THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD

AND
READING IN THE PHILIPPINE HISTORY

Debate Topic: "Should we allow Nuclear Energy in the Philippines?"

Side: Affirmative

BA/BSA 201

DE CHAVEZ, RANDOLF

LEDESMA, SAMANTHA

ZABALA, DESIREE

May 2023
INTRODUCTION

Energy security remains a major concern among many developing countries. The
International Energy Agency (IEA) defines energy security as “the uninterrupted
availability of energy sources at an affordable price”. Energy security has many aspects:
long-term energy security mainly deals with timely investments to supply energy in line
with economic developments and environmental needs. On the other hand, short-term
energy security focuses on the ability of the energy system to react promptly to sudden
changes in the supply demand balance. According to statistics, the Philippines rank
highest among in southeast asia in terms of highest electricity rate. According to the
DOE, it is estimated that we are going to need an additional 10,100 megawatts in order
to support the needs of Filipinos until 2030. Looking at the bigger picture, currently there
are more than 30 countries that are depending on nuclear power plants. One of these
countries is the US with 100 nuclear power plants which are operating and fully
functional. Another country is India. We all know that India is economically struggling.
By this fact we can conclude that the stake of the Philippines in having a nuclear power
plant is high.

Nuclear energy is produced when an atom's nucleus is split into smaller nuclei by
the process called fission. The fission of large atoms, such as Uranium 235 and
Plutonium 239, produces a great deal of energy. In fact, the fission of 1 gram of
Uranium 235 produces the same amount of energy as the combustion, or burning, of 3
tons of coal (1)! The energy produced by the fission of uranium or plutonium can be
harnessed to produce electricity. Unlike a traditional coal-burning power plant, a nuclear
power plant uses the energy, or heat, produced by the fission of Uranium, rather than
the burning of coal, to heat water into the steam required to turn the turbines that power
electric generators. The advantage of using Uranium over coal energy is that, unlike for
coal, Uranium fission does not produce soot and potentially harmful gasses such as
Carbon Dioxide.
Other information

Interpreted broadly, energy security is a key component of sustainable economic

development. A major implication is that the environmental impact of energy plans and
policies has to be taken into account. Energy security, therefore, is aligned with the goal
for the world to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. Net zero means that, on
balance, no more carbon is deposited into the atmosphere than is taken out. In order to
help JESAM Towards a Balanced Assessment of the Viability of Nuclear Energy in the
Philippines achieve this goal, economies of Southeast Asia (SEA) have collectively set
a target share of 23% for renewables of the region’s primary energy consumption by
2025, a major increase from only 9.4% in 2014 (Peimani and Taghizadeh-Hesary 2019).
In the Philippines, the goal expressed in the latest Philippine Energy Plan is to increase
installed renewable energy (RE) capacity to at least 20,000 MW by 2040 (DOE 2020).
As of 2019, RE facilities are providing 7,339 MW capacity.

The Philippines has clearly committed to increase the share of RE in its energy
mix. However, the share of RE in electricity generation has remained stagnant over the
past three decades. In 1990, the share of RE was 45.4% (Verzola et al. 2018), and this
fell steadily in the succeeding years, reaching 26% in 2010 and 21% in 2019. ). Relying
on RE for low-carbon energy in the Philippines either faces major policy constraints (La
Viña et al. 2018) or does not seem to be a viable strategy in the long run (Yap and
Lagac 2020). This study looks 18 into the feasibility of nuclear power as an alternative
source of low-carbon energy in the Philippines. Given the controversy in the past, the
issue of nuclear energy must be approached with a clean slate for there to be a
satisfactory resolution to this matter.

Executive Order (EO) 116, directing a study on the possible design of a national
nuclear program, was signed by President Rodrigo R. Duterte on July 24, 2020. The
Nuclear Energy Program Inter-Agency Committee (NEP-IAC) was subsequently formed
with the Secretary of the Department of Energy (DOE) as chairperson. These actions
complement the earlier establishment of the Philippine Nuclear Energy Program
Implementing Organization (NEPIO) on 24 October 2016. The creation of the NEPIO
was one of the major recommendations during a conference on the Prospects of
Nuclear Power in the Asia Pacific region hosted by the Philippines in August 2016 under
the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

From an historical perspective, both the NEPIO and NEP-IAC appear to be yet
another contentious issue raised by the current administration. After all, nuclear energy
in the Philippines is associated with the controversial Bataan Nuclear Power Plant
(BNPP), considered by some as the epitome of a white elephant (Mendoza et al. 2018).

