In this last decade of the 20th century our global population will grow from 4 to 5 billion people, most of them needing drastic improvement in their living conditions, inter alia through greater use of energy, particularly electricity. During this decade the world will shrink further and we shall all get even more dependent on each other. We shall be in great need of international stability to avoid death and destruction through armed conflicts, to free scarce resources through disarmament and to promote trade and development. Two of the most important questions we must ask are:
Can we contain and eventually eliminate the threat of nuclear weapons? and
Can we use nuclear power as a major part in responding to our growing energy needs?
I can think of no place more appropriate to discuss and reach a hopeful conclusion to these questions than Japan, a great power that has been uniquely successful in rapidly raising the living conditions of its population, that has categorically renounced nuclear weapons and that is rapidly developing nuclear power as a major economic, safe and environmentally benign source of energy.
But the questions must be examined not only with Japan but the whole world in view. I shall begin with the nuclear weapons.
At the terrible dawn of the nuclear era, fifty years ago, there was only one nuclear- weapon State. It did not take many years before there were five declared nuclear-weapon States and a few more having or being close to having these weapons. The stockpiles of warheads in the superpowers grew to many tens of thousands, sufficient to wipe out civilization.
It is claimed that the possibility of mutually assured destruction brought stability and that the greatest danger to the world lay and still lies in a spread of nuclear weapons, to further countries. There would be fingers on more nuclear triggers. While it is easy to see the danger of proliferation, we would certainly wish our confidence in international stability to be based on something less threatening than nuclear deterrence.
Fortunately today the ideological and power struggle that dominated most of the past fifty years has come to an end. All great powers and most other States, too, seem ready to accept that boundaries shall no more be changed by force. This shift in attitude, which we hope is permanent, and which is certainly linked to the awareness of our modern potential for destruction, is leading to increased confidence in the stability of peace and international borders in most parts of the world and particularly between great powers. It is also rapidly leading to accelerating disarmament.
The superpowers are now dismantling their nuclear weapons so fast that there is a major problem of what to do with all the excess fissile material and how to provide assurance that its removal from military inventories is irreversible. We are also hopeful that a world wide ban can be reached on the further production of nuclear material for weapons use and that a comprehensive ban on any further testing of nuclear weapons can be agreed. Can we thus begin seriously to hope for fulfilment of the double aim of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty - disarmament by the declared nuclear-weapon States and renunciation of nuclear weapons by all others? If so, it would mean that the States of the world eventually abandoned the option of war in international relations and turned to settle conflicts by other means. If so, vast resources now devoted to armed forces could be released for development. Some hard-headed statesmen are, indeed, beginning to think of a world in which the only remaining nuclear weapons would be controlled by some international security body. Evidently such a state of affairs is far away, however, and we must now focus on maintaining stability and balance during the first steps in the march away from the nuclear brink. Effective verification will be an indispensible element in all measures leading to nuclear disarmament. The IAEA, which has a long experience in this field, is ready to provide verification services. It is building on its experience and seeking to strengthen and develop the effectiveness of its verification.
The production of nuclear material for weapons and the construction of weapons will be within the ability of an ever growing number of States in a technologically advancing world. It remains important to avoid any incentives to such weapons production by creating or maintaining detente globally and regionally. Another matter of importance will be to demonstrate that any departure from nuclear disarmament or arms control agreements would be dealt with decisively. A third requirement will be for effective international verification.
In one week s time a conference begins in New York to examine whether the Non- Proliferation Treaty is to be extended for an unlimited or a specific period of time. There can be no doubt that this treaty and the other treaties under which States have renounced nuclear weapons, the Tlatelolco Treaty and the Rarotonga Treaty, are contributing to stability. With Cuba recently signing the Tlatelolco Treaty we can expect that this treaty will soon enter into force fully and make Latin America and the Caribbean a nuclear-weapon-free zone. With South Africa and Algeria having joined the NPT and a treaty for an African nuclear-weapon-free zone already drafted, we may also soon see such a zone become a reality.
Some outstanding areas remain. In the Middle East one may hope and expect that a continued peace process will lead to agreement on a zone free of weapons of mass destruction. On the Indian subcontinent the renunciation of the nuclear weapon option would become less difficult if the global disarmament process continued further and if regional detente were brought about. It may be hoped, lastly, that continued stable great power relations in East Asia and enlightened self-interest of all parties concerned will bring arrangements, particularly regarding the Korean peninsula, guaranteeing an exclusively peaceful use of nuclear energy .
