- The great nuclear rat race
The nuclear energy option largely disappeared from the public eye following the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, yet today it is firmly back on the negotiating table. Countries around the globe are reconsidering nuclear energy as a viable alternative to the use of fossil fuels, especially for power generation and water desalination, and the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region is no exception.
From Morocco to Iran, governments are interested in developing nuclear energy for civilian use, and nearly all have signed research or cooperation agreements with the world’s leading nuclear nations, including France, Russia and the United States. The consensus is that the region’s first nuclear power plant is not a matter of if, but when.
The United Arab Emirates and Kuwait seem the most likely location for the region’s first nuclear plant outside Israel. On May 20, US President Barack Obama approved a nuclear agreement with the UAE, which currently awaits approval by the US Congress. On September 8, Reuters reported that awarding the region’s first nuclear contract was a “matter of days,” though it is more likely that the UAE authorities will wait for the US congress’ approval (or disapproval), due in mid-October (see box on the UAE’s nuclear ambitions in this section for more details).
Meanwhile, French Minister of Economy Christine Lagarde announced on June 21 that France and Kuwait were in talks over a strategic nuclear partnership. Shortly after French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s first visit to Kuwait in March, Kuwaiti Prime Minister Sheikh Jaber Moubarak al-Hamad al-Sabah had already hinted Kuwait might buy a stake in the nuclear energy giant Areva, which is largely owned by the French state.
The UAE and Kuwait are not alone in their wish to add a nuclear component to their energy mix, as Jordan and Egypt are keen to become the next nuclear agents in the Levant. In North Africa, Algeria has long held nuclear ambitions and has signed cooperation agreements with both France and the US. Morocco and Tunisia signed similar agreements with France, but actual construction in these parts of the MENA region seems unlikely in the near future, due to terrorism and Western consideration of Israel’s strategic superiority.
The MENA region’s nuclear ambitions are not unique and are part of a global atomic resurgence. Some 34 nuclear power plants are currently under construction around the world, the majority located in Asia. The United Kingdom has pledged to build 15 new nuclear power plants to meet future electricity demands, while the nuclear option is again a topic that sparks heated debate in the rest of Europe. The same is true for the US, where former President George W. Bush vowed to expand the nation’s nuclear fleet, while President Obama so far seems reluctant to do so.
This nuclear revival of sorts cannot be seen separately from the current global context of diminishing hydrocarbon reserves, rising prices of fossil fuels, as well as the wish to reduce CO2 emissions and halt global warming. Advocates of the nuclear power industry claim it omits no CO2, is relatively cheap and safe to operate, while waste can be stored safely.
Yet opponents argue that the nuclear industry, aided by a powerful public relations campaign, portray things far too favorably. A nuclear power plant may be cheap to operate but is extremely costly to build, while waste storage, treatment and the decommissioning of future nuclear plants will create a financial burden for generations to come. In addition, so they claim, nuclear energy can hardly be called “clean,” as nuclear waste remains toxic for thousands of years.
Facts & figures
According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), there were 438 nuclear power plants worldwide by the end of 2008, which supplied 15 percent of global demand for energy. France and the US are the world’s leading nuclear states. The average life span of a nuclear plant is some 40 years, which today can be extended to 60 years. Some 75 percent of the world’s nuclear reactors are more than 20 years old.
With 59 nuclear power plants, France’s nuclear fleet produces nearly 70 percent of the country’s electricity, while the US’s more than 100 reactors generate 20 percent of the country’s annual electricity demand. Both countries are also home to the world’s main nuclear constructors and operators, including General Electric, Westinghouse, Bechtel, Areva and Électrité de France (EDF).
During the first half of 2007, the price of uranium soared to a record high of $120 per pound, which caused a boom in uranium exploration. The price has since fallen, and as Executive went to print stood at $45 per pound. Annual global production remained stable in recent years at some 40,000 tons. Estimated global demand, however, is some 67,000 tons. The difference is largely met by uranium from military stockpiles and reprocessing of nuclear fuel. According to the IAEA, the annual discharge of nuclear fuel is some 10,000 tons. It considers the current waste treatment and storage programs in countries such as France, Finland, Sweden and the US as the most developed.
