Jump to content

Nuclear power: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Debate on nuclear power: Merge in text from Energy development#Pros and Cons
→‎Debate on nuclear power: move text to Nuclear Power Debate, pointed to by Nuclear Debate
Line 321: Line 321:


== Debate on nuclear power ==
== Debate on nuclear power ==
{{Seealso|Nuclear energy policy}}
{{Main|Nuclear debate}}


Proponents of nuclear energy aver that nuclear power is a [[sustainable energy]] source that reduces [[carbon emissions]] and increases energy security by decreasing dependence on foreign oil.<ref>[http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aXb5iuqdZoD4&refer=us U.S. Energy Legislation May Be `Renaissance' for Nuclear Power].</ref> Proponents also claim that the risks of storing waste are small and can be further reduced by the technology in the new reactors and the operational safety record is already good when compared to the other major kinds of power plants.
Proponents of nuclear energy aver that nuclear power is a [[sustainable energy]] source that reduces [[carbon emissions]] and increases energy security by decreasing dependence on foreign oil.<ref>[http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aXb5iuqdZoD4&refer=us U.S. Energy Legislation May Be `Renaissance' for Nuclear Power].</ref> Proponents also claim that the risks of storing waste are small and can be further reduced by the technology in the new reactors and the operational safety record is already good when compared to the other major kinds of power plants.
Line 328: Line 328:


Arguments of [[Economics of new nuclear power plants|economics]] and [[Nuclear safety|safety]] are used by both sides of the debate.
Arguments of [[Economics of new nuclear power plants|economics]] and [[Nuclear safety|safety]] are used by both sides of the debate.

===Energy security===
{{Main|Energy security}}

For some countries, nuclear power affords energy independence. Nuclear power has been relatively unaffected by [[embargo]]es, and uranium is mined in "reliable" countries, including Australia and Canada.<ref name=platts>{{cite web | publisher= Platts |url= http://www.platts.com/Nuclear/Resources/News%20Features/nukeinsight/ | title = Nuclear renaissance faces realities | accessdate=2007-07-13}}</ref><ref name=esat>{{cite web | publisher= Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Departement of Electrical Engineering of the Faculty of Engineering | author=L. Meeus, K. Purchala, R. Belmans | url= http://www.esat.kuleuven.ac.be/electa/publications/fulltexts/pub_1225.pdf | title = Is it reliable to depend on import? | format=PDF | accessdate=2007-07-13}}</ref>

According to a Stanford study, [[fast breeder|fast breeder reactors]] have the potential to power humans on earth for billions of years, making it sustainable.<ref name="stanford-cohen"> {{Cite web |url= http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html |title= Facts From Cohen and Others |accessdate= 2008-01-18 |publisher= Stanford |year=2006 |author=John McCarthy |authorlink= John McCarthy (computer scientist) |work= Progress and its Sustainability}}</ref>

=== Reliability ===
{{Seealso|Intermittent power sources}}

Nuclear power plants are some of the more complex mechanical systems ever devised, although much of that complexity is due to redundancy of systems, extensive backups, and the [[defense in depth]] strategy of the designs.

In 2005, out of all nuclear power plants in the world, the average capacity factor was 86.8%, the number of [[SCRAM]]s per 7,000 hours critical was 0.6, and the unplanned capacity loss factor was 1.6%.<ref>World Nuclear Association. [http://www.wano.org.uk/PerformanceIndicators/PI_Trifold/WANO15yrsProgress.pdf 15 years of progress].</ref> <nowiki>[</nowiki>Capacity factor is the net power produced over the maximum amount possible running at 100% all the time, thus this includes all scheduled maintenance/refueling outages as well as unplanned losses. The 7,000 hours is roughly representitive of how long any given reactor will remain critical in a year, meaning that the scram rates translates into a sudden and unplanned shutdown about 0.6 times per year for any given reactor in the world. The unplanned capacity loss factor represents amount of power not produced due to unplanned scrams and postponed restarts.<nowiki>]</nowiki>

The [[World Nuclear Association]] states that "Sun, wind, tides and waves cannot be controlled to provide directly either continuous base-load power, or peak-load power when it is needed. In practical terms they are therefore limited to some 10–20% of the capacity of an electricity grid, and cannot directly be applied as economic substitutes for coal or nuclear power, however important they may become in particular areas with favourable conditions." "The fundamental problem, especially for electricity supply, is their variable and diffuse nature. This means either that there must be reliable duplicate sources of electricity, or some means of electricity storage on a large scale. Apart from pumped-storage hydro systems, no such means exist at present and nor are any in sight." "Relatively few places have scope for pumped storage dams close to where the power is needed, and overall efficiency is low. Means of storing large amounts of electricity as such in giant batteries or by other means have not been developed."<ref> {{cite web
| url= http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf10.html
| title= Renewable Energy and Electricity
| year= 2008 | month= May |work= | publisher= World Nuclear Association
| accessdate= 2008-05-08 }} </ref>

====Derating during very hot weather====

Since nuclear power plants are fundamentally thermal engines, waste heat disposal becomes an issue at high ambient temperature. In such very hot weather a power reactor (just as a coal-fired power plant will) may have to operate at a reduced power level or even shut down.<ref> [http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/energy/5061439.html "TVA reactor shut down; cooling water from river too hot"].</ref> In Western Europe in 2006, a number of nuclear plants had to secure exemptions from regulations in order to discharge overheated water into the environment; several European nations were forced to reduce operations at some plants and take others offline and France, normally an electricity exporter, had to buy electricity on European spot market to meet demand.<ref name="promisedulled">[http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0810/p04s01-woeu.html Nuclear power's green promise dulled by rising temps], ''The Christian Science Monitor'', August 10, 2006, Retrieved 2008-08-08</ref>

=== Economics ===
{{Main|Economics of new nuclear power plants}}

This is a controversial subject, since multi-billion dollar investments ride on the choice of an energy source. Which power source (generally coal, natural gas, nuclear or wind) is most cost-effective depends on the assumptions used in a particular study — several are quoted in the main article.

Nuclear plants generally have very high capital costs with operating costs just under those of coal-fired generation,<ref> [http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba511/ Burning Bright: Nuclear Energy’s Future]</ref> but very low fuel costs.

In 2008 World Nuclear Association gave a 2005 comparison table and said "Nuclear energy is, in many places, competitive with fossil fuel for electricity generation, despite relatively high capital costs and the need to internalise all waste disposal and decommissioning costs. If the social, health and environmental costs of fossil fuels are also taken into account (for example, if a [[carbon tax]] is implemented), nuclear is outstanding."<ref> {{cite web
| url= http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html
| title= The Economics of Nuclear Power
| date= 2008-08
| accessdate= 2008-09-03 }}</ref>

Anti-nuclear organisations consider that the economics of new nuclear power plants are unfavourable because of the initial costs of constructing a nuclear plant (see [[Darlington Nuclear Generating Station]]), the public subsidies and tax expenditures involved in research and security, the cost of [[decommissioning nuclear facilities]], and the undetermined costs of storing [[nuclear waste]].<ref name=nuc>[http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/060306.html Nuclear power is not the answer to tackling climate change or security of supply, according to the Sustainable Development Commission]</ref><ref name=rep>[http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/files/pdfs/nuclear/nuclear_economics_report.pdf The Economics of Nuclear Power report]</ref>

====Subsidies====
Critics of nuclear power claim that it is the beneficiary of inappropriately large economic subsidies — mainly taking the forms of taxpayer-funded research and development and limitations on disaster liability — and that these subsidies, being subtle and indirect, are often overlooked when comparing the economics of nuclear against other forms of power generation. However, competing energy sources also receive subsidies. Fossil fuels receive large direct and indirect subsidies, such as tax benefits and not having to pay for the [[greenhouse gas]]es they emit{{Fact|date=June 2008}}. Renewables receive large direct production subsidies and tax breaks in many nations.<ref name="wna-esaec">{{Cite web |url=http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf68.html |title=Energy Subsidies and External Costs |accessdate=2006-11-10 |publisher=World Nuclear Association |year=2005 |work=Information and Issue Briefs}}</ref>

Energy research and development (R&D) for nuclear power alone has and continues to receive much larger state subsidies than R&D for all renewable energy sources put together or for fossil fuels. In Europe, the [[Seventh Framework Programme|FP7]] research program has more subsidies for nuclear than for renewable and energy efficiency together. Part of this research money goes into [[ITER]]. However, today most of this takes places in Japan and France: in most other nations renewable R&D as a whole get more money. In the US, public research money for nuclear fission declined from 2,179 to 35 million dollars between 1980 and 2000.<ref name="wna-esaec"/> However, in order to restart the industry, the next six US reactors will receive subsidies equal to those of renewables and, in the event of cost overruns due to delays, at least partial compensation for the overruns (see [[Nuclear Power 2010 Program]]).

