Number of enduring rivalry (0.158)


Economic openness (0.440)

Rival’s nuclear weapon program (0.421)



GDP (0.264)

5-yr change in the level of democracy

(0.251)



Number of enduring rivalry (0.186)

Domestic unrest (0.165)

Conventional threat (0.146)

Nuclear techno-

logical factors



Spent fuel dry storage (0.287)


D2O production (0.234)


Latent NW production capability (0.171)




Spent fuel dry storage (0.288)


D2O production (0.216)

Latent NW production capability (0.203)




Factors that might have contributed negatively to

the success of civilian nuclear power development III - Initiated major civilian

nuclear power project

IV – Currently owns civilian

nuclear reactors

Non-nuclear

techno-

logical

factors

5-yr changes in economic

openness

(-0.134)

Military pact with nuclear armed

state (-0.130)


Presence of nuclear weapons

program

(-0.0431)

Frequency of military disputes (-

0.046)


5-yr changes in economic

openness

(-0.243)

Presence of nuclear weapons

program

(-0.217)



Military pact with nuclear armed

state

(-0.095)

Frequency of military disputes (-

0.028)

Decision for nuclear weapons (-

0.0247)


Observations

(Category III and IV Countries) The observations made about the history of the Atoms for Peace program are relevant to both developed and developing countries

Two additional factors that were found to be significant with the developing nations: – Economic openness

Increasing economic interdependence of a developing nation with the outside world raises the stake of the country in maintaining trade and investment ties. The country may abstain from pursuing highly sensitive activities which might generate uncertainty, negative repercussions, and heightened international tensions.

– Domestic unrest.

All of the countries in Group IV experienced a stage of domestic unrest while pursuing civilian nuclear power development - Top level political commitment could outweigh the destabilizing effect of domestic unrest.

Impact of nuclear proliferation decisions on

civilian nuclear power development?

“Does the interest or development in nuclear weapons have relationship with civilian nuclear power development, or vice versa?” – All types of civilian nuclear assistance raise the risks

of nuclear proliferation and that peaceful nuclear cooperation and proliferation are casually connected because of the dual-use nature of nuclear technology and know-how [Fuhrmann, 2009].

– Having research nuclear reactors and related experiences could contribute to the decision to “explore” or “pursue” nuclear weapons. Increased electricity generation capacity from nuclear power reactors” may work against nuclear weapons proliferation [Li, Yim, McNelis, 2010].

Impact of nuclear proliferation decisions on

civilian nuclear power development? Nuclear Proliferation Decisions – 1) the “explore” decision as political authorization to explore such

as by linking research to defense agencies,

– 2) the “pursue” decision as political decision by cabinet-level officials, moving toward weaponization and development of single-use dedicated technology, and

– 3) the “acquire” decision to obtainat least one functional nuclear weapon

How these decisions by nations affected their civilian nuclear power development

The analysis was performed for three groups of the countries: – 1) A total of 178 nations in the world which are represented in the

current database;

– 2) The Group III countries

– 3) The Group IV countries

The relationship between nuclear proliferation

decisions and nuclear electricity generating

capacity

General

Category

– 173

countries

in the

world

Group III Countries -

Initiated major

civilian nuclear

power project as

developing country

Group IV Countries -

Currently operating

civilian nuclear

power plants after

initiating the

development as

developing country

Explore +0.041

(0.007)

+0.088 (0.111) +0.097 (0.205)

Pursue - 0.007

(0.650)

- 0.023 (0.624) - 0.039 (0.539)

Acquire - 0.005

(0.754)

- 0.011 (0.791) - 0.022 (0.689)

Correlation coefficients (Parenthesis: p-value for the null hypothesis that the correlation equals zero)

Observation Nuclear weapons proliferation and civilian nuclear power program may be related. – The initial motivation to develop civilian nuclear power may be

dual purpose. A country may be motivated to develop a civilian nuclear power program when the country has initial interest in nuclear weapons or the country’s rival state owns a nuclear weapons program.

A state with no need for nuclear weapons is not strongly motivated to develop a civilian nuclear power program.

– For a civilian nuclear power program to be ultimately successful, nuclear nonproliferation plays a very important role.

A country with major efforts to develop nuclear weapons is likely to fail in their pursuit of civilian nuclear power development.

Presence of nuclear weapons in a country was found to have a negative impact on a civilian nuclear power program.

State level commitment to nuclear nonproliferation is very important for the success of civilian nuclear power development.

Important factors for sustainable

nuclear energy development

Mature level of democracy

Strong economic capability (GDP, GDP

per capita, and industrial capacity)

Nuclear technological capability

Economic openness

Commitment to nuclear nonproliferation

success paths forward for newcomer states in developing ..._27.08.2012/... · success paths forward...

Documents