| Revision as of 01:45, 30 July 2018 editInukin (talk | contribs)64 editsNo edit summaryTag: External link added to disambiguation page← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:45, 30 July 2018 edit undoSro23 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators53,146 editsm Reverted edits by Inukin (talk) to last version by VelellaTags: Replaced RollbackNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Wiktionary|nuclear energy}} | |||
| {{redirect|Atomic power|the film|Atomic Power (film)}} | |||
| '''Nuclear energy''' may refer to: | |||
| {{about|nuclear fission and fusion power sources primarily|commercial quantities of heat derived from naturally occurring ]|Geothermal energy|the political term|List of states with nuclear weapons}} | |||
| *], the use of sustained nuclear fission to generate heat and electricity | |||
| {{pp-semi-protected|small=yes}} | |||
| *], the energy required to split a nucleus of an atom | |||
| ], ] in Switzerland. The ] (BWR), located inside the dome capped cylindrical structure, is dwarfed in size by its ]. The station produces a yearly average of 25 million ]s per day, sufficient to power a city the size of ].<ref></ref>]] | |||
| *], a bronze sculpture by Henry Moore in the University of Chicago | |||
| ]. Picture taken in 1964 during a record setting voyage of {{convert|26,540|nmi|km|abbr=on|0}} around the world in 65 days without refueling. Crew members are spelling out ]'s ] formula ''E = mc<sup>2</sup>'' on the ].]] | |||
| *], the potential energy of the particles inside an atomic nucleus | |||
| {{Pie chart | |||
| | thumb =right | |||
| | caption =2012 World electricity generation by fuels (IEA, 2014)<ref name="IEA-Report-keyworld-2014"> | |||
| {{cite web |url=http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/KeyWorld2014.pdf |title=2014 Key World Energy Statistics |date=2014 |publisher=]|pages=24|archiveurl=https://www.webcitation.org/6YIEFsQ6b?url=http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/KeyWorld2014.pdf |archivedate=2015-05-05 |deadurl=no | |||
| }}</ref> | |||
| | other = | |||
| | label1 =Coal/Peat | |||
| | value1 =40.4 | |||
| | color1 =#313c42 | |||
| | label2 =Natural Gas | |||
| | value2 =22.5 | |||
| | color2 =#ef8e39 | |||
| | label3 =Hydro | |||
| | value3 =16.2 | |||
| | color3 =#005CE6 | |||
| | label4 =Nuclear fission | |||
| | value4 =10.9 | |||
| | color4 =#de2821 | |||
| | label5 =Oil | |||
| | value5 =5.0 | |||
| | color5 =#7C6250 | |||
| | label6 =Others (]) | |||
| | value6 =5.0 | |||
| | color6 =#00CC4B | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Disambiguation}} | |||
| '''Nuclear power''' is the use of ]s that release ]<ref name=nuclearEnergy-tx>{{cite web|url= http://www.energyeducation.tx.gov/energy/section_1/topics/forms_of_energy/nuclear_energy.html |title=Nuclear Energy|work=Energy Education is an interactive curriculum supplement for secondary-school science students, funded by the U. S. Department of Energy and the Texas State Energy Conservation Office (SECO)|publisher=] and the Texas State Energy Conservation Office (SECO) |date=July 2010 |accessdate=2010-07-10 |deadurl=yes|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110226114158/http://www.energyeducation.tx.gov/energy/section_1/topics/forms_of_energy/nuclear_energy.html |archivedate=2011-02-26 |df= }}</ref> to generate heat, which most frequently is then used in ]s to produce electricity in a ]. | |||
| Nuclear power can be obtained from ], ] and ]. | |||
| Presently, the vast majority of electricity from nuclear power is produced by nuclear fission of elements in the ] series of the ]. | |||
| Nuclear decay processes are used in niche applications such as ]s. | |||
| The possibility of generating electricity from nuclear fusion is still at a research phase with no commercial applications. | |||
| This article mostly deals with nuclear fission power for electricity generation. | |||
| Nuclear power is one of the leading ] methods of producing ]. | |||
| In terms of ], nuclear power has emission values comparable or lower than ].<ref name="Nrel.gov">{{cite web |url=http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/sustain_lca_nuclear.html |title=Collectively, life cycle assessment literature shows that nuclear power is similar to other renewable and much lower than fossil fuel in total life cycle GHG emissions.'' |publisher=Nrel.gov |date=2013-01-24 |accessdate=2013-06-22 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130702205635/http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/sustain_lca_nuclear.html |archivedate=2013-07-02 |df= }}</ref><ref> {{webarchive| url= https://web.archive.org/web/20170506114117/http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/sustain_lca_results.html |date=2017-05-06 }}</ref> | |||
| From the beginning of its commercialization in the 1970s, nuclear power prevented about 1.84 million air pollution-related deaths and the emission of about 64 billion tonnes of ] that would have otherwise resulted from the burning of fossil fuels in ]s.<ref name="Kharecha Pushker A 2013 4889–4895">{{cite journal |title=Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power – global nuclear power has prevented an average of 1.84 million air pollution-related deaths and 64 gigatonnes of CO2-equivalent (GtCO2-eq) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that would have resulted from fossil fuel burning |publisher=Pubs.acs.org |doi=10.1021/es3051197 |ref=harv|bibcode = 2013EnST...47.4889K |volume=47 |issue=9 |journal=Environmental Science |pages=4889–4895 |year=2013 |author=Kharecha Pushker A}}</ref> | |||
| As of April 2018, there are ], with a combined electrical capacity of 394 ] (GW). | |||
| Additionally, there are 58 reactors under construction and 154 reactors planned, with a combined capacity of 63 GW and 157 GW, respectively.<ref name=WNA>{{cite web|title=World Nuclear Power Reactors {{!}} Uranium Requirements {{!}} Future Nuclear Power - World Nuclear Association|url=http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/facts-and-figures/world-nuclear-power-reactors-and-uranium-requireme.aspx|website=www.world-nuclear.org|accessdate=8 May 2018}}</ref> | |||
| Most of reactors under construction are of ] design, with the majority in Asia.<ref></ref> | |||
| Over 300 more reactors are proposed.<ref name=WNA/> | |||
| There is a social ].<ref>{{cite news |author=Union-Tribune Editorial Board |date=2011-03-27 |title=The nuclear controversy |url= http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/mar/27/nuclear-controversy/ |newspaper=Union-Tribune |location=San Diego}}</ref><ref name="jstor.org">James J. MacKenzie. by ] ''The Quarterly Review of Biology'', Vol. 52, No. 4 (Dec., 1977), pp. 467–468.</ref><ref name="A Reasonable Bet on Nuclear Power">In February 2010 the nuclear power debate played out on the pages of '']'', see and and </ref> | |||
| Proponents, such as the ] and ], contend that nuclear power is a safe, ] source that reduces ].<ref name="bloomberg.com"> {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090626182130/http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103 |date=2009-06-26 }}.</ref> | |||