To proceed with disarmament and remain committed to non-proliferation States need to feel confident that others are fully respecting their commitments. In no area is verification of implementation more important than in nuclear commitments. After the discovery that Iraq, a party to the NPT, had secretly developed the ability to enrich uranium and begun to design a nuclear weapon, the world is looking to the IAEA to supplement its effective verification of nuclear material in declared installations by verification that there are also no clandestine nuclear installations. Proposals to respond to this concern, and to make a successful hiding of nuclear activities much more difficult, were endorsed in a general way in March by the IAEA Board of Governors. While these proposals will considerably strengthen the effectiveness of safeguards, they are really not very onerous and the increased cost for some of the new measures are likely to be offset by savings through the elimination of certain routine inspections. Implementation of the proposed measures will, however, call for the exercise of good will and full co-operation with the IAEA. In return the new measures will provide a higher level of confidence that non-proliferation commitments are respected and thus contribute to international stability.
I turn now to the question whether nuclear power can contribute to greater stability in the international society.
Let me first note that experience has shown us that nuclear power and nuclear weapons are not, as alleged by some, inseparable Siamese twins. A large number of States, including Japan, are using nuclear power without having nuclear weapons and one may even be hopeful, as I have explained, that the process of nuclear disarmament will eventually result in no single nation possessing such weapons. As we proceed in this direction, reducing the nuclear weapon arsenals and their role, we may hope that people s perception of nuclear energy will shift from its destructive to its productive capacity - that is its capacity to contribute to our welfare by generating heat and electricity. I submit that this contribution is indispensible for stable and sustainable development and that it is high time that governments publicly recognize it. Let me explain.
An increasing world population demanding more food and better living conditions will need more energy. Greater efficiency in energy use will not by far offset the expanded need, which naturally will be the greatest in the developing countries. Today a Swede uses some 17 000 kWh/year and a citizen of Bangladesh uses 80. Where is the added supply of electricity to come from?
The dominant sources of energy today are fossil fuels - oil, coal and gas. They will remain dominant for a long time still, but oil and gas reserves are expected to be exhausted within less than a century at the current rate of consumption.
We are much aware that nuclear energy in military use may threaten peace and stability, we should remember that fossil fuels, too, sometimes pose a threat to peace and stability. Indeed, the interest to control oil resources and oil supply has led to great international political and economic convulsions and even to armed conflicts. While it is true that nuclear energy can provide horrendous means of warfare, and that nuclear installations could be the subject of attack in armed conflicts, wars are not fought over power reactors or uranium resources. On the contrary reliance on nuclear power plants reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and give a measure of energy independence, as uranium fuel can be stored for several years operation. Countries like Sweden and France with much nuclear power use little or no fossil fuel for electricity generation. In Japan some 30% of the electricity is nuclear generated. It is true, of course, that the world s uranium resources, though ample today, are also finite. However, reliance on breeder reactors could give an almost limitless supply of fuel for nuclear power if, in a future, uranium resources should become scarce.
Other alternatives to fossil fuels than nuclear power and hydro - solar power, wind power, geothermal power, biomass - today provide only a fraction of a percent of the world s commercial energy. Although the share of these sources can and should increase, they are not expected by authoritative energy institutions like the International Energy Agency of the OECD or the World Energy Conference to be able economically to provide even as much as 10 percent of the world s needs for commercial energy by 2020. This assessment, I must add, is not accepted by those who do not want to be driven to the conclusion that nuclear power is indispensible, because they are opponents of nuclear power or because - without being opponents - they despair about public acceptance of nuclear power.
An important issue is now the concern that increased global use of fossil fuels must be avoided, indeed that the use should be reduced, in order to limit emissions of greenhouse gases, notably CO2, which inevitably occurs in all combustion of coal, oil and gas. There is a similar concern about the leakage of methane - another greenhouse gas - from extraction sites and gas pipelines. This leakage is estimated to be anything between 5-12% of the world wide natural gas production.
The global warming issue contains a considerable amount of political and economic dynamite and it is fast moving up on the world agenda. The fear stirs us all that we may be significantly affecting the world s climate and living conditions - making the atmosphere warmer, perhaps making the weather more volatile and perhaps even causing a rise in sea levels. If sustained by further data this fear will prompt even stronger demand for stabilizing action.
But what action?
Some developing countries are already rightly pointing out that it is the industrialized countries burning of enormous amounts of fossil fuels that has led the world to this threat. At a recent Asia-Pacific Leaders Conference in Manila it was argued that the industrialized countries should reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by the year 2005. It was not fair to demand that developing countries that emit little CO2 per capita should hamper their development by abstaining from using more fossil fuels, like coal, particularly if these sources exist domestically. While this argument is not rejected by industrialized countries, they have yet to present and implement concrete policies to reduce CO2 emissions. Some experts and policy-makers point out that, although the rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere is already a measurable fact, the climate models pointing to a further warming contain many uncertainties and warn against very expensive policies which might later turn out to have been unnecessary. They do not advocate that we should remain passive and they realize that our grandchildren might regret it if we did not take the threat seriously. They rather advocate that we should pursue policies which would help counter global warming, if one is occurring, but which we would not later regret as wasteful if the threat of global warming turned out to be a mirage. They urge a so-called no-regret policy.
