�ݺ�ߣ

Editor's Notes

1. With over 400 reactors in operation in 30 countries, nuclear energy constitutes around 14% of global electricity production today. Since two nuclear accidents in the late 1970s and 1980s, industry has been in a standstill. But against the backdrop of growing demand and depleting resources and climate change, nuclear is believed to experience revival; Several countries including those with phase-out policies like Sweden and Germany have been reviewing their energy strategies. Others like the UK and the US are among the most recent few having ambitious nuclear energy development plans. In 2008 the largest number of new constructions have started since 1985. Out of 56 plants under construction today 29 are located in China. More than 55 countries that have never had a nuclear program of their own want to start one, mainly in the developing world. International organizations like IEA project nuclear energy capacities to double by 2030.
2. 10 i š 12 nauj ų statybų - Azijoje
3. 2008 was also the year when no new reactors have been connected to the grid since 1955. But despite the global momentum, decisions whether nuclear is the most economic and effective way to reduce emissions and secure supplies are to be taken on the national level. Little is known about both the capacities, the motivating factors and challenges for building nuclear power plants, let alone the debates taking place in various countries, economic and security implications of ill-informed decisions in the developing world in particular. For example, the first new modern European plant under construction in Finland (pictured top left) since Chernobyl disaster has been experiencing huge cost overruns and delays. Bulgaria has been struggling to find an investor for its renewed project. And public opposition to new projects remains common in many places at least in Europe.
4. I selected two pro-nuclear energy countries with an aim to understand their reasons for choosing nuclear energy. Why is this important? Finding significant differences between global drivers and national may have economic and security consequences not only nationally, but also regionally and eventually globally. Especially as small or developing countries devote their resources to something unviable or build a bomb instead of a reactor.
5. The comparative analysis of the two countries is interesting for several reasons: Similar history: former Soviet states Different development since 1990s (political system) High energy dependence from Russia Pro-nuclear policies: one has a plant, the other never had Highly questionable national capacities (looking for partners/investors) A number of new plants planned in the region within close proximity described as a ‘nuclear competition’ in the North-Eastern edge of the European Union (the border marked in red). Since it is no longer 1950s when technological decisions of states and scientists were not questioned, the public has to be convinced that this is the right way to produce electricity.
6. One way of understanding the process of energy policy making on the national level is through discourse analysis. There are many definitions of discourse and the most common is synonymous to discussion or debate. For my study I used a slightly expanded definition that considers discourse as a form of social action or a social process.
7. Following such theoretical approach, discourse analysis is an investigation of the relationship between discourse and social reality. It is a complex multi-step process, but simply put it consists of four elements: Context Actors and themes Storylines or simplified narratives Coalitions or sets of storylines A discourse study involves identifying them, linking them and understanding the interplay of competing narratives to achieve dominance (a particular view of reality).
8. Although I have conducted a similar global analysis, my primary focus was national nuclear energy discourses and their comparison. Global discourse serves more as a background for a more comprehensive analysis. The exact wor d ing of my A&O from the thesis: Identify and describe the main discursive storylines recently used by different national actors to express their views on nuclear energy in the context of national energy policies in Lithuania and Belarus and describe how some of them come to dominate the discourse; Identify and describe the main discursive storylines recently used by different global actors to express views on nuclear energy in the context of international energy policies; Compare the framing of nuclear energy in these countries to identify the dominant patterns and contrast the main discursive drivers for the pursuit of nuclear energy; Contextualize the findings of national comparative discourse analysis with respect to global nuclear energy discourse.
9. A few words on data collection. Sampling was focused on specific rather general data, trying to cover as many aspects of nuclear energy as possible. The texts were analyzed from the period 2006-2009, since during that period the debate was more intense as usual – triggered by so-called discursive events, emphasized politically and by the media, such as adoption of energy strategy, decision to build a plant, etc – listed in methods section. Additional criteria were used for media outlet selection. Searches were performed in online archives using keywords and returned as many as 600 texts in some instances. They were refined using additional criteria. A total of 157 texts from 6 national media outlets were qualitatively analyzed as a result.
10. National nuclear energy discourse analysis takes up the most significant part of my research. Similar like in global discourse analysis a number of actors and themes have been identified in both cases and group into two discourse coalitions – pro-nuclear and anti-nuclear. Let me provide a few examples in the form of quotes from the actual texts analyzed.
11. Comparative analysis reveals some interesting patterns in both national debates. Not entirely unexpectedly, Lithuanian debate can be described as political where dependence on Russia and geopolitical implications of neighbouring projects is emphasized. Meanwhile, Belarusian debate reminds those technocratic debates that took place during early years of nuclear development in France, UK and US – where scientists have the monopoly over energy policy decisions. However, the two countries are more similar than one might expect in terms of overall content of the debate. And I will come back to that in my conclusion.
12. Pro-nuclear coalition in Lithuania is dominated by politicians and government officials who emphasize strategic geopolitical importance of remaining a nuclear state. Rhetoric if very important in their argumentation: The future without nuclear is portrayed as ending up in a regional energy backyard, energy desert and Russian slavery While nuclear plant would allow to finally ‘face the future’
13. Anti-nuclear coalition is much less organized and mainly consists of NGOs, citizen groups and and green entrepreneurs. Nuclear is mainly blamed for preventing development of safer and cheaper alternatives. In terms or rhetoric Nuclear plants are referred to as ‘hellish’ and ‘monstrous’ though without much reference to technology, safety or environmental impacts or simply called ‘castles in the air’ implying the lack of capacity to proceed with the project. The new NPP project was titled a ’three headed dragon’
14. Meanwhile in Belarus the discourse seems to be dominated by pro-nuclear scientists, but also backed very strongly by the President Lukashenko. This is a very typical quote where he describes the nuclear project as the greatest achievement of all times. Such tone of reporting is very characteristic for the state-owned media as ‘Sovetskaia Belarus’.
15. Anti-nuclear storylines are limited to alternative media that is heavily restricted by the state. NGOs and local community members are talking about lack of information, participation and remembering the Chernobyl disaster that severely affected Belarus more than 20 years ago.
16. As already mentioned, global analysis was conducted in order to be able to point at gaps and differences in interpretation on a global and national level. For this I studied purposefully sampled policy publications produced by different international actors: from industry to NGO. I have identified three major discourse coalitions based on argumentation of various discourse actors expressing their views on different themes. These could be summarized by the following quotes.
17. Rather interesting trends come about in comparison with the global storylines. Global trends are misinterpreted Risks are downplayed Future technological options are presented as existing solutions etc. The moderate storylines are hardly found on the national level.
18. Both global and national analysis followed several research stages illustrated here. Literature and policy were reviewed to describe the context. Data was sampled aimed at information-rich sample. Discourses were analyzed using the analytical categories described earlier. Then findings were compared. I want to note that research on the subject in Lithuania and Belarus is scarce and personal contacts and field visits were used in order to obtain the necessary materials for context description.
19. Mention actors