Nevertheless, nuclear power continues to contribute significantly to electricity

generation in the world, accounting for 10% of global electricity supply in 2020, which is
almost a third of all low-carbon energy (Was and Allen 2020; World Nuclear Association
2021a). As of Nuclear Energy in the Philippines October 2021, 441 nuclear power
reactors are in operation in 30 countries, with a combined capacity of 392.1 GW (IAEA
2020; Statista 2021). Nuclear power contributes a larger share in advanced economies,
accounting for 18% of total generation. However, Germany notably passed legislation to
decommission all of the country’s nuclear reactors by 2022. This decision was strongly
influenced by the 2011 accident in Fukushima, Japan, which conjured memories of the
danger posed by the radioactive cloud that swept over Germany following the
Chernobyl disaster in 1986.

Despite these prominent disasters, including the Three Mile Island accident in
1979, nuclear power generation remains generally safe and reliable (Rosen and Dincer
2007; Wheatley et al. 2016). The experience with nuclear power over six decades
shows that it is a secure means of generating electricity. The probability of accidents in
nuclear power plants is low and declining. The risks of an accident or terrorist attack on
a nuclear plant are generally negligible when compared with other universally accepted
hazards. Radiological effects on people of any radioactive releases can be avoided.

The nuclear issue in the Philippines has two dimensions. First, the historical and
political aspects are assessed by reviewing the controversy surrounding the BNPP. The
decision to shut down the BNPP even before it produced a single watt of commercially
accessible electricity may have been fundamentally political in nature and this
contributed largely to the negative reputation of nuclear energy in the country. Second,
the scientific, technical, and economic merits of nuclear energy are analyzed. This
aspect becomes even more important in an era where variable renewable energy (VRE)
has become mainstream.

A September 1, 1986 article in Fortune magazine titled “The $2.2 Billion Nuclear
Fiasco” (Dumaine 1986) details the evolution of the BNPP. Rent-seeking was manifest
in the process. Initial discussions were between the Marcos government and General
Electric and were characterized as professional. However, Westinghouse was able to
get an inside track in the project and many sources claimed it was because President
Marcos himself received bribes. Eventually, the cost ballooned from an initial price of
US$ 650 M for two 620-MW reactors to US$ 2.2 B for a single reactor.

The Aquino administration doubled down on its decision to mothball the BNPP by
filing a lawsuit against Westinghouse in 1988 in the United States District Court of New
Jersey (Republic of the Philippines and National Power Corp. v. Westinghouse Electric
Corp. 1991). In the same year, Westinghouse filed an arbitration case with the
International Chamber of Commerce, which was docketed as Case No. 6401/BGD and
fully documented and analyzed by Martin (2004). In its lawsuit, the Philippine
government alleged that Westinghouse bribed President Marcos and the BNPP was
overpriced.

In May 1993, the case was finally resolved when Westinghouse was acquitted by
a US jury of bribing President Marcos to win the BNPP contract. The other legal case
was settled in 1995. As part of the settlement, the Philippines received two units of
501-F Gas Turbines, 100 MW each, and US$ 40.3 M in cash. In exchange, the
Philippine government agreed to drop all claims against Westinghouse and assume all
remaining financial obligations related to the BNPP. It is quite interesting to note that
when the Ramos administration took over the negotiation for a possible settlement in
August 1992, the parameters included the possibility of reviving the BNPP.
Administrative Order 4 listed the following areas for negotiation (Administrative Order 4
1992):

A. Westinghouse shall make certain payments and provide certain

discounts and credits to the Government in amounts at least equal to
those stipulated in the Conditional Settlement Agreement of March 4,
1992;

B. Westinghouse will repair and upgrade the BNPP to bring up the plant
to current standards of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and at
the same time establish the operations organization and provide for
training and certification of plant operators;

C. Westinghouse will operate and maintain the BNPP for a period not
exceeding thirty years; during which period, Westinghouse shall train
Filipinos to take over BNPP operation, management, and engineering.”

