The IAEA at 30

Nuclear power development:

History and outlook
Events have changed the global prospects for nuclear power

by N.L. Char and B.J. Csik

To trace the history of nuclear power development, 16 500 MWe. The trend of expanding the use of nuclear
one can look back to four decades of effort in a changing power continued further during the 1970s. On an aver-
world. Much has been done, much has been achieved, age, construction started on some 25 to 30 new nuclear
and many lessons have been learned. More than 400 units each year. By 1980 there were 253 operating
nuclear power plants are currently in operation in nuclear power plants with 135 000 MWe total capacity
26 countries, supplying about 16% of the world's elec- in 22 countries. In addition, some 230 units with more
tricity^ demand, and some 4500 reactor-years of than 200 000 MWe were under construction at that time.
experience have been accumulated. In some countries, It was the oil price shocks of the 1970s that gave a big
nuclear power has become the most important source for boost to the promotion and further development of
electricity. But the progress of nuclear power from an nuclear power. Energy planners started to accord a
idea to a commercial reality has not been an easy one. much greater role to nuclear power in their quest for
It has been full of events, with many successes and also suitable substitutes to burning oil and to assure a more
some failures. Unfortunately, the failures make better diversified energy supply for the world. These plans,
news for the media and therefore catch the attention of however, were often not realistic enough; other factors
the public. The success stories are seldom publicized. also tended to affect adversely the development of
The 1950s have seen the start of the penetration of nuclear power.
nuclear power into the electricity market. It was a period
of great enthusiasm, intensive research and develop- The mark of higher oil prices
ment, with hopes for providing the world with a cheap
and practically inexhaustible alternative source of Rising oil prices also brought an all around price
energy. The peaceful use of the atom became a symbol increase in commodities. As a result, the cost of energy
of progress and benefit to humanity, and co-operation from all sources, including nuclear plants, increased
between nations became a reality on an unprecedented very significantly. The economy slowed down every-
scale. Science, scientific achievements, and scientists where. Energy and electricity demand growth rates
were looked upon with favour by the media and highly consequently decreased, and many countries, especially
regarded by the public. By 1960, there were 17 nuclear the highly industrialized ones, found that they needed
power reactors in operation with a total electrical capac- less generating capacity additions than planned. Energy
ity of 1200 megawatts (MWe) in four countries: France, conservation . measures were intensified widely in
the USSR, the United Kingdom, and the United States. industrialized countries. This, in turn, had an influence
Nuclear power programmes had been launched in on the overall demand growth rates for electricity. With
another six countries. the accumulation of experience in building and operating
nuclear plants on an industrial-commercial scale,
various technological problems made their appearance
Early robust growth
in early prototypes and demonstration nuclear power
During the 1960s nuclear power achieved the status units. The generic problems that appeared had to be
of a technically proven and commercially viable energy solved and consequently investment costs and construc-
source. By the middle of the decade, electric power utili- tion times for new plants increased significantly.
ties were placing their orders for nuclear plants on a Utilities were often not adequately prepared to face the
routine basis, and by 1970 there were already 90 nuclear challenge of managing nuclear projects and operating
units operating in 15 countries with a total capacity of their nuclear plants, and there were some signs of com-
placency. Concerns regarding nuclear safety also
Mr Char is Director of the IAEA Division of Nuclear Power and increased and regulatory requirements became more and
Mr Csik is a staff member of the division. more stringent. .
IAEA BULLETIN, 3/1987 19
 The IAEA at 30

However, attitudes toward nuclear power differed

among countries. Some countries maintained their
vigorous programmes, a few countries stopped further
expansion in nuclear power, while many others
proceeded with a slowed-down programme. The reasons
were not only due to safety concerns but to other factors
as well, such as financial constraints, reduced demand
growth rates, and issues of public and political accep-
tance. The impact of TMI was not just negative. There
was also a positive side to it. The lessons learned
undoubtedly resulted in many improvements in the
design, construction, and operation of nuclear plants,
both with respect to safety and reliability. IAEA took
much initiative in enhancing international co-operation
in these aspects.
Then followed a period when nuclear power showed
signs of good recovery and the statistics improved. At
the beginning of 1986, 7 years after the TMI accident,
nuclear power plants all over the world had collectively
crossed 3500 reactor years of operational experience
without a single fatal accident, and the target of 4000