A May 12, 2008 editorial in the [[Wall St. Journal]] stated, "For electricity generation, the EIA concludes that solar energy is subsidized to the tune of $24.34 per megawatt hour, wind $23.37 and 'clean coal' $29.81. By contrast, normal coal receives 44 cents, natural gas a mere quarter, hydroelectric about 67 cents and nuclear power $1.59."<ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121055427930584069.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks Wind ($23.37) v. Gas (25 Cents)], Wall St. Journal,
May 12, 2008</ref>

=== Environmental effects ===
{{main|Environmental effects of nuclear power}}

The primary environmental impacts of nuclear power come from [[uranium mining]], radioactive effluent emissions, and [[waste heat]], as under normal generating conditions nuclear power does not produce [[greenhouse gas]] emissions <nowiki>[</nowiki>{{chem|C||O|2}}, {{chem|N||O|2}}<nowiki>]</nowiki> directly (although the nuclear fuel cycle produces them indirectly, though at much smaller rates than fossil fuels).<ref> {{cite web
| url= http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeGreenhouseEmissionsOfNuclearPower
| title= Greenhouse Emissions of Nuclear Power
|date= |year= |month= |format= |work= | publisher= nuclearinfo.net
| accessdate= 2008-07-08 }} </ref>
Nuclear generation does not directly produce sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury or other pollutants associated with the combustion of fossil fuels. In 2008, ''The Economist'' stated that "nuclear reactors are the one proven way to make carbon-dioxide-free electricity in large and reliable quantities that does not depend (as hydroelectric and geothermal energy do) on the luck of the geographical draw."<ref> {{cite web
| url= http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11565609
| title= Life after death: Nuclear power is clean, but can it overcome its image problem?
| date= 2008-06-19 | work= [[The Economist]] |publisher=
|pages= |language= |doi= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote= If you want to make an environmentalist squirm, mention nuclear power. Atomic energy was the green movement’s darkest nightmare: ... And not even cheap. Well, times change.
| accessdate= 2008-07-16 }}</ref>

For the same amount of electricity, the life cycle emissions of nuclear is about 4% of coal-fired power. Depending on the report, hydro, wind, and geothermal are sometimes ranked lower, while wind and hydro are sometimes ranked higher (by life cycle emissions).<ref>{{cite web
| url= http://www.nei.org/keyissues/protectingtheenvironment/lifecycleemissionsanalysis/
| title= Life-Cycle Emissions Analysis
|date= |year= |month= |format= |work= |publisher= Nuclear Energy Institute
|pages= |language= |doi= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote=
| accessdate= 2008-01-18 }} </ref><ref>{{cite web
| url= http://dailyreferendum.blogspot.com/2007/08/go-nuclear-go-green-life-cycle.html
| title= Go Nuclear - Go Green - Life Cycle Emissions Comparable to Renewables.
| author= Steve Green | date= 2007-08-26 |work= |publisher=
|pages= |language= |doi= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote=
| accessdate= 2008-01-18 }} </ref>

Nuclear plants require more, but not significantly more, cooling water than fossil-fuel power plants due to their slightly lower generation efficiencies. Uranium mining can use large amounts of water - for example, the Roxby Downs mine in South Australia uses 35 million litres of water each day and plans to increase this to 150 million litres per day.<ref name="powerandwater">[http://www.sciencealert.com.au/opinions/20072910-16508.html Nuclear power and water scarcity], ScienceAlert, 28 October 2007, Retrieved 2008-08-08</ref> The effect on prices of uranium should be considered.

Other issues include disposal of [[nuclear waste]] and [[nuclear decommissioning]]. Most countries with nuclear power agree that sequestering spent fuel in [[Deep geological repository|Deep geological repositories]] is the best option for waste disposal, but no such long-term waste repositories yet exist.<ref>[http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-10-4/60394.html Nuclear Power's New Dawn]</ref><ref>[http://uk.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUKL2214163420080122 Nuclear power rebirth revives waste debate]</ref>

====High level nuclear waste====

According to anti-nuclear organisations, rendering [[nuclear waste]] harmless is not being done satisfactorily and it remains a hazard for anywhere between a few years to many thousands of years, depending on the particular isotopes. The same organisations usually oppose, and lobby against, processing the waste to reduce its radioactivity and longevity, and also oppose isolating the residual waste from the environment.<ref>http://members.greenpeace.org/action/start/87/ Greenpeace Website</ref><ref>http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/pnucpwr.asp NRDC Website</ref><ref>http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/electricity/energybill/articles.cfm?ID=9997 Public Citizen Website</ref>

The length of time waste has to be stored is controversial because there is a question of whether one should use the original ore or surrounding rock as a reference for safe levels. Anti-nuclear organisations tend to favour using normal soil as a reference, in contrast to pro-nuclear organisations who tend to argue that geologically disposed waste can be considered safe once it is no more radioactive than the uranium ore it was produced from.

=== Safety ===
{{main|Nuclear safety}}
{{seealso|Nuclear safety in the U.S.}}
{{seealso|State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence Analyses}}

The topic of nuclear safety covers:

* The research and testing of the possible incidents/events at a nuclear power plant,
* What equipment and actions are designed to prevent those incidents/events from having serious consequences,
* The calculation of the probabilities of multiple systems and/or actions failing thus allowing serious consequences,
* The evaluation of the worst-possible timing and scope of those serious consequences (the worst-possible in extreme cases being a release of radiation),
* The actions taken to protect the public during a release of radiation,
* The training and rehearsals performed to ensure readiness in case an incident/event occurs.

Numerous different and usually redundantly duplicated safety features have been designed into (and in some cases backfitted to) nuclear power plants.

==== Accidents ====
{{Main|Nuclear and radiation accidents}}
{{see also|State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence Analyses}}

The [[International Nuclear Event Scale]] (INES), developed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), is used to communicate the severity of [[nuclear accidents]] on a scale of 0 to 7. The two most significant events were the [[Three Mile Island accident]] (1979) and the [[Chernobyl disaster]] (1986).

The [[Chernobyl disaster]] at the [[Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant]] in the [[Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic]] (now [[Ukraine]]) remains the worst nuclear accident in history and is the only event to receive an INES score of 7. The power excursion and resulting steam explosion and fire spread radioactive contamination across large portions of Europe. The UN report 'CHERNOBYL : THE TRUE SCALE OF THE ACCIDENT' published 2005 concluded that the death toll includes the 50 workers who died of acute radiation syndrome, nine children who died from [[thyroid cancer]], and an estimated 4000 excess cancer deaths in the future.<ref> {{PDFlink |[http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/Chernobyl/pdfs/pr.pdf Chernobyl: The True Scale of the Accident]}}</ref> This accident occurred due to both the flawed operation of the reactors and critical design flaws in the Soviet RBMK reactors, such as lack of a [[containment building]]. This disaster however has led to some "lessons learned" for Western power plants, large improvements in safety at Soviet-designed nuclear power plants and major improvements to the remaining RBMK reactors (with the shutdown of some).<ref>{{cite web
| url= http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.html
| title= Chernobyl Accident
|author= |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors=
|month= May | year= 2007 |work= |publisher= World Nuclear Association
|pages= |language= |doi= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote=
| accessdate= 2008-01-31 }} </ref>

The accident at Three Mile Island Unit 2 was the worst civilian nuclear accident outside the [[Soviet Union]] (INES score of 5). The reactor experienced a partial core [[nuclear meltdown|meltdown]]. However, according to the [[NRC]], the [[reactor vessel]] and containment building were not breached and little radiation was released to the environment, with no significant impact on health or the environment. Several studies have found no increase in cancer rates.<ref name="usnrc-tmi">{{Cite web |url= http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html |title=Fact Sheet on the Accident at Three Mile Island |accessdate=2006-11-10 |publisher=U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal
|url= http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2000/108p545-552talbott/abstract.html
|title=Mortality among the Residents of the Three Mile Island Accident Area: 1979–1992
|author=Evelyn O. Talbott et al.
|publisher=[[University of Pittsburgh]]
|journal=Environmental Health Perspectives
|volume=108
|number=6
|date=2000-06
|language=English
}}</ref>

[[Greenpeace]] has produced a report titled ''[http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/usa/press/reports/an-american-chernobyl-nuclear.pdf An American Chernobyl: Nuclear “Near Misses” at U.S. Reactors Since 1986]'' which "reveals that nearly two hundred “near misses” to nuclear meltdowns have occurred in the United States". At almost 450 nuclear plants in the world that risk is greatly magnified, they say. This is not to mention numerous incidents,<ref>{{cite web
| url= http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/nuclearaccidentscalendar
| title= The nuclear calendar - 365 reasons to oppose nuclear power (link to PDF)
|author= |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors=
|date= [[26 April]] [[2006]] |work= |publisher= Greenpeace
|pages= |language= |doi= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote=
| accessdate= 2008-01-31 }} </ref> many supposedly unreported, that have occurred. Another report produced by Greenpeace called [http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/nuclearreactorhazards Nuclear Reactor Hazards: Ongoing Dangers of Operating Nuclear Technology in the 21st Century] claims that risk of a major accident has increased in the past years.<ref>{{cite web
| url= http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/nuclear-power-and-climate.html
| title= UCS Position on Nuclear Power and Global Warming
|author= |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors=
|date= 12/10/07 |work= |publisher= [[Union of Concerned Scientists]]
|pages= |language= |doi= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote=
| accessdate= 2008-01-31 }} </ref>

Cases where governments have misinformed or underinformed the public underlies much of the distrust. Incidents such as Brookhaven National Laboratory (a military-purpose reactor not regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission) leaking [[tritium]] into community groundwater for up to 12 years<ref> {{cite web
| url= http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9807E5D61F31F931A35756C0A961958260&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/B/Brookhaven%20National%20Laboratory
| title= "U.S. Energy Chief Removes Manager for Brookhaven
|author= Dan Barry |date= [[May 2]], [[1997]] |work= |publisher= ''[[New York Times]]''
|pages= |language= |doi= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote=
| accessdate= 2008-01-31 }}</ref> and classified accidents at the [[Rocky Flats| Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant]], along with the extreme nuclear secrecy of [[East Bloc]] governments during the [[Cold War]], may create the impression that the health and safety of communities surrounding nuclear facilities is of secondary importance. However such mistrust is often misdirected — while the industrial sites that were built to support the Manhattan Project and the Cold War's nuclear arms race display many cases of significant environmental contamination and other safety concerns, in the United States such facilities are operated and regulated completely separately from commercial nuclear power plants.

