[en] The situation of nuclear power development in Japan is severe and unsettled, while its need is absolutely definite. The Basic Policy Subcommittee has studied on future nuclear power development on the basis of adopted measures and governmental examinations as follows: situation in Japan, the need for nuclear power development and its basic policy, and practical measures such as safety, plant location, fuel cycle, advanced reactors and nuclear nonproliferation. (Mori, K.)

[en] It is pointed out that if all nuclear power plants under construction or on order or planned were changed to coal or oil burning plants, this would involve a massive increase in atmospheric pollution with accompanying health hazards. There is only a limited unexploited potential of hydroelectric power, mostly situated in unfavourable locations, and, in Norway, subject to protest for nature couservation reasons. Even so, hydroelectric power is the only acceptable alternative to nuclear power. (JIW)

[en] In evaluating the future role of nuclear power, it should be necessary to perform a rational and quantitative comparison of power production alternatives on at least the following four parameters: health effects, environmental effects, economy, and resource availability. The evaluations should cover all steps from fuel production through waste disposal. Less detailed knowledge is available on health effects from air pollution than from radioactivity. However, the present body of knowledge clearly indicates that large-scale use of nuclear power instead of fossil fuels will save thousands of human lives annually. This is probably one of the most compelling arguments for nuclear power. A number of irrational political, ethical and emotional factors may be of decisive importance in a large-scale choice of power plant types. However, an evaluation of rational and quantifiable factors may serve one important function in telling how many lives, which environmental improvements and what economic advantages must be sacrificed in order to satisfy such irrational demands. In any case it should be recognized that the public interest is best served by maximum use of the broad knowledge available on costs and benefits of alternative electric power generation forms. Obviously, energy policy is not an area where all questions can be tackled in an absolutely rational and objective way. However, a number of absolute restrictions are set by the laws of nature, others by present technological abilities. Such restrictions cannot be changed by wishful thinking, political or otherwise. On one hand, this may serve to define the role of the technological community in making both the nuclear and other more important decisions. On the other hand, these are facts which are not fully appreciated by those making a controversial issue of nuclear power. When defining the role of the professional in the nuclear issue the following point should be considered. A scientist or technologist using his technical background in support of personal views in societal matters may mislead others into thinking that he is trying to carry his technical authority over into fields where this authority is no longer valid, into fields where his opinions should be weighed on the principle: one man, one vote. (author)

No abstract available

No abstract available

[en] The experience of Commonwealth Edison illustrates the opportunities and constraints of nuclear power from the utility point of view. Nuclear power has a 25-year cost advantage over coal plants of 21 to 38%, as well as a better safety and reliability record. Escalating regulations and declining public confidence, however, are two major constraints. The new Institute of Nuclear Power Operators (INPO) can help to counteract this by improving plant performance and compliance with safety regulations

[en] This initial demonstration shows the capabilities of the baseline RISMC toolkit and better quantification of the safety margins of the analyzed nuclear power plant model.

[en] This paper gives a personal viewpoint of the role of local planning authorities in relation to proposals for nuclear power station development. General points discussed are followed by an examination of the Druridge Bay proposal. (author)

[en] In evaluating the future role of nuclear power, it should be required to perform a rational and quantitative comparison of power production alternatives on at least the following four parameters: health effects, environmental effects, economy and resource availability. The evaluations should cover all steps from fuel production through waste disposal. We have less detailed knowledge on health effects from air pollution than from radioactivity. However our present body of knowledge clearly indicates that large scale use of nuclear power instead of fossil fuels will save thousands of human lives annually. This is probably one of the most compelling arguments for nuclear power. Clearly a number of irrational political, ethical and emotional factors may be of decisive importance in a large scale choice of power plant types. However an evaluation of rational and quantifiable factors may serve one important function in telling us how many lives, which environmental improvements and what economical advantages we have to sacrifice in order to satisfy such irrational demands. In any case it should be recognized that the public interest is best served by maximum use of the broad knowledge we have on costs and benefits of alternative electric power generation forms. Obviously energy policy is not an area where all questions can be tackled in an absolutely rational and objective way. However a number of absolute restrictions are set by the laws of nature, others by our present technological abilities. Such restrictions can not be changed by wishful thinking, political or otherwise. On the one hand this may serve to define the role of the technological community in making both the nuclear and other more important decisions. On the other hand these are facts which are not fully appreciated by those making a controversial issue of nuclear power. One disturbing aspect of the discussions in many countries, is the plethora of manifestos for or against nuclear power. These are issued by groups of Nobel prize winners, scientists, professionals in general and by professional societies. In these manifestos the professional qualifications of the participants are always emphasized strongly. Against the nuclear critics who sign manifestos it must be argued that almost without exception they do not have a background in nuclear energy. Against the many pronuclear manifestos this criticism is less relevant. However, against all manifestos the following critique carries weight: the complex decision on the scale and timing of nuclear power must be taken with due regard to political and other nontechnical questions. In a democratic system such a decision is taken by elected political officials. A scientist or technologist using his technical background in support of personal views in societal matters may mislead others into thinking that he is trying to carry his technical authority over into fields where this authority English

[en] The series of questions concerning public relations, connected with the realization of power plant construction projects will be discussed before the background of the public requirement of electricity supply corporations. It will be explained that public relation cannot be seen as an instrument, having the purpose to inform about 'good or bad' of power plant designs and construction intentions. PR is more a constitutive element of economy policy. Transparent, clear information of the citizen about power plant projects, and power plant related procedures should be their targets. This signifies a distance from just technical presentation. PR must develop in the direction to active corporational strategy, taking psychological- and social psychological influences into consideration. Statements will be made in regard to the dialogue between power plant advocates and power plant opponents. The special responsibility of the public electricity supply corporations for an always sufficient, safe and economical supply to the consumer, will be pointed out. Better information of the public in this regard is a necessary requirement. (orig.)