| ], such as ] and ], contend that nuclear power poses many threats to ].<ref name="Share">{{cite web|url=http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/4-nuclear-waste-pools-in-north-carolina/ |title=Nuclear Waste Pools in North Carolina |author=Share |publisher=Projectcensored.org |accessdate=2010-08-24 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20100725030831/http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/4-nuclear-waste-pools-in-north-carolina/ |archivedate=2010-07-25 |df= }}</ref><ref name="NC WARN » Nuclear Power">{{cite web|url=http://www.ncwarn.org/?cat=18 |title=Nuclear Power |publisher=Nc Warn |accessdate=2013-06-22}}</ref><ref name="Sturgis">{{cite web|url=http://www.southernstudies.org/2009/04/post-4.html |title=Investigation: Revelations about Three Mile Island disaster raise doubts over nuclear plant safety |last=Sturgis |first=Sue |publisher=Southernstudies.org |accessdate=2010-08-24 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20100418063024/http://www.southernstudies.org/2009/04/post-4.html |archivedate=2010-04-18 |df= }}</ref> | |||
| Far-reaching ], or accidents that resulted in medium to long-lived ] contamination of inhabited areas, have occurred in ] designs. | |||
| These include the ] in 1986, the ] in 2011, and the more contained ] in 1979.<ref name=timenuke/> | |||
| There have also been some nuclear submarine accidents.<ref name=timenuke>{{cite news|author=iPad iPhone Android TIME TV Populist The Page |url=http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1887705,00.html |title=The Worst Nuclear Disasters |publisher=Time.com |date=2009-03-25 |accessdate=2013-06-22}}</ref><ref name=rad> {{webarchive|url=https://www.webcitation.org/5hO7gbe9a?url=http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull413/article1.pdf |date=2009-06-08 }} p. 14.</ref><ref name=johnston2007>{{cite web |url=http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/radevents1.html |title=Deadliest radiation accidents and other events causing radiation casualties |author=Johnston, Robert |date=2007-09-23 |publisher=Database of Radiological Incidents and Related Events }}</ref> | |||
| In terms of lives lost per unit of energy generated, analysis has determined that fission-electric reactors have caused fewer fatalities per unit of energy generated than the other major sources of energy generation. | |||
| Energy production from coal, petroleum, natural gas and hydroelectricity has caused a greater number of fatalities per unit of energy generated due to air pollution and ] effects.<ref name="MarkandyaWilkinson2007">{{cite journal | doi = 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61253-7 | last1 = Markandya | first1 = A. | last2 = Wilkinson | first2 = P. | title = Electricity generation and health | journal = Lancet | volume = 370 | issue = 9591 | pages = 979–990 | year = 2007 | pmid = 17876910}} - ''Nuclear power has lower electricity related health risks than Coal, Oil, & gas. ...the health burdens are appreciably smaller for generation from natural gas, and lower still for nuclear power.'' This study includes the latent or indirect fatalities, for example those caused by the inhalation of fossil fuel created ], smog induced ] events, ] etc. in its comparison.)</ref><ref name="Gohlke">{{cite journal | author= Gohlke JM et al. Environmental Health Perspectives | |||
| | title= Health, Economy, and Environment: Sustainable Energy Choices for a Nation | pmc=2430245 | year= 2008 | volume= 116 | issue= 6 | pages= A236–A237 | doi= 10.1289/ehp.11602 | journal= Environmental Health Perspectives | pmid= 18560493}}</ref><ref name="without the hot air">{{cite web |url= http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c24/page_168.shtml |title=Dr. MacKay ''Sustainable Energy without the hot air'' |work= Data from studies by the ] including non EU data |page= 168 |accessdate=2012-09-15}}</ref><ref>https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/ with Chernobyl's total predicted ] cancer deaths included, nuclear power is safer when compared to many alternative energy sources' immediate, death rate.</ref><ref name="theage2006">{{cite news | url= http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/nuclear-power-cheaper-safer-than-coal-and-gas/2006/06/04/1149359609052.html | title= Nuclear power 'cheaper, safer' than coal and gas |author= Brendan Nicholson |date= 2006-06-05 |work= |publisher= ] |pages= |doi= | accessdate= 2008-01-18 | location=Melbourne}}</ref><ref name="tandfonline1">{{cite journal | last1 = Burgherr | first1 = P. | last2 = Hirschberg | first2 = S. | date = 2008 | title = A Comparative Analysis of Accident Risks in Fossil, Hydro, and Nuclear Energy Chains | url = http://gabe.web.psi.ch/pdfs/_2012_LEA_Audit/TA01.pdf | journal = Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: an International Journal | volume = 14 | issue = 5 | pages = 947 | doi = 10.1080/10807030802387556 }} Page 962 to 965. Comparing Nuclear's ''latent'' cancer deaths, such as cancer with other energy sources ''immediate'' deaths per unit of energy generated(GWeyr). This study does not include Fossil fuel related cancer and other indirect deaths created by the use of fossil fuel consumption in its "severe accident", an accident with more than 5 fatalities, classification.</ref> | |||
| Collaboration on research & developments towards greater ], efficiency and ] in future ]s presently includes ] and the co-operation of more than 10 permanent countries globally.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.gen-4.org/gif/jcms/c_9260/public|title=GIF Portal – Home – Public|website=www.gen-4.org|access-date=2016-07-25}}</ref> | |||
| ==History== | |||
| ===Origins=== | |||
| {{See also|Nuclear fission#History|Atomic Age}} | |||
| In 1932 physicist ] discovered that when lithium atoms were "split" by protons from a proton accelerator, immense amounts of energy were released in accordance with the principle of ]. However, he and other nuclear physics pioneers ] and ] believed harnessing the power of the atom for practical purposes anytime in the near future was unlikely, with Rutherford labeling such expectations "moonshine."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.atomicarchive.com/History/mp/p1s2.shtml |title=Moonshine |publisher=Atomicarchive.com |accessdate=2013-06-22}}</ref> | |||
| The same year, his doctoral student ] discovered the ],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.atomicarchive.com/History/mp/p1s1.shtml |title=The Atomic Solar System |publisher=Atomicarchive.com |accessdate=2013-06-22}}</ref> which was immediately recognized as a potential tool for nuclear experimentation because of its lack of an electric charge. Experimentation with bombardment of materials with neutrons led ] and ] to discover ] in 1934, which allowed the creation of radium-like elements at much less the price of natural radium.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.thebigger.com/chemistry/nuclear-and-radiation-chemistry/what-do-you-mean-by-induced-radioactivity-2/ |title=What do you mean by Induced Radioactivity? |author=taneya says: |publisher=Thebigger.com |accessdate=2013-06-22}}</ref> Further work by ] in the 1930s focused on using ]s to increase the effectiveness of induced radioactivity. Experiments bombarding uranium with neutrons led Fermi to believe he had created a new, transuranic element, which was dubbed ].<ref name=Np>{{cite web|url=http://www.vanderkrogt.net/elements/element.php?sym=Np |title=Neptunium |publisher=Vanderkrogt.net |accessdate=2013-06-22}}</ref> | |||