Other notable nuclear accidents/incidents include the military-related [[Mayak]], [[SL-1]], and [[Windscale fire]] accidents, and the recurring problems at the [[Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station]].

==== Contrast of radioactive accident emissions with industrial emissions ====
Proponents aver that the problems of nuclear waste do not come anywhere close to approaching the problems of fossil fuel waste.<ref>{{cite web
|url= http://units.aps.org/units/fps/energy/bodansky.cfm
|title= The Environmental Paradox of Nuclear Power
|author= David Bodansky
|date=
|publisher= [[American Physical Society]]
|quote= (reprinted from ''Environmental Practice'', vol.&nbsp;3, no.&nbsp;2 (June 2001), pp.86–88 {Oxford University Press))
|accessdate= 2008-01-31 }} </ref><ref>{{cite web
|url= http://russp.org/nucfacts.html
|title= Some Amazing Facts about Nuclear Power
|author= |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors=
|month= August | year= 2002 |work= |publisher=
|pages= |language= |doi= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote=
| accessdate= 2008-01-31 }} </ref> A 2004 article from the BBC states: "The [[World Health Organization]] (WHO) says 3 million people are killed worldwide by outdoor air pollution annually from vehicles and industrial emissions, and 1.6 million indoors through using solid fuel."<ref>{{cite web
| url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4086809.stm
| title= "Pollution: A life and death issue"
| author= Alex Kirby | date= 13 December, 2004, |publisher= ''[[BBC News]]''
|pages= |language= |doi= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote=
| accessdate= 2008-01-31 }} </ref> In the U.S. alone, fossil fuel waste kills 20,000 people each year.<ref>{{cite web
| url= http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05180/529969.stm
| title= "State sues utility for U.S. pollution violations"
|author= Don Hopey | date= [[June 29]], [[2005]] | publisher= ''[[Pittsburgh Post-Gazette]]''
|pages= |language= |doi= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote=
| accessdate= 2008-01-31 }} </ref> A coal power plant releases 100 times as much radiation as a nuclear power plant of the same wattage.<ref name="colmain">{{cite web
| url= http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html
| title= Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger
|author= Alex Gabbard
|date= |year= |month= |format= |work= |publisher= Oak Ridge National Laboratory
|pages= |language= |doi= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote=
| accessdate= 2008-01-31 }} </ref> It is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times as much radioactivity into the atmosphere as the [[Three Mile Island]] incident.<ref>[http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~aubrecht/coalvsnucMarcon.pdf#page=8 Nuclear proliferation through coal burning] — Gordon J. Aubrecht, II, Ohio State University</ref> The [[World Nuclear Association]] provides a comparison of deaths due to accidents among different forms of energy production. In their comparison, deaths per TW-yr of electricity produced from 1970 to 1992 are quoted as 885 for hydropower, 342 for coal, 85 for natural gas, and 8 for nuclear.<ref name="wna">{{cite web|url=http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf06.html|title=Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors}}</ref>

==== Health effect on population near nuclear plants and workers====

[[Image:Trojan1.jpg|thumb|Fishermen near the now-dismantled [[Trojan Nuclear Power Plant]] in Oregon. The reactor dome is visible on the left, and the cooling tower on the right.]]

Most human exposure to radiation comes from natural [[background radiation]]. Most of the remaining exposure comes from medical procedures. Several large studies in the US, Canada, and Europe have found no evidence of any increase in cancer mortality among people living near nuclear facilities. For example, in 1991, the [[National Cancer Institute]] (NCI) of the [[National Institutes of Health]] announced that a large-scale study, which evaluated mortality from 16 types of cancer, found no increased incidence of cancer mortality for people living near 62 nuclear installations in the United States. The study showed no increase in the incidence of childhood leukemia mortality in the study of surrounding counties after start-up of the nuclear facilities. The NCI study, the broadest of its kind ever conducted, surveyed 900,000 cancer deaths in counties near nuclear facilities.<ref>{{cite web
| url= http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/nuclear-facilities
| title= No Excess Mortality Risk Found in Counties with Nuclear Facilities
|author= |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors=
| date= 1996-05-20 |work= | publisher= [[National Cancer Institute]]
| accessdate= 2008-01-31 }} </ref>

Some areas of Britain near industrial facilities, particularly near [[Sellafield]] (a [[nuclear reprocessing]] plant), have displayed elevated childhood [[leukemia]] levels, in which children living locally are 10 times more likely to contract the cancer. One study of those near Sellafield has ruled out any contribution from nuclear sources, and the reasons for these increases, or clusters, are unclear. Apart from anything else, the levels of radiation at these sites are [[orders of magnitude]] too low to account for the excess incidences reported. One possible explanation is viruses or other infectious agents being introduced into a local community by the mass movement of migrant workers.<ref>[[Richard Doll|Sir Richard Doll]], quoted in the ''[[The Independent]]'' [[1999-08-16]] {{cite web
| url= http://www.acor.org/ped-onc/diseases/kinlen.html
| title= "Researcher Says Childhood Leukemia Is Caused By Infection"
|author= |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors=
|date= [[August 16]], [[1999]] |work= |publisher=
|pages= |language= |doi= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote=
| accessdate= 2008-01-31 }}.</ref><ref>{{cite journal
| last =Laurier
| first =Dominique
| authorlink =
| coauthors =Bard, Denis
| title =Epidemiologic Studies of Leukemia among Persons under 25 Years of Age Living Near Nuclear Sites
| journal = Epidemiologic Reviews
| volume =21
| issue =12
| pages =
| publisher =Johns Hopkins University
| year=1999
| url =http://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/21/2/188.pdf
| doi =
| id =
| accessdate = 2008-09-05 |format=PDF}}</ref> Likewise, studies have found an increased incidence of childhood leukaemia near nuclear power plants has been found in [[Germany]]<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9210727 A cluster of childhood leukaemia near a nuclear reactor in northern Germany.]</ref> and France.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ieer.org/ensec/no-4/lahague.html|title=Leukemia Clusters Near La Hague and Sellafield}}</ref>

Nonetheless, the results of larger multi-site studies in these countries invalidate the hypothesis of an increased risk of leukaemia related to nuclear discharge. The methodology and very small samples in the studies finding an increased incidence has been criticized.<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11990512&dopt=Abstract Risk of childhood leukaemia in the vicinity of nuclear installations&mdash;findings and recent controversies.] accessed [[23 July]] [[2007]]</ref><ref>{{PDFlink|[http://www.nei.org/filefolder/radiation_safety_at_nuclear_power_plants_1-07.pdf Radiation Safety at Nuclear Power Plants: Studies Look at Public, Workers]}} accessed [[23 July]] [[2007]]</ref><ref>[http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf05.html Radiation and Nuclear Energy] accessed [[23 July]] [[2007]]</ref><ref>[http://www.personalmd.com/news/n0818103222.shtml Researcher Says Childhood Leukemia Is Caused By Infection] accessed [[23 July]] [[2007]]</ref>

In December 2007, it was reported that a study showed that German children who lived near nuclear power plants had a higher rate of cancer than those who did not. However, the study also stated that there was no extra radiation near the nuclear power plants, and scientists were puzzled as to what was causing the higher rate of cancer.<ref>{{cite web
| url= http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2994904,00.html
| title= Study Finds More Childhood Cancer Near Nuclear Power Plants
|author= |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors=
|date= 2007-08-12 |work= |publisher= [[Deutsche Welle]]
|pages= |language= |doi= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote=
| accessdate= 2008-01-31 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web
| url= http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=40610
| title= "Health: Nuclear Plants Raise Leukemia Threat"
|author= Julio Godoy |date= [[December 27]], [[2007]] |work= |publisher= [[Inter Press Service]]
|pages= |language= |doi= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote=
| accessdate= 2008-01-31 }} </ref>

Workers in the nuclear industry from the 1980s were found to be slightly more likely (2 extra deaths per year in the group of 65,000) to die from [[heart disease]] if they were exposed to high levels of radiation.<ref>[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/radiation-linked-to-heart-disease-791328.html The Independent. Steve Connor, Science Editor, 5 March, 2008. ''Radiation linked to heart disease'']. Access date [[2008-08-08]]</ref> It is unclear if radiation, or other issues such as stress, level of education, etc. are the cause of this increased mortality. However, the report also said "the study of nearly 65,000 nuclear workers shows that they are healthier overall than the general population, even after taking into account the extra health risks resulting from exposure to radiation in the workplace."