Stimulating the efficient use of energy is often described as a no-regret policy, because it would generally help to reduce energy use and restrain CO2 emissions and if the investments were profitable no resources would be wasted.
Shifting from coal to natural gas may also be a policy one would not regret, because combined cycle gas use is at present very economic and gas emits about 40% less CO2 per energy unit as does coal. However, the security of supply could be somewhat uncertain at the end of a pipeline and the stability of future gas prices is uncertain. Nevertheless an increased use of natural gas seems at present to be a preferred option in many places, because it is less environmentally objectionable than coal and it is less politically objectionable than nuclear.
Shifting from fossil fuels to renewables like solar, wind and biomass cannot be advocated as no-regret policies at present since these sources, in particular solar generated electricity, are more expensive. Research and development is recommended and large sums are in fact used for this purpose.
It would seem evident that a greater use of nuclear power would be a no-regret policy. It results in practically no CO2 emissions, nor in any emissions of SO2 and NOX. It is competitive even with coal and it provides energy independence. It can be used to generate electricity for which the demand is increasing the fastest. It could also be used for generating industrial heat, for district heating or for water desalination. As large numbers of warships and some ice-breakers are propelled by nuclear power, we know that nuclear power has a potential - not much exploited - use for commercial ship propulsion. It cannot, however, be used as an energy source for automobiles, trucks or aeroplane - which do consume vast quantities of oil-based fuel. However, greater future reliance on electric trains, subways, trams, trolleybuses, could reduce or at least restrain the consumption of fossil fuels, especially oil-based ones for transportation purposes. Should we succeed in making electricity-driven automobiles economic and practical, a huge reduction in oil consumption - and pollution - would become possible. Also, in the long term, there is even a possibility to produce hydrogen from water using high temperature heat from nuclear energy. The hydrogen can propel automobiles. In Japan a high temperature gas cooled reactor to provide high temperature nuclear heat is under construction and hydrogen-propelled automobiles are also under successful development.
The threat of global warming has elicited different response scenarios described by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which was set up by the World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environment Programme and which is the most authoritative international body dealing with these matters. These scenarios show that an option known as the High Nuclear Variant and relying on greater use of nuclear power, has considerable CO2 abatement capacity. However, the Panel s latest draft report underlines various concerns about nuclear power, such as safety, waste and proliferation. Also it highlights a Low Nuclear Variant scenario under which by the year 2100 renewable sources, including biomass and hydro, would provide some 83% of the world s total commercial energy supply and more than 90% of its electricity. While this low energy scenario may appeal to specific environmental constituencies around the world, it is questionable how credible and how useful it can be as an answer today to the problem of increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Nor can we see evidence that governments, authoritative energy organizations or utilities place much faith in it. The needs for energy are immediate but the technologies envisaged in this scenario are not mature, and not economically competitive.
It is undeniable that nuclear power, whose share in the world s electricity generation increased rapidly from 5% in 1975 to 15% in 1985, has since then stagnated everywhere except in East Asia, where it is providing a large part of the electricity needed for rapid economic growth. It is also undeniable that while, earlier, recession was responsible for nuclear power s stagnation in many Western industrialized countries, today a main reason for the stagnation is rather that many political parties and governments without necessarily being negative to nuclear power, know that they can win some votes by staying away from more nuclear power but are not likely to win many votes by advocating its use. This situation could change if the fear of global warming increases and sharper demands are raised for effective action to restrain CO2 emissions. While it would not be argued that a much increased reliance on nuclear power, alone, would allow a sufficient restraint on fossil fuel use and CO2 and methane emissions, such restraint is unlikely to be achieved without a much increased reliance on nuclear power. In a speech before the recent Berlin Conference on Climate Change, a representative of the International Energy Agency of the OECD pointed out that there had been an annual average improvement - i.e. reduction - in carbon intensity per unit of energy of about 0.4 percent between 1971 and 1992 and that it was attributable to the substantial growth in nuclear power over that period. He was apparently the only speaker referring to nuclear power at the Conference and remarking that nuclear power s share in the world s fuel mix is expected to decrease, the CO2 emissions can be expected again to follow energy demand growth. Was this sustainable, he asked.
As a result of the dilemma that improvements in energy efficiency will not offset increased energy needs, that renewable sources of energy - apart from hydro - are not economically competitive and that nuclear power in many countries is not at present, shall I say, politically competitive , there is in fact a continued global increase in the use of fossil fuels and consequent emissions of CO2 from their burning and an increase in methane leakage from natural gas production and transportation.