Unit two of the Arkansas Nuclear One power plant in the USA. The
intake canal about a half mile from the Arkansas river Is a popular
fishing spot. The plant provides electricity to about 280 000 cus- Nuclear power growth: 1951-86
tomers, and Is among more than 100 operating nuclear plants in the
USA. (Credit: AIF) Construction Connections
Year !starts to the grid
Units GWe Units GWe

1951 1
1952
Heightened awareness and concerns 2 0.1
1953
1954 6 0.5 1
As nuclear power emerged from the rarified 1955 3 0.1
atmosphere of the laboratories, as its "scientific" 1956 9 0.8 1 0.1
glamour diminished, and as it was transformed during 1957 12 1.5 1 0.1
1958 7 0.6 3 0.2
the 1970s into a hard industrial reality, the public 1959 6 0.9 5 0.3
became increasingly aware, interested, and concerned.. 1960 10 1.0 6 0.6
Association with the bomb, destruction, danger, 1961 6 1.1 2 0.1
1962 8 1.3 10 1.0
invisible radiation, secrecy, and fear of the unknown 1963 5 1.4 7 0.4
added to the disfavour towards nuclear power. Environ- 1964 10 3.0 8 1.1
mental concerns had increased sharply, especially in the 1965 10 3.5 9 1.6
1966 16 7.4 8 1.2
highly industrialized countries, and environmentalist 1967 23 15.2 10 2.1
organizations blossomed and quickly turned their atten- 1968 38 26.1 6 1.1
tion to nuclear power as a suitable target to be attacked. 1969 17 12.7 11 3.5
1970 37 24.9 6 3.3
The media, and a part of the public and many politicians 1971 22 16.1 16 7.3
gradually developed a sometimes reasoned but mostly 1972 22 19.3 16 8.8
emotional opposition to nuclear power in many coun- 1973 23 18.3 20 12.5
1974 35 29.8 26 16.9
tries. Public acceptance became a major issue for the 1975 40 38.0 15 10.2
promotors of nuclear power. The often quoted "China 1976 29 27.2 19 14.1
Syndrome" became a cliche for the anti-nuclear lobbies 1977 15 14.5 18 13.3
1978 21 18.2 20 15.8
everywhere. It was then, in 1979, that the first major 1979 21 19.7 8 7.0
accident in any nuclear power plant occurred, at the 1980 23 21.4 21 15.3
Three Mile Island (TMI) plant in the United States. 1981 12 11.6 23 20.4
1982 20 19.1 18 14.3
This shook up the nuclear industry worldwide. The 1983 20 14.5 23 19.1
negative (to nuclear power) trends of the late 1970s were 1984 10 9.3 34 31.7
further reinforced, and though installed nuclear capacity 1985 13 9.9 34 31.8
1986 1 0.8 23 23.3
kept increasing as plants went into operation, new con-
struction starts became fewer and many projects on
Note: Reactors cancelled or suspended are not considered
order or even under construction were suspended or QWe • gigawatts-electric
cancelled.
20 IAEA BULLETIN, 3/1987
 The IAEA at 30

reactor years was keenly anticipated in the nuclear com-

munity to wipe off the memory of the TMI accident. New construction starts: 1971—87
44
But once again nuclear power was to receive a cruel
blow. On 26 April 1986, the world's worst known 42

disaster in nuclear power plants occurred at Chernobyl, 40

in the Ukraine, with loss of life and much release of 38

radioactivity which crossed national frontiers. The very 36

foundations of nuclear power and its future took a severe 34

\2A Actual starts
jolt. The impact of this accident was strongly felt world- 32
| | Projected start
wide and all its consequences are yet to be perceived. 30
Source: IAEA PRIS
More than a year, however, has passed since Chernobyl, 28
and the immediate effects can now be evaluated with at | 26
least some historical perspective.* | 24
"o 22
| 20
Recent trends * 18

