I am very happy to be given the opportunity to address the opening of this Conference on Accelerator-Driven Transmutation Technologies and Applications.

It is a wonderful time to come to this industrious and historic part of Sweden. The Conference is also an excellent demonstration that imaginative and ingenious thinking and research continues in nuclear science and technology - undeterred by the fact that the public's and media's current enchantment is with biotechnology and information technology. Indeed, although today nuclear weapons are dismantled faster than the owners can dispose of the fissionable material, a part of public opinion seems to have made it a creed that almost anything nuclear - not just weapons - is tantamount to evil. In the host country of this Conference it is even prohibited by law to plan or design new nuclear reactors for domestic deployment!

I am convinced, however, that the dramatic, fascinating - and in a few cases tragic - chapters that have been written so far in the world's log book of nuclear science and technology will be followed by many more chapters. This Conference is testimony that there is no lack of authors. Chernobyl was not the end of nuclear history.

Indeed, at a time when billions of people in the world need more energy to help them rise from physical toil and poverty and when a further increase in the use of fossil fuels is raising serious fears about throwing the world's climate off balance, how can we but welcome intensified research and experimentation with all sources of energy - fission, fusion, renewables - and, for that matter, with a more efficient use of energy? Don't tell the poor that they should change their lifestyles! They want nothing rather than changing their lifestyle - into one that uses drastically more energy!

I propose to discuss the potential role of nuclear power as an energy source in the future perspective and I shall do so against the background of its past development and current situation.

There is absolutely no doubt that global energy use will increase sharply in the decades to come. The world population continues to increase and billions of people, especially in the developing world, want to live better. We know that especially the use of electricity - the most versatile secondary energy - will expand sharply. The World Energy Council forecasts that the world use of electricity will increase by 50 to 75% by 2020. Currently countries like Bangladesh and Tanzania use less than 100 kWh per capita and year, while Sweden uses some 15 000 kWh per capita and year. Even so the Swedish use of electricity is continuing to expand. Who can doubt that other industrial countries - in Europe and elsewhere - at current use levels, which are half or less than that of Sweden, will increase their use of electricity?

This far there is not much controversy. Nor is there - in principle - disagreement on the proposition that energy and electricity should be generated and used in increasingly efficient ways. Today we can drive twice as far on a litre of gasoline as we did a few years ago. Light bulbs have been made that give us the same light as the old ones while using drastically less electricity. We may also plan and design our future societies and dwellings in ways that may reduce some energy use in transportation and heating. Yet, when all this - and more - is said the degree of optimism varies as to how much will be saved by individuals and industry and how soon. Although we can now drive further on a litre of gasoline than earlier, we have more cars. Although our light bulbs will save fuel, we shall have more lights. Although district heating will be more efficient, room temperatures go up and more air conditioning is used, etc. Certainly there will be a more efficient generation and use of energy - if the market is allowed to set the prices - but certainly there will also be a strong increase in energy use.

It is when we get to the question where the energy and the electricity is to come from that disagreements intensify. There are still areas in the world where significant hydro power can be harnessed. Doing so will evoke some protest, as we have seen, e.g. in India and China, but much of this remaining potential - especially in Africa - will no doubt gradually be exploited. When we approach the respective roles of fossil fuels, renewables and nuclear power, the disagreements sharpen further.

Before the world encountered the oil crises and before it had become aware of major environmental problems, the cheapest energy was considered the best energy. The sailing ships, propelled by wind, were replaced by steamers using coal, because the latter were more economic. And the steam engines were replaced by combustion engines using oil, because the latter were more economic. Similarly in cooking and heating, wood and other biomass have been replaced by coal, oil, gas or electricity as more economic.

The arrival of nuclear power was greeted with tremendous enthusiasm. It promised highly economic energy - especially electricity. It was later further welcomed as a response to fears that the oil supplies might again be interrupted by political measures and as a response to the concerns that the oil and gas resources will run out and that substitutes will need to be found. Industrially developed countries like France and Japan, with no oil or gas resources, concluded that they ought to reduce their dependence on imported oil and they looked to nuclear power as a means of diversifying their energy basis and becoming less dependent on external energy sources.