Coal mining is the second most dangerous occupation in the United States.<ref>{{cite web
| url= http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10725454/
| title= "The most dangerous jobs in America"
|author= Carrie Coolidge
| date= 2006-01-05 |work= | publisher= [[Forbes (magazine)|''Forbes'']]
|pages= |language= |doi= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote=
| accessdate= 2008-01-18 }} </ref>

====Alternative reactor designs====
The US Government is leading a plan to develop small "disposable" nuclear reactors ([[SSTAR]]) for deployment in developing countries. However, there has been considerable debate about the security and [[nuclear proliferation]] risks of such a proposal.<ref>[http://technology.newscientist.com/article/dn13459-disposable-nuclear-reactors-raise-security-fears.html 'Disposable' nuclear reactors raise security fears]</ref>

Russia has constructed on the first of seven [[Russian floating nuclear power station|nuclear power station ships]] which each will carry a 70-megawatt nuclear reactor. The ships will provide power to remote coastal towns, or be sold abroad, and 12 countries, including Algeria and Indonesia, have expressed interest. There is considerable debate about the safety of such "floating" nuclear reactors, especially since they may lack a containment building around them.

=== Nuclear proliferation and terrorism concerns ===
{{details|Nuclear proliferation}}

Nuclear proliferation is the spread of nuclear weapons and related technology to nations not recognized as "Nuclear Weapon States" by the [[Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty]] (NNPT). Since the days of the [[Manhattan Project]] it has been known that reactors could be used for weapons-development purposes—the first nuclear reactors were developed for exactly this reason—as the operation of a nuclear reactor converts U-238 into plutonium. As a consequence, since the 1950s there have been concerns about the possibility of using reactors as a [[dual-use technology]], whereby apparently peaceful technological development could serve as an approach to nuclear weapons capability.<ref>[http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefing_papers/pdf/nuclear_renaissance.pdf Consequences of a Nuclear Renaissance]</ref> Part of the radioactive material produced in some types of [[nuclear reactor]]s has the potential to be used to make [[nuclear weapon]]s by countries equipped with the capability of chemical and isotope separation.<ref name=rev>[http://www.energyblueprint.info/fileadmin/media/documents/energy_revolution.pdf Energy revolution: A sustainable world energy outlook]</ref> For that reason, the [[United Nation]]'s [[International Atomic Energy Agency]] (IAEA) closely monitors all reactors of nations who have joined.

==== Vulnerability of plants to attack ====
"The human, environmental, and economic costs from a successful attack on a nuclear power plant that results in the release of substantial quantities of radioactive material to the environment could be great."<ref> [http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=6042&type=0&sequence=3 "Congressional Budget Office Vulnerabilities from Attacks on Power Reactors and Spent Material"].</ref>

However, each nuclear power plant's reactor (except those in Russia) is surrounded by a thick [[containment building]]. In the U.S. the plants are also surrounded by a double row of tall fences which are electronically monitored, and the plant grounds are patrolled by a sizeable force of armed guards.<ref>[http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/security-enhancements.html Nuclear Security – Five Years After 9/11] accessed [[23 July]] [[2007]]</ref> The NRC's "Design Basis Threat" criteria for plants is a secret, and so what size attacking force the plants are able to protect against is unknown. However, to [[scram]] a plant takes less than 5 seconds while unimpeded restart takes hours, severely hampering a terrorist force in any goal to release radioactivity.

==== Use of waste byproduct as a weapon ====
An additional concern with nuclear power plants is that if the by-products of nuclear fission (the nuclear waste generated by the plant) were to be left unprotected it could be stolen and used as a [[radiological weapon]], colloquially known as a "[[dirty bomb]]". There were incidents in post-Soviet Russia of nuclear plant workers attempting to sell nuclear materials for this purpose (for example, there was such an incident in Russia in 1999 where plant workers attempted to sell 5 grams of radioactive material on the open market,<ref name="nti-nwfu">{{Cite web |url= http://www.nti.org/db/nistraff/1999/19990670.htm |title=Neutron Weapon from Underground |accessdate=2006-11-10 |publisher=Nuclear Threat Initiative|year=1999 |author=Vadim Nesvizhskiy |work=Research Library}}</ref> and an incident in 1993 where Russian workers were caught attempting to sell 4.5 kilograms of enriched uranium.<ref name="aa-ionsi">{{Cite web |url= http://www.atomicarchive.com/Almanac/Smuggling_details.shtml#4 |title=Information on Nuclear Smuggling Incidents |accessdate=2006-11-10 |publisher=Nuclear Threat Initiative|work=Nuclear Almanac}}</ref><ref name="gu-wgus">{{Cite web|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,526856,00.html|title=Weapons-grade Uranium Seized|accessdate=2006-11-10|publisher=Guardian Unlimited|year=2001|author=Amelia Gentleman and Ewen MacAskill}}</ref><ref name="ag-trutiosftt">{{Cite web |url= http://www.axisglobe.com/article.asp?article=328 |title=The Russian Uranium That is on Sale for the Terrorists |accessdate=2006-11-10 |publisher=Axis |year=2005 |author=Pavel Simonov |work=Global Challenges Research}}</ref>), and there are additional concerns that the transportation of nuclear waste along roadways or railways opens it up for potential theft. The United Nations has since called upon world leaders to improve security in order to prevent radioactive material falling into the hands of terrorists,<ref name="bbc-acodbt">{{Cite web |url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2838743.stm |title=Action Call Over Dirty Bomb Threat |accessdate=2006-11-10 |publisher=BBC News |year=2003}}</ref> and such fears have been used as justifications for centralized, permanent, and secure waste repositories and increased security along transportation routes.<ref>For an example of the former, see the quotes in Erin Neff, Cy Ryan, and Benjamin Grove, [http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/special/2002/feb/15/513046106.html "Bush OKs Yucca Mountain waste site"], ''Las Vegas Sun'' (2002 [[February 15]]). For an example of the latter, see [http://www.senate.gov/~schumer/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/press_releases/PR01033.html ""DIRTY BOMB" PLOT SPURS SCHUMER TO CALL FOR US MARSHALS TO GUARD NUCLEAR WASTE THAT WOULD GO THROUGH NEW YORK"], press release of Senator Charles E. Shumer ([[13 June]] [[2002]]).</ref>

===Public confidence===
Polls consistently show that populations continue to fear nuclear, but desire the energy security.{{Fact|date=September 2008}} A comprehensive public opinion survey, performed in May and June 2006 in the European Union member countries, concluded that EU citizens perceive great future promise in the use of renewable energies, but despite majority opposition, nuclear energy also has its place in the future energy mix.<ref name=SpecialEurobarometer2007>{{cite paper | title = Special Eurobarometer 262: Energy Technologies: Knowledge, Perception, Measures | publisher = European Commission | url = http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_262_en.pdf | format = PDF |date=January [[2007]] | accessdate = 2007-07-14}}</ref>

===Safety culture in host nations===
Nuclear's safety also depends strongly on building, maintaining and operating the reactors as designed. The [[Chernobyl disaster]] was directly caused by a poor safety culture in the former Soviet Union.

Some developing countries which plan to go nuclear have very poor industrial safety records and problems with political corruption.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/01/20/MN0JUDQ44.DTL Safety issues cloud nuclear renaissance: Developing nations' track record gives cause for concern]</ref>

The improper operation of a badly-designed nuclear reactor with no containment building located near large populations can be catastrophic in the event of an uncontrolled power increase in the reactor, as shown by the [[Chernobyl disaster]] in the [[Ukraine]] (former USSR), where large areas of [[Europe]] were affected by moderate [[radioactive contamination]] and the parts of the [[Ukraine]] and one fifth of [[Belarus]] continue today to be affected by radioactive fallout as of 2008.<ref>{{cite web |title=Geographical location and extent of radioactive contamination| publisher=Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation|url=http://www.chernobyl.info/index.php?navID=2}}</ref>

===Plants in adjacent nations===
The limited liability for the owner of a nuclear power plant in case of a nuclear accident differs per nation while nuclear installations are sometimes built close to national borders.<ref> Schwartz, J. 2004. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=15231352&dopt=Abstract "Emergency preparedness and response: compensating victims of a nuclear accident."] Journal of Hazardous Materials, Volume 111, Issues 1–3, July, 89–96.</ref> The [[Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage]] is intended to address this concern.


== See also ==
== See also ==

Revision as of 04:24, 11 September 2008

The Ikata Nuclear Power Plant, a pressurized water reactor that cools by direct exchange with the ocean.
File:Susquehanna steam electric station.jpg
The Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, a boiling water reactor. The nuclear reactors are located inside the rectangular containment buildings towards the front of the cooling towers.
Nuclear aircraft carrier USS Enterprise in 1964

Nuclear power is any nuclear technology designed to extract usable energy from atomic nuclei via controlled nuclear reactions. The most common method today is through nuclear fission, though other methods include nuclear fusion and radioactive decay. All utility-scale reactors[1] heat water to produce steam, which is then converted into mechanical work for the purpose of generating electricity or propulsion. Today, more than 15% of the world's electricity comes from nuclear power, more than 150 nuclear-powered naval vessels have been built, and a few radioisotope rockets have been produced.

