www.nirs.org.
(663.5847) Schneider/Froggatt”>
www.nirs.org.
(663.5847) Schneider/Froggatt”>WORLD NUCLEAR INDUSTRY STATUS REPORT 2007
Fifteen years ago, the Worldwatch Institute in Washington, WISE-PParis and Greenpeace International published the World Nuclear Industry Status Report 1992. This was then subsequently updated in 2004 by two of the original authors. The November 2007 update of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report (commissioned by the Greens-EEFA Group in the European Parliament) provides an entirely updated and slightly modified version of the 2004 report. This report aims to provide a solid basis for analysis into the prospects for the nuclear power industry. The report can be downloaded at www.nirs.org(663.5847) Schneider/Froggatt”>
 - At the end of October 2007, there are 339 reactors operating in the world–one less than at the moment of the release of the 2004 version of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report and five units less than at the historical peak in 2002–which total 371.7 GW of capacity. The installed capacity has increased faster than the number of operating reactors because units that are being shut down are usually smaller than the new ones coming on-line and because of uprating of capacity in many existing plants. According to the World Nuclear Association (WNA), in the US the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has approved 110 uprates since 1977, a few of them “extended uprates” of up to 20%. As a result an additional 4,700 MW were added to the nuclear capacity in the USA alone. A similar trend of uprates and extending the lives of existing reactors can be seen in Europe. However, in the absence of significant new build, the average age of operating nuclear power plants in the world has been increasing steadily and stands now at 23 years, up two years from the Status Report 2004. A total of 117 reactors have been permanently shut down, with an average age of about 22 years, the figure is up one year from the situation in 2004. Since the 2004 edition of the Status Report ten reactors have been shut down - eight in 2006 - and nine have been started up. The capacity of the global fleet increased annually between the years 2000 and 2004 by about 3,000 MW, much of it through uprating, and dropped to 2,000 MW per year between 2004 and 2007. This figure should be compared to the global net increase in all electricity generating capacity of about 135,000 MW per year. Wind power alone recorded an average annual increase of 13,300 MW between 2004 and 2006, more than 6.5 times the nuclear additions. This leaves nuclear power with a global share of roughly 1.5% of the annual increase. The slightly increased output from nuclear energy will not be sufficient, at least over the short and medium term, to maintain its current 16% share in the world commercial power production and the 6% in the commercial primary energy - which is less than the contribution of hydropower alone - or about 2% to 3% final energy consumption. The international nuclear industry continues to forecast a positive future. “Increasing energy demand, concerns over climate change and dependence on overseas supplies of fossil fuels are coinciding to make the case for nuclear build stronger. Rising gas prices and greenhouse constraints on coal have combined to put nuclear power back on the agenda for projected new capacity in both Europe and North America,” says the WNA. The nuclear industry is not alone to proclaim its “renaissance”. Over the last three years, several international assessments of the possible future of nuclear power in the world have been adjusted to more optimistic prospects for the horizon of 2030. The OECD International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook 2007 presents a “reference scenario”, an “alternative policy scenario” and a “450 stabilisation case” that include respectively 415 GW, 525 GW and 833 GW of nuclear power. Electricity generation from nuclear plants under the high scenario would more than double from current levels to reach 6,560 TWh in 2030. Under the reference scenario the share of nuclear power in the world commercial primary energy supply would drop from 6% to 5% in 2030. The U.S. Department of Energy, in its latest edition of the International Energy Outlook (IEO), forecasts 438 GW of nuclear by 2030, “in contrast to projections of declines in nuclear power capacity in past IEOs”. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has revised its forecasts several times over the last years and anticipates 447 MW in its “low” scenario and on 679 MW in its “high” scenario by 2030. The secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) published a “background paper” on investments relative to the “develop•ment of effective and appropriate international response to climate change” that presented a “reference scenario” and a “mitigation scenario” with respectively 546 GW  and 729 GW of nuclear power plants by 2030. The scenarios “forecast” an installed nuclear capacity by 2030 of anything between 415 GW and 833 GW, respectively an increase of less than 13% to 125% over the current installed 371 GW. In fact, even the lower figure corresponds to a significant challenge considering the current age structure of operating units. None of the scenarios provide appropriate analysis of necessary and very substantial increases in nuclear related education, workforce development, manufacturing capacity and public opinion shifts. For the immediate future new build remains essentially restricted to Asia. Of