Nuclear power got off to a flying start. By 1980 it generated 8.4% of the world's electricity. In 1996 it generates 17% - only 2 percent less electricity than all the world's hydro power. However, already by 1980 the environmental concerns about wastes from industry and energy generation began to add new dimensions to the discussion of choice of energy sources. The acid rains causing damage to forests and lakes were linked to the burning of fossil fuels and the very long-lived radioactive wastes of nuclear power caused concern. The result in many countries was a public unease with both. For nuclear power this unease was strengthened by the Three Mile Island accident in 1979. Although no release of radioactivity occurred into the environment, it illustrated the risk of a nuclear core melt. The Chernobyl accident ten years ago informed the whole world what the consequences could be of a power reactor accident with release of radioactivity into the environment, adding public resistance to nuclear power in many countries.

During the same period some other important and relevant developments have taken place. The construction and operation of nuclear power have become more expensive as many new, mostly safety related demands, have continued to be added by regulators. As simultaneously the world price of fossil fuels, including gas, has decreased in real terms, nuclear's economic competitive edge has been reduced, neutralized or lost - depending upon what country one talks about.

Another factor is increasingly making itself heard, namely the concern that the carbon dioxide emissions that are inevitably linked to the burning of all fossil fuels and that cannot be neutralized in an economically viable way, may, together with other gas emissions, e.g. methane from the fossil gas production and transport, contribute to a gradual global warming - a change of climate even within the next 100 years.

The effects of these various factors have been much discussed, especially in the advanced industrialized countries. Neither steps to expand nuclear power, nor measures which would increase the burning of fossil fuel, find favour with voters in most of those States. Fortunately, in many cases not much new capacity has been needed in the last decade as an overcapacity of electricity generation has existed. The net result for nuclear power has nevertheless been a gradual stagnation in construction of plants in the Western industrialized world.

In Sweden a referendum in 1980, after TMI, supported a phasing out of nuclear power but declared that until renewable sources of energy became available a maximum of 12 reactors would be permitted to operate. In Austria a referendum in 1978 had the result that a newly built nuclear plant never came into operation. After the Chernobyl accident a referendum in Italy led to the closure of the few nuclear plants which were operating in that country and a halt in the construction of a few reactors underway. In Switzerland a referendum established a ten-year moratorium on further nuclear plants. In Belgium industrial plans for an additional nuclear plant were turned down by the government and in the Netherlands the government has refrained from proposing any new nuclear capacity. In Germany, the UK, Spain, the US, Canada and Finland there has likewise been a stagnation in nuclear construction - early in the US, later in the other countries. France is still building more plants, but at a slow pace. Only in the economically booming East Asia is there a strong expansion in nuclear power during the last ten years: in Japan, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan (China) and China. India and Pakistan are expanding slowly.

In the former Soviet Union and in East Europe projects and plans from the earlier Communist regimes are in most cases continued. In the Czech Republic, where large tracts of land were destroyed by excessive use of coal, the Temelin plant with two 1000 MW nuclear reactors is completed, with Western instrumentation put into the Soviet designed reactors. In Mochovce, Slovakia is acting similarly regarding two 440 MW plants. Bulgaria might possibly pursue two 1000 MW reactors at Belene. Romania has completed one pressurized heavy water reactor of the Candu type and might build a second - if resources are found. Ukraine and Russia are completing many plants under construction and Russia is planning more plants. Poland, on the other hand, stopped the construction of two 440-MW Russian-designed VVER plants at Gdansk.

In the developing countries interest in the nuclear option is limited. The high initial capital requirement is a deterrent factor in many cases and the stagnation in most of the technology-exporting countries has probably also a psychological effect. Brazil may finish the construction of a second plant and Cuba might finish one or two. Mexico is already operating two. Egypt no longer seems to be in a hurry, while Iran seeks Russian assistance to complete the building of two reactors that Siemens started to build long ago in Bushehr. Indonesia discusses a nuclear power programme but there are no firm decisions. The same seems to be true for Turkey.

One country, the IAEA's host country Austria, seems militantly opposed to nuclear power, advocating a "nuclear power free zone" in Central Europe. A few - Denmark, Ireland, Luxembourg and Norway - seem more passively negative. Most governments, I think it is fair to say, are passively favourable. In the face of various militant anti-nuclear movements and opinions, the governments generally take a low profile. They are in holding pattern. Some political parties - notably green ones - are on the other hand vocal opponents.

In view of the stagnation of nuclear power in the Western industrialized world and the increasing public concern in these countries about the possible climate effects of an increased burning of fossil fuels, it is of interest to see what actually is done to meet the slowly increasing energy demand in these countries.

