STATES AND THE NUCLEAR POWER: AN INTERNATIONAL

PERSPECTIVE1
Artemio Baigorri, Manuela Caballero, Mar Chaves2

Contenido
STATES AND THE NUCLEAR POWER: AN INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE ............... 1
Abstract ............................................................................................................... 2
Resumen.............................................................................................................. 2
Introduction: the nuclear question or, the nuclear as a question ...................... 2
Milestones in the global nuclear debate ............................................................ 5
An Ominous Nuketopia ................................................................................ 5
The end of the dream: the antinuclear movement ........................................ 7
The reaction: the nuclear lobby ...................................................................... 9
Climate change at the service of nuclear power .......................................... 13
Nuclear strategies ............................................................................................. 13
Type A: State Monopolist Nuclearism .......................................................... 14
Type B: Nuclear Liberalism (libertarianism) .................................................. 15
Type C: the Precautionary Principle, or Moratorium.................................... 16
Type D: Return to the atom .......................................................................... 17
Type E: Abandonment ................................................................................... 18
Type F: The prohibition or doing without model .......................................... 18
The Fukushima effect: a heat of the moment reaction or changing trends? 18
Are there factors which explain nuclear policies? .......................................... 20
Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 25
Bibliography ...................................................................................................... 26
Web references ............................................................................................. 28
Autors ................................................................................................................ 28

A versin of this paper has been published in International Review of Sociology: Revue
Internationale de Sociologie, Volume 22, Issue 3, 2012
2

Anlisis de la Realidad Social (ARS) Reasearch Group, Universidad de Extremadura (Spain). The first
results of this research, financed by the Centro de Estudios del Cambio Social (Fundacin Encuentro), were
published in the Informe Espaa 2009. E-mail address for correspondence: baigorri@unex.es

Abstract
This paper analyzes the evolution of public policies on nuclear energy from an
international perspective highlighting an interesting sociological paradox: the
opposition to the nuclear power contributed to the development of the environmental
movement; and at present, the promoters of this kind of energy are including
environmental arguments in their discourses: the fear of climate change and the
reduction of CO2. Despite Kyoto Protocol does not accept this kind of energy as Clean
Development Mechanism (CDM), its promotion is carried out on the basis of
environment objectives, so that the nuclear lobby is obtaining more social acceptation
thanks to the environmental discourse in the last four decades. For the carrying out this
research, the nuclear policies from an international level are analyzed inside a wider
research about the Nuclear Debate financed by Encuentro Foundation (Spain).

Resumen
El artculo analiza la evolucin de las polticas, a nivel planetario, sobre la energa
nuclear, a partir de una interesante paradoja sociolgica: siendo uno de los
componentes de la Sociedad Industrial madura que ms ha contribuido al crecimiento
del ecologismo y el ambientalismo, por oposicin, hoy las corporaciones que la
promueven vienen incorporando como base argumental fundamental los propios logros
del movimiento ambientalista: el miedo al cambio climtico y el objetivo de reduccin
del CO2. Aunque el protocolo de Kyoto no acepta esa energa como Clean Development
Mechanism (CDM), paradjicamente se asiste su promocin a nivel planetario en base
a los principios de sostenibilidad. Lo que se define como lobby nuclear consigue pues,
paradjicamente, ms aceptacin que nunca en las ltimos cuatro dcadas, gracias al
discurso ambientalista. Para la realizacin del estudio se analizaron las polticas
nucleares a nivel planetario, dentro de una investigacin ms amplia sobre el Debate
Nuclear financiada por la Fundacin Encuentro (Espaa).

Introduction: the nuclear question or, the nuclear as a question

In recent years the nuclear debate has reappeared on the scene, a cognitive conflict
about the nature of nuclear energy and its risks. Public and private scientific institutions,
public bodies, political parties social agents, business groups, churches, ecological
groups and other NGOs use the mass media and other generators and/or transmitters
2

of public opinion to argue for the use of nuclear fission as a source of energy, or against
its use, whether for civil or military purposes.
The debate, however, is a very old one. Leaving aside religion, the nuclear question is
perhaps the area of public debate which has achieved the greatest degree of intensity
and persistence, with its four constituent elements: scientific, technical, economic and
moral, being deeply penetrated by and themselves deeply penetrating systems of
values. Although the technical developments subject to debate are many (because they
put employment stability at risk and so generate Luddite fears or because they put the
nature of what is human at risk, such as cloning or other transgenic procedures), the
nuclear debate is primary and basic leading either to acceptance or rejection. It should
also be remembered that behind the cognitive conflict there exists (as in many other
conflicts, a material base, because the profits of many business groups and the power
of some institutions and scientists, depends wholly and exclusively on the acceptability
of nuclear energy.
The debate began when, after the use of nuclear energy for military purposes (1945),
the knowledge acquired for this purpose was applied to civil purposes (civilized) with
the construction (1951) of the first nuclear reactor for the production of electricity. Since
then the semantic fields of nuclear weapons (McMurrin, 1987) and the peaceful use
of nuclear energy have been closely related (Gamsson, Modigiliani, 1989).
But this is a paradoxical debate. It is so firstly with regard to the changing position of the
actors involved. For three decades it was the anti-nuclear side that led the way but since
the accidents at Three Mile Island (TMI) in 1979 and Chernobyl (1986) and the
application of the precautionary principle by many governments it has been the
proponents of nuclear energy who have fomented the debate at the local and global
level and tried to modify public opinion in those countries with the highest level of
opposition to nuclear power. Furthermore, only one of the parties to the debate makes
its position - anti-nuclear - clear. The other side, while it works implicitly in favor of the
promotion of nuclear energy, does not make its position explicit and says that it is
defending the debating of the issue, in the hope that the more nuclear power is talked
about then the more acceptable it will become. And finally, the debate is also
paradoxical in symbolic terms. The promotion of nuclear energy at the beginning of the
1960s was based on the idea of overcoming the Industrial Society. The name Atomic
Age was even among those successively used to attempt to define an emerging new
society; others included the Technotronic, Leisure, Information and Post-Industrial
Societies). However, the anti-nuclear critique would convert this form of energy into the
paradigm of the evils of the Industrial Society, seeing it as expressing, better than any
other technical achievement, humanitys capacity for self-destruction.
There have been three distinct phases to the nuclear debate. The first, strongly linked
to the military industry, was characterized by an almost irrational technological
optimism which saw nuclear power almost as a panacea for all the ills of humanity. This
dream collapsed when scientists and other former participants in nuclear programs
alerted the world to its dangers. Among them were Nobel Prize winners and thinkers
3

such as Albert Einstein, Bertrand Russell, Joseph Rotblat, Linus Pauling, Barry
Commoner, John Gofman, Leo Szilard and Eugene Rabinowitch.
The second phase began after the 1973 oil crisis when nuclear energy appeared to offer
a response to the shortage of fossil fuels and plans were made for a massive expansion
of the nuclear industry. This time the nuclear dream was confronted by two nightmares,
the anti-nuclear movements of the 1970s and the consequences of the TMI and
Chernobyl accidents. Furthermore, in some countries the same energy crisis which
encouraged the development of nuclear programs generated a financial crisis which led
to their being put on hold3.
The third stage began with the situation that arose in the wake of the Kyoto Treaty. The
manufactures of nuclear power plants and the big electricity companies (although the
latter were already diversifying their investments toward renewable energy sources),
presented nuclear energy as a rational response to the challenges of global warming.
With some anti-nuclear movements weakened during the first decade of the 21 st
century and faced with a powerful global pressure group involving energy firms,
research groups in need of finance, publicity firms in need of income sources etc., the
pro-nuclear side of the argument has started to win the battle. The economic crisis
initially brought new allies to the pro-nuclear side; the trade unions, organizations that
have sometimes been critical of nuclear energy but which show few ecological scruples
when there is a shortage of jobs. The result of this was a surge in pro-nuclear policies at
the international level, either through the extension of the service life of existing nuclear
power stations or through the construction of new ones, after 2006.

Figure 1

For example, in Spain the moratorium on nuclear power imposed by the government of Felipe
Gonzlez (1984) was produced more by the financial problems experienced by the main electricity
companies involved, as well the banks (Banca Catalana) that supported them, than by anti-nuclear
pressure.

This is the process that is analyzed in our study but two fresh nightmares suddenly
appeared on the scene: the Fukushima accident and the global financial crisis, the worst
since 1929. Are we once more entering a period of nuclear stagnation, produced by the
fact that only serious accidents and financial crises are able to counterbalance the
capacity to influence of the nuclear lobby? This could be the case but our hypothesis is
that is it is most improbable.
This present study derives from a previous one into attitudes towards nuclear
energy in Spain (Baigorri, Chaves & Caballero, 2009), which showed the necessity to
connect the local debate - the usual perspective in the sociological literature (Garca,
1987; Gamsson & Modigiliani, 1989; Rosa & Dunlap, 1994) - with the global debate in
the arena of the strongly interconnected Telematic Society (Baigorri, 2006:203). On the
basis of this study we were able to see how states set themselves up as actors which, in
response to stimuli (energy infrastructure, political configuration, cultural features,
public opinion, etc.) opt for certain energy policies and also seek to influence the
adoption of energy policies in other countries. This paper examines these questions with
a view to improving the understanding the issues, background and frameworks that lead
to the formation of national positions.