Unbeknownst to many Filipinos, the BNPP was ready for operation at the time it
was mothballed by the Aquino Government. The president of the National Power
Corporation (NPC) from May 1986 to November 1987 underscores this fact (Del
Rosario 1996)

“One of my first official actions was to appear in a Cabinet meeting where the
nuclear plant was an item on the agenda. It had been one of the main political issues in
the presidential snap elections of February 1986, and everyone was clear on where
President Aquino stood on the matter. Before she appointed me, somebody close to the
new administration asked if I would insist on operating the nuclear plant in case I
became NPC president. In view of my involvement in the plant’s inception, planning
construction, supply negotiations, and financing, I was confident it was built according to
the best engineering and nuclear standards in the world, and it should be operated. I
came prepared with technical and financing data on the nuclear plant which, I thought,
would give Cabinet members a more balanced perspective on the issue. The most
important information of all was the fact that the plant was almost ready to operate
anytime once the government gave its go signal…

“They had apparently made up their minds about not operating the plant. It was
useless and untimely for me to bat for its operation. I thought it was regrettable that the
nuclear plant was not being judged for its technical merit. It seems to represent all the
abuses that Marcos and his cronies stood for, and the decision not to operate it was
fallout of anti-Marcos sentiments. No technical argument could overturn that kind of
bias.”

This story was corroborated by Mr. Corpuz (Pers. Comm. August 6, 2020), who made
the following assertions:

● The Philippine government was prepared to operate the BNPP after having
undergone a series of systems tests;
● These consisted of Cold Functional tests and Hot Functional tests at which the
power plant was synchronized to the Luzon Grid for less than a minute using
pump heat;
● Fuel loading was the next step to complete the tests but the licensing
proceedings with the Philippine Atomic Energy Commission, which was the
regulator at that time, were discontinued when BNPP was mothballed;
● At that time NPC already had licensed nuclear power plant operators and all
other disciplines had the requisite local and foreign trainings;
● The Fortune magazine article is not accurate. First, it should be clarified that the
US$ 2.2 billion cost included interest charges that accrued even if construction
was delayed for 18 months following the Three Mile Island accident in 1979.
Meanwhile, design improvements that stemmed from this incident were
incorporated in the BNPP and this cost an additional US$ 700 million.
● Second, the alleged defects were “punch list” items which NPC identified and
were subject to compliance by Westinghouse. Said punch list items were not a
 detriment to operating the plant but could have been addressed during the
warranty period; and
● The IAEA conducted two Operational Safety and Review inspections and did not
report findings that the plant was not safe.

The current administration of the National Power Corporation made a

presentation to the NEP-IAC in which it traced the history of the BNPP. The following
timeline was presented (National Power Corporation 2020):

● June, 1984: Uranium fuel delivered

● July, 1984: IAEA Operational Safety Review Team (OSART) I review:
construction appraisal review
● February, 1985: IAEA OSART II review: operational readiness review
● June, 1985: Public hearings began for plant licensing

“In May 1984, the plant was fully completed and the hot functional tests of all systems
were satisfactorily conducted. The 1985 International Atomic Energy Agency
Operational Safety Review Team (IAEA OSART) performed evaluation of the
operational readiness of the plant and it reported that the plant could perform the core
loading.”

ARGUMENT 1: NUCLEAR ENERGY IS SAFE

All of the major studies have come to the same conclusion: industrial-scale
electricity production using nuclear power is extremely safe. Per kWh of energy
produced, nuclear has the lowest direct fatality rate of any major energy source.
According to a World Health Organization (WHO) research, coal has the highest
documented death rate (170,00 fatalities), followed by oil, gas, solar, and wind, and
nuclear energy has the lowest reported death rate (90 fatalities).

