CUBA: Nuclear Project Proceeds Despite U.S. Objections

By Dalia Acosta Reprint | | Print |

Dalia Acosta

HAVANA, Sep 27 1997 (IPS) - Cuba seems to be determined to complete the Juragua nuclear reactor, a controversial project that, like in the old times, has the blessing of Moscow and the strong opposition of Washington.

Fifteen years after the beginning of what the government called “the work of the century” and ten years after a temporary halt in construction, official Cuban sources announced that work on the plant will be resumed.

The plant, based on Soviet technology, is located in Cienfuegos province, 250 kilometers from Havana.

Work on the plant stopped in 1992, the victim of the economic crisis under which the island has been living since 1990, and which provoked a fall-off of 34.8 percent in the country’s Gross National Product in four years (1990-94).

The decision to halt the project was also caused by the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, which led to a restructuring of the bilateral relationship on all levels between Cuba and Russia.

Still, Cuba managed to obtain a Russian loan of 30 million dollars for plant maintenance work, and in 1995 both countries made public their decision to look for third parties to complete the electro- nuclear reactor.

“Cuba needs all sorts of energy sources,” said the Director of the Nuclear Energy Information Center, Danilo Alonso, in August. He added that his country “has no reason to give up a low-cost option such as that which nuclear energy offers.”

The Cuban program dates from the decade of the 70s, when nuclear energy was less controversial and the county enjoyed a favorable commercial relationship with the Soviet Union.

At the end of the century the nuclear option is still open in the island, which has few energy resources and which is obliged to import most of the oil needed to guarantee production of electricity and the functioning of industry.

As a result of the crisis, oil imports have dropped to three million tons per year, far short of the eight million required to meet minimum electrical consumption.

Sources in the Ministry of Basic Industry assure that Juragua could begin to generate electricity three and a half years after the resumption of work, and would be able to replace 700,000 tons of oil as soon as the first reactor is finished.

The plant was designed to save 15 per cent of petroleum imports, which rose to 13 million tons per year in the last decade.

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reports that in December of 1994 more than 30 countries had nuclear reactors in construction, for a total of 480 units.

Sixteen percent of the electricity generated came from electronuclear plants. In 17 countries – 14 European and three Asian ones – nuclear energy represented more than 25 percent of the electrical energy produced.

But in recent years there has been a drastic reduction of requests for nuclear reactors. Many plants have been stopped in mid- construction, many were ordered closed.

Countries like Austria and Italy have declared this type of energy illegal.In contrast, most of France’s electricity is produced at nuclear plants.

A study done in 1995 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated that the world expansion of nuclear energy would produce a quantity of radioactive waste impossible to handle and would aggravate the problem of the lack of adequate deposits for nuclear waste.

In the case of Cuba, any economic or environmental rationale for choosing nuclear energy becomes more controversial since the Juragua nuclear reactor became part of the bilateral agenda of Cuba and the U.S.

The first article of the American Helms-Burton law of March 1996 – which strengthens sanctions against Cuba- considers that a nuclear reactor in Cuba should be considered by Washington “an act of aggression.”

The legislation establishes that the U.S. must also punish countries which assist Cuba in finishing the Juragua nuclear installation.

For local observers, however, Washington’s pressure can only make Havana more determined about finishing the project, which is considered totally workable and absolutely necessary to guarantee Cuba’s economic development.

The U.S. opposition to the project is ostensibly based upon the fear of an accident near its territory similar to the one that occurred at a Soviet reactor in Chernobyl, Ukraine, in 1986, considered to be the worse ever.

Washington also argues that Cuba is not a signatory of the International Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which bans the development of nuclear weapons.

A letter sent to President Bill Clinton by 132 U.S. congressmen on Jun 15, 1995, says that Cuba lacks the capability and the personnel to operate a nuclear plant in a safe manner and that the design of the Juragua reactor has technical deficiencies.

Cuba discards the possibility of an accident, pointing out that the technology used in Juragua is radically different from the reactors used in the Ukrainian plant.

The Juragua reactor could withstand an earthquake, a tsunami with tidal waves of 10 meters in height and the impact of an airplane going at 200 meters per second, according to Havana.

The Cuban Vice Minister for Basic Industry, Rodrigo Ortiz, said that the project includes 38 of the 48 modifications proposed by the World Association of Nuclear Operators and “the others will be done before the block is put on-line.”

Beyond the controversy between Cuba and the U.S. about the reactor, the financing problem emerges as the reason for keeping the plant, or even the first reactor, from being put to work.

In the Juragua construction, 1,200 million dollars have been invested and according to a feasibility study, 800 million dollars more will be needed to finish the first reactor and 200 million more for the automatic directional system.

Companies in Great Britain, Brazil, Italy, Germany and Russia have shown their interest in the international economic association according to “leaks” from Havana, but so far they have not achieved an agreement that would allow them to take Juragua further than the maintenance phase.