We find a great deal of talk about the need to reduce CO₂ emissions - and even a Climate Convention - through conservation and a greater use of renewables. This has now for quite some time been the dominant recipe - the "correct thinking" - at intergovernmental meetings devoted to the environment - like the Rio and Berlin conferences. It has also been the dominant message from the International Panel on Climate Change - IPCC - which last year presented one scenario under which the world, to mitigate a possible threat of global warming, would by 2100 cover 80% of its energy needs by biomass.

The present reality and that of the next decades look very different from these recipes. The fossil fuels - coal, oil and gas - are totally dominating commercial energy use - with no stagnation in sight. For electricity generation thermal power has a share of 63%; hydro 19%; nuclear 17%; geothermal 0.5% . Solar power, wind power and biomass together have a smaller share than 0.1%.

According to the International Energy Agency (OECD) publication "Oil, Gas and Coal Supply Outlook" published in 1995, natural gas is the fastest growing fossil fuel. It is not very surprising: gas is still relatively cheap and the construction combined cycle gas powered plants relatively rapid; it emits no SO₂ or NO_x. It does add, however, to global CO₂ emissions, though less per energy unit than do coal and oil. Gas use is expected to increase by 55% in absolute terms from 1992 to 2010. In the same time period the annual coal production is expected to increase dramatically:

• in Australia from 178 million tons to 290 million tons;
• in China from 1138 million tons to 2100 million tons;
• in India from 240 million tons to 485 million tons;
• in South Africa from 182 million tons to 326 million tons;
• in the USA from 823 million tons to 1070 million tons.

If one would dare to assume that the coal thus mined will be burnt one must conclude that the current course is not toward that restraint in CO₂ emissions which environment ministers and international conferences talk about. Indeed, only two weeks ago it was reported that the European Commission in Brussels has concluded that the Union will not attain its target of stabilizing its CO₂ emissions at the 1990 level by the year 2000. Based on figures submitted by the environment departments it concluded there will be a 3% increase. And the International Energy Agency of the OECD, basing itself on figures submitted by energy - departments, is reported to have concluded that there would be a 15 % increase . . . (see "The Independent" of 20 May 1996).

It has often been said - at least here in Sweden - that if only the power industry were given the clear signal that nuclear is out and renewables are to be in, then industry will produce the effective renewable energy technologies which it is now alleged to have no incentive to promote. Coming from quarters that are frequently enemies of high technology this professed faith in the unlimited ability of the engineers and scientists is perhaps based more on wishes than on conviction. For my part, I am convinced that the lack of generally commercially competitive wind power, solar cells and biomass burning installations is no result of a conspiracy of oil, coal, gas or nuclear engineers and industries. In all likelihood there would be a lot of money to make for any enterprise that succeeded in making any of these renewable energy sources commercially competitive. There is also no lack of public research money going into the effort - and a great deal of resources are also ploughed into the endeavours by the private sector. Yet, so far, these endeavours do not look promising for the foreseeable time. Despite the welcome gradual progress that has been made in the effectiveness of renewable sources, these are not expected - by neutral analysts such as the International Energy Agency of the OECD or the World Energy Council - to reach but very modest shares of the world energy use in the foreseeable future. One reason may be the great efforts which are needed to "harvest" the energy of low density energy sources. While coal, oil and gas, not to speak about uranium or plutonium, are concentrated volumes of energy, solar rays, gusts of wind and branches of wood are dispersed sources of energy. It takes much effort to collect them. It is not that it cannot be done, but it requires very large - and therefore expensive - collecting arrangements. It has been calculated, for instance, that replacing the 1200 MW(e) two units at the Swedish Barseb?ck nuclear power plant with biomass would require planting some 11 000 km² or almost a third of the surface of Scania (the southernmost region of Sweden) - with energy forests (Arnold Lundén).

The optimistic signals we hear much of the time about these energy sources as being realistic alternatives to fossil fuel and nuclear power do not appear correctly to reflect reality. When government subsidies cease, these renewables mostly become uneconomic. The fanfare with which they are heralded is often in inverse proportion to their significance. Much has been said, for instance, about the success of wind power generated electricity in Denmark. The Danes have some 3800 windmills. Yet, only 3% - or 1.2 TWh - of Denmark's electricity is aeolian. Most of the rest is generated by a fast growing number of coal power plants: the coal generated electricity in Denmark increased from 15 TWh/year in 1980 to about 30 TWh/year now! And further increases are planned. It is not without interest to compare the emissions from electricity generation in the Danish coal and wind power mix and that of the Swedish hydro-nuclear power mix. The figures are for 1992:

• Danish electricity generation emitted 26 m tons CO₂ - Swedish 2 tons;
• Danish electricity generation emitted 130 000 tons SO₂ - Swedish 2000 tons;
• Danish electricity ~eneration emitted 82 000 tons NO_x - Swedish 4000 tons.