Current trends do provide some indications on what 16

the outlook for nuclear power might be. 14
During 1986, 23 reactors with 23 300 MWe were 12

connected to the grid in 8 countries; of these, 15 were 10-

connected after April. Connections to the grid in 1987 8
are proceeding reasonably on schedule. Only three reac- 6-
tors ^were suspended or cancelled^whileTinder construe^
tion (one in the Philippines and two in the USA). Except 2-
Chernobyl-4, no operating nuclear power plant was shut 0-
down. At the end of 1986, there were 133 reactors under 1972 74 76 78 80 82 84 86

construction with 118 000 MWe in 23 countries. There

is every indication that the construction of most, if not
all, of these plants will effectively proceed to comple-
tion. By 1990 a total of 480 units with 350 000 MWe are' Not only the number but also the age of the operating
expected to be in operation. This means a 25 % increase nuclear power plants is increasing. During the 1990s the
of current installed nuclear capacity. In addition, some nuclear industry will have to face the alternatives of
50 units will be under construction, without counting plant life extension or decommissioning and this is
new construction starts. another area that will gradually be receiving greater
Trends in the nuclear power field also show that attention, also within the Agency's programmes.
emphasis is shifting from design and construction to
plant operation. Efforts are certainly being put into
improving current nuclear plant designs as well as
developing new concepts. There are also efforts under- New connections to the grid: 1971-90
way to streamline construction methods and procedures 36
34
in order to reduce construction time and investment 34

J
costs, and to improve quality. 32 \//\ Actual connections

30 I | Projected connections
More and more emphasis is being placed on plant Source: IAEA PRIS
28
operating performance as well. The last few years have 26
26
seen a constant improvement of performance, a trend 24
that is continuing. Safety, reliability, and quality are the \ 22
principal aspects where improvements are being } 20
promoted and achieved worldwide by the nuclear indus- > 18 IB / .

try. The Agency is also gradually shifting its emphasis 13 / ,

towards the operations area, in line with the needs of the : 14

Member States. Activities in plant operations personnel 12
qualification, man-machine interface, quality assurance, 10 45,
and especially operational safety are receiving increased 8
attention. 6
4
2
Vt.
* See the IAEA's Nuclear safety review for 1986 for a fuller discus-
0
sion of the Chernobyl accident. The review is available for purchase 1972 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90
from the IAEA Division of Publications. (See the Keep abreast section
for ordering information.)

IAEA BULLETIN, 3/1987 21

 The IAEA at 30

Future role Any forecasts beyond the middle 1990s have to take
into account new construction starts, and this is where
Regarding the future role of nuclear power, forecasts estimates become speculative. Assumptions have to be
based on plants in operation and under construction can made regarding national policy decisions and the
be made with reasonable accuracy. It can also be development of nuclear power programmes.
assumed that plants once connected to the grid will Currently, 23 countries have clearly stated intentions
remain in operation until the end of their lifetimes, with to proceed with their ongoing nuclear programmes,
some possible exceptions due to national policy deci- including identified projects in various planning stages,
sions. Sweden is-the only country which has a policy in nine others may not have firmly defined follow-up
effect of phasing out nuclear power. The question has projects, but it seems most of them intend to proceed. It
been raised in a few other European countries, but to is to be noted that 19 countries produce more than 10%
date no political decisions had been taken to phase out of their electricity with nuclear plants; of these 12
nuclear power in any of them. Austria is the only produce more than 20%, with 3 countries at the top pro-
country in the world that after starting a nuclear power ducing more than 50%. In addition to the countries
programme outlawed it, forbidding its only nuclear plant which already have nuclear power programmes, some
to be put into operation. In the Philippines, construction 15 other countries have stated the intention to go
of the first plant was suspended. nuclear. All are actively engaged in planning studies,