Milestones in the global nuclear debate

An Ominous Nuketopia
There is no doubt that the strong link between the civil and military use of nuclear
energy forms the basis of its polemical character. It is a form of energy the development
of which was initially encouraged by the Third Reich and which is still today the focus of
debates among historians of science about the role played by physicists in this period
5

(Hoffman, Walker, 2006). The emigration to the United Kingdom and the USA of German
scientists who had lost funding or who felt threatened because they were Jews, and that
of others to the Soviet Union after the defeat of the Nazi regime put in motion a complex
research process in search of a weapon that would ensure the definitive elimination of
the enemy. This was what made nuclear energy a startling and frightening force.
Humanity was able to see at Hiroshima what the results of playing with that fire would
be. The smoke from the Hiroshima bomb had barely cleared when Albert Einstein, Linus
Pauling and other scientists set up the Emergency Committee of Atomic Scientists
(ECAS). Although its initial objective was simply to promote the peaceful use of nuclear
energy some of its members were subject to persecution.
On the basis of the ambiguous Atoms for Peace speech made by President Eisenhower
at the General Assembly of the United Nations (1953) a mystique of progress was
constructed, a veritable nuketopia surrounding nuclear energy with the mass media
as architects of the popular imagination. The Atomic Age was the name which became
popular for this promising future which seemed to be on its way thanks to a supposedly
ubiquitous and almost free source of energy. The Atomic Energy Commission of the USA
forecast that by the year 2000 the country would have 1000 nuclear power stations. The
current figure is 100.
However, many detractors of nuketopia quickly appeared on the scene. The ECAS,
under the leadership of Pauling, denounced the activities of the military-industrial
complex which began to grow around nuclear energy. The committee was radically
opposed to the use of nuclear energy for civil purposes on the basis of moral principles,
the evidence gathered of the risks involved and the fact that it would be impossible to
produce nuclear weapons without the existence of nuclear reactors (Wellock, 1998). The
first success achieved by what was soon to become a social movement was the
abandonment in 1964 of the first commercial nuclear power project in the United
States, at Bodega Bay in California, after a lengthy legal and political conflict.
On this occasion it was neither religious irrationality nor Luddite fears that were the
basis of the critique. It arose rather from the very heart of the Science and Technology
complex (Goffman, Tampli, 1971), a characteristic that was to profoundly mark the antinuclear movement. Even the strategic reports from the Rand Corporation and the
Hudson Institute (Kahn, 1962, 1965) on the unthinkable(nuclear war) ironically served
as proof that while nuclear energy existed then so would nuclear weapons and so the
temptation to use them, even at the risk of total war.
In Europe, national, ideological and linguistic diversity limited its impact and the refusal
to participate and anti-nuclear commitment of some scientists were important factors.
The development of atomic research began in France (1939) and it was to be its first
researcher (Irne Joliot-Curie, Nobel Prize winner in 1935 and designer of the first
French nuclear reactor) was to be the person who drew up the Stockholm Manifesto
(1950) released by the World Peace Council4, which although it was only opposed to
4

Thousands of personalities from the world of culture signed it but the fact that movement was
directed from behind the scenes by the Soviet Union devalued the manifesto.

nuclear weapons, reopened the techno-humanist debate relating to the nuclear debate
in general. Later would come the call for nuclear disarmament of the philosophers and
in the UK the Aldermaston March in protests against the construction of a nuclear
weapons facility (1958). In 1963 the Mouvement Contre l'Arme Atomique (MCAA) was
founded. However, neither in the USA nor in Europe did the conditions exist to ensure
the success of a social movement (McAdam, 1996:27):
a) high degree of openness in society,
b) a certain level of fragmentation among elites,
c) defection of part of these elites to give their support to the emerging social
movement,
d) a low capacity for repression.
These conditions were achieved in the post-1968 crisis and the moral collapse of
American elites after the defeat in Vietnam and the Watergate crisis. Furthermore,
despite the fact that between 1952 and 1970 there occurred 7 serious accidents leading
to core meltdowns in the USA and Great Britain, as well as another hundred minor
accidents, mainly in military installations, it was only during the 1970s that relevant
information about these problems began to circulate, once again due to activities of
committed scientists and technicians. John Gofman, of the Manhattan Project, in his
book Poisoned Power (Gofman, Tamplin, 1971) warned of the risks of low doses of
radiation, an issue that until then had been forgotten about. The most influential
contribution in this context came from Barry Commoner and his book The Closing
Circle (Commoner, 1971), published in the same year that the Dont Make Waves
group launched a boat called Greenpeace and the first mass demonstrations occurred
in Europe.

The end of the dream: the antinuclear movement

Earth Day in 1970, celebrated by millions of people in the USA, was a foretaste of the
magnitude of the phenomenon. In 1972 among the referendums held in California along
with the elections was one with great importance for the future, it called for a nuclear
moratorium. The referendum was lost but its promoters had succeeded in establishing
the issue on the agenda of public opinion.
Thus, when a year later the oil crisis occurred (1973) and the industrialized nations
became involved in plans for massive nuclearization the antinuclear movement was
sufficiently mature to convert itself into a nightmare for the promoters of nuclear
power.
What arose was in fact the result of synergies derived from three converging forces:
The ecological movement (which drew from the Luddite tradition of
Thoreau, the naturalist one of Leopold and the technical critique of Carson
and Commoner)
b. The pacifist movement (which first opposed nuclear weapons and later
nuclear tests)
c. The nascent anti-nuclear movement as such.
7
a.

It was thus that from the middle of the decade that it became almost impossible to
distinguish between the anti-nuclear movement and the ecology movement. The
nuclearization of the industrialized nations (USA, France, Germany, Japan etc.) was
planned on the basis of plants with large generating capacity and the emerging
economies followed the same model (Spain, South Korea etc.). There rapidly arose local
anti-nuclear groups and committees when faced with the threat of the construction of
a new plant. These quickly joined forces with scientific and other pro-environmental
organizations at the national and international level. This connection grew ever more
intense as accidents occurred and above all to the degree to which the Telematic Society
developed itself5.
The demonstrations in France were not successful in achieving their objectives although
information about them was widely disseminated, as a result of the after effects of May,
1968. The demonstrations had more success in Italy where they were able to take
advantage of a climate favorable to their demands produced by the Seveso catastrophe.
As was later to occur in Spain, national level authorizations clashed with building
prohibitions established by local governments. These latter quickly received support
from ecologists and it was thus possible to block many projects. Later, the impact of the
Chernobyl accident (1986) did the rest. In 1988 the Italian people rejected nuclear
energy in a referendum, a decision ratified by the countrys parliament in 1988.
The case of Austria is paradigmatic with regard to the unpredictable consequences of
intentional social action (Merton, 1936).With a reactor being built and an almost nonexistent anti-nuclear movement the propaganda campaign extolling the benefits and
safety of nuclear energy led to a public debate accompanied by demonstrations. These
led in turn to Austria in 1978 becoming the first country to have a law that prohibited
not only the use of nuclear fission (at least until 1988) but also the transportation and
storage of nuclear materials.
In the United States the demonstrations were widespread throughout the country but
had their epicenter in the state of California. As in the case of Europe the national
governments support for nuclear projects ran up against the opposition of local
administrations. And although the nuclear power plant construction project which
generated the largest demonstrations (Diablo Canyon) was finally built, the growing
costs and delays arising from the drawn out administrative and legal procedures led to
the abandonment of many other projects. In 1976 twenty states were considering
measures against nuclear energy similar to the failed California referendum.
It is probable that the TMI (1979) and Chernobyl (1986) accidents as well as the recovery
of supply and the normalization of the prices of fossil fuels were critical to the success
of the anti-nuclear movement. Furthermore, the financial crisis, which followed on from

These were the years in which access to a fax service became more widespread (in 1974 the first
official standard for fax technology, recommendation ITU-T T.2, or Fax Group 1 was agreed on). This
technology accelerated the dissemination or technical reports and data.

the oil crisis after 1976 made it difficult in many countries for planned, very large,
investments to actually be carried out. But attention must also be paid to certain
intrinsic components of the anti-nuclear movement which - in terms of synergy explain
its success:
a) The movement represented the beginning of the end for bureaucratic political parties
as the only channel available for the democratic expression of the interests of citizens.
b) It brought certain decisions which involved risks to the public to be disputed not only
in the technical but also in the political sphere.
c) The arguments presented against nuclear energy were emphatic:
the risk or massive or localized radioactive contamination due to accidents,
sabotage, terrorism or natural disaster,
the risk of low dose radiation,
possible geopolitical destabilization arising from nuclear proliferation, as a
result of its use of the raw material for nuclear weapons,
the difficulties and costs associated with the management of nuclear waste,
dependence on other countries for access to technology, fuel6 (as in the case
of fossil fuels) and for the management of waste,
deepening of center-periphery inequalities with plants normally being built
in deprived areas with few inhabitants and a lower capacity for resistance, so
making them lose all attractiveness for more normal development,
difficulties in counting the real cost of nuclear energy due to the failure to
include public investment in research, the real costs of dismantling plants,
the future costs of dealing with waste and risk management,
nuclear energy being seen by its very nature as a paradigmatic form of
centralization and social control.
But the ideology behind the anti-nuclear movement went far beyond that of opposition.
Like all other ideologies it seeks to make sense of the world and is thus prescriptive, that
is to say, it includes alternative proposals. Thus the anti-nuclear movement emerged as
a specific social movement which developed a model of resistance to the dominant
energy model and offers responses from a technical and economic viewpoint. Antinuclear scientists and technicians develop renewable energy solutions and criteria for
efficient energy use that already form part of our daily lives.