the 32 units listed by the IAEA as under construction in twelve countries (as of October 31, 2007) all but four are located in Asia or Eastern Europe. Eleven of these units have been formally under construction for 20 years or more. In order to evaluate the status of the world nuclear industry, it is helpful to estimate the number of units that would have to be replaced over the coming decades just to maintain the current number of operating plants. We have considered an average lifetime of 40 years per reactor, with the exception of the remaining 17 German nuclear plants that, according to German legislation, will be shut down after an average operational lifetime of about 32 years. Considering that the average age of reactors closed to date is 22 years, a 40 year lifetime expectancy might seem optimistic, but at the same time it seems possible given the progress that has been achieved on the current generation of plants compared to the previous one. The calculation includes 21 reactors with an official start-up dates of the 32 units listed as under construction by the IAEA as of 31 October 2007, all of which would be in operation by 2015. In total, 90 units will reach the age of 40 between October 2007 and 2015 or are scheduled to be shut down for other reasons. In other words, in addition to the 21 units under construction with published start-up dates, 69 units, or more than 42,000 MW, would have to come online by 2015 in order to maintain the current level of capacity. Even taking into account the 11 units officially under construction without scheduled start•up dates, 58 reactors would still have to be planned, built and started up over the next eight years to maintain the current number of units operating. This seems virtually impossible given the long lead times for nuclear power projects. Furthermore, in the following decade - up to 2025 - a total of 192 new units or more than 168,000 MW would be needed just to maintain the status quo. According to the same logic, between 2007 and 2030 a total of 338 reactors would have to be replaced in order to maintain the same number of plants operating as today. The IAEA, in its low scenario, has considered the closure of 145 units and the building of 178 new units by 2030. This would require 193 units extending their lifetime beyond 40 years. Developments in Asia and particularly in China won’t fundamentally change the global picture. The news media China Daily recently stated: “China has fast-tracked development of nuclear power in recent years with a target to take its nuclear power capacity from about 9,000 MW in 2007 to 40,000 MW by 2020, according to China’s long-term development plan for the nuclear power industry.” The average construction time of the 10 operating units was 6.3 years. Even in the case of further significant advances in building times, in order to be operational by 2020, construction of all of the units would need to start at the latest by 2015. Only about 10% of the additional 31,000 MW are currently under construction with five units totaling 3,200 MW started over the last three years. Building frequency would have to more than triple in order to meet the ambitious goal–a prospect that seems highly unlikely although not entirely impossible. But even such an extraordinary undertaking in terms of capital investment, technical and organizational challenge would replace only 10% of the number of units that reach age forty around the world within the timeframe considered. A nuclear utility sponsored analysis carried out by the Keystone Center pointed out that to build 700 GW of nuclear power capacity “would require the industry to return immediately to the most rapid period of growth experienced in the past (1981-90) and sustain this rate of growth for 50 years.” The industry organisation WNA is optimistic as it states: “It is noteworthy that in the 1980s, 218 power reactors started up, an average of one every 17 days. (…) So it is not hard to imagine a similar number being commissioned in a decade after about 2015. But with China and India getting up to speed with nuclear energy and a world energy demand double the 1980 level in 2015, a realistic estimate of what is possible might be the equivalent of one 1000 MW unit worldwide every 5 days.” The authors of the present report remain convinced that, on the contrary, the number of nuclear power plants operating in the world will most likely decline over the next two decades with a rather sharper decline to be expected after 2020. Many analysts consider that the historic key problems with nuclear power have not been overcome and will continue to constitute a severe disadvantage in global market competition. New difficulties have arisen. In 2005 the U.S. passed legislation in order to stimulate investment in new nuclear power plants. Measures include a tax credit on electricity generation, a loan guarantee of up to 80% for the first 6,000 MW, additional support in case of significant construction delays for up to six reactors and the extension of limited liability (Price Anderson Act) until 2025. The licensing procedure has been simplified to avoid the lengthy processes of the past. Public Citizen said the new licensing conditions are only as a heavy subsidy to the industry but are a serious impediment to the democratic decision making process. “The Combined Construction and Operating License, or COL, is part of a new, ’streamlined’ process designed to encourage construction of new nuclear power plants by heavily subsidizing nuclear owners and removing opportunities for the public to