Loss of Life in Nuclear Accidents

 With the caveat that no loss of human life should be considered acceptable, the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) states that 31 people died in the three
months following the Chernobyl accident. Two of these deaths were due to the initial
explosion, while the remaining 29 were first responders who succumbed to acute
radiation sickness (ARS).
As for the Fukushima accident—while the flood and earthquake claimed 20,000
lives, only one person is officially recognized to have died because of radiation
exposure. That said, an additional 573 indirect deaths are attributed to the disaster,
mostly due to evacuation stress.
And what about the deaths at Three Mile Island? Zero.
Since 1951, 667 nuclear power plants have been built across the world. Today,
440 nuclear power plants are operating across 32 countries, and account for more than
10 percent of total electricity produced.
To put these numbers into perspective, in 70 years and with a total of 667 nuclear power
plants that have ever operated, only three major accidents have taken place. Using the
official internationally-recognized death statistics for Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and
Fukushima, the combined loss of lives from the three major nuclear accidents is 32
people. In fact, estimates on the number of deaths caused by the nuclear energy sector
overall is 90 per 1000TWh —the least of any energy sector!

Nuclear Waste Disposal

Philippine Nuclear research institute had been searching and studying and how
to manage the nuclear waste:
1. They are planning to dig on an isolated island with the container of nuclear waste
covered by bentonite clay which can hold any radioactive material.
2. They are considering a dry casks storage system. In some designs, casks are set
vertically on a concrete pad or below grade within a concrete pad; in others, they are
placed horizontally. Dry cask storage is safe for people and the environment. Cask
systems are designed to contain radiation, manage heat and prevent nuclear fission.
The dry cask are stored on open concrete pads within a protected area of the plant site.
This protected area may be contiguous with the protected area of the plant itself or may
be located some distance away in its own protected area.

BATAAN NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

Professor Carlo A. Arcilla, Director of the PNRI, recently conducted similar site
studies. He is a co-author of the study titled “Is there a fault beneath the Bataan Nuclear
Power Plant? A systematic study using electrical resistivity, seismic refraction and radon
gas detection” (Arcilla et al. 2017). Based on the results of the various geological tests,
he and his team concluded that there are no active faults that lie beneath the BNPP.
Both Professor Lagmay and Professor Arcilla even acknowledge that the active fault
map of the Philippines prepared by PHIVOLCS does not list an active fault in the
immediate vicinity of the BNPP.

Its location near active faults was addressed by a structural design intended to
withstand a 7.9 magnitude earthquake. Arcilla (Pers. Comm. July 30, 2020) emphasized
that the earthquake risk of BNPP was rated at 0.4 g, while that of the Fukushima
nuclear plant was 0.14 g, i.e. BNPP’s structure is 2.8 times stronger. The Fukushima
plant withstood the magnitude 9.0 -- 9.1 undersea megathrust earthquake that struck on
March 11, 2011.

Clearly, the decision not to operate the BNPP was dominated by the following
considerations:

● It was tainted by corruption, which is supported by the sharp increase in the

construction cost;
● It was located near a volcano and earthquake faults (but not on one);
● The Chernobyl disaster on April 26, 1986 shook confidence in nuclear energy;
and
● It was a campaign promise of President Aquino during the February 1986 snap
election
 As lamented by Del Rosario (1996), “it is regrettable that the nuclear plant was
not being judged for its technical merit.” A crucial decision was not a product of rigorous
scientific and technical analysis and debate.

The expensive lesson from the 1986 experience is that the current effort under
EO 116 should be supported by science.

The first is the revival of the BNPP. In 2009, Korea Electric Power conducted a
feasibility study on the possible revival of the BNPP. The estimated cost at that time to
make the BNPP operable was US 1 B. This is much lower than the option of building a
new nuclear reactor. In May 2018, it was reported that Rosatom (the Russian state
nuclear enterprise) revealed that its analysis of the BNPP showed that it was, in fact,
not only possible but safe to refurbish and restart the plant. The assessment was
conducted in August 2017. However, in April 2018, Russian Ambassador Igor Khovaev
was reported as saying he believes the BNPP is beyond revival (Cabato 2018). The
Philippine government can engage the services of expert consultants to make an
objective and unequivocal recommendation on this matter.

ARGUMENT 2: ENERGY IS THE CLEANEST SOURCE OF ENERGY

Nuclear power is a proven technology available today that can contribute

significantly to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental burdens
from the energy sector and to meeting environmental protection objectives.