The reaction: the nuclear lobby

The anti-nuclear has as its objective that humanity rid the world of nuclear energy in its
entirety and not only its use for military purposes. It has had to confront two clearly
defined social actors, the so-called military-industrial nuclear complex and the state, the
latter heavily influenced, or even controlled, by the former which consists of military
departments, research centers linked to universities, large electricity companies, capital
goods manufacturers, consulting firms, politicians, opinion leaders, etc.
6

40% of world production uranium is in the hands of six countries that suffer from a high degree
of political instability. That figure rises to 50% if Russia is included in the list of politically unstable
countries). The rest is controlled by Canada, Australia and the United States.

Although some analysts (Ruano, Gonzalez, Garca, 2002) continue to attribute the
success of the anti-nuclear movement to funding by the oil industry or support from
Moscow, the partial victory of the anti-nuclear arguments can be attributed to three
factors which linked themselves together: its moral superiority in the eyes of public
opinion, the growth in the cost of construction of nuclear power stations arising from
their hidden costs in the context of a financial crisis and finally, the fall in the price of oil
since 1981.
In order to understand the moral superiority which public opinion sees in the antinuclear movement three elements must be considered, the synergies of which lead to
political action:
moral principles, clearly defined and which have endured starting from
primordial opposition to the Bomb. Instead of the selfishness of those who
would annihilate the enemy, the altruism of those who struggle for a better
world, even at the expense of their own welfare,
b. science as a legitimating mechanism. It is scientists, often Nobel Prize winners,
who regret having participated in military or civilian nuclear projects and provide
necessary data and evidence about a subject where secrecy normally rules,
c. public opinion, the arena in which the debate is held, or what amounts to the
same thing, the mass communication media (easily influenced by emotions) and
opinion formers (foundations, scientific academies, professional bodies etc.).
What is today not known as the military-industrial complex but rather the nuclear lobby
has tried to confront these components in the order which they have been presented
above. The Atoms for Peace7 program was the first attempt to deal with the moral
principles set out by the first scientists who publicly regretted their participation in the
Manhattan Project. In the framework of the Cold War it assured the allies of the USA of
the happiness they would enjoy by participating in the imminent Atomic Age, a
participation which would also make American investments profitable8 (Mian, Glaser,
2008: 42).
a.

With regard to the second component, the role of science, already during Eisenhowers
period in office there was an insistence that the military industrial complex could not do
without the commitment of researchers. However, the condemnation of the nuclear
industry by scientists of the caliber of Einstein, Pauling and Joliot-Curie could only be
countered by scientific argument. Thus the strategy used by the industry when faced
with this conflict has been to confront the discourse of the activist with the knowledge
of the expert and so devalue the opinion of citizens who lack a particular level of
knowledge. In those countries with massive public opposition to nuclear energy the
relative lack of information is cited as an explanatory factor for this opposition (as in
Rodrguez and Prez Daz, 2007). This ignores the fact that the costs and risks associated
7

The rhetoric of Eisenhower was deeply marked by nuclear energy in its various forms. As well as
the Atoms for Peace announced the Doctrine of Massive Retaliation, which promised massive
retaliation in the event of an attack on the USA.
8
The development of the first atomic bombs involved about 500,000 people from the
administration, army, industry and universities in USA, Canada and Britain (Edwards, 1983).

10

with nuclear power are such that it is not considered necessary to provide concerned
citizens with more information about them (Beck, 2008). They do not need to know how
uranium is processed or the exact number of years during which nuclear waste will be
radioactive in order to oppose this type of energy on the grounds of the risks they
perceive it as having, Just as they do not need to know the principles of solar energy in
order favor this kind of energy9. Some scientists have been granted mythical status in
order to strengthen the moral dimension of the arguments in play. A paradigmatic case
in this regard is that of the chemist James Lovelock, presented to the world as a saint of
the ecology movement who has seen the light regarding the benefits of nuclear power10,
when he was in fact a defender of it from his earliest work, and as an independent
scientist when his relations with oil companies (in particular Shell) is well known.
But the nuclear lobbys main activities influence trafficking is between governmental
departments and agencies which have some influence over its activities. In countries like
the UK and the USA and others in the English-speaking world, nuclear lobbying is a public
activity and there exists a certain degree of monitoring of it by not-fo-profit such as
SpinWatch11. In the UK this allowed the activities of PR companies such as Bell Pottinger
Good Relations, Grayling Political Strategy and Luther Pendragon to become known to
the public. These spend millions of Euros every year in modifying opinions and attitudes
on behalf of electrify utilities and public bodies. NIREX, the agency that which deals with
nuclear waste in the UK spends more than a quarter of a million Euros a year on visible
PR activity.
In the USA spending on lobbying in the energy sector has taken off over the past decade
rising from 10 million dollars in 1998 to almost 60 million in 2008, a year in which the
presidency was in play. General Electric was the third biggest investor in political
contributions having spent 182,468,000 dollars in this period, much more than that
spent by firms such as Exxon, Lockheed, Boeing or General Motors (more than a 100
million each).
However, in the majority of countries, especially Latin ones, these processes are totally
opaque as a result of the unregulated and indeed unlegislated nature of the work of
lobbying firms. In countries such as France and Spain, where there is a close link between
the energy sector and the state, understanding how this system works can be very
difficult and complex12. This way of doing things has contaminated the European Union

This argument can be turned against itself. It is similar to considering people to be mal nourished
or not appropriately nourished if they do not know the temperature at which milk comes out of cows
udders, or to hold that it is not intelligent to not consume drugs if one does not know how they are
manufactured or their exact effects on the body.
10
Author of the "Gaia hypothesis", published in 1979 and inspired by the concepts of homeostasis,
especially that of autopoiesis developed by the Chilean thinker Humberto Maturana (Varela, Maturana,
Uribe, 1974).
11 We have taken the bulk of the data here regarding the activities of the nuclear lobby from the
website www.spinwatch.org, the most reliable on the internet.
12 Some cases go beyond even the literary or cinematographic imagination. The French nuclear giant
Areva has an agreement with a French farmers association by way of which it finances a multidisciplinary

11

itself with the somewhat more transparent English-speaking country style of lobbying
being overlapped by the less transparent Mediterranean style, together producing
something that too often comes close to being corruption13.
FORATOM is the main nuclear industry pressure group in Europe. It has 800 members
which include 17 national nuclear associations as well as the main nuclear companies in
France (EDF and Areva), the UK (BNFL British Energy), Germany (RWE and EON), Belgium
(Electrabel) and Spanish companies such as Endesa. Unlike the USA, the EU does not
oblige pressure groups to publish data regarding their spending.
At the global level the network is very dense. The direct interests of firms and technical
staff related to the nuclear industry are represented by the World Nuclear Association
(http://www.world-nuclear.org/), from which information and ideology is produced.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), created to regulate and monitor the
peaceful use of nuclear energy also acts as an interconnection mechanism for the global
interests of the sector, with the help of the International Energy Agency (IEA). The
activity of the nuclear lobby can sometimes be indirect; not defending nuclear energy
but rather boycotting the use of renewable sources of energy14. For many years the IEA
blocked the setting up of the International Renewable Energy Agency, requested by
Germany, Denmark and Spain.
It is necessary to focus on the impressive agit-prop machinery in order to understand
the changes in public attitudes to nuclear energy that have occurred in some countries.
Public opinion, the third component which explains the partial victory of the anti-nuclear
movement, has become a veritable obsession for the nuclear lobby. It funds a great deal
of sociological and psycho-social research throughout the world. The results of this
research provide it with mechanisms and indications for modifying the level of
acceptability of nuclear power. One of the most controversial tools used in this context
is the school visit to nuclear power stations. This was invented" in the USA in the 1970s
and later spread to other countries with nuclear power stations. One of the oldest
Spanish nuclear power stations, Garoa, has been visited by a total of 260,000 children
since 1992. During these visits, or directly in schools, children receive propaganda
material heavily loaded with subliminal emotional elements. Particularly famous are the
comics featuring irradiated characters that turned into superheroes which in the 1970s
think tank which is in turn linked to university institutes which carry out studies on the excellent
agriculture being carried out around Chernobyl.
13
In January 2007 the CEO (Corporate Europe Observatory) requested a response from Energy
Commissioner Andris Piebalgs about the fact that the former MEP (Member of the European Parliament)
Rolf Linkohr was a special advisor to the Energy Commissioner at the same time as he direct a commercial
lobbying firm. Just by chance, the former MEPs firm (CERES) only worked for big energy firms, at the
same time as Linkohr was advising the Commissioner with responsibility for the area
(www.corporateeurope.org).
14
In May 2006, The Sidney Morning Herald ran a story about a surprising campaign against the
setting up of windmills in New South Wales. The activists involved, who used names like Landscape
Guardians and Coastal Guardians, were in fact being advised from the UK by the so-called Country
Guardians, an anti-windmill organization. Curiously enough its inspiration was Bernard Ingham, the
former Press Secretary of Margaret Thatcher and formerly the holder of an important position in BNF, the
British nuclear waste company.