raise important safety concerns. By combining what was previously two steps — construction and operation -•there is no chance for the public to raise concerns about problems with the actual construction process after it begins. By the time the shovel hits the dirt, the reactor is already approved to start up.” The Wall Street firm Moody’s Investor Service expects extensive legal cases: “We believe the first COL filing will be litigated, which could create lengthy delays for the rest of the sector.” The Financial Times obtained confidential documents that confirm a similar situation in the UK: “Fresh legal challenges are expected to hamper plans to build new nuclear power stations in the UK.” NRC Chairman Dale Klein stated that potentially necessary grid extensions could lead to further delays and indicated that he was surprised to learn that “it may take as long to site, permit and build a transmission line for a new plant as to site, license and build the plant itself.” Lack of students, workforce and manufacturing capacity “The single most important factor in assuring quality in nuclear plant construction is prior nuclear experience (i.e., licensee experience in having constructed previous nuclear power plants, personnel who have learned how to construct them, experienced architects-engineers, experienced constructors, and experienced NRC inspectors),” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), NUREG-1055. Investment and construction ratios of the 1980s cannot simply be repeated thirty years later. The nuclear industry and utilities face challenges in a radically changed industrial environ•ment. Today the sector has to deal with waste management and decom•missioning expenses that far outweigh estimates of the past, it has to compete with a largely modernized gas and coal sector and with new competitors in the new and renewable energy sector. In particular, it has to face the problems of rapid loss of competence and lack of manufacturing infrastructure. Keynote speakers at the American Nuclear Society’s 2007 Annual Meeting pointed out that “a nuclear renaissance is far from being a sure thing”. Art Stall, Florida Power & Light Company’s senior vice president and chief nuclear officer, told the event’s opening plenary that the euphoria that has surrounded the nuclear renaissance has been slowed down by the realities of the challenges that are involved in building new nuclear power plants. Stall said one of the biggest challenges is finding qualified people, including craft labor, technicians, engineers and scientists, to support construction and operation. He pointed out that 40% of the current nuclear power plant workers are eligible for retirement within the next five years. Furthermore, he said only 8 percent of the current nuclear plant workforce is under 32 years old. While technical and engineering college graduate numbers are increasing, Stall said that there is much competition from other industries for these graduates and the nuclear industry must become creative if it is going to entice these graduates to enter and remain in the nuclear field.” The situation is no different in France. About 40% of the national utility EDF’s current staff in reactor operation and maintenance will retire by 2015. Starting in 2008, the utility will try to hire 500 engineers annually. Reactor builder AREVA has already started hiring 400 engineers in 2006 and another 750 in 2007. The level of success of the hiring efforts is not known. It is obvious that the biggest share of the hired staff are not trained nuclear engineers or other nuclear scientists. The CEA affiliated national Institute for Nuclear Sciences and Techniques (INSTN) has only generated about 50 nuclear graduates per year. EDF has called upon the institute to double the number over the coming years. In the UK the situation is similar and university acceptances in Mechanical, Civil and Electrical Engineering, Physics and Chemistry fell by a quarter between 1994 and 2000. And as of 2002, there was not a single undergraduate course in nuclear engineering in the UK. For Philip Thomas, Chairman of the Nuclear Academia-Industry Liaison Society (NAILS), “the risk is not so much that the nuclear companies will be unable to recruit sufficient numbers, but that future recruits will not match the very high quality the nuclear industry has been used to” and “the absence of a market for a BEng/MEng in nuclear engineering serves to confirm that the nuclear energy carries no buzz of excitement for new students, making it all the harder for it to attract the brightest and best.” In Germany the situation is dramatic. A 2004 analysis of the nuclear education and workforce development in the country showed that the situation continues to erode rapidly. Employment is expected to decline in the nuclear sector - including in the reactor building and maintenance industry - by about 10% to 6,250 jobs in 2010, these include still 1,670 hires. The number of academic institutions teaching nuclear related matters is expected to further decline from 22 in 2000 to 10 in 2005 and only five in 2010. While 46 students obtained their diploma in 1993, there were zero in 1998. In fact, between the end of 1997 and the end of 2002 only two students successfully finished their nuclear studies. In total about 50 students from other options continue to attend lectures in nuclear matters. It is clear that Germany will face a dramatic shortage of trained staff, whether in industry, utilities, research or public safety and radiation protection authorities. As Lothar Hahn, managing