What actions can we recommend to promote the role of nuclear power as an economically viable major source of energy in today s world and as a no-regret choice to help meet the concern about global warming? I am relatively optimistic. Someone said he had great confidence in governments: when all other options have been exhausted, they will choose the rational course. Let us hope so.
The attitude of the public seems decisive to influence the governments - even though, to be sure, the latter can influence the views of the public. Even though governments can influence the views of the public and should have a moral-political duty to provide leadership, it seems that in the question of nuclear power it is at present mostly the public s attitudes that influence government action. A simple conclusion is that one must listen to the concerns which lead the voters to be unconvinced about the merits of nuclear power and either persuade the voter that their concerns are unfounded or take action to reduce concerns that may be understandable.
A first answer must be to promote more education and public information about nuclear energy - through schools, utilities, media. The most dedicated opponents of nuclear power may not listen to such information, but many will. The information must, of course, show not only what benefits but also what problems are connected with the use of nuclear power and how these are met. It must remind the public that no energy generation is without some risk to health and the environment and that the only rational approach - if we want energy - is to compare not only the economic costs and reliability of different sources of energy but also the risks to life, health and environment which they pose. Such studies are in fact carried out by a number of international organizations, including the OECD, the European Union and the IAEA and a conference next year will highlight the results.
Clearly a major source of public concern about nuclear power relates to safety, in particular the fear of accidents involving radioactive releases. In response it is not enough to refer to more than 7000 reactor years of safe operation with Chernobyl as the only case leading to significant radioactive releases into the environment. It must be shown that through international co-operation and assistance safety upgrading is speeded up wherever needed, in particular in plants in the former Soviet Union. Much has been attained already but some further efforts do remain to be made. We should also show that new nuclear power reactors designs lead to continuously increased safety. Indeed we might seek agreement on safety criteria for future power reactors, e.g. a requirement that their safety level shall be such that no plans need be made for measures to be taken outside the plants in the case of an accident. Such a requirement is already written into new German law.
We must also demonstrate that, in addition to the national legal and supervisory systems which have the direct responsibility for nuclear safety, an international infrastructure relating to nuclear safety is put in place, creating international standards to which all are committed and supplemented by services and co-operation to maintain a safety culture that is, I think, unmatched by any other industry, except possibly aviation. The latest addition to this infrastructure is the International Safety Convention which was signed under IAEA auspices in Vienna last September. In the next few years we can expect the conclusion of conventions on safety in the disposal of radioactive wastes and about liability for any damages caused by nuclear accidents. Perhaps utilities operating nuclear power plants should also contemplate contributing to a joint international fund that could be used for compensation and clear-up if any radioactive releases were to occur from nuclear plants.
The second most important public concern about nuclear power relates to wastes, which may remain radioactive for tens of thousands of years. It must be pointed out, of course, that the limited volumes of these wastes make it possible to isolate them in their entirety and put them deep down in stable geological formations - something that is simply not possible to do with the wastes of fossil fuels because of their enormous volume. The stark reality today is that the wastes from fossil fuels cannot be handled in a manner that is responsible vis-a-vis future generations. The world s atmosphere or the surface of the earth are the final disposal sites of the heavy metals that are toxic forever and the CO2, SO2 and the NOx that are released in the combustion.
Action to build intermediate storages for high level nuclear waste and repositories for low and medium level radioactive wastes must be speeded up. There is nothing to prevent us in the meantime from exploring whether economically viable methods can be developed that would drastically shorten the time during which presently long lived nuclear waste remains radioactive.
A third concern of the public has been that the development of nuclear power might risk to increase the capacity of countries to make nuclear weapons. It is true, of course, that the large cadres of nuclear scientists and engineers which are needed for a nuclear power programme can also provide the talent needed for the production of fissile material for weapons. However, it must be pointed out that, contrary to President Kennedy s pessimistic prediction years ago that there would be dozens of nuclear-weapon States, the expansion of nuclear power in the world has gone hand in hand with increased commitments to an exclusively peaceful use. I am not suggesting that there is ground for complacency. The case of Iraq has demonstrated that there can be clandestine programmes and that vigilance is necessary to remove incentives to weapons developments and to sharpen verification. Nevertheless the world as a whole is turning its back to the nuclear weapons era. It is no longer unrealistic to raise the double aim that those who do not now have nuclear weapons should commit themselves not to acquire them and that those who have the weapons should rapidly move to nuclear disarmament. Freed form the evil shadows of the nuclear weapons, the tremendous force of the atom might be welcomed as naturally as the force of gravity and be accepted as a sustainable, environmentally benign source of energy contributing to and not disrupting stability in our international society.