12

were sent to schools in the USA. In the 1980s a shift occurred from out and out
propaganda to material that was more pedagogical in nature; curriculum material
designed to accept the future acceptance of nuclear energy. Can the coincidence in the
last decade of the rampant activities of the nuclear lobby triggered by the Kyoto treaty
and reappearance in the cinema of almost all the Marvel superheroes, whose super
powers come from contact with toxic, often radioactive material, be regarded as mere
chance?

Climate change at the service of nuclear power

During the first decade on the 21st the world has witnessed a new phase in the
positioning of states. At the discursive level this can be seen in the construction of an
ideology around climate change and the urgent need to reduce the levels of CO2 in the
atmosphere, underpinned by scientists such as the previously mentioned James
Lovelock, in spite of the fact that neither the Kyoto Treaty (nor the more recent Durban
agreement) regard it as a Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). What we are faced
with here is an ideological construct as it does not accord with reality. However, its
effectiveness can be observed in the revival of pro-nuclear policies in countries that
were previously considered to be defenders of sustainable development, even to the
extent of proposals for the construction of new nuclear power stations. There has also
been an increase in the level of acceptability to public opinion in many countries
(Baigorri, Chaves, Caballero, 2009).
Sometimes the road taken can be sinuous. Thus the European Union immediately
ratified the Kyoto commitments and set down the intention to reduce total emissions
in the period 2008-2012 by 8% by comparison with 1990. However, the use of nuclear
power to achieve this goal was left to the discretion of member states, with this form of
energy being described as one of the low carbon emission sources of energy with more
stable costs and output15. At the start of 2009 the European Parliament went even
further when, almost forced by the powerful FORATOM, it approved a report on
Europes energy supply which dedicated almost two pages to listing the reasons the
continent cannot do without nuclear power. The report even recommended the
countries ought to invest in nuclear technology and encourage public debate in order to
modify the state of public opinion with the necessity to make efforts to end the antinuclear feeling in countries such as Germany and Austria being expressly stated.

Nuclear strategies
The result of the strategies and processes analyzed is a planet with an ever growing
nuclear capacity, whether for peaceful or military purposes. Of the 61 reactors currently
under construction the majority (40) are in Asia (49 if we include Russia). On the
American continent Canada, the United States, Brazil and Canada have reactors under
construction. In Europe reactors are being constructed for the most part in former
15

Communiqu from the Commission to the European Council and European Parliament, January,
10th 2007, Una poltica energtica para Europa [COM (2007) 1 final ( not published in the Official
Journal).

13

Eastern Bloc states. In the same region there are also plans for the construction of more
reactors that have yet to receive funding. In the rest of Europe only France (whose
publicly owned nuclear power company Areva, with 75,000 employees and which
reported a loss of 1.5 million Euros in 2011, is one of the worlds most powerful nuclear
lobbyists) continues to build nuclear power stations. One is under construction at
Flamanville (four years behind schedule and double the initial budget) and there is
another planned at Penly (which has undergone repeated delays to the date for
beginning of work). A new reactor is also being constructed in Finland at Olkilouto. This
is a paradigmatic case for both pro- and anti-nuclear campaigners. For the former it is
an example of the return to the atom while for the latter it is an unmistakable example
of the economic waste involved in going nuclear; constructed by Areva the Finnish plant
is also four years behind schedule and has undergone a doubling in the size of its original
budget.
These data present a paradoxical situation. On the one hand they show that the
nuclearization of the world is advancing, though much more slowly than the promoters
of nuclear energy imagined half a century ago. But they also show, to judge by the
construction of new nuclear power plants, that with the exception of France, it is only
developing countries that have decided to expand their nuclear capacity.
There is no single nuclear scenario in the world, not even a basic dichotomy between
pro-nuclear and anti-nuclear countries. What we find is a diversity of opinions that to
some degree forms a gradation. Thus there are countries that have maintained a more
or less pro-nuclear policy over time while others, as in the case of most European
countries, have undergone nuclear moratoriums and delays going back to the 1980s. As
previously mentioned, France is the exception here. Others have sought to leap into
development by riding on the nuclear wave as, decades previously, did the then
emerging Spain, South Korea and Taiwan.
To try to analyze the nuclear situation of the planet as a whole we have drawn up a
typology which, on a hypothetical basis, seeks to observe the evolution over the last 20
years of nations in relation to the civil use of nuclear energy. In order to do this we have
analyzed all the countries that currently have some relationship with electrical
production of nuclear origin, though in the examples we have chosen we have limited
ourselves to the most representative.

Type A: State Monopolist Nuclearism

This is the most regulationist energy model with strong political links in which nuclear
power has a significance that goes beyond the simple generating of energy. It is basically
the French model, with a strong interest in exports; it was also the Spanish and Korean
nuclear model during their respective dictatorships and is the model followed by the
Islamic states and oriental neo-despotism.
France: Having been the cradle of the European ecology and anti-nuclear movements
has had no effect on its energy policy. Regardless of the political allegiance of the
government of the day the conversion of France into a nuclear power, both civil and
military, has been a cultural obsession. Currently 78.4% of its electricity is produced by
14

59 reactors, a third of which will finish their useful life by 2020. It also exports electricity
to Italy, the Netherlands, the UK and Germany. The French government in its guidelines
on energy policy (2005) decided to maintain nuclear energy as the nations main source
of electricity and initiate the construction of a third generation of nuclear power plants
and research for a fourth generation expected to come on stream in 2040. France is a
defender of the scientific and political assumptions behind climate change and regards
its environmentalist position as compatible with its strategic nuclear energy policy.
China: It is hungry for energy in order to finish its process of industrial development. It
currently has 11 nuclear reactors and in order to maintain its competitive position in the
markets its leadership has committed itself to nuclear energy. The amount of electricity
generated from this source is expected to quadruple by 2020. China, which approved
and ratified the Kyoto protocol, is regarded as one of the most polluting countries in the
world
India: Like France, India has a veritable obsession with being a nuclear power and like
China it is immersed in a process of economic and industrial development which requires
large amounts of energy to ensure its competiveness. It has made agreements with
France, Russia and the United States which ensure its access to nuclear technology and
consolidate the pro-nuclear orientation of its energy policy.
Russia: Accused of using its energy reserves as an instrument of pressure in its foreign
policy, it controls the oil it sells to its neighbors, the ex-soviet republics, and it holds the
key Europes gas supply. With a rapidly growing economy and extensive energy reserves
Russia has opted for nuclear energy for the production of electricity and aims to have
25% of its production coming from that source by 2030. This would involve a growth in
the number of nuclear reactors in service from 31 to 59.
Japan: Since 1954, nuclear energy limited to peaceful purposes has been a strategic
national priority. Activities have been based on American technology and associated
with multinationals such as General Electric and Westinghouse. Over time there has also
been increasing participation by Japanese companies (especially Mitsubishi) in the
design and construction of new nuclear power stations, all with the strong support of
the state. Prior to the Fukushima accident the Japanese government expected that by
the year 2050 some 60% of the countrys electricity would be nuclear in origin.