| ] of all natural elements in the periodic table. With higher values translating into more tightly bound nuclei, the greatest nuclear stability. ](Fe), is both the end product of ] within the core of ] fusing stars and the production of elements surrounding iron are likewise the ] of the ](e.g uranium). Iron is also seen as the ] rather than the peak of the graph as shown, were all other elemental nuclei have the potential to be nuclear fuel, much like "a ball rolls down a hill ]", with the greater numerical separation or "height" difference from iron, the greater ] that could be released.]] | |||
| But in 1938, German chemists ]<ref>{{cite web |url= http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1944/hahn-bio.html |title=Otto Hahn, The Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1944 |accessdate=2007-11-01 |publisher=Nobelprize.org }}</ref> and ], along with Austrian physicist ]<ref>{{cite web |url= https://www.sciencehistory.org/historical-profile/otto-hahn-lise-meitner-and-fritz-strassmann |title=Otto Hahn, Fritz Strassmann, and Lise Meitner |accessdate=March 20, 2018 |publisher=Science History Institute }}</ref> and Meitner's nephew, ],<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/library/biographies/bio_frisch-otto.htm |title=Otto Robert Frisch |accessdate=2007-11-01 |publisher=Nuclearfiles.org }}</ref> conducted experiments with the products of neutron-bombarded uranium, as a means of further investigating Fermi's claims. They determined that the relatively tiny neutron split the nucleus of the massive uranium atoms into two roughly equal pieces, contradicting Fermi.<ref name=Np/> This was an extremely surprising result: all other forms of ] involved only small changes to the mass of the nucleus, whereas this process—dubbed "fission" as a ]—involved a complete rupture of the nucleus. Numerous scientists, including ], who was one of the first, recognized that if fission reactions released additional neutrons, a self-sustaining ] could result. Once this was experimentally confirmed and announced by Frédéric Joliot-Curie in 1939, scientists in many countries (including the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and the Soviet Union) petitioned their governments for support of nuclear fission research, just on the cusp of World War II, for the development of a ].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.atomicarchive.com/History/mp/introduction.shtml |title=The Einstein Letter |publisher=Atomicarchive.com |accessdate=2013-06-22}}</ref> | |||
| ===First nuclear reactor=== | |||
| In the United States, where Fermi and Szilárd had both emigrated, this led to the creation of the first man-made reactor, known as ], which achieved ] on December 2, 1942. This work became part of the ], a massive secret U.S. government military project to make ] by building large reactors to breed ] for use in the first nuclear weapons. The United States tested atom bombs and eventually these weapons were ]. | |||
| ] at ], December 20, 1951.]] | |||
| In 1945, the first widely distributed account of nuclear energy, in the form of the pocketbook ''The Atomic Age'', discussed the peaceful future uses of nuclear energy and depicted a future where fossil fuels would go unused. Nobel laurette ], who later chaired the ], is quoted as saying "there will be ], ], ], and much more".<ref></ref><ref></ref> | |||
| The United Kingdom, Canada,<ref>{{cite book|last=Bain|first=Alastair S.|title=Canada enters the nuclear age: a technical history of Atomic Energy of Canada|year=1997|publisher=Magill-Queen's University Press|isbn=0-7735-1601-8|page=ix|display-authors=etal}}</ref> and the USSR proceeded to research and develop nuclear industries over the course of the late 1940s and early 1950s. Electricity was generated for the first time by a nuclear reactor on December 20, 1951, at the ] experimental station near ], which initially produced about 100 kW.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ne.anl.gov/About/reactors/frt.shtml |title=Reactors Designed by Argonne National Laboratory: Fast Reactor Technology |publisher=U.S. Department of Energy, Argonne National Laboratory |year=2012 |accessdate=2012-07-25}}</ref><ref> ''Popular Mechanics'', March 1952, p. 105.</ref> Work was also strongly researched in the United States on nuclear marine propulsion, with a test reactor being developed by 1953 (eventually, the ], the first nuclear-powered submarine, would launch in 1955).<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ne.anl.gov/About/reactors/lwr3.shtml#fragment-2 |title=STR (Submarine Thermal Reactor) in "Reactors Designed by Argonne National Laboratory: Light Water Reactor Technology Development" |publisher=U.S. Department of Energy, Argonne National Laboratory |year=2012 |accessdate=2012-07-25}}</ref> In 1953, American President ] gave his "]" speech at the United Nations, emphasizing the need to develop "peaceful" uses of nuclear power quickly. This was followed by the ] which allowed rapid declassification of U.S. reactor technology and encouraged development by the private sector. | |||
| ===Early years=== | |||
| On June 27, 1954, the ]'s ] became the world's first nuclear power plant to generate electricity for a ], and produced around 5 megawatts of electric power.<ref name="IAEANews">{{cite web |url= http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2004/obninsk.html |title=From Obninsk Beyond: Nuclear Power Conference Looks to Future |work=] | accessdate = 2006-06-27}}</ref><ref name="WNA">{{cite web |url= http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf45.htm |title=Nuclear Power in Russia |work=] | accessdate = 2006-06-27}}</ref> | |||
| Later in 1954, ], then chairman of the United States Atomic Energy Commission (U.S. AEC, forerunner of the U.S. ] and the ]) spoke of electricity in the future being "]".<ref name="thisdayinquotes">{{cite web |url=http://www.thisdayinquotes.com/2009/09/too-cheap-to-meter-nuclear-quote-debate.html |title=This Day in Quotes: SEPTEMBER 16 – Too cheap to meter: the great nuclear quote debate |accessdate=2009-09-16 |publisher=This day in quotes |year=2009}}</ref> Strauss was very likely referring to hydrogen fusion<ref>Pfau, Richard (1984) ''No Sacrifice Too Great: The Life of Lewis L. Strauss'' University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, {{ISBN|978-0-8139-1038-3}}</ref> —which was secretly being developed as part of ] at the time—but Strauss's statement was interpreted as a promise of very cheap energy from nuclear fission. The U.S. AEC itself had issued far more realistic testimony regarding nuclear fission to the U.S. Congress only months before, projecting that "costs can be brought down... ... about the same as the cost of electricity from conventional sources..."<ref>{{cite book | url= https://books.google.com/?id=qBqbr8uV9c8C&pg=PA32&dq=strauss+son+cheap+meter | title= ''Nuclear Energy: Principles, Practices, and Prospects'' |author= David Bodansky |work= |publisher=Springer |page= 32 |doi= | accessdate= 2008-01-31 | isbn= 978-0-387-20778-0 | year= 2004 }}</ref> | |||
| 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 ] was launched alongside the ] (the latter is now the European Union). The same year also saw the launch of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). | |||
| ] | |||
| ] in ] was the first commercial reactor in the United States and was opened in 1957.]] | |||