I think all those who are genuinely concerned about the environment - and we should all be - owe it to ourselves to tackle the issues realistically rather than serving dreams. If this is not done the result may be that we all get to the greenhouse through the dreamhouse!

We need to rank our fears. Do we fear the nuclear wastes and the small risk of nuclear accidents so much that we renounce using nuclear power as the significant means it can be to restrain our burning of fossil fuels? Or do we fear the risk of global warming through CO₂ emissions, methane leaking and the like so much that we are prepared to live with the risks connected with nuclear power - such as they are now or as they can be reduced in the future? Or do we fear both nuclear and fossil energy so much that we are ready to pay drastically more for energy and cover large tracts of land with windmills, solar cells and fast growing trees, provided, indeed, that all these sources of energy are found to be as environmentally benign as they are claimed to be? Until now, no clear cut and unison answer has been given. We muddle on. Several concrete cases suggest there is until now a resigned tolerance to fossil based energy. Nuclear power evokes more protest.

When the Austrians closed their nuclear plant, which would have used some 30 tons of low enriched uranium per year, they built as a substitute two coal-fired plants which burn five train loads of coal per day - amounting to about 1.5-2.0 million tons of coal per year. Belgium allowed a gas fired plant instead of the contemplated nuclear power plant. Mexico has opened two nuclear plants on the Gulf, but is building more coal plants on the Pacific. Indonesia has talked about a nuclear plant but is covering its rapidly increasing energy needs by the burning of fossil fuels. China and India seem determined to expand their nuclear sectors, but their coal sectors seem to expand even faster. One is not surprised to find an OECD/IEA report on the world energy outlook predict that energy-derived CO₂ emissions will increase by almost 50% by the year 2010.

At an Asian summit conference on environment in Manila in February last year, Western participants are reported to have expressed concern about the rapidly increasing use of coal and other fossil fuels in the expanding Asian economies. Understandably Asian participants replied: "It is you in the industrialized West who have messed up the atmosphere. Don't expect us to slow our development by renouncing an expanded use of coal." They could have added: "If you want an equitable solution, we could allocate a certain CO₂ emission right per capita ...".

Let me draw some conclusions:

1. The fossil fuels - coal, oil and gas - are now totally dominant and will remain the main commercial sources of the world energy for the foreseeable time - preferably increasingly with cleaning equipment that drastically reduces the emissions of SO₂ and NO_x;
2. However, the increasing emissions of CO₂ and other gases linked to fossil fuel use may pose dangers which we should not expose ourselves to. The least we should do is to search for so-called no regret solutions, i.e. solutions which we would not much regret having taken even if the supposed dangers proved to be false alarms;

   ?

3. As there appears to be no economically viable way of neutralizing CO₂ emissions at the burning of fossil fuels, we may seek increasingly to switch from coal to oil to gas to reduce CO₂ emissions and to rely more on non-CO₂ emitting economically viable energy sources;

   ?

4. Nuclear power is a demanding technology but it is the technology that for the foreseeable time has the greatest potential to give significant amounts of energy with viable, it does provide minimal contribution of greenhouse gases. As it is economically viable a "no regret" option. Even a drastic expansion of nuclear power might not, alone, give the response we need to the greenhouse threat - but it could go a rather long way. Uranium and thorium resources will not be a limiting factor;

   ?

5. The technologically advanced countries which have the capacity to operate nuclear power safely, should make increasing use of it, while restraining their own use of fossil fuels, leaving to the technologically underdeveloped countries to expand their use of the less difficult technologies to generate energy by fossil fuels;

   ?

6. Research and development should continue on all sources of energy as on conservation, urban planning, etc.;

   ?

7. All efforts should continue to further reduce the risk of accidents connected with nuclear power, to develop further the solutions which already exist for the disposal of nuclear wastes, to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the trafficking in nuclear material, to develop new types of nuclear reactors that are safer, simpler and even more economic than the current generation and to find broader use of nuclear power than just electricity generation.