Type B: Nuclear Liberalism (libertarianism)

The laissez faire, laissez passer basically implies allowing large firms and energy
multinationals to use nuclear energy for civil purposes without excessive government
controls, except those relating to safety. This model only exists in the USA and was
revived by the National Energy Policy (NEP) of the Bush-Cheney administrations in the
1990s. These administrations also tried to promote it at the international level through
the activities of the Department of State
USA: Thanks to the impulse their construction received from President Eisenhower, the
USA is the country with the largest number (104) of nuclear power stations in the world.
However TMI, as well as the financial crisis of 1976-1980 and later Chernobyl put an end
15

to private investment in new plants. Taking advantage of signs of an energy crisis in

2000-2001 the Bush administration launched the National Energy Policy Development
Group (NEPDG), which although its main conclusions concerned difficulties with the
supply of oil, served as an excuse to relaunch nuclear energy with a proposal to construct
eight new nuclear reactors. With the election of Barack Obama it seemed that the time
for a new clean energy economy had arrived for the USA. In February 2009 Obama
announced at George Mason University the creation of a clean energy economy, we
will double the production of alternative energy in the next three years. However, just
a year later, in 2010, he announced his intention to support the use of federal funds for
the construction of two new nuclear reactors.
South Korea: This one of the countries with the largest number of reactors (20) with
more under construction. It is a member of the ITER (International Thermonuclear
Experimental Reactor) project, formed in 1986 to demonstrate the scientific and
technical feasibility of nuclear fusion. The country is also involved of a new generation
of nuclear reactors.
The United Kingdom: The United Kingdom has 19 functioning nuclear reactors which
produce 18.39% of the countrys electricity. In the 2007 White Paper on Energy the UK
government defined itself as clearly pro-nuclear and gave free rein to the construction
of new nuclear power stations. Although the governments role is limited to licensing
construction it retains control of the management of nuclear waste.

Type C: the Precautionary Principle, or Moratorium

These are countries that would be classified as Type B were it not for the fact that they
explicitly base their nuclear policy on the Principle of Precaution, which has generally
led them to introduce moratoriums, that is say, no more nuclear power plants are built
but the ones that already exist continue to be used. The best example of these countries
is Spain. Germany used to form part of this group but it later decided to abandon nuclear
energy.
Spain: The nuclearization of Spain occurred in the 1960s and 1970s. It was to be the
construction of third generation of reactors in the final years of Francoism which to lead
to large demonstrations by citizens and the founding of the anti-nuclear movement in
Spain. The TMI and Chernobyl disasters put pressure on democratic governments to
such a degree that when the PSOE came to power in 1982 it did so with a firm antinuclear commitment and halt building work at four nuclear power plants that were
under construction. The PP governments from 1996 to 2004 made no change in this
regard. However, in the early years of the 21st century, in a climate strongly influenced
by the nuclear lobby, a clear change occurred. When the PSOE returned to office in 2004
it did so with a promise to abandon nuclear energy. In spite of this the government of
Rodrguez Zapatero in 2009 agreed to extend the service life of already amortized
nuclear power plants (Garoa), although not for the amount of time requested by the
nuclear companies (and supported by the PP). The nuclear debate in Spain centers not
on the construction of new power stations but rather on whether or not to lengthen the
16

life of the existing ones. The PP, on its return to power in 2011, agreed to a further
extension of their service life but not to the construction of any new ones.

Type D: Return to the atom

Arising from a particular interpretation of the Kyoto protocol we have seen how in
recent times some countries that had opted for the precautionary model or even for
abandonment of the nuclear option, returning to nuclear energy. In all cases these have
been political decisions taken by conservative governments which ignored decisions
taken previously by parliaments or by referendums. In this category we can distinguish
between countries which have decided to build new nuclear reactors, such as Italy and
Sweden, and those which have already begun to construct them, such as Finland.
Finland: It currently has 4 reactors, one of which has been closed and another of which
is under construction. Nuclear energy is considered to be a matter of personal
conscience in Finland and so members of parliament are not obliged to adhere to party
voting discipline when decisions are made about it. This explains the failure of a 1994
project to build a fifth plant, a project that had been supported by the government,
unions and industry. However, in 2002 parliament did approve the building of a fifth
reactor, a decision considered to be very significant as it was the first taken to build a
new one in Europe for more than a decade.
Sweden: It has 10 reactors, 3 of them closed. After TMI the Swedish parliament,
following a referendum, decided that no more nuclear power plants would be built and
that nuclear energy would be progressively eliminated after 2010. In fact, after the
Chernobyl and accident reactors were closed in 1998 and 2001. The conservative
government tried to cancel the progressive elimination policy but was initially forced by
public protests to limit itself to extending the deadline until 2020. Finally the
conservative coalition led by Fredrik Reinfeldt was able to give the green light to the
construction of new stations.
Italy: After Chernobyl, in a nation already strongly influenced by the ecological
catastrophe that had occurred as a result of a chemical leak at Seveso16, a referendum
was held on the question of the use of atomic energy. On the basis of the result the
government decided (1988) to close all the existing nuclear power stations. This made
Italy into the main importer of electricity in Western Europe, buying 10% of its
necessities from France. However, Berlusconis first government, without returning to
consult the people, decided that 10 new plants were to be built. To this end an
agreement was signed with France in February 2009 covering the sharing of technology.
Matters rested there pending the holding of a referendum which, as we will see, had an
unexpected effect.

16

In 1976 there was a leak of dioxin from a small pesticide plant located 25 km north of Milan.
Although no one died as an immediate result hundreds of people suffered negative health effects and had
problems with the land and their farms. This accident gave rise to the (1982) EU Directive 82/501/EEC,
the Seveso Directive, which imposed strict safety regulations and was one of the EUs first in this area.

17

Type E: Abandonment
By abandonment of nuclear power we understand the factual and expressed decision to
close nuclear power stations with the intention to substitute them with renewable
sources of energy.
Germany: In the year 2000 and with 17 reactors in service the Social Democrat Greens
coalition government decided to end the use of nuclear energy when the last reactor
reached the end of its useful life in 2025 and to direct the countrys efforts with regard
to energy towards renewable sources. In 2008,taking advantage of the fact that opinion
polls showed 54% of the people to be in favor of the retention of nuclear energy Prime
Minister Merkel stated that in so far as possible we have to reevaluate the decision to
abandon nuclear energy. However, it was not until the end of 2010 that this decision
was put before parliament and when the Fukushima catastrophe occurred no formal
decision had been taken. This is the basis on which we have included Germany in this
category.
Belgium: With 7 reactors producing 54.04% of its electricity the Belgian government
committed itself in 2002 to a total abandonment of nuclear energy on a progressive
basis between 2015 and 2025. This commitment formed part of the coalition agreement
between the ecologist, liberal and socialist parties in 1999.

Type F: The prohibition or doing without model

Austria: Without any doubt this is the paradigmatic model for a country doing without
nuclear energy. In the 1960s the government began a nuclear energy program and
parliament unanimously agreed to the construction of a nuclear power station. Two
years prior to the opening of the plant the government began a propaganda campaign
about the benefits and safety of nuclear energy. The effect of this campaign, however,
was totally unexpected. It led to a public debate and large demonstrations in 1977.
Finally in 1978 Parliament voted in favor of a prohibition on the use of nuclear fission in
Austria, the prohibition included the storage and transport of nuclear materials in or
across Austria. In 1997 the Austrian Parliament unanimously ratified this decision.

The Fukushima effect: a heat of the moment reaction or changing trends?

As has previously been mentioned, we would have preferred not to include decisions
taken in the aftermath of Fukushima because we believe that in many cases these were
heat of the moment reactions which did not seem to respond to the general trend
detected and which in the case of many countries that were in the process of changing
their governments, would not be maintained. However, it also seemed unwise to ignore
these developments entirely.
How has Fukushima affected countries nuclear strategies? We have monitored the
relevant cases but far from one might think, the tsunami of the global nuclear alert
caused hardly any damage, except in a few countries. The Fukushima effect, therefore,
made no fundamental difference to the analysis previously set out. However, a change
did occur in Italy which would now form part of the abandonment group. The same is
18