| The world's first commercial nuclear power station, ] at Windscale, England, was opened in 1956 with an initial capacity of 50 MW (later 200 MW).<ref name=Kragh>{{cite book|last=Kragh|first=Helge|title=Quantum Generations: A History of Physics in the Twentieth Century|publisher=Princeton University Press|location=Princeton NJ|year=1999|page=286|isbn=0-691-09552-3}}</ref><ref name="bbc17oct">{{cite news |url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/17/newsid_3147000/3147145.stm |title=On This Day: October 17 |accessdate=2006-11-09 |publisher=BBC News | date=1956-10-17}}</ref> The first commercial nuclear generator to become operational in the United States was the ] (], December 1957). | |||
| One of the first organizations to develop nuclear power was the ], for the purpose of propelling ]s and ]s. The first nuclear-powered submarine, {{USS|Nautilus|SSN-571|6}}, was put to sea in December 1954.<ref name = "iaeapdf"/> As of 2016, the U.S. Navy submarine fleet is made up entirely of nuclear-powered vessels, with 75 submarines in service. Two U.S. nuclear submarines, {{USS|Scorpion|SSN-589|6}} and {{USS|Thresher|SSN-593|6}}, have been lost at sea. The ] is currently (2016) estimated to have 61 nuclear submarines in service; eight Soviet and Russian nuclear submarines have been lost at sea. This includes the {{ship|Soviet submarine|K-19}} reactor accident in 1961 which resulted in 8 deaths and more than 30 other people were over-exposed to radiation.<ref name="rad"/> The {{ship|Soviet submarine|K-27}} reactor accident in 1968 resulted in 9 fatalities and 83 other injuries.<ref name="johnston2007"/> Moreover, {{ship|Soviet submarine|K-429}} sank twice, but was raised after each incident. Several ] have involved nuclear submarine mishaps.<ref name=timenuke/><ref name=johnston2007/> | |||
| The ] also had a ], beginning in 1954. The SM-1 Nuclear Power Plant, at ], ], was the first power reactor in the United States to supply electrical energy to a commercial grid (VEPCO), in April 1957, before Shippingport. The ] was a U.S. Army experimental nuclear power reactor at the ] in ]. It underwent a ] and ] in January 1961, which killed its three operators.<ref>{{cite book |last=McKeown |first=William |title=Idaho Falls: The Untold Story of America's First Nuclear Accident |isbn=978-1-55022-562-4 |year=2003 |publisher=ECW Press |location=Toronto}}</ref> In the Soviet Union at The ] Production Association facility there were a number of accidents, including an explosion, that released 50–100 tonnes of high-level radioactive waste, contaminating a huge territory in the eastern Urals and causing numerous deaths and injuries. The Soviet government kept this accident secret for about 30 years. The event was eventually rated at 6 on the seven-level INES scale (third in severity only to the disasters at ] and ]). | |||
| ===Development=== | |||
| ] Nuclear Power Plants 3 and 5 were never completed.]] | |||
| Installed nuclear capacity initially rose relatively quickly, rising from less than 1 ] (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 1970s and early 1980s) — 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.<ref name="iaeapdf">{{cite web |url= http://www.iaea.org/About/Policy/GC/GC48/Documents/gc48inf-4_ftn3.pdf |title=50 Years of Nuclear Energy |accessdate=2006-11-09 |publisher=International Atomic Energy Agency |format=PDF}}</ref> A total of ] in the United States between 1975 and 1980.<ref> p. 110.</ref> | |||
| During the 1970s and 1980s rising economic costs (related to extended construction times largely due to regulatory changes and pressure-group litigation)<ref>{{cite book |author=Bernard L. Cohen |date=1990 |title=The Nuclear Energy Option: An Alternative for the 90s |url=http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html |location=New York |publisher=Plenum Press |isbn=978-0-306-43567-6}}</ref> 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 ] also made the addition of large new baseload capacity unattractive. | |||
| The ] had a significant effect on countries, such as France and Japan, which had relied more heavily on oil for electric generation (39%<ref>{{cite web|url= http://www.iea.org/textbase/stats/pdf_graphs/FRELEC.pdf |title=Evolution of Electricity Generation by Fuel }} {{small|(39.4 KB)}}</ref> and 73% respectively) to invest in nuclear power.<ref>Sharon Beder, '', English version of conclusion of Sharon Beder, "Power Play: The Fight to Control the World's Electricity", Soshisha, Japan, 2006.</ref> | |||
| Some local opposition to nuclear power emerged in the early 1960s,<ref name=well>{{cite journal | author = Garb Paula | title = Review of Critical Masses | url = http://jpe.library.arizona.edu/volume_6/wellockvol6.htm | journal = Journal of Political Ecology | volume = 6 | issue = | year = 1999 }}</ref> and in the late 1960s some members of the scientific community began to express their concerns.<ref name=wolfgang/> These concerns related to ], ], ], ] and ].<ref name = bm>]. , ''Social Alternatives'', Vol. 26, No. 2, Second Quarter 2007, pp. 43–47.</ref> In the early 1970s, there were large protests about a proposed nuclear power plant in ], Germany. The project was cancelled in 1975 and anti-nuclear success at Wyhl inspired opposition to nuclear power in other parts of Europe and North America.<ref name=pub>Stephen Mills and Roger Williams (1986). Routledge, pp. 375–376.</ref><ref name=got>Robert Gottlieb (2005). , Revised Edition, Island Press, USA, p. 237.</ref> By the mid-1970s anti-nuclear activism had moved beyond local protests and politics to gain a wider appeal and influence, and nuclear power became an issue of major public protest.<ref name=jimfalk>{{cite book |last=Falk |first=Jim |date=1982|title=Global Fission: The Battle Over Nuclear Power |location = Melbourne |publisher=Oxford University Press |pages=95–96 |isbn=978-0-19-554315-5}}</ref> Although it lacked a single co-ordinating organization, and did not have uniform goals, the movement's efforts gained a great deal of attention.<ref name=eleven>Walker, J. Samuel (2004). '''' (Berkeley: University of California Press), pp. 10–11.</ref> In some countries, the ] "reached an intensity unprecedented in the history of technology controversies".<ref name="marcuse.org">{{cite journal |author=Herbert P. Kitschelt |date=1986 |title=Political Opportunity and Political Protest: Anti-Nuclear Movements in Four Democracies |url=http://www.marcuse.org/harold/hmimages/seabrook/861KitscheltAntiNuclear4Democracies.pdf |journal=British Journal of Political Science |volume=16 |issue=1 |page=57 |doi=10.1017/s000712340000380x}}</ref> | |||
| ] in Bonn, Germany, on October 14, 1979, following the ].<ref name="kits"/>]] | |||
| In France, between 1975 and 1977, some 175,000 people protested against nuclear power in ten demonstrations.<ref name=kits>{{cite journal |author=Herbert P. Kitschelt |date=1986 |title=Political Opportunity and Political Protest: Anti-Nuclear Movements in Four Democracies |url=http://www.marcuse.org/harold/hmimages/seabrook/861KitscheltAntiNuclear4Democracies.pdf |journal=British Journal of Political Science |volume=16 |issue=1 |page=71|doi=10.1017/s000712340000380x}}</ref> In West Germany, between February 1975 and April 1979, some 280,000 people were involved in seven demonstrations at nuclear sites. Several site occupations were also attempted. In the aftermath of the ] in 1979, some 120,000 people attended a demonstration against nuclear power in ].<ref name=kits/> In May 1979, an estimated 70,000 people, including then governor of California ], attended a march and rally against nuclear power in Washington, D.C.<ref name=diablo> p. 45.</ref> ] emerged in every country that has had a nuclear power programme. | |||
