IHS Global Insight Perspective | |
Significance | Three countries in Latin America (Argentina, Brazil and Mexico) currently operate nuclear power plants, and although there are no plans to suspend or postpone new investments in nuclear power generation in these countries, safety procedures are likely to be reviewed in line with the broader reaction from the nuclear industry to events in Japan. |
Implications | The Japanese crisis will nevertheless lead to a re-energised public debate about the role of nuclear power in meeting the continent’s growing energy needs. Opposition to future nuclear projects is likely to be strongest in Chile, a country prone to severe earthquakes, and in Mexico, where environmental campaigners have long been concerned about safety at the Laguna Verde plant. |
Outlook | Current and planned projects are unlikely to be affected in the long term by the consequences of the Japanese crisis, with rising regional energy needs and obstacles to the construction of large hydroelectric power plants being the key drivers behind diversification of energy sources. |
Argentina, Brazil and Mexico currently operate nuclear power plants (NPPs) which are old and have been operating for decades. In Argentina, the Embalse 650-MW CANDU 6 type reactor began producing electricity in 1983. Atucha-1, a 370-MW pressurised heavy water reactor (PHWR), located in the Buenos Aires province, began operations in 1974. Atucha-2 is still under construction and due to go online by end-2011. It is a 700-MWe heavy water reactor. The construction of a fourth reactor will probably also take place at Atucha. Insiders predict that it will be a pressurised water reactor (PWR). Additional investment is also planned in a project to revamp the Embalse plant in order to extend its useful life by a further 25 years.
In Brazil, two power plants operate in Angra dos Reis, south of Rio de Janeiro. Angra-1, a 657-MW PWR, began operating in 1985. The larger Angra-2, 1,350-MW PWR began operating in 2000. Another 1350-MW reactor, Angra-3, is under construction and due to be completed around 2015. The government hopes to build at least four more reactors and has already begun site evaluations for them. In addition, Brazil has an active uranium enrichment programme and a naval nuclear project that includes developing and testing a nuclear reactor that will power a submarine one day.
Mexico operates a 1,365-MW NPP comprising two boiling water reactors (BWR) at Veracruz in the Gulf of Mexico. Although it has not commissioned plans for new plants, Mexico appears interested in expanding its use of nuclear energy to meet its energy security needs. Speaking at an event in the Senate in May 2010, the then-energy secretary suggested that nuclear capacity be expanded to help meet a target of clean energy accounting for 35% of total installed generation capacity by 2024.
Prior to the Japanese earthquake, Venezuela had also announced its intention to build a NPP, while Chile too was considering the possibility. In October 2010, Venezuela signed contracts with Russia to build and operate two 1200-MW nuclear power reactors and a research reactor. However, on 15 March Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez announced that Venezuela would suspend its civil nuclear power plans in the light of Japan's post-earthquake nuclear crisis. Although Chile does not have specific plans, feasibility studies are under way and the government has projected that a NPP could be operational by 2024. Chile has also signed an agreement with France to transfer technology and train Chilean personnel and agreed a nuclear accord with the United States.
Other countries in Latin America, such as Columbia, Ecuador, Peru and Uruguay have expressed their interest in nuclear energy to varying degrees, but so far they have not announced plans to pursue nuclear programmes.
Stalled But Not Suspended
Japan's recent nuclear catastrophe has shaken but not stalled most Latin American plans for nuclear development. Argentine economy minister, Amado Boudou asserted on 15 March that his country would learn from the events occurring in Japan and apply what it learns to the Argentine nuclear programme. Others are speaking out against nuclear energy, however. Raúl Montenegro, president of biology at the Federation for the Defence of the Environment (FUNAM), stated that "as a society, we are totally unprepared". Unlike Japan, there are no set plans in Argentina for dealing with a nuclear emergency.
Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff appears resilient. Gilberto Carvalho from the General Secretariat of the Presidency, said on 18 March that the president was concerned about the Fukushima catastrophe and was discussing the effects that it may have on Brazil's nuclear policy, but no major policy shift should be expected. Brazilian minister of mines and energy, Edison Lobão asserted that Brazil's nuclear industry was prepared for disasters and that the nuclear meltdown in Japan would not affect its energy plans. Significantly, Brazil is not as prone to earthquakes or seaquakes as Japan: according to some researchers, the nuclear reactors in Brazil are at risk from damaging seismic activity about once every 50,000 years. Leonam Guimarães, spokesman for the president of Eletronuclear, Brazil's nuclear agency, stated that the Angra dos Reis plant in Rio de Janeiro could withstand at least a 7.0-magnitude earthquake.
Yet, as the nuclear crisis in Japan escalated, caution in Brazil rose as well. Lobão asserted that with these new developments the Brazilian government would conduct further security assessments of its nuclear plants. On 15 March, Green Party member Alfredo Sirkis spoke out before Brazil's National Congress against the continued construction of the Angra III NPP, stating he was outraged by the lack of expert technical verification and statements made by Lobão, who was dismissing the possibility of a natural catastrophe damaging the Angra site. José Goldemberg, physicist and former president of Companhia Energetica de São Paulo (Cesp), said he was angered by official government statements that seemed to promise the indestructibility of the nuclear plants in Brazil, calling such assertions "a leap of faith".
Question Marks
Unlike Brazil, Chile is highly prone to earthquakes. It suffered an 8.8-magnitude earthquake in February 2010 that caused tsunami waves and affected nearby islands. It is also the site of the most powerful earthquake ever recorded; in the spring of 1960, a 9.5-magnitude earthquake took place near the city of Concepción that led to a number of deadly tsunamis, killing people as far away as Hawaii and Japan. As a result, the recent nuclear crisis has further stimulated Chile's nuclear energy debate. The country has been searching for alternative energy options, including nuclear energy, given that it is a net importer of fuels. Though most members of the Chilean government seem to be in favour of nuclear energy, the general public is largely not, and the Fukushima incident may tip the scale against proponents. In a message in response to the crisis, posted on social networking site Twitter, Senator Carolina Toha cautioned that "those who are so enthusiastic about nuclear energy for Chile should think again". Sebastián Piñera's administration previously indicated that it wants to continue studying the nuclear option, but that a final decision was unlikely to be made during the life of the current government—this means that a resolution of the nuclear question can be put off until a time when events in Japan are not so high in the public consciousness.
In Mexico, another country located in a quake zone, the director-general of the Federal Electricity Commission (CFE) set a timeline by the end of the first half of the year to decide whether or not the country should build a nuclear energy plant. With Japan clearly in mind, Carlos Peterson y Vom Bauer, the under-secretary of energy planning and technological development of the Energy Secretariat, stated that its effects have been to "put us in a position to understand that wherever you put a plant you need to have done studies to confirm that the probability of earthquakes occurring are minimal, that the subsoil is firm, and so on". Safety checks were conducted at the Laguna Verde plant in response to events in Japan with the Energy Secretariat releasing a statement providing assurances that the facility followed the strictest international safety standards. Nonetheless this is unlikely to be enough for environmental and anti-nuclear campaigners who have in recent days reiterated their concerns about safety at Laguna Verde, while Mexican academics have expressed concerns that the type of reactor used in Mexico is the same as in Japan.
Meanwhile, since 2006, Venezuela has been inching with little progress towards a nuclear option. Most believe this has been a political and rhetorical move, and a snub towards the US and other Western countries. Events in Japan may, however, have shaken the country's interest. On 15 March, Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez stated that the agreement with Russia to help build a reactor was "something extremely risky and dangerous for the whole world". He then froze Venezuela's nuclear programme, such as it was, for the near term.
Outlook and Implications
The Japanese crisis means that safety features in planned new nuclear projects will fall under even greater scrutiny than before, although there is currently no indication that programmes in the three established nuclear users—Argentina, Brazil and Mexico—will be curtailed or cancelled. The greatest impact may be felt in Chile, where the debate is likely to intensify about the wisdom of embarking on a nuclear path, and in Mexico, another country prone to earthquakes. Nevertheless, the reality in all of these countries is that governments need to respond to increasing energy needs and growing levels of industry within their borders; although worries over Japan may temporarily postpone some plans amid greater public debate, the projects ultimately appear set to continue.