not true of Germany where no effective measures to return to the use of nuclear energy
were ever taken.
The USA and the UK continued with the nuclear policy planned prior to Fukushima.
Barack Obama maintained his support for the construction of new nuclear power
stations and the UK governments energy plan (published in June 2011) involved the
construction of eighth new nuclear power plants by 2025.
France, regardless of the disputes surrounding the reactors under construction and in
spite of the delays and spiraling costs involved, remained untouched by the Fukushima
effect. President Sarkozy even used the opportunity to promote French nuclear
technology saying that the technical excellence, the rigor, the independence and
transparency of our safety installations are recognized throughout the world. As G20
president he proposed reforms to the international atomic safety regimen which would
lead to the strengthening of the French nuclear giant AREVA
With regard to the Asian giants China, India and Russia (though Russia is partly
European), their closeness to Fukushima had no effect on their respective nuclear
strategies and they maintain a firm commitment to the nuclearization of their countries.
In this regard Russias commitment includes the innovation of building a floating reactor
to be anchored off the Kamchatka peninsula. The same pro-nuclear line is being followed
by all the ex-soviet countries of Eastern Europe with the exception of Poland.
The situation of Japan is complex as the myth of safety and rigor constructed by
governments and firms over 30 years has now collapsed. However it is still possible to
detect ambivalence in its positions which will, in all probability undergo changes once it
leaves the crisis behind. The former Prime Minister Naoto Kan recognized that his
countrys energy policy must undergo a change towards a society that can exist without
nuclear energy, but he also said that his government will not abandon nuclear energy
and will create the conditions for its safe use. We can therefore state that Japan is
initiating a reconsideration of its energy strategy with a greater focus on renewable but
also without abandoning nuclear energy.
In Spain the public alarm caused by the Fukushima accident was calmed by the positive
results produced by the stress tests to which the countrys nuclear power stations were
then submitted. The PSOE government made no announcement with regard to any
possible definitive shut down of the reactors. When the PP returned to power at the end
of 2011 one of the first measures taken by the government of Mariano Rajoy was the
extension of the service life of the oldest reactor (which was originally to end in 2011)
until 2019. The PSOE government had already extended it from 2009 to 2013.
Germany tops the list of country on which, at least for the moment, the Fukushima
accident has had a denuclearizing impact. In September 2010 the coalition led by Angela
Merkel had decided to extend the service life of the countrys nuclear power stations by
12 years with the aim of ensuring energy supplies, reducing CO2 emissions and
facilitating the development of renewable sources of energy. However, after
unfavorable local election results in the wake of the tsunami Merkel announced a three
19

month moratorium and set up two commissions, one technical (to evaluate the safety
of Germanys nuclear reactors) and the other focused on ethics (to draw up an exit
strategy form nuclear energy). In May 2011 Merkel announced that by 2020 none of the
17 German nuclear power stations would be in use.
Another country in which elections (approaching) have led to Fukushima having an
important effect is Taiwan. Although in March 2011 the government declared the
inevitability of nuclear power, the express wish of Tsai Ing-wen, President of the
Democratic Progressive Party ( and according to opinion polls, the probable winner of
the 2012 presidential elections) to close all Taiwans nuclear power stations led the
current President Ma Ying-jeou to announce, in November 2011, a series of measures
aimed at converting the country into a nation free from nuclear radioactivity and
eliminating the possibility of renewing the licenses of the three existing nuclear power
stations when they expire.
Possibly the strongest effects of Fukushima were felt in Italy. Faced with the Berlusconi
governments determination to build 8 new nuclear power stations starting in 2013, the
opposition parties and social movements organized themselves to ensure the calling of
a referendum on the matter which was held in May 2011. In spite of the media
campaigns encouraging apathy and, from the government, encouraging people to
boycott the poll, some 57% of the electorate voted (with 50% being required to make
the referendum valid), almost all in favor of the quashing of the norm that sought the
nuclearization of the country. This clear result kept the country in the class of those that
have abandoned this kind of energy.

Are there factors which explain nuclear policies?

It is obvious that a countrys nuclear policy can be explained by a range of factors which
probably go from its natural resources to its dominant religion; that is from the most
material to the immaterial. But are there factors which might explain or predict why a
particular country belongs to one or other of the previously described categories?
We have tried to analyze this possibility. To do this we have taken a group of nuclearized
countries (or which were nuclearized, or which were at the point of so being or which
abandoned nuclear energy) and observed how their position with regard to nuclear
energy is related to a series of material and immaterial factors. The method used was
the following. In the first place we established an indicator of the level of nuclearization,
as a dependent variable, on the basis of the models considered, which goes from 0 in
the case of Model F countries (doing without and/or prohibition) to 5 for Model A
countries (state monopoly of nuclearization). Each country was assigned to one of these
models after analyzing its energy policy, nuclear history, political structure and socioeconomic system etc. As well as this indicator, a set of variables that express both
material and immaterial factors have been considered. These are listed in Table 1.
In the first place a cluster analysis was tried in order to see if through the use of statistical
methods it would be possible to determine the existence of internally homogenous but
20

distinct groups. After several trials it was found that three large groups was the number
most descriptive of our model and that this explains practically 89% of the variances of
the 13 variables used.

21

Table 1
CLASSIFICATION OF NUCLEARIZED COUNTRIES
6

10

11

12

Argentina

1
2

5,9

9124,34

76,56

12,30

5,39

0,76

30,21

2800,35

0,80

6,84

1,87

Armenia

39,4

3030,71

72,68

17,50

4,42

4,12

33,53

1577,09

0,72

4,09

1,52

Austria

0,0

45209,40

79,50

3,50

5,46

0,91

29,15

8218,26

0,89

8.49

1,94

Belgium

51,2

43144,34

79,22

3,50

6,46

1,14

21,71

8521,50

0,89

8,05

2,03

Brazil

3,1

10710,07

71,99

17,30

5,08

1,64

25,95

2237,09

0,72

7,12

1,79

Bulgaria

33,1

6325,39

73,09

10,70

4,44

2,27

30,26

4594,28

0,77

6,84

1,46

Canada

17

15,1

46235,64

81,23

5,20

4,77

1,44

31,82

17060,83

0,91

9,08

2,18

China

15

1,8

4428,46

73,47

15,80

3,60

2,01

46,24

2455,19

0,69

3,14

1,54

33,2

18245,17

76,81

3,10

4,08

1,54

37,22

6464,39

0,87

8,19

1,85

Finland

28,4

44512,01

78,97

2,40

6,13

1,51

28,18

16349,99

0,88

9,19

1,86

France

58

74,1

39459,55

80,98

3,40

5,58

2,43

19,04

7695,28

0,88

7,77

1,92

Germany

28,4

40152,22

79,26

3,40

4,49

1,37

26,47

7149,11

0,91

8,38

1,94

Hungary

42,1

12851,98

73,44

5,40

5,09

1,31

29,45

3988,77

0,82

7,21

1,53

India

20

2,9

1474,98

69,89

48,20

3,09

2,69

26,97

566,02

0,55

7,28

1,56

Iran

4525,95

71,14

21,80

4,68

2,71

44,47

2411,60

0,71

1,94

1,54

Italy

0,0

33916,88

80,20

3,10

4,58

1,69

25,08

5661,18

0,87

7,83

2,01

Japan

51

29,2

42831,05

82,12

2,40

3,42

1,01

28,01

8071,01

0,90

8,08

1,84

Korea (South)

21

32,2

20756,69

78,72

4,20

4,80

2,88

36,44

8853,09

0,90

8,11

1,48

Mexico

3,6

9123,41

76,06

14,10

4,81

0,54

34,78

1941,67

0,77

6,93

2,00

Netherlands

3,4

46914,66

79,40

3,60

5,46

1,53

23,89

7226,07

0,91

8,99

1,97

Pakistan

2,6

1018,87

64,49

69,70

2,69

3,03

23,62

432,62

0,50

4,55

1,54

Philippines

0,0

2140,12

71,66

23,20

2,81

0,76

32,57

589,32

0,64

6,12

1,54

Romania

19,5

7537,71

72,45

11,30

4,28

4,12

26,20

2487,63

0,78

6,60

1,57

Czech Republic

Russia

2,0

13

33

17,1

10439,64

66,03

9,10

4,09

4,36

32,81

6435,41

0,76

4.26

1,46

Slovakia

51,8

16061,25

75,40

6,70

3,59

1,50

35,26

5267,61

0,83

7,35

1,58

Slovenia

37,3

22850,67

76,92

2,30

5,67

1,73

33,88

6920,24

0,88

7,69

1,95

South Africa

5,2

7275,34

49,98

40,70

5,44

1,45

31,30

4759,49

0,62

7,79

1,67

Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Ukraine
United Kingdom
USA

20,1

30541,61

80,05

3,90

4,62

1,25

26,09

6315,50

0,88

8,16

1,76

10

38,1

48935,67

80,86

2,30

6,74

1,31

25,30

14869,35

0,90

9,50

2,20

38,0

67463,71

80,85

4,10

5,37

0,83

26,81

8307,36

0,90

9,09

1,87

15

48,1

3006,92

68,25

11,40

5,28

2,86

29,04

3534,36

0,73

6,30

1,55

18

15,7

36143,94

79,01

5,00

5,42

2,68

21,06

6062,41

0,86

8,16

2,15

104

19,6

47198,50

78,11

6,50

5,46

4,71

21,41

13653,95

0,91

8,16

1,98

Items: 1: Operating reactors; 2: % nuclear electricity; 3: GPD/cpita; 4: Life expectancy; 5: Child Mortality; 6: % GDP
for Education; 7: % GDP for Defense; 8: % Industry in GDP; 9: Electricity Consumption per capita; 10: Human
Develompent Index; 11: Democracy Index; 12:Inglehart Postmaterialism Index; 13: Nuclearism index
Sources: 1 (World Nuclear Association/ International Atomic Agency Energy); 2-9 (World Bank); 10 (UNDP); 11 (The
Economist Intelligence Unit); 12 (World Values Survey); 13 (Self Research)