| ===Three Mile Island and Chernobyl=== | |||
| ] with Chernobyl plant in the distance.]] | |||
| Health and safety concerns, the 1979 ], and the 1986 ] played a part in stopping new plant construction in many countries,<ref name=wolfgang>{{cite book|editor1-first=Wolfgang |editor1-last=Rüdig|title=Anti-nuclear Movements: A World Survey of Opposition to Nuclear Energy|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ZXwfAQAAIAAJ|year=1990|publisher=Longman Current Affairs|location=Detroit, MI|isbn=0-8103-9000-0|page=1}}</ref> although the public policy organization, the ] states that new nuclear units, at the time of publishing in 2006, had not been built in the United States because of soft demand for electricity, and ]s on nuclear plants due to regulatory issues and construction delays.<ref name="tbi">{{cite web |url=http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2004/09environment_nivola/pb138.pdf |title=The Political Economy of Nuclear Energy in the United States |format=PDF |accessdate=2006-11-09 |publisher=The Brookings Institution |year=2004 |work=Social Policy |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20071103011953/http://www3.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2004/09environment_nivola/pb138.pdf |archivedate=2007-11-03 |df= }}</ref> By the end of the 1970s it became clear that nuclear power would not grow nearly as dramatically as once believed. Eventually, more than 120 reactor orders in the United States were ultimately cancelled<ref> p. 3.</ref> and the construction of new reactors ground to a halt. A cover story in the February 11, 1985, issue of '']'' magazine commented on the overall failure of the U.S. nuclear power program, saying it "ranks as the largest managerial disaster in business history".<ref name="ReferenceA">{{cite journal |date=1985-02-11 |title=Nuclear Follies |journal=] magazine}}</ref> | |||
| 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 ] design only used in the Soviet Union, for example lacking "robust" ]s.<ref name="NRC">{{cite web |url= https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/chernobyl-bg.html |title=Backgrounder on Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant Accident |work=] | accessdate = 2006-06-28}}</ref> Many of these RBMK reactors are still in use today. However, changes were made in both the reactors themselves (use of a safer enrichment of uranium) and in the control system (prevention of disabling safety systems), amongst other things, to reduce the possibility of a duplicate accident.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf31.html |title=RBMK Reactors | reactor bolshoy moshchnosty kanalny | Positive void coefficient |publisher=World-nuclear.org |date=2009-09-07 |accessdate=2013-06-14}}</ref> | |||
| An international organization to promote safety awareness and professional development on operators in nuclear facilities was created: ] (WANO). | |||
| Opposition in Ireland 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. In July 2009, the Italian Parliament passed a law that cancelled the results of an earlier referendum and allowed the immediate start of the Italian nuclear program.<ref>{{cite web | title = Italy rejoins the nuclear family | publisher = World Nuclear News | date = 2009-07-10 | url = http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP_Italy_rejoins_the_nuclear_family_1007091.html | accessdate = 2009-07-17}}</ref> | |||
| After the ] a one-year moratorium was placed on nuclear power development,<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9M504RG0.htm | title=Italy puts one year moratorium on nuclear | date=2011-03-13}}</ref> followed by a referendum in which over 94% of voters (turnout 57%) rejected plans for new nuclear power.<ref>{{cite news| url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13741105 | work=BBC News | title=Italy nuclear: Berlusconi accepts referendum blow | date=2011-06-14}}</ref> | |||
| ===Nuclear renaissance=== | |||
| ] under construction in 2009. It is the first ] design, but problems with workmanship and supervision have created costly delays which led to an inquiry by the Finnish nuclear regulator ].<ref name=wnn161009> | |||
| {{cite news | title = Olkiluoto pipe welding 'deficient', says regulator | publisher = World Nuclear News | date = 2009-10-16 | url = http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Olkiluoto_pipe_welding_deficient_says_regulator-1610095.html | accessdate =2010-06-08}}</ref> | |||
| In December 2012, Areva estimated that the full cost of building the reactor will be about €8.5 billion, or almost three times the original delivery price of €3 billion.<ref>{{cite news | |||
| | title = Finnish parliament agrees plans for two reactors | agency = ] | last = Kinnunen | first = Terhi | date = 2010-07-01 | url = http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKLDE6600ED | accessdate = 2010-07-02}}</ref><ref name=WNN-2012-07-17>{{cite news | title = Olkiluoto 3 delayed beyond 2014 | publisher = ] | date = 2012-07-17 | url = http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Olkiluoto_3_delayed_beyond_2014-1707124.html | accessdate =2012-07-24}}</ref><ref name="BBC-2012-07-16">{{cite news | title = Finland's Olkiluoto 3 nuclear plant delayed again | publisher = BBC | date = 2012-07-16 | url = https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18862422 | accessdate = 2012-08-10}}</ref>]] | |||
| {{Image frame | |||
| |width = 300 | |||
| |align=right | |||
| |pos=bottom | |||
| |content=<div style="margin: 15px 5px -40px -50px; font-size: 80%;">{{ #invoke:Chart | bar chart | |||
| | width=300 | |||
| | height=200 | |||
| | group 1 = 2263.79 : 2298.27 : 2378.93 : 2443.85 : 2511.09 : 2553.18 : 2504.78 : 2616.24 : 2626.34 : 2660.85 : 2608.18 : 2597.81 : 2558.06 : 2629.82 : 2517.98 : 2346.19 : 2358.86 : 2410.37 : 2441.33 : 2477.30 : 2478.98 | |||
| | colors = blue | |||
| | group names = Generation (TWh) | |||
| | x legends = 1997 : : : 2000 : : : : : 2005 : : : : : 2010 : : : : : : 2016 : | |||
| }}</div> | |||
| |caption = Nuclear power generation (TWh)<ref name="PRISstatsglobal" /> | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Image frame | |||
| |width = 300 | |||
| |align=right | |||
| |pos=bottom | |||
| |content=<div style="margin: 15px 5px -40px -50px; font-size: 80%;">{{ #invoke:Chart | bar chart | |||
| | width=300 | |||
| | height=200 | |||
| | group 1 = 441 : 438 : 434 : 438 : 438 : 444 : 443 : 443 : 443 : 443 : 439 : 439 : 440 : 442 : 448 : 440 : 441 : 439 : 448 : 451 : 451 | |||
| | colors = blue | |||
| | group names = Number of reactors | |||
| | x legends = 1997 : : : 2000 : : : : : 2005 : : : : : 2010 : : : : : : 2016 : | |||
| }}</div> | |||
| |caption = Operational nuclear reactors<ref name="PRISstatsglobal">{{cite web|title=PRIS - Trend reports - Electricity Supplied|url=https://www.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/WorldTrendinElectricalProduction.aspx|website=www.iaea.org|accessdate=22 July 2018}}</ref> | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Main|Nuclear renaissance}} | |||
| Since about 2001 the term ''nuclear renaissance'' has been used to refer to a possible nuclear power industry revival, driven by rising ] and new concerns about meeting ] emission limits.<ref name="intro">{{cite web|url=http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf104.html |title=The Nuclear Renaissance|publisher=World Nuclear Association|accessdate=2014-01-24}}</ref> | |||
