Austria may turn its back on nuclear energy

Press, 12 January 1977, Page 6

Austria may turn its back on nuclear energy

By STEPHEN POWELL, NZPA-Reuter correspondent Vienna A heated national debate on nuclear power has begun in Austria, and some prominent citizens think that their country may be the first to turn its back on nuclear energy. Austrias first nuclear plant, costing 9000 million schillings ($445M), was expected to be working in March, 1978, and the site for a second plant has been cleared, but the Socialist Chancellor (Dr Kreisky) has said that he opposes the building of more nuclear plants until the problem of how to dispose of radioactive waste is solved. “The more I have become involved w f ith this question, the more security issues have remained unresolved,” he. said. Dr Kreisky’s statement has cheered opponents of nuclear energy, and a longprepared series of 10 public debates on the issue will continue until March. Both sides will then prepare a statement for Parliament, where a final decision on nuclear energy will be taken: Dr Kreisky has said that his Cabinet is divided on future nuclear plans and: that he will allow a free vote in Parliament. The Government has pledged that the country’s first nuclear plant, at Zwen» tendorf, 40 kilometres northwest of Vienna, will not be put into service “until security requirements are fulfilled right down to the last comma.” I The only political party; officially opposed to nuclear! energy is the small Liberal! Freedom Party: Dr Gerald Stix, a Freedom Party member of Parliament, has a solar collector on his house, and is a vigorous supporter of solar energy. The two main parties, the ruling Socialists and the Opposition People’s Party, have

individual members in the ranks of those opposed to nuclear power. Dr Kreisky, like most political observers, attributes the fall of the Socialist Government in Sweden last September to the nuclear energy issue: his cautious policy of thoroughly airing the subject before making final decisions is based on a realisI ation that nuclear energy has become an explosive political issue. There, is a changing mood world wide as more politicians and scientists express reservations about nuclear power.

The American Presidentelect, Mr Jimmy Carter, was the first successful Presidential candidate not to embrace this new technology wholeheartedly. During the United States’ elections last November, half a dozen states also voted on moves to limit the output of existing nuclear stations, and to prevent further development. Britain, the pioneer in the i field, has produced a Government report which falls •far short of outright advocacy of nuclear power: a Royal commission, under the chairmanship of Sir Brian Flowers, says that a full commitment to . nuclear energy should be delayed as Tong as possible. i Professor Paul Balu, a for» !mer editor of Austria’s ! Socialist newspaper, the “Arbeiter Zeitung,” says that the British report has had a strong impact on Austrian thinking. “The British are taken very seriously here, and when a Royal commission expresses concern about I nuclear energy, people sit up! ‘and take notice," he says. 1 i The anti-nuclear lobby has I i advanced two central argu- ; ments against nuclear power: first, that plants produce radioactive waste which remains dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years; and second, that they increase the risk of the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Plutonium, which can be

extracted from nuclear waste is the basic ingredient necessary to make an atomic bomb, and scientists have recently agreed that it would be possible to acquire the technological know-how from studying papers already publicly available. Indeed, one of the arguments put forward by the commission in Britain against the rapid expansion of the nuclea. programme was that guerrillas might be able to seize some of the large amounts of nuclear waste which would necessarily be crisc-crossing the country. The question of what to do with waste from Zwentendorf, a 700-megawatt plant, is also-fa from being answered. When plans for Austria’s nuclear programme were drawn up, it was assumed that waste would be treated in a projected reprocessing plant in West Germany, which country, however, has still not begun to build this plant, and has not even decided where to put it. The West Germans send their high-level waste to Britain. 1 So the Austrian Government has had to make alternative plans. An idea mooted by the Health Minis- j try, which has responsibility I for this problem, is that the 1 waste be disposed of in granite formations in an area of Lower Austria already shut to the public for military exercises. Opponents of the scheme object on the ground that this method of disposal has never been tried before. The Governor of Lower! Austria, (Mr Andreas Mau- ’ rer) is happy to see Zwen-' tendorf being built in his province, but he vigorously objects to the nuclear waste remaining there: he suggests that it should be sent to Antarctica, instead The Health Ministry' has given an assurance that it will not give permission for Zwentendorf to begin production until it has been decided where the waste will be kept.

Advocates of nuclear energy want to see more investment in heavy industry, centred on a giant industrial complex, near Linz, the “Ruhr on the Danube,” as it is called.

The project has been much discussed, but it is still only talk. More cautious groups argue that Austria should seek alternative paths of economic development, based on slower growth. An ecologist, Dr Peter Weish, says: “This country has a good basis for seeking alternatives to rapid industrial expansion. For one thing, we no lunger have a growing population.” A recent report said that Austria, with 7.5 million people, was one of the four countries which now have zero population growth. Dr Weish argues that Austria has sufficient energy resources if it goes for modest expansion: the country has plentiful hydro-electric power, now producing two- ( thirds of its electricity, and (still more water resources (are available. It also has (considerable reserves of j brown coal, -which can be (further exploited. An early opponent of nui clear energy, Dr Weish feels (that more and more Austrians are coming over to his point of view. “A year ago you were regarded as a crank in Austria if you talked about stopping the nuclear programme,” he said. “Now all that has changed. You can argue in favour of stopping work at Zwentendorf, and people will (listen. I am optimistic that (Austria will decide to scrap (its nuclear programme.” Others say the same. Dr I Francis Millendorfer, an economist and physicist, says: “I think there is a good chance that Austria will be the first country to turn its back on nuclear energy. It is a national characteristic of Austrians that we sometimes swim against the tide. “What other country in the world was under Soviet occupation and now is not?”