- The UAE goes nuclear
Gulf countries are the most likely to go nuclear in the coming years, with the UAE the first among them. The Arab world’s first nuclear power plant is set to appear on Emirati shores, albeit not before 2020. US congressmen are likely to raise concerns about nuclear proliferation with regard to President Obama’s nuclear deal with the UAE. However, the first “123 agreement” — a section of the US atomic energy law which establishes an agreement for cooperation as a prerequisite for nuclear deals between the US and any other nation — with an Arab state is widely expected to pass.
The UAE nuclear deal has a potential worth of some $41 billion, as the US will supply the emirates with nuclear fuel and materials, and help develop the country’s infrastructure. US lawmakers are aware that rejecting the deal would simply force the UAE to buy nuclear technology from somewhere else, for example French, British or Japanese firms.
Another provision to the “123 agreement” stipulates that in order to come to nuclear cooperation with the US, countries must first sign an agreement that promotes the use of nuclear energy, yet discourages nuclear enrichment to avoid proliferation.
By signing such an agreement, the UAE has essentially agreed to import rather than to produce nuclear fuel for its future reactors. It also committed to not enriching uranium or reprocessing spent nuclear fuel, which could be used to produce nuclear weapons. Also, both American and international inspectors will be allowed into the UAE to see if the country lives up to its side of the bargain.
Yousef Otaiba, the UAE’s ambassador to the US, applauded the agreement as “the gold standard of nuclear cooperation agreements, which sets a new standard in ensuring the highest standards of safety, security and nonproliferation.” The deal had been left on President Obama’s desk by his predecessor, George W. Bush, who signed it just five days before leaving office.
The UAE is serious about its nuclear ambitions. As early as April 2008, the Emirati authorities unveiled the White Paper, a blueprint for the country’s nuclear future, which emphasizes that nuclear power should be acquired in order to meet the country’s ever growing demand for electricity. According to official figures, the annual peak demand for electricity is set to increase from 15.5 gigawatts today to 40 gigawatts by 2020.
The document furthermore claims that gas reserves are insufficient, while other fossil fuels are too expensive to meet the rising demand for power. Coal is of course cheaper, yet has a poor environmental record. Solar power and wind energy are viable options for the future, yet for now aren’t productive enough to meet the current needs, much less the steep yearly rise in electricity demand of nearly 10 percent. Compared to these alternatives, the document concludes, nuclear power has emerged as “a proven, environmentally promising, and commercially competitive option.”
Bureaucratic chain-reaction
The UAE went on to draft a nuclear energy law and has now established the Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation (ENEC), which is tasked with implementing and overseeing the country’s nuclear program. The law allows foreign companies to sign joint-venture contracts with the Emirati government to construct and operate nuclear power plants — a structure similar to the one the Emirates have in place for the production of drinking water and electricity. It is expected that the UAE will award the contract to build the country’s first nuclear power plant before the end of the year, and possibly before the end of October, 2009.
On April 2, 2009, The Wall Street Journal reported that US firms General Electric and Westinghouse are among the companies battling for lucrative nuclear contracts. If the 123 Agreement with the UAE is passed by the US Congress as expected, it could generate enormous goodwill in the emirates toward American firms. Still, the awarding of the enormous contract is by no means a done deal.
The Americans’ biggest competitor is a conglomerate of French firms led by global energy giant Areva. With worldwide sales of more than $17 billion, the company does everything from uranium mining to nuclear waste recycling. The French bid is strengthened by the presence of companies such as Suez and Total, which are already active in power generation and desalination in the UAE. While General Electric has teamed up with Japanese firm Hitachi, Westinghouse is in a partnership with the Korean firms Korea Electric Power, Samsung and Hyundai.
With construction of a nuclear power plant requiring an estimated five years of planning to study potential sites and suitability, and another five years of actual building, it is unlikely that the first nuclear plant in the UAE and the region will see the light before 2020.
Nuclear haves and have-nots
The US Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) was launched by former Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman in February 2006. The GNEP is an international partnership that seeks to promote the use of safe nuclear power, yet simultaneously close the circle of nuclear fuel producers to reduce the risk of proliferation.
The goals of GNEP are to reduce American dependency on foreign energy, promote the use of nuclear energy and the recycling of nuclear fuel around the world, and reduce the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation. The partnership currently has 21 member states. Within the MENA region, Jordan, Morocco and Oman have signed the GNEP’s statement of principles.