| Since commercial nuclear energy began in the mid-1950s, 2008 was the first year that no new nuclear power plant was connected to the grid, although two were connected in 2009.<ref name=tf2010>Trevor Findlay (2010). {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130512210155/http://www.cigionline.org/sites/default/files/Nuclear%20Energy%20Futures%20Overview.pdf |date=2013-05-12 }}, The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI), Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, pp. 10–11.</ref><ref>Mycle Schneider, Steve Thomas, Antony Froggatt, and Doug Koplow (August 2009). {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110424000745/http://www.bmu.de/english/nuclear_safety/downloads/doc/44832.php |date=2011-04-24 }} Commissioned by German Federal Ministry of Environment, Nature Conservation and Reactor Safety, p. 5.</ref> | |||
| ===Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster=== | |||
| {{main|Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster}} | |||
| {{see also|Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant}} | |||
| Japan's 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident prompted a re-examination of ] and ] in many countries<ref name=sciamer2011/> and raised questions among some commentators over the future of the renaissance.<ref> Bloomberg, published March 2011, accessed 2011-03-14</ref><ref> Reuters, published 2011-03-14, accessed 2011-03-14</ref><ref> Reuters, published 2011-03-13, accessed 2011-03-14</ref><ref> MarketWatch, published 2011-03-14, accessed 2011-03-14</ref><ref> ], published 2011-03-17, accessed 2011-03-17</ref> | |||
| Germany plans to close all its reactors by 2022, and Italy has re-affirmed its ban on electric utilities generating, but not importing, fission derived electricity.<ref name=sciamer2011>{{cite journal |author1=Sylvia Westall |author2=Fredrik Dahl |lastauthoramp=yes |date=2011-06-24 |title=IAEA Head Sees Wide Support for Stricter Nuclear Plant Safety |url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=iaea-head-sees-wide-support |archive-url=https://archive.is/20110625042535/http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=iaea-head-sees-wide-support |dead-url=yes |archive-date=2011-06-25 |journal=Scientific American }}</ref> | |||
| China, Switzerland, Israel, Malaysia, Thailand, United Kingdom, and the Philippines have also reviewed their nuclear power programs, while Indonesia and Vietnam still plan to build nuclear power plants.<ref>{{cite news |author=] |date=2011-03-19 |title=Is this the end of the nuclear revival? |url=http://www.smh.com.au/world/is-this-the-end-of-the-nuclear-revival-20110318-1c0i9.html |newspaper=The Sydney Morning Herald}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |author=Aubrey Belford |date=2011-03-17 |title=Indonesia to Continue Plans for Nuclear Power |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/18/business/global/18atomic.html?partner=rss&emc=rss |newspaper=The New York Times}}</ref><ref name="piersmorgan.blogs.cnn.com"> Piers Morgan on CNN, published 2011-03-17, accessed 2011-03-17</ref><ref name="news.xinhuanet.com"> xinhuanet.com, published 2011-03-18, accessed 2011-03-17</ref> | |||
| In 2011 the ] halved its prior estimate of new generating capacity to be built by 2035.<ref name=economist-20110428>{{cite news |date=2011-04-28 |title=Gauging the pressure |url=http://www.economist.com/node/18621367?story_id=18621367 |publisher=The Economist}}</ref><ref name=late>{{cite web |url=http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/late-lessons-2 |title=Late lessons from early warnings: science, precaution, innovation: Full Report |author=European Environment Agency |date=2013-01-23 |page=476 }}</ref> | |||
| In 2013 Japan signed a deal worth $22 billion, in which ] would build four modern '']'' reactors for Turkey.<ref>{{cite news |title=Turkey Prepares to Host First ATMEA 1 Nuclear Reactors |url=http://www.powermag.com/turkey-prepares-to-host-first-atmea-1-nuclear-reactors/ |work=PowerMag |publisher=Electric Power |accessdate=2015-05-24}}</ref> | |||
| In August 2015, following 4 years of near zero fission-electricity generation, Japan began restarting its nuclear reactors, after ], beginning with ].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.kyuden.co.jp/en_information_150811.html |title=Startup of Sendai Nuclear Power Unit No.1 |date=2015-08-11 |website=Kyushu Electric Power Company Inc.}}</ref> | |||
| The World Nuclear Association has said that "nuclear power generation suffered its biggest ever one-year fall through 2012 as the bulk of the Japanese fleet remained offline for a full calendar year". Data from the International Atomic Energy Agency showed that nuclear power plants globally produced 2346 TWh of electricity in 2012 – seven per cent less than in 2011. The figures illustrate the effects of a full year of 48 Japanese power reactors producing no power during the year. | |||
| The permanent closure of eight reactor units in Germany was also a factor. Problems at Crystal River, Fort Calhoun and the two San Onofre units in the United States meant they produced no power for the full year, while in Belgium Doel 3 and Tihange 2 were out of action for six months. Compared to 2010, the nuclear industry produced 11% less electricity in 2012.<ref name=wna13>{{cite web |url=http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN_Nuclear_power_down_in_2012_2006131.html |title=Nuclear power down in 2012 |author=WNA |date=2013-06-20 |work=World Nuclear News }}</ref> | |||
| ===Post-Fukushima=== | |||
| The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident sparked controversy about the importance of the accident and its effect on nuclear's future. | |||
| ] Director General Yukiya Amano said the Japanese nuclear accident "caused deep public anxiety throughout the world and damaged confidence in nuclear power",<ref>{{cite news |date=2011-09-23 |title=IAEA sees slow nuclear growth post Japan |url=http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2011/09/23/IAEA-sees-slow-nuclear-growth-post-Japan/UPI-87041316777856/ |work=UPI}}</ref> and the International Energy Agency halved its estimate of additional nuclear generating capacity to be built by 2035.<ref name="economist-20110428"/><ref name=late/> | |||
| Though ] reported in 2011 that "the crisis at Japan's Fukushima nuclear plants has prompted leading energy-consuming countries to review the safety of their existing reactors and cast doubt on the speed and scale of planned expansions around the world",<ref name="Platts">{{cite web |url=http://www.platts.com/RSSFeedDetailedNews/RSSFeed/ElectricPower/6925550 |title=News Analysis: Japan crisis puts global nuclear expansion in doubt |date=2011-03-21 |publisher=Platts}}</ref> Progress Energy Chairman/CEO Bill Johnson made the observation that "Today there’s an even more compelling case that greater use of nuclear power is a vital part of a balanced energy strategy".<ref>https://www.progress-energy.com/assets/www/docs/company/02172010-platts.pdf</ref> | |||
| In 2011, ''The Economist'' opined that nuclear power "looks dangerous, unpopular, expensive and risky", and that "it is replaceable with relative ease and could be forgone with no huge structural shifts in the way the world works".<ref name=econ2011>{{cite news |date=2011-03-24 |title=Nuclear power: When the steam clears |url=http://www.economist.com/node/18441163 |work=The Economist}}</ref> | |||