The advantage of using Uranium over coal energy is that, unlike for coal,
Uranium fission does not produce soot and potentially harmful gasses such as Carbon
Dioxide.
 Nuclear energy has potential to help us in the climate change crisis, but we need
to alter the way it is produced so that we reap the benefits rather than create more
environmental problems in the process.

Nuclear is a zero-emission clean energy source.

It generates power through fission, which is the process of splitting uranium

atoms to produce energy. The heat released by fission is used to create steam that
spins a turbine to generate electricity without the harmful byproducts emitted by fossil
fuels.

According to the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), the United States avoided more
than 471 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions in 2020. That’s the
equivalent of removing 100 million cars from the road and more than all other clean
energy sources combined.

It also keeps the air clean by removing thousands of tons of harmful air pollutants
each year that contribute to acid rain, smog, lung cancer and cardiovascular disease.

Nuclear fuel is extremely dense.

It’s about 1 million times greater than that of other traditional energy sources and
because of this, the amount of used nuclear fuel is not as big as you might think. All of
the used nuclear fuel produced by the U.S. nuclear energy industry over the last 60
years could fit on a football field at a depth of less than 10 yards!

That waste can also be reprocessed and recycled, although the United States
does not currently do this. However, some advanced reactor designs being developed
could operate on used fuel. The NICE Future Initiative is a global effort under the
Clean Energy Ministerial that makes sure nuclear will be considered in developing the
advanced clean energy systems of the future.
ARGUMENT 3: NUCLEAR ENERGY IS LOW OPERATING COST

The years ahead will see increasing demand for energy, and in particular the
need for additional electricity generation capacity.

Constructing a nuclear power plant is very costly resulting in nuclear energy

having the highest levelized cost of electricity (LCOE). However, after this large initial
outlay, nuclear energy becomes relatively cost-effective in terms of operation and
maintenance. Producing electricity from nuclear energy is considerably less costly
compared with producing it from gas, coal, or oil. Nuclear energy also has the benefit of
greater stability in terms of fluctuation in cost- unlike traditional fossil fuels that
experience greater price volatility.

We only need to fuel the power plant once every 18 months and only 20 tons of
fuel is needed. If we continue to use coal plants that we are using today, we need 2.50m
tons of coal in order to fuel the coal plant and it is also equivalent to 18 months. In
order to deliver the fuel of the coal power plant we need 50 big ships and also its high
cost, while in the nuclear power plants we only need 1 ship to deliver the uranium.

Nuclear fuel is also steadily improving in terms of efficiency and cost reduction. In
Spain, for example, the nuclear electricity cost was reduced by nearly 30% between
1995 and 2001 by boosting enrichment levels and burn-up rates. Furthermore, uranium
has the advantage of being a highly concentrated source of energy which can be
transported much easier than other non-renewable resources. The amount of nuclear
fuel needed to produce electricity is exponentially less than for fossil fuels – one
kilogram of natural uranium will yield about 20,000 times as much energy as the same
amount of coal.

Uranium is abundant and widely available, and other elements that will be useful
in future nuclear application are even more so.

In recent years, many nuclear power experts have called for small modular
reactors that do not require the same level of active safety systems and strict
regulations as previous generations of reactors, given their more simplified designs and
passive safety measures. These simplified reactors are also expected to have lower
operating and maintenance costs. Due to the higher surface-to-volume ratio for these
reactors compared with traditional reactors, many safety provisions for heat removal are
unnecessary. (Another branch of nuclear power development is aimed at obtaining
safer nuclear fuel, dubbed Accident Tolerant Fuel.)

Other Arguments

Dependable Source of Energy.

Certain energy sources, like solar and wind power, are dependent upon weather
conditions, However, nuclear energy does not have to deal with this constraint. Nuclear
power plants are,therefore, essentially impervious to external climatic factors resulting in
reliable energy output. The result is higher capacity factor (Table 3). The figures imply
that nuclear power plants are generating peak power more than 93% of the time during
the year, which is higher than all other sources.
Stable Base Load Energy.

This is related to the feature of dispatchability: output can be transmitted to the

system as and when required. For example, under ideal conditions wind turbines
generate significant amounts of power. Therefore, when the wind is blowing, nuclear
plants can adjust their output downward. Conversely,when the wind is not blowing or the
sun is not shining,nuclear energy can be adjusted to compensate for the drop in
generated power from VRE.