Use

Historical and projected world energy use by energy source, 1980-2030, Source: International Energy Outlook 2007, EIA.
The status of nuclear power globally. Click image for legend.

As of 2005, nuclear power provided 6.3% of the world's energy and 15% of the world's electricity, with the U.S., France, and Japan together accounting for 56.5% of nuclear generated electricity.[2] As of 2007, the IAEA reported there are 439 nuclear power reactors in operation in the world,[3] operating in 31 countries.[4]

The United States produces the most nuclear energy, with nuclear power providing 19%[5] of the electricity it consumes, while France produces the highest percentage of its electrical energy from nuclear reactors—78% as of 2006.[6] In the European Union as a whole, nuclear energy provides 30% of the electricity.[7] Nuclear energy policy differs between European Union countries, and some, such as Austria and Ireland, have no active nuclear power stations. In comparison, France has a large number of these plants, with 16 multi-unit stations in current use.

Many military and some civilian (such as some icebreaker) ships use nuclear marine propulsion, a form of nuclear propulsion.[8] A few space vehicles have been launched using full-fledged nuclear reactors: the Soviet RORSAT series and the American SNAP-10A.

International research is continuing into safety improvements such as passively safe plants,[9] the use of nuclear fusion, and additional uses of process heat such as hydrogen production (in support of a hydrogen economy), for desalinating sea water, and for use in district heating systems.

History

Origins

Nuclear fission was first experimentally achieved by Enrico Fermi in 1934 when his team bombarded uranium with neutrons.[10] In 1938, German chemists Otto Hahn[11] and Fritz Strassmann, along with Austrian physicists Lise Meitner[12] and Meitner's nephew, Otto Robert Frisch,[13] conducted experiments with the products of neutron-bombarded uranium. They determined that the relatively tiny neutron split the nucleus of the massive uranium atoms into two roughly equal pieces, which was a surprising result. Numerous scientists, including Leo Szilard who was one of the first, recognized that if fission reactions released additional neutrons, a self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction could result. This spurred scientists in many countries (including the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and the Soviet Union) to petition their government for support of nuclear fission research.

In the United States, where Fermi and Szilard had both emigrated, this led to the creation of the first man-made reactor, known as Chicago Pile-1, which achieved criticality on December 2, 1942. This work became part of the Manhattan Project, which built large reactors at the Hanford Site (formerly the town of Hanford, Washington) to breed plutonium for use in the first nuclear weapons. A parallel uranium enrichment effort also was pursued.

After World War II, the fear that reactor research would encourage the rapid spread of nuclear weapons and technology, combined with what many scientists thought would be a long road of development, created a situation in which reactor research was kept under strict government control and classification. In addition, most reactor research centered on purely military purposes.

Electricity was generated for the first time by a nuclear reactor on December 20, 1951 at the EBR-I experimental station near Arco, Idaho, which initially produced about 100 kW (the Arco Reactor was also the first to experience partial meltdown, in 1955). In 1952, a report by the Paley Commission (The President's Materials Policy Commission) for President Harry Truman made a "relatively pessimistic" assessment of nuclear power, and called for "aggressive research in the whole field of solar energy."[14] A December 1953 speech by President Dwight Eisenhower, "Atoms for Peace," emphasized the useful harnessing of the atom and set the U.S. on a course of strong government support for international use of nuclear power.

Early years

File:Calderhall.jpeg
Calder Hall nuclear power station in England was the world's first nuclear power station to produce electricity in commercial quantities.[15]
The Shippingport Atomic Power Station in Shippingport, Pennsylvania was the first commercial reactor in the USA and was opened in 1957.

In 1954, Lewis Strauss, then chairman of the United States Atomic Energy Commission (forerunner of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the United States Department of Energy) spoke of electricity in the future being "too cheap to meter."[16] While few doubt he was thinking of atomic energy when he made the statement, he may have been referring to hydrogen fusion, rather than uranium fission.[17] Actually, the consensus of government and business at the time was that nuclear (fission) power might eventually become merely economically competitive with conventional power sources.

On June 27 1954, the USSRs Obninsk Nuclear Power Plant became the world's first nuclear power plant to generate electricity for a power grid, and produced around 5 megawatts electric power.[18][19]

In 1955 the United Nations' "First Geneva Conference", then the world's largest gathering of scientists and engineers, met to explore the technology. In 1957 EURATOM was launched alongside the European Economic Community (the latter is now the European Union). The same year also saw the launch of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

The world's first commercial nuclear power station, Calder Hall in Sellafield, England was opened in 1956 with an initial capacity of 50 MW (later 200 MW).[15][20] The first commercial nuclear generator to become operational in the United States was the Shippingport Reactor (Pennsylvania, December, 1957).

One of the first organizations to develop nuclear power was the U.S. Navy, for the purpose of propelling submarines and aircraft carriers. It has a good record in nuclear safety, perhaps because of the stringent demands of Admiral Hyman G. Rickover, who was the driving force behind nuclear marine propulsion as well as the Shippingport Reactor. The U.S. Navy has operated more nuclear reactors than any other entity, including the Soviet Navy,[citation needed][dubiousdiscuss] with no publicly known major incidents. The first nuclear-powered submarine, USS Nautilus (SSN-571), was put to sea in December 1954.[21] Two U.S. nuclear submarines, USS Scorpion and USS Thresher, have been lost at sea. These vessels were both lost due to malfunctions in systems not related to the reactor plants. Also, the sites are monitored and no known leakage has occurred from the onboard reactors.

Enrico Fermi and Leó Szilárd in 1955 shared U.S. patent 2,708,656 for the nuclear reactor, belatedly granted for the work they had done during the Manhattan Project.

Development

History of the use of nuclear power (top) and the number of active nuclear power plants (bottom).

Installed nuclear capacity initially rose relatively quickly, rising from less than 1 gigawatt (GW) in 1960 to 100 GW in the late 1970s, and 300 GW in the late 1980s. Since the late 1980s worldwide capacity has risen much more slowly, reaching 366 GW in 2005. Between around 1970 and 1990, more than 50 GW of capacity was under construction (peaking at over 150 GW in the late 70s and early 80s) — in 2005, around 25 GW of new capacity was planned. More than two-thirds of all nuclear plants ordered after January 1970 were eventually cancelled.[21]

Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear Power Plants 3 and 5 were never completed.

During the 1970s and 1980s rising economic costs (related to extended construction times largely due to regulatory changes and pressure-group litigation)[22] and falling fossil fuel prices made nuclear power plants then under construction less attractive. In the 1980s (U.S.) and 1990s (Europe), flat load growth and electricity liberalization also made the addition of large new baseload capacity unattractive.

The 1973 oil crisis had a significant effect on countries, such as France and Japan, which had relied more heavily on oil for electric generation (39% and 73% respectively) to invest in nuclear power.[23][24] Today, nuclear power supplies about 80% and 30% of the electricity in those countries, respectively.

A general movement against nuclear power arose during the last third of the 20th century, based on the fear of a possible nuclear accident, fears of radiation, nuclear proliferation, and on the opposition to nuclear waste production, transport and final storage. Perceived risks on the citizens' health and safety, the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island and the 1986 Chernobyl disaster played a part in stopping new plant construction in many countries,[25] although the public policy organization Brookings Institution suggests that new nuclear units have not been ordered in the U.S. because the Institution's research concludes they cost 15–30% more over their lifetime than conventional coal and natural gas fired plants.[26]

Unlike the Three Mile Island accident, the much more serious Chernobyl accident did not increase regulations affecting Western reactors since the Chernobyl reactors were of the problematic RBMK design only used in the Soviet Union, for example lacking "robust" containment buildings.[27] Many of these reactors are still in use today. However, changes were made in both the reactors themselves (use of low enriched uranium) and in the control system (prevention of disabling safety systems) to prevent the possibility of a duplicate accident.

An international organization to promote safety awareness and professional development on operators in nuclear facilities was created: WANO; World Association of Nuclear Operators.

Opposition in Ireland, New Zealand and Poland prevented nuclear programs there, while Austria (1978), Sweden (1980) and Italy (1987) (influenced by Chernobyl) voted in referendums to oppose or phase out nuclear power.

Future of the industry

Diablo Canyon Power Plant in San Luis Obispo County, California, USA

As of 2007, Watts Bar 1, which came on-line in 7 February 1996, was the last U.S. commercial nuclear reactor to go on-line. This is often quoted as evidence of a successful worldwide campaign for nuclear power phase-out. However, political resistance to nuclear power has only ever been successful in New Zealand, and parts of Europe and the Philippines. Even in the U.S. and throughout Europe, investment in research and in the nuclear fuel cycle has continued, and some experts[28] predict that electricity shortages, fossil fuel price increases, global warming and heavy metal emissions from fossil fuel use, new technology such as passively safe plants, and national energy security will renew the demand for nuclear power plants.

