[en] The countries with early ambitious nuclear power programs have suffered restrictions, even standstills, of these programs in recent years. The reasons are partly saturated electricity requirements, with satisfactory shares of nuclear power not in urgent need of further expansion. In some cases, however, the reason is also the increasingly more negative attitude of the public based on concerns about the safety of nuclear power plants and of waste management and also on the opposition by political groupings, which has been intensified after the Chernobyl accident. In the long run, however, the prospects of nuclear power may become brighter again. There will be new requirements; old plants will have to be replaced; nuclear power plants will agian be regarded as particularly non-polluting plants; and the prices of electricity generation in conventional plants will continue to rise, thus enlarging the gap relative to the generating costs in nuclear plants. (orig.)
[de]
In den Laendern, die von Anfang an zielstrebige Kernenergieprogramme hatten, ist in den letzten Jahren eine Einschraenkung bzw. sogar ein Moratorium dieser Programme zu beobachten. Einer der Gruende dafuer ist der z.Z. gesaettigte Elektrizitaetsbedarf mit einem zufriedenstellenden Kernenergieanteil der Versorgung, dessen Aufstockung noch nicht dringend erscheint. Es ist jedoch auch die ablehnende Einstellung der Bevoelkerung in einigen Industrielaendern, die auf der Sorge gegenueber Risiken der Kernkraftwerke und der Entsorgung sowie auf dem Widerstand politischer Gruppierungen beruht und durch den Tschernobyl-Unfall erhebliche Nahrung gefunden hat. Auf laengere Sicht gibt es jedoch wieder bessere Aussichten fuer die Kernenergie: Neuer Bedarf zeichnet sich ab, alte Anlagen muessen ersetzt werden, Kernkraftwerke werden wieder als besonders umweltfreundlich anerkannt werden, und die Gestehungspreise der Elektrizitaet in konventionellen Anlagen werden weiter steigen, wodurch sich die Schere zu den nuklearen Erzeugungskosten noch weiter oeffnen wird. (orig.)Journal
[en] The public relations policy of British Nuclear Fuels with respect to the Sellafield reprocessing centre is described. Key factors in reassuring the public on the safety of the plant have been the opening of an exhibition centre and a widely advertised open invitation to visit Sellafield together with a commitment to an open information policy and the promotion of understanding through the use of less technical language. An improvement in public confidence in Sellafield is reported. (U.K.)
Source
Uranium Inst., London (UK); 471 p; ISBN 0 946777 11 X; 
; 1988; p. 26-35; Uranium Institute; London (UK); 12. international symposium on uranium and nuclear energy: 1987; London (UK); 2-4 Sep 1987; Price Pound 53.65
; 1988; p. 26-35; Uranium Institute; London (UK); 12. international symposium on uranium and nuclear energy: 1987; London (UK); 2-4 Sep 1987; Price Pound 53.65
[en] This item covers a meeting held between members of the United Kingdom government's energy committee and representatives of British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) to discuss their Annual Report and Accounts for the year 1988-89. The committee explored the reasons for escalating predictions of the costs of nuclear power and why decommissioning costs are so difficult to estimate accurately so as to include them in cost per kilowatt hour of generated electricity. The relationship between BNFL and the Ministry of Defence (MoD) was explored, as was the MoD's relationship with the United States Department of Defense. BNFL's financial position should improve when the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield becomes operational, and the Chapelcross and Calder Hall reactors may contribute income from electricity generation. (UK)
Source
20 Dec 1989; 25 p; H.M. Stationery Office; London (UK); ISBN 0 10 210790 4; ; Price Pound 4.80
; Price Pound 4.80