Launching a nuclear programme has social impacts at different levels: at a national level it can mean a political choice regarding the energy mix and a carbon-free energy policy; at a local level, it can mean local development and employment on one hand, and environmental impacts on human health and nature on the other. Both these two levels need to be addressed. In a newcomer country, national public opinion needs to be prepared, which means providing educational information about the energy mix, and on the advantages and drawbacks of each energy source, and analysing nuclear power’s risks and benefits from the perspective of a comparison with other sources of electricity generation, notably by distinguishing carbon-free sources (nuclear power, hydraulics and new renewable energies) and fossil sources. Such programmes need to give people objective information about all energy sources and not just about nuclear power. If nuclear power is considered without comparison to other sources, a large part of the public will probably focus on accident risks, on radioactivity’s potential risk to human health, and on long-term radioactive waste — the main arguments developed by nuclear opponents everywhere in the world. All dimensions of energy policy need to be taken into account, including security of supply and the prevention of global climate change, and not just assessed over the short term.

Many studies have been implemented in order to help decision-makers plan an energy policy and to define the respective shares of different energy sources, particularly electricity generation sources. No approach benefits from a total consensus, and social impacts of the choice of energy source are the more controversial, since they are the most difficult to quantify. The tools proposed therefore have to be considered as an heuristic framework to discuss the different energy options, and to make the choices more trans­parent and open to debate. A comprehensive set of indicators to compare technologies is given by Hirschberg et al. (2004).

Table 16.1 provides a framework of indicators covering the main aspects of nuclear choice. The respective weight of each dimension is an important part of the political choice. They depend, of course, on the national context,

political stability, economic data, financing capacities, geographical con­straints (primary resources, geopolitics, etc.), the country’s development and growth, and so on. Countries like Japan or France, which have few or no fossil fuel resources, have a more evident need for nuclear power, for security of supply and to reduce costly imports of fossil fuels. However, the total costs of a nuclear programme must include what might be called ‘infrastructure costs’: human resources, a legal framework, a safety author­ity, perhaps an industrial supply chain, etc. In a non-nuclear country envi­sioning the launch of a nuclear programme, it is necessary to undertake an opportunity study, to assess energy and electricity needs and to compare the merits of each energy source. In 2007, IAEA published a guide for newcomers, known as Milestones in the Development of a National Infrastructure for Nuclear Power, which precisely exposes the infrastructure requirements needed, and indicates the steps needed to assess their readi­ness (IAEA, 2007).