The idea is that countries that are currently able to enrich uranium will produce nuclear fuel that will be supplied to so called “user nations,” while waste would be taken back for treatment and possibly storage. Opponents of the GNEP claim it threatens to divide the world into nuclear haves and have-nots.
Steve Kidd, head of strategy & research at the World Nuclear Association, said in Nuclear Engineering International magazine that the GNEP may be perceived as “somewhat discriminatory and potentially anti-competitive.”
“By maintaining a market stranglehold on, for example, enrichment facilities, it can be argued that the market will be uncompetitive and lead to excessive profits being achieved by those who are favored,” he said.
South Africa is one of 17 countries invited to join the GNEP, yet it has so far refused to sign.
“Exporting uranium only to get it back refined, instead of enriching it in South Africa, would be in conflict with our national policy,” said South African Energy Minister Buyelwa Sonjica at a UN atomic agency meeting, according to Agence France-Press.
- Making the case for a nuclear Gulf
Although some international media outlets and Western government officials have regarded the Arab world’s nuclear ambitions with suspicion, there is a strong economic rationale for developing nuclear energy for civilian purposes, especially power generation, argues Giacomo Luciani, director of the Gulf Research Center Foundation in Geneva. According to him, the GCC and Abu Dhabi in particular make a very strong case.
Nuclear aspirations in the Arab world have long been perceived within a security context, with the US and some European countries wary that nuclear ambitions are merely a thinly-veiled excuse to obtain an atomic bomb. In the past, attempts to obtain nuclear arms were in response to Israel’s nuclear arsenal. Today, it is Iran’s attempt to generate nuclear power, and allegedly to produce nuclear weapons, along with the Islamic Republic’s bombastic rhetoric that has made it Israel’s main foe.
Israel still sees every nuclear development in the region in a security context, and has proven in the past that it does not shy away from military action to eliminate the perceived “threat.” Many people thus fear Iran may appear next on the Israeli radar.
Spurring the bandwagon
According to the Gulf Research Center’s Luciani, the Iranian push for nuclear energy may also function as a catalyst for nuclear power aspirations in the region, though it is hardly the sole and most important reason for Arab states to embrace the nuclear option.
“If they’d wish to acquire a nuclear weapon, surely easier alternatives would be open to [Middle East and North African states],” he said. “The West’s denial to allow them access to nuclear technology may have been justified as long as hydrocarbons were abundant and cheap. But since the turn of the century, conditions have changed.”
The principle reason for countries in the MENA region, including the GCC, to develop a nuclear industry should be understood in terms of power generation for electricity and desalination. The region’s population is growing fast, and so is the annual electricity use. The UAE in the 1990s had an annual growth demand rate of 9 percent, which only slightly decreased to 8.6 percent between 2000 and 2007. Saudi Arabia and Iran face an annual growth rate of 6.1 percent and 7.1 percent, respectively.
Currently, power generation in the GCC is based almost completely on the use of crude oil and oil derivatives. Gas is predominantly used in Qatar, one of the few countries that has expressed no desire to develop the nuclear option. Dubai and Oman import gas from Qatar, yet it is unlikely that the tiny state can, or wants, to supply the entire Arab peninsula with gas. In fact, it has a ban on new gas exports until 2013.
The problem, according to Luciani, is that there is no longer an excess of oil in places like Abu Dhabi and Saudi Arabia. This excess had been used in power generation, with most GCC countries introducing economic diversification schemes and investing in refineries to turn crude into light oil.
“As the amount of excess oil decreased, and prices increased, it [made] it more profitable to export oil than to use it for power generation,” Luciani said. “It may seem paradoxical but the GCC countries are facing an energy crunch, related mainly to power generation.”
According to him, nuclear energy should be part of a wider energy package, which includes energy conservation and renewable energy. Yet, unless a nuclear component is added, Luciani said the consequences are “less oil and gas [and] more CO2 emissions for the world.”
In addition, he argues, most GCC countries, and especially the UAE, have the financial wherewithal and generally operate within the global, integrated economy, which means they allow for foreign partnerships, partly rely on foreign staff and respect international treaties. Finally — unlike Saudi Arabia for example — the UAE is also much less likely to be associated with terrorism.