Estimates of total and nuclear electrical generating capacity

Low and high estimates

1986 1990 1995 2000

Total Nuclear Total Nuclear Total Nuclear Total Nuclear

GWe GWe % GWe GWe < GWe GWe GWe GWe %

North America 801 95.8 12.0 881 117 13 970 123 13 1062 131 12
943 117 12 1075 132 12 1188 148 12
Western Europe* 530 101.4 19.1 556 122 22 608 134 22 666 153 23
590 122 21 660 160 24 721 190 26
Industrialized 216 25.8 12.0 233 31 13 262 40 15 297 54 18
Pacific 253 31 12 293 49 17 330 70 21
459 35.6 7.8 535 61 12 631 84 13 725 108 15
Eastern Europe 556 61 11 682 111 16 806 150 19
243 11.6 48 310 14 4.6 403 19 4.7 499 27 5.4
Asia 324 14 4.4 451 20 4.4 604 33 5.4
Latin America 136 1.6 1.1 175 2.2 1.3 230 5.6 2.4 289 7.5 2.6
181 2.2 1.2 252 5.6 2.2 341 9.1 2.7

Africa and 112 1.8 1.6 144 1.B 1.3 184 1.8 1.0 223 1.8 0.8
Middle East 150 1.8 1.2 209 3.0 1.5 279 3.9 1.4

World total 2497 273.7 11.0 2834 350 12 3288 407 12 3760 482 13
2996 350 12 3621 481 13 4269 604 14

Industrialized 1904 254.3 13.4 2086 322 15 2332 366 16 2595 423 16
countries 2218 322 15 2561 434 17 2873 527 18
Developing
countries
• In CPE-Europe" 88 5.7 6.4 104 11 10 124 16 13 140 24 17
107 11 10 132 18 14 156 28 18

• Others 505 13.8 2.7 644 17 2.6 833 25 3.0 1025 36 3.5
670 17 2.5 927 28 3.1 1238 48 3.9

• Total 593 19.4 3.3 749 27 3.7 956 41 4.3 1165 60 5.1
777 27 3.5 1059 47 4.4 1395 76 5.5

Nuclear programme in Austria has been interrupted, and the reactor is not included.
•• Developing countries in the Centrally Planned Economies (CPE) in Europe: Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary.
Note: High figures were estimated by taking the total capacity of all plants in operation plus those under construction with announced grid connection dates not later than
December 1990. Low figures were estimated by IAEA using the following procedure. An average construction time for plants already in operation was computed for each country
(Source: IAEA PRIS). For every plant under construction, the average construction time was added to the actual construction start date to obtain estimated completion date. Plants
for which the estimated completion date, obtained by this procedure, is later than December 1990 were not included In the low capacity estimates for 1990.