I shall use the rest of my time to develop these points.

A much expanded reliance on the nuclear option can be made more attractive to the public - or less worrisome - through further action on a number of points.

The first is further information. The public needs to be aware that no energy generation and use is without some cost and risk; that it is not meaningful to look at the cost and risk of an energy source in isolation but only in comparison with the cost and risk of the alternative source or the cost and risks connected with being without energy. Scientists and engineers and their professional associations have a role to play in this educational effort. They have often greater credibility than politicians and media people. I have no doubt that correct risk assessments would place nuclear power in a better light - relative to the alternatives. The IAEA is trying to contribute to such risk comparisons in a project pursued together with a number of other intergovernmental organizations.

The second point relates to the safety of plants generating nuclear power. Increased safety results continuously from improved constructions and new constructions and from improved methods in management, operation and control. The reactors put into operation today offer greater safety than the early ones and the new types around the corner - whether those that are evolutionary and build on current experience or those that are "developmental", innovative - offer yet further improvements in safety. Similarly, today's methods of operation and supervision help much to further strengthen safety. By the end of 1995, 437 nuclear power units were in operation in 31 countries in the world. The total accumulated operating experience was at that time 7696 reactor years. The feedback to operators, managers, supervisors and regulators of those years of experience is considerable. It is also expressed in guidelines, standards and conventions adopted under IAEA auspices. A determined collective effort is made to ensure that safety is high in nuclear reactors everywhere - to create an international nuclear safety culture. The Summit in Moscow on 20 April this year focussed precisely on this issue and expressed the joint determination of the world leaders - I quote - "to work together to ensure the safety of nuclear power and to promote security for nuclear materials".

President Yeltsin advocated inter alia international co-operation to construct new types of nuclear reactors, not only in the field of fusion - where such co-operation is ongoing - but also in the field of light water reactors, high temperature reactors and breeders. There is a fair amount of such co-operation going on. Indeed, the IAEA provides fora for the exchange of information and experience in the work which is pursued around the world on several types of reactors, including those which I just mentioned. However, more far-reaching co-operation may include sensitive commercial interests and falls outside the scope of the IAEA mechanisms.

The third point relates to nuclear wastes. Here, again information is crucial. We would need to launch the concept of "alternative wastes". No one wishes to belittle the problem of safely disposing of wastes that remain radioactive for very, very long periods of time. But this problem should be viewed in parallel with the problems connected with the alternative wastes which would result from other sources of energy, e.g. coal, some of which remain toxic forever and much of which are released into the atmosphere, raising the risk inter alia of climate change. One can sometimes get the impression that the concern is greater about the risks posed by radioactive wastes after the next ice age than about the risks of a climate change next century and other consequences caused by the wastes of fossil fuels.

Although solutions exist for the safe disposal of civilian nuclear wastes and there is no reason to delay national decisions, international co-operation should ensure that the conduct is responsible everywhere. An international convention laying down minimum standards regarding the disposal of nuclear wastes and the management of spent nuclear fuel is now being negotiated under IAEA auspices. This basic international legislative instrument should be ready for signature next year.

When I look at the considerable and competent scientific and technical work that has been done on the safe disposal of nuclear waste, I cannot but find it somewhat paradoxical that some of the people who claim to be most concerned about the danger of nuclear wastes, are the very same people who most fiercely oppose site investigations needed to solve the problem!

Groucho Marx once said he did not understand why we should do something for future generations. After all, they never did anything for us! Well, I think we all disagree and feel that we must not leave a poisoned and depleted world to future generations. We recognize that our generation, which is benefiting from using nuclear generated electricity, must ensure the safe management of the nuclear waste we cause. Transmutation may, one day, play a role in this regard, but it should not be taken as an excuse for relaxing our current work on waste disposal. Governments should help to bring this work to a successful end and should not allow themselves to be sidetracked or paralysed.

One more reflection on the nuclear waste issue: in his speech to the Moscow Summit on 20 April, President Yeltsin said that Russia regarded - I quote - "the joint establishment of regional storage facilities with scientific and financial input of all interested parties ... as a promising area of co-operation."

In the Western industrial world at present "correct thinking" demands national waste disposal solutions, apparently regardless how much more advantageous international co-operation and regional solutions might be. I confess great sympathy for the concept voiced by President Yeltsin. A smaller number of highly developed, well sited, well equipped and well managed regional nuclear waste disposal installations - based on agreements freely entered into - would seem to me to be a more rational solution for the world than a greater number of smaller installations spread over the world. Are we or are we not a "global village"?