director of the German company GRS (Society for Reactor Safety), points out, the consequences could be extremely serious: “First studies indicate that deficiencies in maintaining knowledge at state-of-the•art levels and a subsequent degradation in education and training of operating personnel may endanger the safe operation of nuclear installations. Furthermore, knowledge deficits at authorities and expert organisations due to a lack of qualified successors to retired experts have been depicted as an imminent threat to the qualified supervision of reactor plants and thereby to safe plant operation.” In the 1980s there were about 400 nuclear suppliers and 900 nuclear certifications in the U.S.. These shrank to less than 80 suppliers and fewer than 200 certifications. The DOE nuclear power plant construction infrastructure assessment quoted above concludes that major equipment (reactor pressure vessels, steam generators, and moisture separator reheaters) for the near-term deployment of Generation III units would not be manufactured by U.S. facilities. “Reactor pressure vessel (RPV) fabrication could be delayed by the limited availability of the nuclear-grade large ring forgings that are currently only available from one Japanese supplier (Japan Steel Works, Limited •JSW). Additional lead time may need to be included in the reactor pressure vessel procurement schedule depending on ability of this one supplier to supply the required reactor pressure vessel large ring forgings in a timely manner. This potential shortfall is a significant construction schedule risk and could be a project financing risk.” JSW has supplied about 130 or 30% of the currently operating nuclear reactor vessels in the world. In fact, only JSW can forge components from ingots up to 450 t as needed for the EPR and 
IN BRIEF
other Generation III reactor pressure vessels and it has announced it will further invest in manufacturing capacity. JSW’s annual manufacturing capacity is unclear, although it is believe to be about 12 reactor vessels per year. Rhetoric rather than reality The overall nuclear industry strategy is quite clear. Despite a few reactor applications in the U.S., industry hopes remain primarily with an entirely new generation of nuclear power plants, so-called Generation IV reactors. They would be much smaller in size (100 MW to 200 MW) and capital investment, represent a more flexible solution due to much shorter building times and a lower potential risk due to smaller radioactive inventories and passive safety features. In the meantime, nuclear utilities try to extend plant lifetime as much as possible and do their best to keep up the myth of a nuclear future. Former NRC Commissioner Peter Bradford, who was involved in the licensing of some 25 nuclear reactors, comes to a severe judgement on the prospects of nuclear power: “Those who tell you things like “It could save the earth” or “Clean, green atomic energy can stop global warming” or “Nuclear energy just may be the energy source that can save our planet from catastrophic climate change” are inviting you into a dangerous lala land in which nuclear power will be oversubsidized and underscrutinized while other more promising and more rapid responses to climate change are neglected and the greenhouse gases that they could have averted continue to pollute the skies at dangerous rates.” Long-time energy sector observer Walt Patterson, Associate Fellow of the Energy, Environment and Development Programme at the UK’s Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House) agrees. He has detected a sort of ramping “nuclear amnesia”: “Those suffering from nuclear amnesia have forgotten why nuclear power faded from the energy scene in the first place, how many times it has failed to deliver, how often it has disappointed its most determined advocates, how extravagantly it has squandered unparalleled, unstinting support from taxpayers around the world, leaving them with burdens that may last for millennia.” In June 2005, the trade journal Nuclear Engineering International published the analysis of the 2004 Edition of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report under their headline. “On the way out •In sharp contrast to multiple reporting of a potential ‘nuclear revival’, the atomic age is in the dusk rather than in the dawn”. At the end of 2007, we have nothing to add. The full report “The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2007″, by Mycle Schneider (with contributions from Antony Froggatt), is available at: www.greens•efa.org/cms/topics/dokbin/206/206749. the_world_nuclear_industry_status_rep ort@en.pdf 
Chernobyl’s Subclinical Legacy: Prenatal Exposure to Radioactive Fallout and School Outcomes in Sweden, a report by Douglas Almond, Lena Edlund and Mårten Palme. Published by Columbia University, New York in August 2007 Japanese atomic bomb survivors irradiated 8-25 weeks after ovulation subsequently suffered reduced IQ. Whether these findings generalize to low doses (less than 10 mGy) has not been established. This paper exploits the ‘natural experiment’ generated by the Chernobyl nuclear accident in April 1986, which caused a spike in radiation levels in Sweden. In a comprehensive data set of 562,637 Swedes born 1983-1988, the researchers find the cohorts in utero during the Chernobyl accident had worse school outcomes than adjacent birth cohorts, and this deterioration was largest for those exposed approximately 8-25 weeks post conception. Moreover, Almond, Edlund and Palme find larger damage among students born in regions that received