22

In our view, if we had to decide which of the variables used had the most explanatory
power regarding inter and intra-group differences and similarities we would choose
postmaterialism. The lowest level of postmaterialism was found in Bulgaria (1.46) and
the highest (2.20) in Switzerland. The difference between the two figures was 0.72 which
we divided by three (the number of groups produced by the cluster analysis) and the
resulting figure, (0.24) was used to construct our ranges of postmaterialism:
1.46 to 1.70 a low level of postmaterialism
1.71 to 1.95 a medium level of post-materialism
1.96 to 2.20 a high level of post-materialism
On this basis the first group would consist of countries with a low level of postmaterialism with the exception of Argentina. The second group is a mixed one including
countries with medium and medium-high levels of postmaterialism, with the exception
of Korea and the third group would consist of countries with medium-high and high
levels of postmaterialism
Graph 2

When we analyze with care the correlations between variables, taking the index of
nuclearization as a dependent variable, we find that it is this variable of postmaterialism
which groups the countries in clusters, which has the closest relationship (a negative
one) with the index of nuclearization.
The multiple correlation coefficient indicates a strong relationship (78.28%) between
the degree of nuclearization (the dependent variable to be explained) and the rest of
the variables taken as independents. However, the relationship will be positive
(increases or decreases in the independent variables involve changes in the same
23

direction in the dependent variables) or negative (rises or falls in the independent

variables involve changes in the opposite direction in the dependent variable).
To discover the direction of the relationship between variables we have to turn to the
matrix of simple correlation coefficients. If we look at the relationship which the
dependent variable establishes (degree of nuclearization) with the independent
variables we can highlight the negative relationship between GDP per capita (-53.34%),
life expectancy (-39.41%), and the percentage of GDP devoted to education (-27.29%),
electricity consumption per capita (-33.34%), Human Development Index (-37.35%),
level of democracy (-41.75%) and level of post-materialism (-47.06%) with the grade of
nuclearization.
That is to say that in general terms countries with the highest levels of nuclearization
have the lowest levels of economic development and lowest life expectancy for their
citizens; they also have a low percentage of their GDPs dedicated to education, a low
level of quality of democracy in their political system and lower levels of individual
emancipation and self-expression.
The level of nuclearization had a positive relationship with the rate of infant mortality
(29.95%), with the percentage of GDP devoted to defense (37.81%) and the weight of
industry in the economy of the country.
Taking everything into account and in spite of the significance of some of the data the
linear analysis defined by the coefficient of determination, it only explains the 61.28%
of the variation in the level of nuclearization.
Table 2
Matrix of simple correlation coefficients
N

EN

GPD

IM

0,1876

0,1799

-0,5334

-0,3941

LE

0,2995

-0,2729

0,3781

0,3468

-0,3334

EPC

HDI
-0,3735

ID
-0,4175

-0,4706

IP

0,1876

0,2331

0,2999

0,1913

-0,1517

0,0344

0,4524

-0,3072

0,3698

0,2414

0,1107

0,1484

EN

0,1799

0,2331

0,2632

0,2889

-0,4392

0,3312

0,0654

-0,2217

0,3

0,4254

0,2637

0,0348

GPD

-0,5334

0,2999

0,2632

0,6978

-0,5927

0,5485

-0,2886

-0,4929

0,7923

0,8031

0,731

0,7534

LE

-0,3941

0,1913

0,2889

0,6978

-0,7248

0,2879

-0,2836

-0,2367

0,515

0,8003

0,4916

0,5937

IM

0,2995

-0,1517

-0,4392

-0,5927

-0,7248

-0,5268

0,211

0,0522

-0,5553

-0,9159

-0,4631

-0,4523

-0,2729

0,0344

0,3312

0,5485

0,2879

-0,5268

-0,1649

-0,3347

0,5715

0,582

0,4894

0,5912

0,3781

0,4524

0,0654

-0,2886

-0,2836

0,211

-0,1649

-0,0511

-0,0945

-0,237

-0,4403

-0,398

0,3468

-0,3072

-0,2217

-0,4929

-0,2367

0,0522

-0,3347

-0,0511

-0,26

-0,2417

-0,5715

-0,46

EPC

-0,3334

0,3698

0,3

0,7923

0,515

-0,5553

0,5715

-0,0945

-0,26

0,7249

0,6479

0,6134

HDI

-0,3735

0,2414

0,4254

0,8031

0,8003

-0,9159

0,582

-0,237

-0,2417

0,7249

0,653

0,6339

ID

-0,4175

0,1107

0,2637

0,731

0,4916

-0,4631

0,4894

-0,4403

-0,5715

0,6479

0,653

0,6683

IP

-0,4706

0,1484

0,0348

0,7534

0,5937

-0,4523

0,5912

-0,398

-0,46

0,6134

0,6339

0,6683

Multiple correlation coefficient: 0,7828

Coefficient of determination (R): 0,6128
N: Degree of Nuclearization; R: Num. reactors; EN: % electricity from nuclear; GPD: GDP/capit; LE: Life expectancy; IM: Infant Mortality; E: GDP for Education; D: GDP for
Defense; I: % Industrial GPD; EPC: electricity consumption per capita; HDI: Human Development Index; DI: Democracy Index; P: Postmaterialsm Index

24

Conclusions
The data examined here shows two different nuclear strategies. The rich countries opt
between extending the service life of existing nuclear power stations or a return (and
not only at the level of discourse) to the construction of new plants (Finland). In the
emerging nations, especially the BRICs (China, India, Brazil, Russia etc.) the pro-nuclear
policies remain firm and solid n the basis of a rising demand for electricity.
The arguments used by the rich countries to legitimize their pro-nuclear discourse
includes climate change, the depletion of fossil fuels and resulting cost increases, the
energy Independence of their countries and the limited capacity for substitution with
renewable energy etc. But above all, and paradoxically the pro-nuclear discourse
incorporates the theses that might be described as environmentalist in that it sees
nuclear energy as clean energy because it reduces CO2 emissions into the atmosphere
and is thus compatible with the principles of sustainability; France, Finland and Obamas
USA are good examples of this.
This duplicitous discourse (compatibility between sustainability and nuclear energy)
sustained by the rich countries gives states a lot of room for maneuver with regard to
public opinion in that it allows them to make compatible an international image of
defending sustainable development (the countries that signed the Kyoto Protocol) while
at home being tolerant of the use of nuclear energy by extending the service life of
existing nuclear power plants in some cases and the building of new ones in others. In
short, the climate change discourse and sustainability have become basic parts of the
marketing of the nuclear industry.
We can speak, therefore, of a return to nuclear energy by the majority of nuclearized
countries in the world. And, according to the results produced by the statistical models
used here (which show that the nuclearism of nations is closely linked to their desire
for development and materialist values), the rise in nuclear energy seen over the past
decade may well have a close relationship with the return to materialist values which
has been pointed to by Diez Nicols (2009) on the basis of an analysis of the World
Values Survey.
Furthermore, the Fukushima effect, as a general rule (we have considered the
exceptions of Germany, Italy and Taiwan), is making no deep difference to the energy
strategy of countries with pro-nuclear policies. Based on what we have learned from the
diachronic analysis of our study it can be stated that in the medium term there will only
be a new process of denuclearization if the following three factors occur together:

25

The impact of a nuclear catastrophe the media effect of which will not, it can
safely be predicted, go on beyond one or two years. Fukushima, for the
moment, fulfills this condition
b. A massive and systematic anti-nuclear mobilization in the countries
concerned. This has not been seen on this occasion (except in Germany, Italy,
Taiwan and Japan), which might be explained by the return to materialist
values.
c. The persistence of the current financial crisis. In the 1980s it was a financial
crisis that blocked the bulk of nuclear projects and today it is another financial
crisis which has stymied nuclear projects in countries such as Rumania. This
today is probably a key element but it still does not affect he BRICs countries
where the bulk of potential for nuclear growth is located
a.

Bibliography

Aron, Joan (1998), Licensed to Kill? The Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Shoreham Power Plant,
University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh

Aron, Raymond (1966), El gran debate: Iniciacin a la estrategia atmica, Editorial Hispano-Europea,
Barcelona

Baigorri, Artemio (2006 [1995]), Introduccin a la Sociologa de la Empresa, Ives/Sharebooks, Badajoz

Baigorri, A., Chaves, M, Caballero, M. (2009), Opinin pblica y debate nuclear, en Centro de Estudios del
Cambio Social, Informe Espaa 2009. Una interpretacin de su realidad social, Fundacin Encuentro,
Madrid, pp. 296:355

Butler, Declan (1997), Nuclear debate splits open in France, NATURE, Vol. 390, N 6658, 322.

Castejn, Francisco (2004), Vuelven las nucleares?, El debate sobre la energa nuclear, Talasa, Madrid

CEO (Corporate Europe Observatory), 2006, Nuclear Power Grab?. Corporate Lobbyists and MEPs Working
in Tandem to Spin Nuclear Energy as Sustainable , http://www.corporateeurope.org/
docs/NuclearPowerGrab.pdf

European Commission (1997) European Opinion and Energy Mattes. Special Ecobarometer 46.0.

