Perspective on the National Nuclear Debate

Saed Dababneh .
Worldwide public perception of nuclear energy has historically been, and continues to be, a key issue, y , , y , particularly in light of the Fukushima nuclear incident. St k h ld Stakeholders Public. P bli

Psychology; Sociology; Economics; Culture; Mutual Trust; INFORMATION; Transparency and Credibility. Global vs. Local.
Perspective on the National Nuclear Debate Saed Dababneh JAS 22/03/2012 1

 Local Needs: Security, Development Both are interlinked. Energy Development. Development Energy Security: Diversity (mix), competition and efficiency of energy resources. gy Energy security has strategic, economic and environmental dimensions If mishandled negative implications. Why Public Acceptance? Identify and justify a site. y j y Emergency preparedness. Safety and security measures and environmental protection. Economic feasibility and acceptance of cost. E i f ibilit d t f t Water resources. National responsibility. responsibility
Perspective on the National Nuclear Debate Saed Dababneh JAS 22/03/2012 2

Good vs. Bad

Nuclear power is one good option? good In principle vs. Readiness to seriously consider details. Comprehensive (neutral) vs. Selective arguments. p ( ) g Tools available for stakeholders. Ideology, attitude, discourse and context. D we need it? If yes, are we ready for it? Do d d f Locally, is nuclear supported by strong pillars? (now? Future?) Good and Bad! (Nuclear Option vs Local Nuclear Program) vs. Program). Identify elements, resources and pillars Conduct genuine y , p g assessment transparently Inform the public.

Perspective on the National Nuclear Debate

Saed Dababneh

JAS

22/03/2012

2007
Good Semi-Neutral

2012
Good Semi-Neutral

Bad

Bad

Extremes: Ideology, knowledge, benefit, personal history etc gy, g , ,p y Causes of shift (if any?!). Site, Economics, Credibility, Mechanisms to cause shift (or counter shift). Gl b l vs. L Global Local, ti l time dependent or i d d d t independent parameters. d t t Transparency and Credibility - Controlled flow of information. Genuinely inform vs misinform the public vs. Acceptance Durability p y Mechanisms to measure public opinion Authenticity.
Perspective on the National Nuclear Debate Saed Dababneh JAS 22/03/2012 4

GLOBALY: Justifications and discursive strategies employed by nuclear advocates and critics. Concerns about climate change and energy security have been major arguments used t j tif nuclear power as a b j t d to justify l serious electricity generation option. Risk alternatives energy security Fukushima Risk, alternatives, security, Fukushima. Key discursive strategies and their use in the context of the respective state orientations: Technology and industry know best. Government (or Parliament) knows best best. Markets know best. The nuclear debates illustrate subtle ongoing transformations in these orientations. The ways in which the relations between markets, the state, and civil society are portrayed in the nuclear debates.
Perspective on the National Nuclear Debate Saed Dababneh JAS 22/03/2012 5

LOCALLY: Similarities and differences in debates between countries. Interaction between the country-specific state orientations and the argumentation concerning nuclear power. Wh k Who knows b t? best? Mutual trust and respect. Learn from others but dont copy don t copy. Germany for example: What example? Egyptian Gas for example: What example? Selective arguments. Endless debate?!

Perspective on the National Nuclear Debate

Saed Dababneh

JAS

22/03/2012

General and Simple Terms Three phases to start a nuclear energy program: Considerations before the policy decision. Preparatory work. Activities to implement a first NPP. At the end of each phase decide on when or if to go to the phase, next phase. p p g g p We examine phase 1 and phase 2 before going to phase 3. Phases 1 & 2 Comprehensive strategy to assess energy needs. Understand appropriateness, viability and commitments. Intermittency: No single unit should account for more than 10% of the capacity of the entire national grid Feasibility??? g General legal framework.
Perspective on the National Nuclear Debate Saed Dababneh JAS 22/03/2012 7

1. 2. 3.

Program and Financial Resources for: Construction. Construction Sustained safe and secure operation. Back End: Spent fuel & waste management. p g Decommissioning ??????? Human R H Resources? ? Level of t h i l and i tit ti L l f technical d institutional l competence. Opportunities abused!!! Quantitatively and qualitatively qualitatively. Identify, characterize and justify a site. Details y, j y Details. Emergency preparedness, safety and security measures and environmental protection. d i t l t ti Safety and Security culture culture.
Perspective on the National Nuclear Debate Saed Dababneh JAS 22/03/2012 8

Fuel supply

Local uranium resources and enrichment.

20,000 t @ Cut-off 250 ppm (The mining agreement). > 20,000 t. > 10,000 t but < 20,000 t.

< 10 000 t 10,000 U vs. U3O8? Why mention 65,000 or 108,000 or 140,000 t? Zero cut-off! If true, why not go to scenario A? 15,000 t (south) 160 ppm? Rio-Tinto: <250 ppm negative.
Perspective on the National Nuclear Debate Saed Dababneh JAS 22/03/2012 9

20,000 t @ Cut-off 250 ppm? , pp Let us accept 45 ppm!!! 2000 t per year? How many years? Capital cost? Lower U price after Fukushima. Parliament. Feasible, but feasibility study did not start yet! Africa. If calculated @ realistic!! 250 ppm how much resources? ppm, Water. Water If we do have this wealth, we should use it.
Perspective on the National Nuclear Debate Saed Dababneh JAS 22/03/2012 10

Phase 3: Ready to implement a first NPP?????? This is the phase where the required commitment of financial and h d human resources i greatest, and where th owner/operator is t t d h the / t needs to demonstrate the acceptance of the responsibility for the long term management of all of the issues associated with the NPP. y g y y Gain confidence locally, regionally and internationally. For a country with little developed technical base, and if the plan was i l l implemented rigorously, the i l t d i l th implementation of the fi t t ti f th first NPP would at least take about 15 years. Even for States with existing nuclear power programmes it may take about 10 years to approve and construct a new NPP. Are we REALLY ready for it? Can we REALISTICALLY build on the existing pillars?
Perspective on the National Nuclear Debate Saed Dababneh JAS 22/03/2012 11

Conclusion Provide genuine information. Be B ready t accept th other. d to t the th First, put the train back on track, then park it at the next Station! Rebuild and re-evaluate your pillars. Rigorously and unbiasedly re-assess the appropriate energy mix. Then decide.

Perspective on the National Nuclear Debate

Saed Dababneh

JAS

22/03/2012

12

Good Good Bad Bad www.dababneh.com dababneh@bau.edu.jo

Perspective on the National Nuclear Debate

Saed Dababneh

JAS

22/03/2012

13

Perspective on the National Nuclear Debate

Saed Dababneh

JAS

22/03/2012

14