| Earth Institute Director Jeffrey Sachs disagreed, claiming combating climate change would require an expansion of nuclear power. "We won't meet the carbon targets if nuclear is taken off the table," he said. "We need to understand the scale of the challenge."<ref>https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/may/03/nuclear-power-solution-climate-change</ref> | |||
| Investment banks were critical of nuclear soon after the accident.<ref>{{cite news |author=Paton J |date=2011-04-04 |title=Fukushima crisis worse for atomic power than Chernobyl, USB says |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-04/fukushima-crisis-worse-for-nuclear-power-industry-than-chernobyl-ubs-says.html |work=Bloomberg.com |accessdate=2014-08-17}}</ref> | |||
| ] advised that "the global impact of the Fukushima accident is a fundamental shift in public perception with regard to how a nation prioritizes and values its populations health, safety, security, and natural environment when determining its current and future energy pathways...renewable energy will be a clear long-term winner in most energy systems, a conclusion supported by many voter surveys conducted over the past few weeks.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://institutional.deutscheawm.com/content/_media/Inflection_Point_Research_Note.pdf |title=The 2011 Inflection Point for Energy Markets: Health, Safety, Security and the Environment |date=2011-05-02 |website=DB Climate Change Advisors |publisher=Deutsche Bank Group}}</ref> | |||
| In September 2011, German engineering giant ] announced it will withdraw entirely from the nuclear industry, as a response to the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan, and said that it would no longer build nuclear power plants anywhere in the world. | |||
| The company’s chairman, Peter Löscher, said that "Siemens was ending plans to cooperate with Rosatom, the Russian state-controlled nuclear power company, in the construction of dozens of nuclear plants throughout Russia over the coming two decades".<ref name=BBC18Sep2011>{{cite news |date=2011-09-18 |title=Siemens to quit nuclear industry |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14963575 |work=BBC News}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |author=John Broder |date=2011-10-10 |title=The Year of Peril and Promise in Energy Production |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/business/energy-environment/the-year-of-peril-and-promise-in-energy-production.html?src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Fbusiness%2Fglobal%2Findex.jsonp |newspaper=The New York Times }}</ref> | |||
| In February 2012, the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved the construction of two additional reactors at the ], the first reactors to be approved in over 30 years since the Three Mile Island accident,<ref name=yah12>{{cite news | author=Hsu, Jeremy | date=2012-02-09 | title=First Next-Gen US Reactor Designed to Avoid Fukushima Repeat | url=https://news.yahoo.com/first-next-gen-us-reactor-designed-avoid-fukushima-005203660.html | publisher=Live Science (hosted on Yahoo!) | accessdate=2012-02-09}}</ref> but NRC Chairman ] cast a dissenting vote citing safety concerns stemming from Japan's 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, and saying "I cannot support issuing this license as if Fukushima never happened".<ref name="us12" /> | |||
| Jaczko resigned in April 2012. | |||
| One week after Southern received the license to begin major construction on the two new reactors, a dozen environmental and ] groups sued to stop the Plant Vogtle expansion project, saying "public safety and environmental problems since Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactor accident have not been taken into account".<ref>{{cite news |author=Kristi E. Swartz |date=2012-02-16 |title=Groups sue to stop Vogtle expansion project |url=http://www.ajc.com/business/groups-sue-to-stop-1351830.html |work=The Atlanta Journal-Constitution }}</ref> | |||
| In July 2012, the suit was rejected by the Washington, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.<ref>http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/business/2012-07-12/court-rejects-legal-challenge-plant-vogtle-construction-license?v=1342114200</ref> | |||
| In 2013, four aging uncompetitive reactors in the United States were closed.<ref name="Mark Cooper">{{cite web |url=http://www.thebulletin.org/nuclear-aging-not-so-graceful |title=Nuclear aging: Not so graceful |author=Mark Cooper |date=2013-06-18 |work=Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists }}</ref><ref name=mw11111>{{cite news |author=Matthew Wald |date=2013-06-14 |title=Nuclear Plants, Old and Uncompetitive, Are Closing Earlier Than Expected |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/15/business/energy-environment/aging-nuclear-plants-are-closing-but-for-economic-reasons.html?ref=matthewlwald |newspaper=The New York Times}}</ref> | |||
| In the United States, four new ]s were under construction at ] and ], while a fifth was nearing completion at ], all five were expected to become operational before 2020.<ref name=us12>{{cite news |author=Ayesha Rascoe |date=2012-02-09 |title=U.S. approves first new nuclear plant in a generation |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/09/us-usa-nuclear-nrc-idUSTRE8182J720120209 |work=Reuters}}</ref> | |||
| In 2012, the ] reported that nuclear electricity generation was at its lowest level since 1999.<ref name=wna13/> | |||
| According to the World Nuclear Association, the global trend is for new nuclear power stations coming online to be balanced by the number of old plants being retired.<ref>], "", October 2015.</ref> | |||
| Countries such as ], ], ], ], ], ], Latvia, Liechtenstein, ], ], ], ], ], ], and ] have no nuclear power reactors and remain opposed to nuclear power.<ref name=econ2011/><ref name=gl2011>{{cite web |url=http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/47834 |title=Germany: Nuclear power to be phased out by 2022 |author=Duroyan Fertl |date=2011-06-05 |work=Green Left }}</ref> | |||
| By 2015, the IAEA's outlook for nuclear energy had become more promising. | |||
| "Nuclear power is a critical element in limiting greenhouse gas emissions," the agency noted, and "the prospects for nuclear energy remain positive in the medium to long term despite a negative impact in some countries in the aftermath of the accident...it is still the second-largest source worldwide of low-carbon electricity. | |||
| And the 72 reactors under construction at the start of last year were the most in 25 years."<ref>http://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/news/2015/january/taking-a-fresh-look-at-the-future-of-nuclear-power.html</ref> | |||
| As of 2015, ] had a worldwide net electric capacity of 382,9 GW, with 67 new nuclear reactors under construction.<ref name="MyUser_Https:_May_22_2016c">{{cite web |url=https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/ten-new-nuclear-power-reactors-connected-to-grid-in-2015-highest-number-since-1990 |title=Ten New Nuclear Power Reactors Connected to Grid in 2015, Highest Number Since 1990 |accessdate= May 22, 2016}}</ref> | |||
| Over half of the 67 total being built were in Asia, with 28 in ], where there is an urgent need to control pollution from coal plants.<ref>{{cite web|title=China Nuclear Power {{!}} Chinese Nuclear Energy – World Nuclear Association|url=http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power.aspx|website=www.world-nuclear.org}}</ref> | |||