I am pleased to note, finally, that my own country, Sweden, together with Norway and several other States, are engaged with Russia in a joint endeavour that relates to nuclear waste disposal in Russia. I am also happy to note that the IAEA is providing some co-ordinating and secretariat services to this endeavour.

A fourth point relates to non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, nuclear disarmament and the security against trafficking in nuclear materials. The end of the cold war and the detente which has followed globally and in many regions have improved the prospects of non- proliferation. Latin America, Africa, the South Pacific and South East Asia today have treaties establishing nuclear-weapon-free zones and the global Non-Proliferation Treaty was prolonged for an infinite time last year. This is all progress - but much remains to be done. Nuclear- weapon-free zones are needed also in the Middle East and on the Indian subcontinent. And further reductions of the arsenals of the nuclear-weapon States must be a part of an accelerating nuclear disarmament. The weapons grade plutonium from dismantled weapons must be disposed of and a discussion is now going on regarding the options in this regard. Accelerator- driven transmutation may prove to be one of them. Non-proliferation pledges and nuclear disarmament commitments must also be coupled with a greater readiness of States to accept effective control. Ever since the discovery of the clandestine nuclear weapon programme in Iraq, the IAEA has been intensely engaged in efforts to strengthen the safeguards system. Much experience in verification has been learnt in Iraq and is now being implemented elsewhere. But some new approaches and measures for effective control require acceptance by States. These measures must be non-discriminatory. They are inevitably somewhat of a burden to each State, just as our walking through the metal detectors at airports is an inconvenience. Such inconveniences have to be accepted, however, in the interest of reducing the risk of clandestine nuclear weapons development. The Moscow Summit underlined the need for the strengthened IAEA measures. It also stressed the need for joint measures and co-operation to prevent the smuggling of nuclear materials and the IAEA's role in that co-operation.

I should like to conclude where I began this presentation, namely with, if I may say so, the "frontier" nuclear thinking, the new chapters in the nuclear log book. I have mentioned fusion, which may be far off as a commercial energy source, but on which important research is pursued in international co-operation. I have referred to the breeder reactors, which are almost "unmentionable" in modern "correct thinking", but which do exist in France, Russia, UK, Kazakstan, Japan and India. Should there be any worries about the finite nature of the world's uranium resources, we should recall that breeder reactors extract sixty times as much energy from uranium as thermal reactors do. We might also refer to the ongoing research on the thorium fuel cycle. Fuel availability is not likely to be a problem in a future expanded use of nuclear power. One might rather ask if such expanded use should not focus or refocus on some new energy demanding functions. The major portion of the world's primary energy usage is consumed in the forrm of heat. The temperature requirements for industrial heat applications vary greatly from low temperature heat for district heating up to high temperature process heat for coal gasification and hydrogen production. Processes requiring temperatures of up to 300°C can be supplied by water cooled reactors while breeders may be applied to processes requiring up to 540°C. The high temperature gas cooled reactor can reach process heat temperatures of 950°C. Thus, nuclear energy has the potential to provide not only electricity, but also heat for many of the world's industrial heat application processes. Desalination of sea water to cover the increasing shortage of drinking water is another possible application of nuclear energy. It is a subject which several States are discussing under IAEA auspices. An expanded use of nuclear power could provide electricity in the presently hydrocarbon guzzling transportation sector: trains for medium distances, trolley buses, tubes and electric cars for urban areas. Perhaps even nuclear propelled ships for heavy sea transports. Why only submarines, aircraft carriers and ice breakers?

The Conference that you open today eminently represents nuclear frontier thinking. It may have great relevance in the field of safe operation of electricity generating nuclear plants. It may affect the nuclear waste question in fundamental ways and even impact upon the question of non-proliferation.

I am fully aware that your subjects and ideas are bristling with problems and difficulties and that some view your endeavours not negatively but with mild scepticism. I am confident that you will take that in a stride. The IAEA is proud to be a co-sponsor of this Conference and the Agency is engaged in a number of actlvities and programmes that relate to your subject and work.

I wish you a hearty appetite on your tantalizing subjects and much success. The sooner you bring us the ultimate solutions to safe nuclear power, safe nuclear waste and non-proliferation, the better.