Adequate Fuel Availability.

Both fossil fuels and the uranium used to operate nuclear power plants have
finite supply. However, fossil fuels have much lower lifespan than uranium, whose
reserves are estimated to last another 80 years. Switching to nuclear energy might
provide the Philippines the added time it needs to develop more reliable and cleaner
renewable energy resources.

Meanwhile, some countries like Russia, India, andChina are already making progress
toward using the more abundant and environment-friendly thorium as fuel for nuclear
reactors. Another area of interest is turning nuclear fusion into a reality. In order to
classify nuclear energy as sustainable, the use of breeder reactors and nuclear fusion is
required.
High Energy Density.

Compared with fossil fuels,nuclear fission is approximately 8,000 times more efficient at
generating energy. This results in a substantial amount of energy density. Greater
efficiency leads to less waste and makes existing fuel resources available for a larger
segment of the population.

OTHER INFORMATION

Thorium boasts several advantages over the conventional nuclear fuel,

uranium-235. Thorium can generate more fissile material (uranium-233) than it
consumes while fuelling a water-cooled or molten-salt reactor. According to estimates,
the Earth's upper crust contains an average of 10.5 parts per million (ppm) of thorium,
compared with about 3 ppm of uranium.

“Because of its abundance and its fissile material breeding capability, thorium could
potentially offer a long-term solution to humanity’s energy needs,” Agarwal said.

Another advantage is that thorium-fuelled reactors could be much more environmentally

friendly than their uranium counterparts. In addition to the fact that these reactors —
and nuclear power in general — do not emit greenhouse gases in operation, they also
produce less long-lived nuclear waste than present-day uranium-fuelled reactors.

Thorium is a silvery, slightly radioactive metal commonly found in igneous rocks

and heavy mineral sands. It was named after Thor, the god of thunder in Norse
mythology. It is three to four times more abundant in nature than uranium but historically
has found little use in industry or power generation. This is partly because thorium in
itself is not a nuclear fuel, but it can be used to create one. Thorium-232, the only
naturally occurring isotope of thorium, is a fissionable material but not a fissile one,
meaning that it needs high-energy neutrons to undergo fission — the splitting of atomic
nuclei which releases energy that is used for electricity generation. However, when
irradiated, thorium-232 undergoes a series of nuclear reactions, eventually forming
uranium-233, a fissile material that can be burned up as fuel in nuclear reactors.

CONCLUSION

Based on the arguments we said a while ago my teammates and I firmly believe
that we should allow nuclear energy in the Philippines. Based on the information we
provided, we can ensure that nuclear power is safe, clean, and low operating cost. We
need to reserve for our future, we need to embrace the change that needs to happen in
the Philippines. We must adapt to what the first world countries have achieved using the
most efficient ideas or innovation particularly in nuclear power plants rather than living
under the shade of negative stereotypes.

REFERENCES

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS: PHILIPPINE LAWS, STATUTES and CODES: CHAN

ROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY

The Bataan Nuclear Power Plant in the Philippines: A Nuclear Plant, and a Dream,
Fizzles (linkedin.com)

Is there a fault beneath the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant? - YouTube

https://www.iea.org/reports/nuclear-power-in-a-clean-energy-system

https://www.thirdway.org/blog/nuclear-renewables-the-ultimate-powercouple-we-think-so

https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energyand-levelized-cost-of-storag
e-2020

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2021.08.032

https://cite.case.law/frd/139/50/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/267158/number-of-nuclear-reactors-in-operation-by-c
ountry/

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-mostreliable-energy-source-and-its-no
t-evenclose

https://ansn.iaea.org/Common/Topics/OpenTopic.aspx?ID=12585

https://verafiles.org/articles/vera-files-fact-sheet-sleeping-power-giantbataan-nuclear-po

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/currentand-future-generation/nuclear-power-
intheworldtoday.aspx

https://www.world-nuclear.org/informationlibrary/energy-antheenvironment/carbondioxid
eemissions-from-electricity.aspx

https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/thoriums-long-term-potential-in-nuclear-energy-n
ew-iaea-analysis