more fallout: students from the eight most affected municipalities were 3.6 percentage points less likely to qualify to high school as a result of the fallout. Findings suggest that fetal exposure to ionizing radiation damages cognitive ability at radiation levels some previously considered safe. The report (51 pages) is available at: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/economics/discpapr/DP0607-19.pdf US: vandal drilled hole at nuclear plant (accidentally?). The FBI says that a contract employee drilled a hole in a cooling system at a Miami nuclear plant in an act of vandalism. The FBI knows the identity of the worker, but says there is no evidence of criminal intent. During the investigation at the Turkey Point plant, 50 agents interviewed 700 people. In the end, they decided that there is no evidence that the worker wanted to sabotage the plant or that the hole, one-eighth of an inch across, was an act of terrorism, The Miami Herald reported. The hole was discovered in March 2006 after a reactor was shut down for routine maintenance. Florida Power & Light said that the damage was repaired quickly. The investigation involved local police, state investigators and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as well as the FBI. FPL offered a $100,000 reward for information leading to a suspect. UPI, 13 November 2007 UK: Dounreay costs increase. The estimated cost of decommissioning Dounreay (see also Nuclear Monitor 660, 30 September 2007) has risen by GBP600 million (Euro 836 million) to nearly GBP2.7 billion. This figure is likely to increase over the next few years as more details are known of the work and complexity involved in decommissioning. Some of the increased costs, revealed in the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority’s draft three-year plan, are the result of delays in the UK finding a repository for its intermediate level nuclear waste, particularly plutonium. A new plant to store nuclear fuel is to be built at Dounreay and other wastes are also expected to be kept at Dounreay for longer than originally planned. The NDA says intermediate waste will need to be kept at Dounreay for at least 10 years longer than planned. In the future the NDA will also have to take into account the Scottish Government’s policy for long-term storage of waste rather than placing it in a deep repository. This might well have implications for how long waste is stored at Dounreay and the facilities need to manage it. N-BBase Briefing 548, 21 November 2007 UK: Sellafield Magnox reprocessing longer operational. The same Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is proposing to keep the B205 Magnox reprocessing plant at Sellafield operational until 2016 - “or later”. This is four years longer than current plans which were seen as central to the UK meeting its legal environmental obligations under the OSPAR Convention. About 80 per cent of Sellafield’s discharges come from the reprocessing work in B205. The proposed extension of the plant’s life will mean more radioactive pollution going into the Irish Sea, North Sea and North-East Atlantic. There is little explanation in the draft three-year NDA work plan on why the extension is necessary. It refers only to “logistical difficulties” related to delays in defuelling Magnox reactors that are being decommissioned. These delays arise because funding problems have forced the NDA to concentrate spending on Dounreay and Sellafield, where the main radioactive hazards exist. Part of the funding problems arise because of the continuing two-year shutdown of the Thorp reprocessing plant at Sellafield following a major leak. In 1998 members of the OSPAR Convention, including the UK, agreed a progressive reduction of radioactive pollution of the marine environment so it was ‘close to zero’ by 2020. The closure of the Magnox reprocessing plant was seen by the Government as “a key element in further discharge reduction”. Full details of the NDA’s draft plan, that is out for public comment, is available at www.nda.gov.uk N-BBase Briefing 547, 14 November 2007 Nuclear phase out in Belgium under pressure. In 2003 Belgium adopted a nuclear phase out law. It decreed to stop its 7 nuclear reactors after 40 years, and to not build new reactors. The first reactors are to close in 2015, the last in 2025. Both aspects of the law are now about to be undermined by the upcoming new federal government. The government negotiations are extremely difficult on the institutional aspects, but on energy and environment it all went much easier. Oone of the first issues that the Christian-democrats and liberals settled was the nuclear one. In the run-up to the elections these parties made their position on nuclear very clear. The Christian-democrats are vehemently opposed to the phase-out law, and specifically want a lifetime extension of 10 to 20 years. The owner of the plants should pay some kind of retribution from the excessive profits on the nuclear electricity. The liberals on the other hand are proponents of the fourth generation reactors, and would like one to be built in Belgium. The resulting agreement is that the new government will decide to “leave some reactors open for a limited longer time”, because of greenhouse gas emissions, power price considerations and energy security. Research into 4th generation concepts will be supported. There will be a “windfall profit tax” on the sale of power from nuclear (and coal) power plants that are paid off. The revenue of the tax will be invested in something, but it is not clear in what. It might