European Commission (2006) Attitudes towards energy. Special Ecobarometer 247

European Commission (2007b) Europeans and nuclear safety. Special Ecobarometer 271.

European Commission (2008) Attitudes towards radioactive waste. Special Ecobarometer 297.

Commoner, Barry (1966), Science and Survival. Viking, New York

Commoner, Barry (1971), The Closing Circle: Nature, Man and Technology, Alfred Knopf, Nueva York
(traduccin en Plaza & Jans, Barcelona)

Diez Nicols, Juan (2011), Regreso a valores materialistas?. El dilema entre seguridad y libertad en los
pases desarrollados, Revista Espaola de Sociologa, Num. 15, pp. 9-46

Duffy, Robert J. (1997), Nuclear Politics in America: A History and Theory of Government Regulation,
University Press of Kansas, Lawrence

Edwards, Gordon (1983), Canada's Nuclear Industry and the Myth of the Peaceful Atom, en Ernie Regehr
y Simon Rosenblum, eds., Canada and the Nuclear Arms Race, James Lorimer & Company, Toronto

Gamson, William A., Modigiliani, Andr (1989), Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power: A
Constructionist Approach, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 95, No. 1 (Jul., 1989), pp. 1-37

26

Garca Ferrando, Manuel (1981), El debate pblico sobre el uso de la energa nuclear, REIS, 16, pp. 57-90

Giugni, Marco (2004), Social Protest and Policy Change: Ecology, Antinuclear, and Peace Movements in
Comparative Perspective, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD

Gofman, John W. , Tamplin, Arthur R. (1971), Poisoned Power, Rodale Press, Emmaus, Pa

Hoffmann,Dieter, Walker,Mark (2006), Peter Debye: A Typical Scientist in an Untypical Time Deutsche
Physikalische Gesellschaft ( http://www.dpg-physik.de/gliederung/fv/gp/debye_en.html )

Kahn, Herman (1962), On Thermonuclear War, Princeton University Press, Princeton

Kahn, Herman (1962b), Thinking about the Unthinkable, Horizon Press, Nueva York

Kahn, Herman (1965), On Escalation, Praeger, Westport

Karapin, Roger (2007), Protest Politics in Germany: Movements on the Left and Right Since the 1960s, Penn
State Press, University Park, PA

Koopmans, Ruud; Duyvendak, Jan Willem (1995), The Political Construction of the Nuclear Energy Issue
and Its Impact on the Mobilization of Anti-Nuclear Movements in Western Europe, Social Problems, Vol.
42, Num. 2, pp. 235-251

Lake, James A. (2006), Renacer de la energa nuclear, E-JOURNAL USA PERSPECTIVAS ECONMICAS,
Vol. 11, Num 2, pp. 14-18

Liberatore, Angela (1999), The Management of Uncertainty: Learning from Chernobyl, Routledge, Londres

Lovelock, James (2005), Our nuclear lifeline, Reader's Digest, Marzo, pp.2-9 (printed in 49 editions and 29
languages)

Lovins, Amory; Sheikh, Imran (2008), The nuclear illusion, Ambio, Nov 08 preprint, dr 18

http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E08-01_AmbioNuclIlusion.pdf

McAdam, Doug (1996), "Conceptual origins, current problems, future directions," en McAdam, McCarthy y
Zald, eds., Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements, Cambridge.

Mac Murrin, S. comp. (1987), Valores en guerra: Un debate sobre la crisis nuclear, Fondo de Cultura
Econmica, Madrid, 1987

Merton, Robert K. (1936), The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive Social Action. American
Sociological Review 1:6 (Dec. 1936): 894-904

Mian, Zia; Glase, Alexander (2008), A frightening nuclear legacy, Bulletin of the Atomics Scientifics, Vol.
64, No. 4, pp. 42-47

Nelkin, Dorothy y Pollak, Michael (1982) The Atom Besieged. Extraparliamentary Dissent in France and
Germany, The MIT Press, Cambridge

Oleynikov, Pavel V. (2000), German Scientists in the Soviet Atomic Project, The Nonproliferation Review,
Vol 7, N 2, pp: 130

Packard, Vance (2007 [1957]), The Hidden Persuaders, Ig Pub, Brooklyn, NY

Pepper, David (1990), The Roots of Modern Environmentalist. Routledge, New York

Rosa, Eugene A, Dunlap, Riley E. (1994), Nuclear Power: Three Decades of Public Opinion, Public Opinion
Quarterly, Volume: 58, pp: 295-325

Rudig, Wolfgang (1990), Anti-Nuclear Movements: A World Survey of Opposition to Nuclear Energy,
Longman, Harlow

Sachs, Wolfgang (2000): "Development: The rise and decline of an ideal. An article for the Encyclopedia of
Global Environmental Change", Wuppertal Institut fr Klima, Umwelt, Energie, Wuppertal Papers n 108,
<http://www.wupperinst.org>

Schneider, Mycle (2008), Nuclear Power in France (Beyond the Myth), The Greens/European Free Alliance,
Bruselas

Stauber, John; Rampton, Sheldon (1995), Toxic Sludge Is Good For You. Lies, Damn Lies and the Public
Relations Industry, Common Courage Press, Monroe

Stenssoro, Fernando (2007), Antecedentes para una historia del debate poltico en torno al medio
ambiente: la primera socializacin de la idea de crisis ambiental (1945 -1972), Universum, N 22 Vol.2, pp:
88-107

Varela, Francisco J.; Maturana, Humberto R.; Uribe, R. (1974). Autopoiesis: the organization of living

27

systems, its characterization and a model, Biosystems, 5, pp. 187196

Vispo, D., Santamara, F.F. (2006), Nucleares en Quioto: novo escenario para un vello debate, Cerna:
Revista galega de ecoloxa e medio ambiente, 48, pp. 37-38

Wellock, Thomas Raymond (1998), Critical Masses: Opposition to Nuclear Power in California, 1958-1978,
The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison

Yearley, Steven (1992), The green case. A Sociology of Environmental Issues, Arguments and Politics,
Routledge, Londres

Web references
http://epp.eurostat.cec.eu.int/
http://www.nuclearfiles.org/
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change an Kyoto protocol text:
http://unfccc.int/2860.php
On lobbys:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/
A fairly objective wen on the debate (BBC):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2005/nuclear/default.stm
Wikipedia is already today, especially the English version, the best starting point for information on how fair on energy
issues and the nuclear debate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/

Autors

ARTEMIO BAIGORRI
Born 1956. Ph. D. in Sociology. Associate Professor (Profesor Titular) in
Universidad de Extremadura (Spain). Head in Research Group Anlisis de la Realidad
Social (ARS). Some books, individual or collectives: Extremadura saqueada. Recursos
naturales y autonoma regional (1978), La enseanza de la arquitectura (1980),
Ecodesarrollo. El modelo extremeo (1980), El espacio ignorado. Agricultura periurbana
de Madrid (1987), Mujeres en Extremadura (1993) El paro agrario (1994), El hombre
perplejo (1995), Sociologa de la Empresa (1996), Ocio y deporte en Espaa (1997), La
economa Ibrica (1999), Sociologa y Medio Ambiente (1999), Hacia la urbe global
(2001), Agroecologa y Desarrollo (2001), El campo andaluz y extremeo: la proteccin
social agraria (2003), Botelln: un conflicto postmoderno (2003), Young Technologies in
old hands (2005), Debate Educativo (2005 y 2006), Enseando Sociologa a profanos
(2007), Perspectivas tericas en desarrollo rural (2007), : La comunidad educativa ante
los resultados escolares (2009), Dispora y retorno (2009), Informe Espaa (2009),
Environmental transitions (2012, on press)
Web: http://www1.unex.es/eweb/sociolog/BAIGORRI

28

Blog: http://baigorri.blogspot.com
MANUELA CABALLERO
Born 1963. Ph. D. candidate in Sociology. Researcher in Research Group Anlisis
de la Realidad Social (ARS). Head in a Local Development Agency (Castuera, Spain). Has
been Lecturer in Universidad de Extremadura. Collective books: La comunidad educativa
ante los resultados escolares (2009), Informe Espaa (2009), Environmental transitions
(2012, on press)

MAR CHAVES
Born 1974. Ph. D. Candidate in Sociology, Lecturer in Universidad de Extremadura.
Researcher in Research Group Anlisis de la Realidad Social (ARS). Some books:
Botelln: un conflicto postmoderno (2003), Young Technologies in old hands (2005),
Debate Educativo (2005 y 2006), Dispora y retorno (2009), La comunidad educativa
ante los resultados escolares (2009), Informe Espaa (2009), Environmental transitions
(2012, on press)

29