Brazil is a developing country where the demand for electricity is expected to grow at 20-25% a year but where the average income is low. The enormous costs associated with nuclear power means both reactor construction costs and the cost of building an electricity grid to deliver the power will be passed onto the ratepayer. These costs may be prohibitively high for many Brazilians, excluding large swathes of the population from access to electricity.

Angra 3 falls far behind current generation of reactor technologies, which themselves suffer safety problems, construction delays and skyrocketing costs (see costs below).

Any large-scale upgrades and adaptations required to integrate new safety requirements may lead not only to higher construction costs, but also increase the risk of unplanned outages during its operation.

But it is not just the technology and standard issues around nuclear power that makes this project unsafe. Angra 3 does not include any control or system to prevent the spread of radioactive material in the event of a nuclear accident. In its planning, there was no risk-analysis carried out, in clear violation of international standards.

The site of the project is accessible only via one road, which is often closed due to frequent landslides. Furthermore, Brazilian public prosecutor also twice demanded the work be discontinued for safety reasons, but no action was taken.

The construction of Angra 3 was originally approved in 1975 by presidential decree number 75870/75, which the government is using as a pretext for resuming construction. However, this decree was repealed in 1991 by a further presidential decree. More importantly, the decision to build the third reactor at Angra and subsequent governmental approvals, conflict with Brazil’s constitution. Adopted in 1988, the federal constitution requires that, in addition to an authorising act of the executive, any action to construct nuclear facilities in Brazil must be approved by Congress. It has neither been discussed nor voted on in Congress, because the government is arguing that the reactor was already approved in 1975 before the constitution was adopted. But this ignores the fact that the 1975 decree was nullified in 1991.

Moreover, the Brazilian nuclear watchdog CNEN is not an independent body, but has direct commercial interests in the Angra 3 project. INB, the group providing the fuel to power Angra's reactors, is a subsidiary of CNEN. This makes CNEN a supplier with commercial interests and therefore presents a conflict of interest.