Global uranium production, by country, in 2006
All arrows point to Abu Dhabi
Luciani believes the situation is altogether different for countries in the Levant and North Africa, as they generally do not possess the same gas-oil reserves, and have a different energy consumption pattern in terms of power generation. “They have the consumption pattern of developing countries, meaning much lower energy consumption per unit of value added,” he said.
Also, power generation in the Levant and North Africa is largely dependent on gas and, with the arguable exception of Libya, most countries lack the financial means to build a nuclear infrastructure. Gas-fired plants remain easier and cheaper to build.
“I think Egypt and Algeria are less willing to cooperate within the global system, while Jordan has a good electricity network, but lacks the finances and it will not be easy to find willing investors,” Luciani said. “I think Abu Dhabi simply presents the clearest case. It is characterized by a high consumption pattern, a rapid increase in demand, it has the finances, is willing to cooperate and, let’s not forget, [it has a] a non-seismic physical environment and plenty of empty space.”
Global use of nuclear power
- The nuclear era: renaissance or relapse?
The advocates of nuclear energy like to speak of a “nuclear renaissance.” First introduced by the advertising firm Hill & Knowlton in a 2006 awareness campaign for the US Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), the term cleverly triggers images of the return to a once glorious era, which has gained traction in the media. In response, opponents of nuclear energy have since introduced the term “nuclear relapse.”
While almost absent in the MENA region, the public debate on nuclear energy in the West has always been a heated one. Following the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in the Ukraine, the struggle for public opinion seemed won once and for all by the anti-nuclear movement, yet in the last five years or so the nuclear option has returned to the public eye. The debate focuses on two main points: nuclear energy is relatively clean and cheap — or not?
The nuclear feud
Executive spoke with two advocates, one from either side of the divide: Ian Hore-Lacy, director of public communications of the World Nuclear Association (WNA) in London, a platform representing the international nuclear industry, and Peer de Rijk, director of WISE, which is an international anti-nuclear association based in Amsterdam.
“The main reason for a country to opt for nuclear energy is to provide energy security,” said Hore-Lacy. “One doesn’t need a lot of uranium to run a nuclear plant and so you are less dependent on external suppliers than is the case with fossil fuels. Take Great Britain, as that is the country where I currently reside. Britain is running out of North Sea oil. Gas will be used as a temporary replacement, yet you don’t want to see [Russian Prime Minister and former President Vladimir] Putin turn off the tap in winter, which he threatened to do.”
According to figures by the WNA, a 1,000 megawatt nuclear power plant, which produces enough electricity for a city of 800,000 inhabitants, needs to be fed 300 tons of uranium or 27 tons of nuclear fuel (or processed uranium) annually. A similar-sized coal-fired plant would require 3 million tons of coal annually.
“I would not say nuclear energy is clean,” Hore-Lacy continued. “Every industry produces waste. The nuclear industry does so too. However, it does not produce CO2, and very little waste in the mining process. It does produce nuclear waste, yet after 50 years only 0.1% remains highly toxic. The bulk of nuclear waste is low-level toxic waste. Now, this should not be underestimated, yet with a proper taxing system you can fund future waste treatment, storage and decommissioning.”
Peer De Rijk of WISE does not agree with the notion that nuclear energy is relatively clean. “Firstly, if you look at the cycle of nuclear power generation, from mining uranium to storing nuclear waste, a considerable amount of CO2 is produced. A nuclear power plant produces less CO2 than a plant burning oil or coal, but about the same as a gas-fuelled plant. Secondly, the industry produces nuclear waste that remains highly toxic for thousands of years and, so far, no one knows what to do with it.”
According to De Rijk, all countries that produce nuclear waste have so far opted for temporary storage while awaiting a permanent solution. Most countries bury it in bunkers or mines.
In addition to nuclear energy being “clean,” advocates like to point out that the nuclear option is also relatively cheap. “I would not call it cheap, but it is price competitive compared to conventionally generated electricity, except perhaps in oil and gas producing countries,” Hore-Lacy said.
“From mining uranium to storing nuclear waste, a considerable amount of co2 is produced”
Nuclear numbers
In terms of the costs of operation a 1,000 megawatt plant (about enough to power 250,000 homes) requires a staff of around 400 people, while fluctuations in the price of uranium hardly affect the price of electricity. Even if the price of uranium were to rise from $100 to $1,000 per kilogram, the consumer would only pay a few cents more for electricity, given that so little uranium is need to produce electricity.