22 IAEA BULLETIN, 3/1987

 The IAEA at 30

with some of them at an advanced stage of negotiating

the acquisition of their first units.
The assessment of national plans and intentions to
either proceed with ongoing nuclear power programmes
or to go nuclear provides grounds for an optimistic view
of the future of nuclear power. However, it must also be
taken into account that during 1986 construction was
started on only one plant (Japan, Ikata-3). Also, it seems
that though 10 construction starts were scheduled for
1987, some of them might be delayed. Experience has
shown that programmes have been slowed down, that
projects tend to be delayed, and that some countries find
it very difficult to effectively launch their nuclear power
programmes even though their firm intention to do so is
maintained unchanged year after year.
Forecasters of nuclear power development have
become very cautious during the last years as reality
obstinately refused to follow their predictions. Cur-
rently, the IAEA's forecast for the year 2000 is 480 000
to 600 000 MWe of installed nuclear capacity (low and
high estimates). This means 90 000 to 120 000 MWe of
new construction starts during the next 5 to 7 years in
some 35 to 40 countries. An average-of-20 000 to
30 000 MWe to start construction each year does not
seem to be excessive; this figure is based on individual
To help meet projected electricity demand, many countries Intend to
country programmes and plans, and there certainly is pursue the nuclear power option. (Credit: French Nuclear
adequate manufacturing capability available to handle Newsletter)
the number of projects involved.
The forecast does imply faith in the gradual recupera-
tion of the nuclear industry from the negative effects of
the recent past, and a reversal of the trend of diminishing
new construction starts. This faith in nuclear power is Nuclear power has been called a "mature" techno-
not an expression of what one would like to happen, it logy in the past, perhaps somewhat prematurely, but
is based on the objective assessment of a series of now it does seem to merit this adjective. It does
factors. constitute a viable alternative energy source and the
Experience also has shown that the aftereffects of efforts that are being expended on national levels and
accidents do not last forever; reasonable and responsible through international co-operation do provide reason-
attitudes tend to prevail. Energy and electricity demand able assurance that nuclear power will retain its
keeps growing, as does the recognition that conservation viability.
measures and "new and renewable" energy sources The Agency constitutes a channel through which
have only a limited role to play. Nuclear power has international co-operation has been promoted and effec-
retained its economically competitive status, and plant tively implemented during three decades. This channel
performance is steadily improving all over the world. is open and will continue to remain so in the future.

IAEA BULLETIN, 3/1987 23

 The IAEA at 30

Services for safety evaluation

As the only worldwide intergovernmental
nuclear energy organization, the IAEA is in a
unique position to examine and advise on current
Nuclear power for electricity generation:
and evolving safety issues that could have an inter-
national impact. From the very beginning, strict
safety standards have provided a basis for the
overall good safety record of nuclear power
plants. The IAEA's Basic Safety Standards (BSS)
for radiation protection and the Nuclear Safety
Standards (NUSS) for nuclear power plants have
been adopted entirely or in part by many Member
States as the basis for national regulations. They
are also mandatory for projects receiving Agency
assistance. The Agency's authority is also recog-
nized in the area of radioactive waste transporta-
tion. Its Regulations for the Safe Transport of
Radioactive Materials have served as standards
contributing to a strong safety record in this field.
They have been adopted not only by national
governments, but also by international organiza-
tions concerned with transports, such as the Inter-
national Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and
International Maritime Organization (IMO).
Since the early 1980s, the IAEA has strength-
ened its safety evaluation services for nuclear plant
operations, radiological protection, and radio-
active waste management in response to the needs
World total:
of Member States and international developments.
283 823 megawatts-electric
Five specific programmes have been launched:
• IAEA-IRS: This Incident Reporting System
provides an exchange of nuclear plant operations
experience in Member States on safety-related
issues, to draw out the lessons learned, and to dis- IAEA advisory missions in nuclear plant safety, radiation
seminate information among participants. Regular
meetings for in-depth discussions of particular OSART RAPAT ASSET WAMAP
events are held involving participation from the Brazil 1985
Council for Mutual Economic Assistance Bulgaria 1987
(CMEA), Nuclear Energy Agency of the Organi- Canada 1987
zation for Economic Co-operation and Develop- Chile 1985
ment (NEA/OECD), and developing countries. China 1984
Colombia 1987
• OSART: These Operational Safety Review Dominican Republic 1986
Teams conduct on-site missions to a nuclear plant Ecuador 1986
upon the request of the Member State. Typically, Egypt 1986
Finland 1986
about 10 specialists visit a plant for 3 weeks to France 1985
review various aspects of plant operation and to Germany, Fed. Rep. of 1986, 1987
assist the national authorities in assessing the Greece 7987
plant's safety practices against other successful Hungary 7988 1987
ones. Iceland 1986
Iraq 1984
• ASSET: IAEA recently initiated this new Italy 1987
service — Assessment of Safety Significant Events Jordan 7987
Teams — to provide plant operators and regulators
with independent analysis and guidance regarding
Notes: Missions are done at the request of the Member State. Years in italic
specific events that have occurred, their causes denote planned or proposed missions. The missions listed here under these
and safety implications, and corrective actions that programmes are in addition to other ongoing IAEA activities in these fields.
were taken for operational safety.
24 IAEA BULLETIN, 3/1987
 The IAEA at 30

