It is a pleasure to participate in a conference which examines both the civilian and military aspects of nuclear energy in the 21st Century. In public perception, the two are often linked. The use of nuclear power as a clean source of energy production is often overshadowed by public apprehension that nuclear energy will be used for non-peaceful ends or in an unsafe manner.
As you may be aware, the IAEA was established in 1957 to be the global intergovernmental focal point for co-operation in the safe and peaceful use of nuclear energy. The work and reputation of the Agency are based on its scientific and technical competence and objectivity and it is from this perspective that I address the future role of nuclear power under four headings: nuclear power and the environment; nuclear safety and public confidence; economic competitiveness; and the importance of nuclear verification and prevention of illicit trafficking.
I begin with the role of nuclear power in global energy supply. In 1998 some 434 nuclear reactors operating in 31 countries provided over 16% of global electricity and accounted for the avoidance of about 8% of global carbon emissions. Accumulated operating experience for nuclear power reactors has reached over 9,000 reactor-years. Improved safety and reliability of nuclear power plants over the past decade has been evident from major performance indicators1/.
Global energy demand, particularly for electricity, is growing, driven largely by growing populations and economies in developing countries2/. A conservative scenario from the World Energy Council projects global electricity demand to treble in the next 50 years.
Concern about global warming and climate change has led industrialized countries to agree to lower their emissions of man-made greenhouse gases (GHG) in accordance with the targets specified in the Kyoto Protocol. Other countries have announced similar voluntary commitments. Energy produced from fossil fuels accounts for about half of man-made GHG emissions. While there are many hopes for 'clean' energy sources, the fact is that except for nuclear or hydro power (which has limited growth potential), there are not yet any other economically viable, minimal-GHG-emission options for large scale power generation. Moreover, the World Energy Council predicts that even with substantial research support and subsidies, non-traditional renewable resources which currently account for 1% of global energy supply could grow to no more than 3 - 6% of global supply by 2020.
The global challenge is to develop strategies that foster a sustainable energy future that will be less dependent on fossil sources. The energy choices for the future need to take account of targets and timetables for reducing carbon dioxide emissions. And for many countries, diversification of energy sources will remain an important national security priority.
On the basis of these considerations, prima facie, one would expect that nuclear power will grow as a key part of national energy strategies for sustainable development, together with increased use of renewable sources, improved fossil fuel conversion and greater efficiency throughout the energy system. However, the most recent IAEA statistics and projections point in the opposite direction. Nuclear power is at a standstill in Western Europe and North America. It is growing in some fast developing economies in Asia and in parts of Eastern Europe3/. Overall, the nuclear power share of global electricity supply is projected to fall to about 13% in 2010 and to around 10% in 2020.
Two major challenges face nuclear power. In many countries, public concern over nuclear safety, particularly waste management, is a critical inhibiting factor on decisions to construct new plants. In some countries, it is even a major factor in the continued operation of existing safe and efficient plants. In increasingly competitive and deregulated energy markets, concern over the high capital costs and long amortisation periods of investment in new plants has focused investment elsewhere. Meeting these challenges requires action on two fronts: the restoration of public confidence in the safe use of nuclear energy and the demonstration of economic competitiveness.
Nuclear safety is a national responsibility but a global concern. In terms of both potential health and environmental impacts and the effect on public opinion, nuclear accidents know no borders. A demonstrated global record of safety, particularly after Chernobyl, will be, in my view, a determining factor for the future role of nuclear power. To achieve such a record requires close international co-operation, by everyone for the benefit of everyone. International co-operation in the safe use of nuclear energy is needed to allay regional concerns, disseminate best practices, maximise safety related research and development and foster technical co-operation. It should not be perceived as an intrusion on national sovereignty but, on the contrary, as an investment in the future of nuclear energy.
I do believe that the international community is on the right track in supporting the efforts of the IAEA to foster a comprehensive nuclear safety regime that consists of binding conventions, up to date safety standards and measures to assist in the application of those conventions and standards. In this decade, several important international conventions, negotiated under the IAEA's auspices, have contributed to the building of a legally binding nuclear safety regime. But this should be a dynamic process. We must continue to examine all nuclear activities to see whether additional binding norms or other solemn commitments are required.
Agreed safety standards are a basic tool and important guidance for national regulators. By 2001, the Agency expects to complete the preparation or revision of the entire corpus of safety standards - some seventy documents - to ensure that they are comprehensive and scientifically up to date. These are to be kept under regular review.
But the key to what is known as 'safety culture' is in the actual application of conventions and standards. In the past decade the Agency has expanded the range of services it is able to offer to assist States and nuclear operators. These include various types of review missions, training, the fostering of scientific research, technical co-operation and information exchange. I also welcome increased co-operation between national regulatory bodies and among world nuclear operators.
Two weeks ago, the first Review Meeting under the Convention on Nuclear Safety took place. Through the submission of National Reports on nuclear safety and peer review of those reports by the other Contracting Parties, the Convention contributes to achieving and maintaining a high level of nuclear safety worldwide. In my remarks to the Review Meeting, I emphasised three points: the importance of universal adherence to conventions and other safety related international instruments; the need for transparency in the safety field; and the importance of technical co-operation and assistance for those who need it.
Waste management is an increasingly prominent public concern even though a comparative advantage of nuclear power over other energy sources is the very small volume of wastes generated. The safe management of low level waste requires sufficient financial resources and adequate systems of control over all radioactive sources. But with respect to the management and final disposal of high level waste, decisions to build final repositories are required. These decisions can be delayed but they cannot be avoided - the quantities of wastes and spent fuel are growing. Experts agree that technical solutions exist for safe and permanent disposal. But to my mind, only when these solutions have been demonstrated will the public perceive that the waste issue has been resolved.