According to the World Nuclear Association, globally during the 1980s one new nuclear reactor started up every 17 days on average, and by the year 2015 this rate could increase to one every 5 days.[29]

Many countries remain active in developing nuclear power, including Japan, China and India, all actively developing both fast and thermal technology, South Korea and the United States, developing thermal technology only, and South Africa and China, developing versions of the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR). Several EU member states actively pursue nuclear programs, while some other member states continue to have a ban for the nuclear energy use. Japan has an active nuclear construction program with new units brought on-line in 2005. In the U.S., three consortia responded in 2004 to the U.S. Department of Energy's solicitation under the Nuclear Power 2010 Program and were awarded matching funds—the Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorized loan guarantees for up to six new reactors, and authorized the Department of Energy to build a reactor based on the Generation IV Very-High-Temperature Reactor concept to produce both electricity and hydrogen. As of the early 21st century, nuclear power is of particular interest to both China and India to serve their rapidly growing economies—both are developing fast breeder reactors. See also energy development. In the energy policy of the United Kingdom it is recognized that there is a likely future energy supply shortfall, which may have to be filled by either new nuclear plant construction or maintaining existing plants beyond their programmed lifetime.

There is a possible impediment to production of nuclear power plants, due to a backlog at Japan Steel Works, the only factory in the world able to manufacture the central part of a nuclear reactor's containment vessel in a single piece,[citation needed] which reduces the risk of a radiation leak. The company can only make four per year of the steel forgings. It will double its capacity in the next two years, but still will not be able to meet current global demand alone. Utilities across the world are submitting orders years in advance of any actual need. Other manufacturers are examining various options, including making the component themselves, or finding ways to make a similar item using alternate methods.[30] Other solutions include using designs that do not require single piece forged pressure vessles such as Canada's Advanced CANDU Reactors or Sodium-cooled Fast Reactors.

Other companies able to make the large forgings required for reactor pressure vessels include: Russia's OMZ, which is upgrading to be able to manufacture three or four pressure vessels per year;[31] South Korea's Doosan Heavy Industries;[32][33] and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, which is doubling capacity for reactor pressure vessels and other large nuclear components.[34] The UK's Sheffield Forgemasters is evaluating the benefit of tooling-up for nuclear forging work.

A 2007 status report from the anti-nuclear European Greens claimed that, "even if Finland and France build a European Pressurized water Reactor (EPR), China started an additional 20 plants and Japan, Korea or Eastern Europe added one or the other plant, the overall global trend for nuclear power capacity will most likely be downwards over the next two or three decades. With extremely long lead times of 10 years and more [for plant construction], it is practically impossible to maintain or even increase the number of operating nuclear power plants over the next 20 years, unless operating lifetimes would be substantially increased beyond 40 years on average."[35] In fact, China plans to build more than 100 plants,[36] while in the US the licenses of almost half its reactors have already been extended to 60 years,[37] and plans to build more than 30 new ones are under consideration.[38]

Nuclear reactor technology

Cattenom Nuclear Power Plant.

Conventional thermal power plants all have a fuel source to provide heat. Examples are gas, coal, or oil. For a nuclear power plant, this heat is provided by nuclear fission inside the nuclear reactor's core. When a relatively large fissile atomic nucleus is struck by a neutron it forms two or more smaller nuclei as fission products, releasing energy and neutrons in a process called nuclear fission. The neutrons then trigger further fission, and so on. When this nuclear chain reaction is controlled, the energy released can be used to heat water, produce steam and drive a turbine that generates electricity. While a nuclear power plant uses the same fuel, uranium-235 or plutonium-239, a nuclear explosive involves an uncontrolled chain reaction, and the rate of fission in a reactor is not capable of reaching sufficient levels to trigger a nuclear explosion because commercial reactor grade nuclear fuel is not enriched to a high enough level. Naturally found uranium contains 0.711% U-235 by mass, the rest being U-238 and trace amounts of other isotopes. Most reactor fuel is enriched to only 3–4%, but some designs use natural uranium or highly enriched uranium. Reactors for nuclear submarines and large naval surface ships, such as aircraft carriers, commonly use highly enriched uranium. Although highly enriched uranium is more expensive, it reduces the frequency of refueling, which is very useful for military vessels. CANDU reactors are able to use unenriched uranium because the heavy water they use as a moderator and coolant does not absorb neutrons like light water does.

The chain reaction is controlled through the use of materials that absorb and moderate neutrons. In uranium-fueled reactors, neutrons must be moderated (slowed down) because slow neutrons are more likely to cause fission when colliding with a uranium-235 nucleus. Light water reactors use ordinary water to moderate and cool the reactors. When at operating temperatures if the temperature of the water increases, its density drops, and fewer neutrons passing through it are slowed enough to trigger further reactions. That negative feedback stabilizes the reaction rate.

The current types of plants (and their common components) are discussed in the article nuclear reactor technology.

A number of other designs for nuclear power generation, the Generation IV reactors, are the subject of active research and may be used for practical power generation in the future. A number of the advanced nuclear reactor designs could also make critical fission reactors much cleaner, much safer and/or much less of a risk to the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

It should be noted that such Generation IV reactors are not necessarily fuel by uranium but by thorium, a more abundant fertile material that decays into U233 after being exposed to neutrons. Such reactors use about 1/300 the amount of fuel to power them. The Liquid Fluoride Reactor is one such example of this.

For the future, design changes are being pursued to lessen the risks of fission reactors; in particular, passively safe plants (such as the ESBWR) are available to be built and inherently safe designs are being pursued. Fusion reactors, which may be viable in the future, have no risk of explosive radiation-releasing accidents, and even smaller risks than the already extremely small risks associated with nuclear fission. Whilst fusion power reactors will produce a very small amount of reasonably short lived, intermediate-level radioactive waste at decommissioning time, as a result of neutron activation of the reactor vessel, they will not produce any high-level, long-lived materials comparable to those produced in a fission reactor. Even this small radioactive waste aspect can be mitigated through the use of low-activation steel alloys for the tokamak vessel.

Life cycle

The Nuclear Fuel Cycle begins when uranium is mined, enriched, and manufactured into nuclear fuel, (1) which is delivered to a nuclear power plant. After usage in the power plant, the spent fuel is delivered to a reprocessing plant (2) or to a final repository (3) for geological disposition. In reprocessing 95% of spent fuel can be recycled to be returned to usage in a power plant (4).

A nuclear reactor is only part of the life-cycle for nuclear power. The process starts with mining (see Uranium mining). Uranium mines are underground, open-pit, or in-situ leach mines. In any case, the uranium ore is extracted, usually converted into a stable and compact form such as yellowcake, and then transported to a processing facility. Here, the yellowcake is converted to uranium hexafluoride, which is then enriched using various techniques. At this point, the enriched uranium, containing more than the natural 0.7% U-235, is used to make rods of the proper composition and geometry for the particular reactor that the fuel is destined for. The fuel rods will spend about 3 operational cycles (typically 6 years total now) inside the reactor, generally until about 3% of their uranium has been fissioned, then they will be moved to a spent fuel pool where the short lived isotopes generated by fission can decay away. After about 5 years in a cooling pond, the spent fuel is radioactively and thermally cool enough to handle, and it can be moved to dry storage casks or reprocessed.

Conventional fuel resources

Uranium is a fairly common element in the Earth's crust. Uranium is approximately as common as tin or germanium in Earth's crust, and is about 35 times more common than silver. Uranium is a constituent of most rocks, dirt, and of the oceans. The world's present measured resources of uranium, economically recoverable at a price of 130 USD/kg, are enough to last for "at least a century" at current consumption rates.[39][40] This represents a higher level of assured resources than is normal for most minerals. On the basis of analogies with other metallic minerals, a doubling of price from present levels could be expected to create about a tenfold increase in measured resources, over time. The fuel's contribution to the overall cost of the electricity produced is relatively small, so even a large fuel price escalation will have relatively little effect on final price. For instance, typically a doubling of the uranium market price would increase the fuel cost for a light water reactor by 26% and the electricity cost about 7%, whereas doubling the price of natural gas would typically add 70% to the price of electricity from that source. At high enough prices, eventually extraction from sources such as granite and seawater become economically feasible.[41][42]

Current light water reactors make relatively inefficient use of nuclear fuel, fissioning only the very rare uranium-235 isotope. Nuclear reprocessing can make this waste reusable and more efficient reactor designs allow better use of the available resources.[43]

Breeding

As opposed to current light water reactors which use uranium-235 (0.7% of all natural uranium), fast breeder reactors use uranium-238 (99.3% of all natural uranium). It has been estimated that there is up to five billion years’ worth of uranium-238 for use in these power plants.[44]

Breeder technology has been used in several reactors, but the high cost of reprocessing fuel safely requires uranium prices of more than 200 USD/kg before becoming justified economically.[45] As of December 2005, the only breeder reactor producing power is BN-600 in Beloyarsk, Russia. The electricity output of BN-600 is 600 MW — Russia has planned to build another unit, BN-800, at Beloyarsk nuclear power plant. Also, Japan's Monju reactor is planned for restart (having been shut down since 1995), and both China and India intend to build breeder reactors.