The price of electricity per kilowatt hour is mainly determined by the cost of constructing a nuclear power plant, and the cost of nuclear storage and decommissioning. A nuclear power plant can be operated safely for a period of 40 to 60 years, after which the plant needs to be decommissioned and the site decontaminated. So far it has proven to be very difficult to produce an accurate estimate of both construction and decommissioning costs.
For example, the latest generation nuclear plants that are currently being built in France and Finland are so far much more expensive than initially budgeted.
“There have been some problems in building the third generation of nuclear power plants, yet let’s not forget that these are the first of a kind,” said Hore-Lacy. “Constructing a prototype often brings along extra unforeseen costs, yet I’m confident that the construction costs will stabilize, and decrease, once the defaults are ironed out.”
Fission fails in the free markets
Again De Rijk did not agree. “In the case of the Finnish nuclear plant, Areva offered the plant for a very cheap price. Having not sold anything for 20 years, they were desperate to sell a plant. It offered the plant for $3.5 billion, while it now costs $5.2 billion. As Areva is largely a state-owned firm, it is the French tax-payer who pays the difference. If Areva were not a state firm, it would have gone bankrupt ages ago.”
“In a truly free market that does not offer a form of direct or indirect state subsidies, a nuclear power plant is simply not economically viable,” De Rijk continued. “That’s the reason the nuclear industry is so keen on participating in the international conference on climate change in Copenhagen in December. By arguing it helps reducing CO2 emissions, it hopes to receive major subsidies. If it manages to achieve that, a major battle will be won in its favor.”
Regarding the cost of waste storage and decommissioning, Hore-Lacy referred to the tax systems currently in place in countries such as the US, Sweden and Finland, which he thinks work perfectly well. “In the US, electricity costs about 1.8 cents per kilowatt hour, 0.1 cents of which are reserved for waste storage, and 0.1 cents for decommissioning,” he said. “In countries like Sweden and Finland, it’s about 21 cents respectively. The money is collected in a fund, which in the US amounts to some $32 billion and to which every year about $1 billion is added, half of which in levies, half of which in interest.”
De Rijk questioned if these amounts will be sufficient for long term storage. He was strengthened in his opinion by a 2008 report issued by the US Energy Department, which concluded that even if no new reactors are built, getting rid of the country’s existing nuclear waste dump will cost $96.2 billion, far more than was initially budgeted, and may require a major expansion of the planned Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump in Nevada. In March, US Energy Secretary Steven Chu told a Senate hearing that “the Yucca Mountain site no longer was viewed as an option for storing reactor waste.”
According to De Rijk, it is even harder to estimate the cost of decommissioning, as so far hardly any nuclear plants have been dismantled and decontaminated. Yet one may argue that the signs have so far not been positive. In June 2009, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requested the operators of 18 nuclear power plants in the US to present detailed plans about how they aim to fund the decommissioning process. The NRC hinted that several among them may need to adjust their plans, following last year’s collapse of stock markets, which has reduced the value of decommissioning funds.
The situation seems even worse in the UK. While the British government estimated three years ago it would cost some $164 billion over a period of 100 years to decommission the country’s outdated nuclear plants, today it estimates the bill at no less than $230 billion.
With the conflicting opinions and enormous amounts of money involved, one thing is certain: The debate on nuclear energy has only just started or, to be precise, restarted.
“Following Chernobyl, we thought the battle had been won,” said De Rijk. “Yet the nuclear industry has used the years of silence well to reorganize itself and improve its image. So far, using climate change as an incentive to promote nuclear has proved a powerful communication tool.”
Known recoverable resources* of Uranium 2007
Source: OECD, NEA & IAEA
- Jordan to exploit uranium reserves
The other country in the region likely to acquire nuclear power in the near future is Jordan. In August 2007, the Hashimite kingdom first announced its intention to develop a nuclear power plant in order to decrease its dependence on fossil fuels. The plan was unveiled by then Minister of Higher Education Khalid Touqan, a nuclear engineer who currently presides over the Jordan Atomic Energy Council (JAEC). Jordan aims to generate 30 percent of its total energy needs with nuclear power by 2030. While Jordan is hardly the richest member of the MENA region, it possesses one important asset over most other countries: up to 140,000 tons of uranium that could provide the Jordanian treasury with some $1.5 billion annually. In addition, part of Jordan’s enormous phosphate resources can be used to obtain uranium.