The bottom line is that public confidence is inseparable from nuclear safety. And nuclear safety cannot be merely proclaimed - it must be demonstrated. There can be no unanswered questions in the management of safety throughout the entire nuclear fuel cycle.
I turn now to the subject of the economic competitiveness of nuclear power. I will confine my remarks to three points: the impact of market liberalisation, the importance of research and development and the need for objective comparisons of different energy options.
Profound changes in the structure of the global electricity sector, particularly market liberalization, privatization and increased competition, have put an even higher priority on nuclear plant operators and nuclear power plant suppliers achieving greater efficiency. Information exchange and peer review services such as those provided by the IAEA and WANO4/ have made important contributions to improving the performance of many existing nuclear plants. It is essential that there should be no sacrifice of safety for the sake of profitability. Continued vigilance is required by national regulatory authorities to ensure that plant operators continue to devote the necessary resources to staffing, training, and maintenance, and that there is full adherence to operating procedures. When it comes to safety, cutting corners is, in effect, foreclosing the nuclear power option by other means.
Nonetheless, there are legitimate opportunities for creative and more efficient safety approaches - cutting costs does not always mean cutting corners. With respect to nuclear power plant suppliers, objectives to strive for include reduction of capital costs of new plants by, for example, greater standardization and reduced construction times.
My second point is that investment in research and development is key to achieving greater efficiency, greater confidence in safety and non-proliferation and meeting new market demand. The challenges to nuclear power require scientific and technical research not only to improve current nuclear fuel cycle technology but also to develop proliferation-resistant reactors and fuel cycle technology, new reactor designs with higher efficiency, lower cost and improved safety and new techniques for managing nuclear waste. International collaboration to these ends helps make maximum use of scarce research funds and makes best use of international nuclear research infrastructure.
My third point concerns the importance of objective comparative assessment of energy options. The choice of nuclear power and of a particular energy mix is a national decision to be made in the light of national priorities and considerations. If we are to take seriously the threat of global climate change, factoring environmental impacts and externalities, such as emissions of GHG and other pollutants, into comparative assessments of energy options must be a high priority. I am pleased to say that since 1992, in co-operation with other international organizations, the Agency has developed the analytic tools to enable States to conduct their own objective comparative evaluations of available energy options, taking into account environmental, economic and risk factors throughout the fuel cycle5/.
But whether concern about environmental impacts and externalities will actually result in the internalisation of more of the environmental costs of fossil fuels is a question which has both national and international dimensions. For its part, the IAEA is contributing to the work of the International Panel on Climate Change and is working together with the UN and other organizations to prepare for a world energy assessment by the UN Commission on Sustainable Development in 2001. Our objective is to ensure that nuclear power is given a full and fair hearing.
My final subject concerns two issues - nuclear verification and the prevention of illicit trafficking - which are vital for international peace and security and have a major impact on public confidence in the future of nuclear energy.
Effective verification and safeguards are indispensable to advancing the agenda for non-proliferation, the reduction of nuclear arms and their eventual elimination. Since 1991, and as a result especially of the IAEA's experience in Iraq, it has become clear that effective safeguards must provide assurance not only about the nuclear activities declared by a State, but also about the absence of any undeclared activities. To do this, the existing safeguards system needed to move beyond its focus on nuclear material accountancy to a system based on more qualitative assessments. And the IAEA required legal authority to gather more information, seek wider access to locations and make greater use of advanced technology such as remote monitoring and environmental sampling.
This legal authority was secured by the adoption in 1997 of the Model Additional Protocol to safeguards agreements. To date, Additional Protocols have been approved for 40 States. I would hope that we would enter the new millennium with global adherence. But it must be recognized that, even with full implementation, safeguards cannot provide 100% guarantees. Some uncertainty is inevitable in any country-wide verification system that aims to prove the absence of concealable objects or activities. For this reason, while safeguards are a key element, they must be supplemented by other mutually reinforcing non-proliferation components. These include export control and, most importantly, regional and global security arrangements which aim at removing the incentives to acquire nuclear weapons.
Finally, a brief word on illicit trafficking. The potential threat to public safety and the danger of nuclear weapons proliferation from the illicit trafficking in nuclear material and other radioactive sources is an area of major international concern. While there are no known cases where weapons or weapons components have been stolen, there have been cases of theft of nuclear material. In the past 12 months, the Agency's Illicit Trafficking Database programme has recorded 6 incidents involving nuclear material (mostly in insignificant quantities), 24 incidents involving other radioactive sources and 2 incidents involving both. International co-operation is essential. Through information exchange, training, technical assistance and other support services, the Agency, together with other concerned international organizations, is assisting Member States to prevent, detect and respond to theft and other unauthorized uses of nuclear material and other radioactive sources.
Three decades ago, nuclear energy was hailed as the energy of the future. Today, in many parts of the world it is at a crossroads. I should caution against the belief that global environmental considerations alone will result in a resurgence of investment in nuclear power generation. The extent to which objective consideration will be given to the positive contribution of nuclear power to sustainable development, in my view, depends on ensuring its safe and peaceful use. In other words, 'push' factors alone are not enough; 'pull' factors in terms of a demonstrated global safety record and economic competitiveness are also essential.
The challenges to the future of nuclear energy require an active response. The world would not be well served if an important energy choice were to be foreclosed unnecessarily. A strong and effective global safety culture, well focused research and development programmes for safer and more efficient nuclear technology, and commitments to non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament are essential building blocks for public confidence. It is also clear that one of the key challenges for all those involved in the nuclear sector is to engage more widely with civil society and to foster a culture of communication and transparency. In each of these areas strengthened international co-operation is a key.