• RAPAT: The need in developing countries for

stronger radiation protection programmes led to
the creation of Radiation Protection Advisory
Teams in 1984. Teams visit a Member State upon
406 operating reactors in 26 countries request to assess radiation protection programmes
and activities relative to all uses of radioactive
Total capacity (megawatts-electric) Number of units
material, identify specific needs and priorities, and

44 693 |
••• USA (103)
France (49)
to suggest practical long-term actions in training
and other areas. Team expertise includes IAEA

A
w-
30 516 |
26 877 |
18 947
• USSR (53)
Japan (36)
Germany, Fed. Rep. (21)
staff and participants from the World Health
Organization (WHO) and the International Com-
••
2 086 I Canada (19) mission on Radiological Protection (ICRP).
10 214 | UK (38) • WAMAP: To complement its ongoing activities
9646 | Sweden (12) in the field and to extend the range of its technical
55991 Spain (8)
assistance and services, the IAEA initiated a
5486 1 Belgium (8)
5380 • Korea, Rep. of (7)
Waste Management Advisory Programme in
49181 Taiwan, China (6) 1987. These teams of three to four highly qualified
experts from the Agency and its Member States

w
29321 Switzerland (5)
2799 1 Czechoslovakia (7) visit developing countries on request to review and
2310 I Finland (4)
evaluate national activities. Their emphasis is on
18421 South Africa (2)
16941 Germany, Dem. Rep. (5)
promoting practical approaches to the integrated
1632 1 Bulgaria (4) development of safe radioactive waste manage-
if ^ 1 % 1 12731 ment systems.—
% \ *- 12351
Italy (3)
Hungary (3) Requests from Member States for many of
11541 India (6)
these services have increased markedly since the
9351 Argentina (2)
632 1 Yugoslavia (1)
accident of Chernobyl in 1986. More complete
626 Brazil (1) reports on nuclear power and safety will be
507 Netherlands (2) featured in the forthcoming edition of the IAEA
125 Pakistan (1)
IP f Bulletin (Vol. 29, No. 4). The edition will
include a special report on the IAEA's Interna-
Source IAEA PRIS. data pr< 11 mi nary as of 1 August 1987.
tional Conference on Nuclear Power Performance
and Safety, scheduled for 28 September to
3 October 1987 in Vienna. More than 600 par-
ticipants are expected.

protection, and radioactive waste management Nuclear plant incident reporting system
(IAEA-IRS)
OSART RAPAT ASSET WAMAP Participants: Since:
Argentina May 1983
Kenya 1986 Brazil November 1983
Korea, Rep. of 1983, 1986 1987 Bulgaria February 1983
Malaysia 1985 Czechoslovakia January 1985
Finland May 1983
Mexico 1986,1987 1986
German Dem. Rep. January 1984
Netherlands 1986, 1987
Hungary October 1984
Nicaragua 1985 India June 1984
Pakistan 1985 Korea, Rep. of February 1983
Panama 1986 Netherlands June 1983
Peru 1987 Pakistan August 1984
Philippines 1985 1987 Spain January 1983
Poland 7987 United Kingdom March 1986
Portugal 1986 1987 USSR September 1984
Spain 7987 Yugoslavia May 1986
Sudan 1987 Participants through tht i NEA/OECD:
Sweden 1986 Belgium February 1983
Syrian Arab Republic 7987 France June 1983
Tanzania 1987 Germany, Fed. Rep. July 1983
Turkey 1985 7987 Italy March 1985
Sweden October 1983
United States 1987
United States August 1985
Venezuela 1986 Canada July 1986
Yugoslavia 1984 1986
Zaire 1986 Reporting and meeting participants:
Zambia 1986 Japan
Switzerland

IAEA BULLETIN, 3/1987 25