“We have signed an agreement with Areva, which has started exploration and a feasibility study,” said the JAEC’s International Cooperation Commissioner Kamal al- Araj. “Mining is expected to begin in 2012.”
The agreement includes two important conditions: Areva will provide Jordan with nuclear fuel services in the future and give Jordan priority treatment, as soon as the country decides to construct a nuclear plant. Jordan has also signed a nuclear cooperation agreement with France and other countries, and joined the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), a US initiative to expand nuclear energy use worldwide while reducing the threat of nuclear weapons proliferation. In September the JAEC signed a $12 million agreement with Belgian firm Tractebel Engineering to assess the projected site of the country’s first nuclear power plant in Aqaba. The company will carry out a two-year survey to assess geological stability, geophysics, soil characteristics and risk management at a site some 12 kilometers inland from Jordan’s Red Sea coast.
Why Aqaba?
There are several reasons for building a plant near Jordan’s southernmost city. First of all, a nuclear plant needs millions of gallons of cooling water. Secondly, Aqaba and the surrounding area consist of solid rock and, thirdly, the plant could help the much talked about “Red Dead Canal” project become a reality, as a great deal of energy is needed to pump Red Sea water over the mountains to reach the shrinking Dead Sea.
“The plant will be constructed inland at some 12 kilometers from the shore, while the seawater used for cooling purposes will not be returned to the sea,” Araj said, countering possible environmental concerns. To understand Jordan’s nuclear ambitions one should know that the country currently imports more than 95 percent of its energy needs. In the past, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq supplied the kingdom with oil for a discount price. After the American-led invasion of Iraq that policy came to an end and today Jordan receives its oil with a smaller discount from Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, Egypt supplies Jordan with gas to produce some 2,200 megawatts of electricity annually.
“We need a stable power source to produce electricity and desalinize an increasing amount of water,” Araj explained. “In principle, we are looking at a 1,000 megawatt or 1,200 megawatt nuclear power plant, as 1,600 megawatt is just too big for out network. On the other hand, we are interested in regional cooperation, so any potential surplus could be supplied to neighboring countries.” Araj dismisses concerns about the immense cost of constructing a nuclear power plant, and the cost of nuclear waste treatment and storage.
“No one exactly knows the cost of building a nuclear power plant yet,” he said. “But even if it costs some $7 billion [the current price of the latest nuclear power plant Areva is building in Finland], we should be able to produce electricity for some seven or eight cents per kilowatt hour.” Regarding the issue of nuclear waste, and well aware of the politically charged nature of this subject, Araj said: “In principle most waste will go back to the supplier country, be it France, Russia or any other country. We may have to pay for that, but we prefer that option.” Finally, Araj pointed to the importance of the 2010 Copenhagen conference on climate change in December, which could see the nuclear industry awarded with significant subsidies.
“Nuclear energy is an alternative to burning fossil fuel and should be considered as a renewable energy in the fight against global warming,” said Araj. “Of course, in the long run nuclear fusion is the only real solution, but that may take another 50 years or so.”
Nuclear incidents
The world’s worst nuclear accidents are the 1979 Three Mile Island incident and the 1986 Chernobyl disaster. Just 12 days after the release of the Hollywood film, The China Syndrome, in which a journalist discovers a fictional nuclear meltdown, the real life Three Mile Island meltdown in Pennsylvania shocked the American nuclear industry and the world. The incident produced a cloud of radioactive gasses over America’s densely populated East Coast.
Seven years later, the Chernobyl disaster in the Ukraine occurred. Following a massive power failure, one nuclear reactor broke down, releasing a radioactive cloud that reached the UK and Sweden. It is regarded as the worst nuclear accident in history, which led most European governments to install a freeze on the construction of new nuclear plants. Former Soviet and Western scientists estimated some 60 percent of the contamination was received by former Soviet republics.
It is not known how many people died due to the disaster. A conservative report by the IAEA and World Health Organization in 2005 concluded that 56 people had died directly because of the accident, and some 4,000 people among the some 600,000 directly exposed died of cancer related illnesses.