Another alternative would be to use uranium-233 bred from thorium as fission fuel in the thorium fuel cycle. Thorium is about 3.5 times as common as uranium in the Earth's crust, and has different geographic characteristics. This would extend the total practical fissionable resource base by 450%.[46] Unlike the breeding of U-238 into plutonium, fast breeder reactors are not necessary — it can be performed satisfactorily in more conventional plants. India has looked into this technology, as it has abundant thorium reserves but little uranium.

Fusion

Fusion power commonly propose the use of deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen, as fuel and in many current designs also lithium. Assuming a fusion energy output equal to the current global output and that this does not increase in the future, then the known current lithium reserves would last 3000 years, lithium from sea water would last 60 million years, and a more complicated fusion process using only deuterium from sea water would have fuel for 150 billion years.[47]

Water

Like all forms of power generation using steam turbines, Nuclear power plants use large amounts of water for cooling. At Sellafield, which is no longer producing electricity, a maximum of 18,184.4 m³ a day (over 4 million gallons) and 6,637,306 m³ a year (figures from the Environment Agency) of fresh water from Wast Water is still abstracted to use on site for various processes. As with most power plants, two-thirds of the energy produced by a nuclear power plant goes into waste heat (see Carnot cycle), and that heat is carried away from the plant in the water (which remains uncontaminated by radioactivity). The emitted water either is sent into cooling towers where it goes up and is emitted as water droplets (literally a cloud) or is discharged into large bodies of water — cooling ponds, lakes, rivers, or oceans.[48] Droughts can pose a severe problem by causing the source of cooling water to run out.[49][50]

The Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station near Phoenix, AZ is the only nuclear generating facility in the world that is not located adjacent to a large body of water. Instead, it uses treated sewage from several nearby municipalities to meet its cooling water needs, recycling 20 billion US gallons (76,000,000 m³) of wastewater each year.

Like conventional power plants, nuclear power plants generate large quantities of waste heat which is expelled in the condenser, following the turbine. Colocation of plants that can take advantage of this thermal energy has been suggested by Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) as a way to take advantage of process synergy for added energy efficiency. One example would be to use the power plant steam to produce hydrogen from water.[51] The hydrogen would cost less, and the nuclear power plant would exhaust less heat into the atmosphere and water vapor, which is a short-lived greenhouse gas.

Solid waste

The safe storage and disposal of nuclear waste is a significant challenge. The most important waste stream from nuclear power plants is spent fuel. A large nuclear reactor produces 3 cubic metres (25–30 tonnes) of spent fuel each year.[52] It is primarily composed of unconverted uranium as well as significant quantities of transuranic actinides (plutonium and curium, mostly). In addition, about 3% of it is made of fission products. The actinides (uranium, plutonium, and curium) are responsible for the bulk of the long term radioactivity, whereas the fission products are responsible for the bulk of the short term radioactivity.[53]

High level radioactive waste

Spent fuel is highly radioactive and needs to be handled with great care and forethought. However, spent nuclear fuel becomes less radioactive over time. After 40 years, the radiation flux is 99.9% lower than it was the moment the spent fuel was removed, although still dangerously radioactive.[43]

Spent fuel rods are stored in shielded basins of water (spent fuel pools), usually located on-site. The water provides both cooling for the still-decaying fission products, and shielding from the continuing radioactivity. After a few decades some on-site storage involves moving the now cooler, less radioactive fuel to a dry-storage facility or dry cask storage, where the fuel is stored in steel and concrete containers until its radioactivity decreases naturally ("decays") to levels safe enough for other processing. This interim stage spans years or decades, depending on the type of fuel. Most U.S. waste is currently stored in temporary storage sites requiring oversight, while suitable permanent disposal methods are discussed.

As of 2007, the United States had accumulated more than 50,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel from nuclear reactors.[54] Underground storage at Yucca Mountain in U.S. has been proposed as permanent storage. After 10,000 years of radioactive decay, according to United States Environmental Protection Agency standards, the spent nuclear fuel will no longer pose a threat to public health and safety.[citation needed]

The amount of waste can be reduced in several ways, particularly reprocessing. Even so, the remaining waste will be substantially radioactive for at least 300 years even if the actinides are removed, and for up to thousands of years if the actinides are left in.[citation needed] Even with separation of all actinides, and using fast breeder reactors to destroy by transmutation some of the longer-lived non-actinides as well, the waste must be segregated from the environment for one to a few hundred years, and therefore this is properly categorized as a long-term problem. Subcritical reactors or fusion reactors could also reduce the time the waste has to be stored.[55] It has been argued that the best solution for the nuclear waste is above ground temporary storage since technology is rapidly changing. The current waste may well become a valuable resource in the future.

France is one of the world's most densely populated countries. According to a 2007 story broadcast on 60 Minutes, nuclear power gives France the cleanest air of any industrialized country, and the cheapest electricity in all of Europe.[56] France reprocesses its nuclear waste to reduce its mass and make more energy.[57] However, the article continues, "Today we stock containers of waste because currently scientists don't know how to reduce or eliminate the toxicity, but maybe in 100 years perhaps scientists will ... Nuclear waste is an enormously difficult political problem which to date no country has solved. It is, in a sense, the Achilles heel of the nuclear industry ... If France is unable to solve this issue, says Mandil, then 'I do not see how we can continue our nuclear program.'"[57] Further, reprocessing itself has its critics, such as the Union of Concerned Scientists.[58]

Low-level radioactive waste

The nuclear industry also produces a volume of low-level radioactive waste in the form of contaminated items like clothing, hand tools, water purifier resins, and (upon decommissioning) the materials of which the reactor itself is built. In the United States, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has repeatedly attempted to allow low-level materials to be handled as normal waste: landfilled, recycled into consumer items, et cetera. Most low-level waste releases very low levels of radioactivity and is only considered radioactive waste because of its history. For example, according to the standards of the NRC, the radiation released by coffee is enough to treat it as low level waste.[citation needed]

Comparing radioactive waste to industrial toxic waste

In countries with nuclear power, radioactive wastes comprise less than 1% of total industrial toxic wastes, which remain hazardous indefinitely unless they decompose or are treated so that they are less toxic or, ideally, completely non-toxic.[43] Overall, nuclear power produces far less waste material than fossil-fuel based power plants. Coal-burning plants are particularly noted for producing large amounts of toxic and mildly radioactive ash due to concentrating naturally occurring metals and radioactive material from the coal. Contrary to popular belief, coal power actually results in more radioactive waste being released into the environment than nuclear power. The population effective dose equivalent from radiation from coal plants is 100 times as much as nuclear plants.[59]

Reprocessing

Reprocessing can potentially recover up to 95% of the remaining uranium and plutonium in spent nuclear fuel, putting it into new mixed oxide fuel. This produces a reduction in long term radioactivity within the remaining waste, since this is largely short-lived fission products, and reduces its volume by over 90%. Reprocessing of civilian fuel from power reactors is currently done on large scale in Britain, France and (formerly) Russia, soon will be done in China and perhaps India, and is being done on an expanding scale in Japan. The full potential of reprocessing has not been achieved because it requires breeder reactors, which are not yet commercially available. France is generally cited as the most successful reprocessor, but it presently only recycles 28% (by mass) of the yearly fuel use, 7% within France and another 21% in Russia.[60]

Unlike other countries, the US stopped civilian reprocessing from 1976 to 1981 as one part of US non-proliferation policy, since reprocessed material such as plutonium could be used in nuclear weapons: however, reprocessing is now allowed in the U.S.[61] Even so, in the U.S. spent nuclear fuel is currently all treated as waste.[62]

In February, 2006, a new U.S. initiative, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership was announced. It would be an international effort to reprocess fuel in a manner making nuclear proliferation unfeasible, while making nuclear power available to developing countries.[63]

Depleted uranium

Uranium enrichment produces many tons of depleted uranium (DU) which consists of U-238 with most of the easily fissile U-235 isotope removed. U-238 is a tough metal with several commercial uses — for example, aircraft production, radiation shielding, and armor — as it has a higher density than lead. Depleted uranium is also useful in munitions as DU penetrators (bullets or APFSDS tips) 'self sharpen', due to uranium's tendency to fracture along adiabatic shear bands.[64][65]

There are concerns that U-238 may lead to health problems in groups exposed to this material excessively, like tank crews and civilians living in areas where large quantities of DU ammunition have been used. In January 2003 the World Health Organization released a report finding that contamination from DU munitions were localized to a few tens of meters from the impact sites and contamination of local vegetation and water was 'extremely low'. The report also states that approximately 70% of ingested DU will leave the body after twenty four hours and 90% after a few days.[66]

Debate on nuclear power

Proponents of nuclear energy aver that nuclear power is a sustainable energy source that reduces carbon emissions and increases energy security by decreasing dependence on foreign oil.[67] Proponents also claim that the risks of storing waste are small and can be further reduced by the technology in the new reactors and the operational safety record is already good when compared to the other major kinds of power plants.

Critics believe that nuclear power is a potentially dangerous and declining[68] energy source, with decreasing proportion of nuclear energy in power production, and dispute whether the risks can be reduced through new technology. Critics also point to the problem of storing radioactive waste, the potential for possibly severe radioactive contamination by accident or sabotage, the possibility of nuclear proliferation and the disadvantages of centralized electrical production.