be renewables and efficiency, but also CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) or might even just be injected in the overall budget. The decision on the lifetime extension is equally vague. It is not stated which reactors exactly will be kept open, for how long… Creating insecurity like this, is clearly devastating for investors wanting to invest in alternatives. It also blows away the credibility of the claims of respect for sustainable development of the negotiating parties. But to be clear: as long as there is no government, there is no decision. Bram Claeys (Belgium), 25 November 2007 IAEA: Iran is cooperating, but not ‘pro-aactive’ enough. International efforts to understand Iran’s past nuclear activities are “proceeding according to schedule,” IAEA director-general Mohamed ElBaradei said. He did not, however, paint an entirely rosy picture. “The agency has so far not been able to verify some important aspects of Iran’s nuclear program: those relevant to the scope and nature of Iran’s centrifuge enrichment activities,” ElBaradei said. “I would urge Iran to be more proactive in providing information, and in accelerating the pace of this cooperation, in order for the agency to be able to clarify al major 10 NUCLEAR MONITOR 663 
remaining outstanding issues by the end of the year.” Iranian Ambassador Ali Asghar Soltanieh, claimed that the director general’s call for “more proactive” cooperation meant that Iran had already acted proactively and the agency simply wanted additional proactive assistance. Soltanieh also argued that the agency had formally “concluded and resolved” its examination of Iran’s centrifuge acquisition history, an assertion countered by Western officials who noted that ElBaradei’s report contained no such language. Other officials with knowledge of agency affairs, however, concurred that the agency has learned essentially all it could about Iran’s past centrifuge efforts but would find it difficult to “close” the case in an official way. The November 15, IAEA report on Iran can be found at http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2007/gov2007-58.pdf Global Security Newswire, 26 November 2007 Hunger strike calls for moratorium on U-mmining Ontario. On June 28, 2007, the Ardoch Algonquin and Shabot Obaadijiwan First Nations of Eastern Ontario, Canada, along with many supporters, began a blockade of the Frontenec Ventures Corporation’s staging area for uranium mining exploration in 30,000 acres around Lake Sharbot. The First Nations claim aboriginal and jurisdictional rights to the land. As reported in the July 13 issue of the Nuclear Monitor, the protesters are calling for a moratorium on uranium mining in Ontario. On October 19 2007, the blockade was lifted when the Ontario government agreed to twelve weeks of mediated negotiation with the First Nations and signed an agreement pledging to consult the nations on the future of the mining operation. A supporter from the local settler community, Donna Dillman, 53, aka Gramma Donna, resolved to stage her own protest and started a hunger strike on October 8 in a tent trailer on the blockade site. Now closing in on 50 days, Donna has taken her protest to Queen’s Park next to the Ontario government’s seat in Toronto. This has renewed the pressure on the government with almost a tag team effect. Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty stated that Dillman should not endanger her health. This outraged Dillman who said “this is about our grandchildren and the future health of the province, why should my health be considered and not theirs?” NIRS, 20 November 2007 

The Nuclear Information & Resource Service was founded in 1978 and is based in Takoma Park, Maryland. The World Information Service on Energy was set up the same year and is housed in Amsterdam, Netherlands. NIRS and WISE Amsterdam joined forces in 2000, creating a worldwide network of information and resource centers for citizens and environmental organizations concerned about nuclear power, radioactive waste, radiation, and sustainable energy. The Nuclear Monitor publishes international information in English 20 times a year. A Spanish translation of this newsletter is available on the WISE Amsterdam website (www.antenna.nl/wise/esp). A Russian version is published by WISE Russia, a Ukrainian version is published by WISE Ukraine (available at www.nirs.org). Back issues are available through the WISE Amsterdam homepage: www.antenna.nl/wise and at www.nirs.org. Receiving the Nuclear Monitor US and Canadian readers should contact NIRS to obtain the Nuclear Monitor (address see page 11). Subscriptions are $35/yr for individuals and $250/year for institutions. New on NIRS Website: www.nirs.org The Lean Guide to Nuclear Energy argues that the world’s supply of uranium ore is so depleted that the nuclear industry may already have passed the point at which it is able to supply the energy needed even to dispose of its own wastes. German Green Party plan to reduce C02 by 40% by 20020 while keeping its nuclear phaseout. Sign the Nukes/Climate Statement! “We do not support construction of new nuclear reactors as a means of addressing the climate crisis. Available renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies are faster, cheaper, safer and cleaner strategies for reducing greenhouse emissions than nuclear power.” Sign at: http://www.nirs.org/petition2/index.php 

This entry was posted on Thursday, December 6th, 2007 at 11:12 am and is filed under Facts & Statements, MEDIA ROOM. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.