Arguments of economics and safety are used by both sides of the debate.

See also

Template:EnergyPortal

Footnotes

  1. ^ Small Radioisotope thermoelectric generators have been built, which have no steam cycle.
  2. ^ "Key World Energy Statistics 2007" (PDF). International Energy Agency. 2007. Retrieved 2008-06-21. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  3. ^ "Nuclear Power Plants Information. Number of Reactors Operation Worldwide". International Atomic Energy Agency. Retrieved 2008-06-21.
  4. ^ "World Nuclear Power Reactors 2007-08 and Uranium Requirements". World Nuclear Association. 2008-06-09. Retrieved 2008-06-21.
  5. ^ "Net Generation by Energy Source by Type of Producer". Energy Information Administration. 2007-10-22. Retrieved 2008-06-21.
  6. ^ Eleanor Beardsley (2006). "France Presses Ahead with Nuclear Power". NPR. Retrieved 2006-11-08.
  7. ^ "Gross electricity generation, by fuel used in power-stations". Eurostat. 2006. Retrieved 2007-02-03.
  8. ^ "Nuclear Icebreaker Lenin". 2003-06-20. Retrieved 2007-11-01. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |Publisher= ignored (|publisher= suggested) (help)
  9. ^ David Baurac (2002). "Passively safe reactors rely on nature to keep them cool". Logos. 20 (1). Argonne National Laboratory. Retrieved 2007-11-01.
  10. ^ "Enrico Fermi, The Nobel Prize for Physics, 1938". Retrieved 2007-11-03. {{cite web}}: External link in |Publisher= (help); Unknown parameter |Publisher= ignored (|publisher= suggested) (help)
  11. ^ "Otto Hahn, The Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1944". Retrieved 2007-11-01. {{cite web}}: External link in |Publisher= (help); Unknown parameter |Publisher= ignored (|publisher= suggested) (help)
  12. ^ "Otto Hahn, Fritz Strassmann, and Lise Meitner". Retrieved 2007-11-01. {{cite web}}: External link in |Publisher= (help); Unknown parameter |Publisher= ignored (|publisher= suggested) (help)
  13. ^ "Otto Robert Frisch". Retrieved 2007-11-01. {{cite web}}: External link in |Publisher= (help); Unknown parameter |Publisher= ignored (|publisher= suggested) (help)
  14. ^ Makhijani, Arjun and Saleska, Scott (1996). "The Nuclear Power Deception". Institute for Energy and Environmental Research.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  15. ^ a b Kragh, Helge (1999). Quantum Generations: A History of Physics in the Twentieth Century. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press. pp. p286. ISBN 0691095523. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
  16. ^ "Too Cheap to Meter?". Canadian Nuclear Society. 2006. Retrieved 2006-11-09.
  17. ^ David Bodansky. "Nuclear Energy: Principles, Practices, and Prospects". p. 32. Retrieved 2008-01-31. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help)
  18. ^ "From Obninsk Beyond: Nuclear Power Conference Looks to Future". International Atomic Energy Agency. Retrieved 2006-06-27.
  19. ^ "Nuclear Power in Russia". World Nuclear Association. Retrieved 2006-06-27.
  20. ^ "On This Day: [[17 October]]". BBC News. Retrieved 2006-11-09. {{cite web}}: URL–wikilink conflict (help)
  21. ^ a b "50 Years of Nuclear Energy" (PDF). International Atomic Energy Agency. Retrieved 2006-11-09.
  22. ^ Bernard L. Cohen. "THE NUCLEAR ENERGY OPTION". Plenum Press. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |accessmonth= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
  23. ^ Template:PDFlink
  24. ^ The Japanese Situation
  25. ^ "The Rise and Fall of Nuclear Power". Public Broadcasting Service. Retrieved 2006-06-28.
  26. ^ "The Political Economy of Nuclear Energy in the United States" (PDF). Social Policy. The Brookings Institution. 2004. Retrieved 2006-11-09.
  27. ^ "Backgrounder on Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant Accident". Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Retrieved 2006-06-28.
  28. ^ "Nuclear Energy's Role in Responding to the Energy Challenges of the 21st Century" (PDF). Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. Retrieved 2008-06-21.
  29. ^ Plans For New Reactors Worldwide, World Nuclear Association
  30. ^ Bloomberg exclusive: Samurai-Sword Maker's Reactor Monopoly May Cool Nuclear Revival By Yoshifumi Takemoto and Alan Katz, bloomberg.com, 3/13/08.
  31. ^ Russia's nuclear forging supplier ups capacity, World Nuclear News, 30 October 2007.
  32. ^ Westinghouse enlists Doosan for China, World Nuclear News, 27 April 2007
  33. ^ South Korea's nuclear power independence, World Nuclear News, 28 May 2008
  34. ^ MHI tools up for surge inconstruction, World Nuclear News, 9 June 2008.
  35. ^ The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2007: Conclusions
  36. ^ Pfister, Bonnie (2008-06-28). "China wants 100 Westinghouse reactors". Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Retrieved 2008-07-25.
  37. ^ "Nuclear Power in the USA". World Nuclear Association. 2008. Retrieved 2008-07-25. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  38. ^ "Expected New Nuclear Power Plant Applications" (PDF). U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2008-07-24. Retrieved 2008-07-25.
  39. ^ ""Uranium resources sufficient to meet projected nuclear energy requirements long into the future"". Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA). 3 June 2008. Retrieved 2008-06-16. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  40. ^ NEA, IAEA: Uranium 2007 – Resources, Production and Demand. OECD Publishing, 10 June 2008, ISBN 9789264047662.
  41. ^ [1] [2] James Jopf (2004). "World Uranium Reserves". American Energy Independence. Retrieved 2006-11-10. [3] [4]
  42. ^ "Uranium in a global context".
  43. ^ a b c "Waste Management in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle". Information and Issue Briefs. World Nuclear Association. 2006. Retrieved 2006-11-09.
  44. ^ John McCarthy (2006). "Facts From Cohen and Others". Progress and its Sustainability. Stanford. Retrieved 2006-11-09. Citing Breeder reactors: A renewable energy source, American Journal of Physics, vol. 51, (1), Jan. 1983.
  45. ^ "Advanced Nuclear Power Reactors". Information and Issue Briefs. World Nuclear Association. 2006. Retrieved 2006-11-09.
  46. ^ "Thorium". Information and Issue Briefs. World Nuclear Association. 2006. Retrieved 2006-11-09.
  47. ^ J. Ongena. ""Energy for Future Centuries: Will fusion be an inexhaustible, safe and clean energy source?"" (PDF). Retrieved 2008-01-31. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  48. ^ "Got Water? Nuclear power plant cooling water needs". Union of Concerned Scientists.
  49. ^ "Drought could shut down nuclear power plants". MSNBC. 2008-01-23.
  50. ^ Julio Godoy (2005-07-11). "Dangerous Summer for Nuclear Power Plants". Common Dreams.
  51. ^ C. W. Forsberg (2006). ""Assessment of Nuclear-Hydrogen Synergies with Renewable Energy Systems and Coal Liquefaction Processes"" (PDF). Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Retrieved 2008-01-31. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  52. ^ "Radioactive Waste Management". Uranium & Nuclear Power Information Centre. 2002. Retrieved 2006-11-09.
  53. ^ M. I. Ojovan, W.E. Lee. An Introduction to Nuclear Waste Immobilisation, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam, 315pp. (2005).
  54. ^ "Safely Managing Used Nuclear Fuel". Nuclear Energy Institute. Retrieved 2008-04-25. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  55. ^ "Accelerator-driven Nuclear Energy". Information and Issue Briefs. World Nuclear Association. 2003. Retrieved 2006-11-09.
  56. ^ Steve Kroft (April 8, 2007). ""France: Vive Les Nukes"". 60 Minutes. Retrieved 2008-01-31. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  57. ^ a b Jon Palfreman. "Why the French like nuclear energy". PBS Frontline.
  58. ^ Template:PDFlink
  59. ^ Cite error: The named reference colmain was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  60. ^ IEEE Spectrum: Nuclear Wasteland. Retrieved on 2007-04-22
  61. ^ Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing: U.S. Policy Development
  62. ^ Processing of Used Nuclear Fuel for Recycle. WNA
  63. ^ Baker, Peter. "Nuclear Energy Plan Would Use Spent Fuel". Washington Post (2007-01-26). Retrieved 2007-01-31. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |quotes= and |month= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  64. ^ Hambling, David (30 July 2003). "'Safe' alternative to depleted uranium revealed". New Scientist. Retrieved 2008-07-16.
  65. ^ Stevens, J. B. "Adiabatic Shear Banding in Axisymmetric Impact and Penetration Problems". Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Retrieved 2008-07-16. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  66. ^ "Depleted uranium". World Health Organization. 2003. Retrieved 2008-07-16. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  67. ^ U.S. Energy Legislation May Be `Renaissance' for Nuclear Power.
  68. ^ The Greens | European Free Alliance in the European Parliament - – Nuclear energy

References

Nuclear news websites

Critical

Supportive

Template:Link FA