| Eight new grid connections were completed by China in 2015<ref name="WNN20160307">{{cite news|title=World doubles new build reactor capacity in 2015|url=http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-World-starts-up-10-shuts-down-eight-nuclear-reactors-in-2015-411601.html|accessdate=7 March 2016|publisher=World Nuclear News|date=4 January 2016|location=London, UK}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.worldnuclearreport.org/Grid-Connection-for-Fuqing-2-in-China.html |title=Grid Connection for Fuqing-2 in China 7 August 2015|publisher=Worldnuclearreport.org |accessdate=2015-08-12}}</ref> and the most recently completed reactor to be connected to the ], as of January 2016, was at the ] in the ].<ref name="NEIShinKori">{{cite news|title=World’s First APR-1400 Connected to Grid|url=http://www.nei.org/News-Media/News/Milestones|accessdate=7 March 2016|publisher=NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute)|date=21 January 2016|location=Washington DC, USA}}</ref><ref></ref> | |||
| In October 2016, ] became the first new United States reactor to enter commercial operation since 1996.<ref>{{cite news |last=Blau |first=Max |url=http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/20/us/tennessee-nuclear-power-plant/index.html |title=First new US nuclear reactor in 20 years goes live |work=CNN.com |publisher=Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. |date=2016-10-20 |accessdate=2016-10-20 }}</ref> | |||
| ===Future of the industry=== | |||
| {{See also|List of prospective nuclear units in the United States|Nuclear power in the United States|Nuclear energy policy|Mitigation of global warming}} | |||
| ] | |||
| As of January 2016, there are over 150 nuclear reactors planned, equivalent to nearly half of capacity at that time.<ref>http://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/nuclear-power-in-the-world-today.aspx</ref> | |||
| However actual investment in new nuclear is declining, in 2017 reaching the lowest level for five years. Investment on upgrades of existing plant and life-time extensions continues.<ref name=wnn-20180717>{{cite news |url=http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-Investment-in-new-nuclear-declines-to-five-year-low-1707185.html |title=Investment in new nuclear declines to five-year low |publisher=World Nuclear News |date=17 July 2018 |accessdate=20 July 2018}}</ref> | |||
| The future of nuclear power varies greatly between countries, depending on government policies. | |||
| Some countries, many of them in Europe, such as Germany, Belgium, and Lithuania, have adopted policies of ]. | |||
| At the same time, some Asian countries, such as China<ref>James Conca, , ''Forbes'', 22 O ct. 2015.</ref> and India,<ref>, Nikkei, 16 June 2016.</ref> have committed to rapid expansion of nuclear power. | |||
| Many other countries, such as the United Kingdom<ref>, ''The Economist'', 7 Aug. 2016.</ref> and the United States, have policies in between. | |||
| Japan was a major generator of nuclear power before the Fukushima accident, but the extent to which it will resume its nuclear program after the accident is uncertain.<ref>, ''ABC News'', 12 Aug. 2016.</ref> | |||
| While ], in 2017 responding to widespread public concerns after the ], the high earthquake risk in South Korea, and a ], the new government decided to gradually phase out nuclear power as reactors that are now operating or under construction close after 40 years of operations.<ref name=nei-20180130>{{cite news |url=http://www.neimagazine.com/opinion/opinionnuclear-new-build-where-does-it-stand-today-6041240/ |title=Nuclear new build - where does it stand today? |last=Kidd |first=Steve |publisher=Nuclear Engineering International |date=30 January 2018 |accessdate=12 February 2018}}</ref><ref name=wnn-20170619>{{cite news |url=http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-Koreas-nuclear-phase-out-policy-takes-shape-1906174.html |title=Korea's nuclear phase-out policy takes shape |publisher=World Nuclear News |date=19 June 2017 |accessdate=12 February 2018}}</ref> | |||
| In 2015, the International Energy Agency reported that the Fukushima accident had a strongly negative effect on nuclear power, yet “the prospects for nuclear energy remain positive in the medium to long term despite a negative impact in some countries in the aftermath of the accident.” The IEA noted that at the start of 2014, there were 72 nuclear reactors under construction worldwide, the largest number in 25 years, and that China planned to increase nuclear power capacity from 17 gigawatts (GW) in 2014, to 58 GW in 2020.<ref>, International Energy Agency, 29 Jan. 2015.</ref> | |||
| In 2016, the U.S. Energy Information Administration projected for its “base case” that world nuclear power generation would increase from 2,344 ] (TWh) in 2012 to 4,501 TWh in 2040. | |||
| Most of the predicted increase was expected to be in Asia.<ref>, US Energy Information Administration, accessed 17 Aug. 2016.</ref> | |||
| The nuclear power industry in western nations has a history of construction delays, cost overruns, plant cancellations, and nuclear safety issues despite significant government subsidies and support.<ref name="ReferenceA"/><ref name=jk>{{cite news |author=James Kanter |date=2009-05-28 |title=In Finland, Nuclear Renaissance Runs Into Trouble |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/business/energy-environment/29nuke.html?ref=global-home |newspaper=The New York Times}}</ref><ref name=greeninc>{{cite web |url=http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/is-the-nuclear-renaissance-fizzling/ |title=Is the Nuclear Renaissance Fizzling? |author=James Kanter |date=2009-05-29 |work=Green}}</ref><ref name=rb>{{cite news |author=Rob Broomby |date=2009-07-08 |title=Nuclear dawn delayed in Finland |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8138869.stm |work=BBC News}}</ref> | |||
| In December 2013, ''Forbes'' magazine cited a report which concluded that, in western countries, "reactors are not a viable source of new power".<ref name=jmc/> | |||
| Even where they make economic sense, they are not feasible because nuclear’s "enormous costs, political and ], and regulatory uncertainty".<ref name=jmc>{{cite news |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2013/11/10/new-build-nuclear-is-dead-morningstar/ |title=New-Build Nuclear Is Dead: Morningstar |author=Jeff McMahon |date=2013-11-10 |work=Forbes }}</ref> | |||
| This view echoes the statement of former Exelon CEO ], who said in 2012 that new nuclear plants in the United States "don’t make any sense right now" and won’t be economically viable in the foreseeable future.<ref name=jmc/> | |||
| ], economics professor, also says the main problem with the nuclear option is that it is not economically-viable. Quiggin says that we need more ] and more ].<ref name="John Quiggin">{{cite news |author=John Quiggin |date=2013-11-08 |title=Reviving nuclear power debates is a distraction. We need to use less energy |url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/08/reviving-nuclear-power-debates-is-a-distraction-we-need-to-use-less-energy |newspaper=The Guardian }}</ref> Former NRC member ] and Professor ] made similar statements in 2011.<ref name="Hannah Northey">{{cite news |author=Hannah Northey |date=2011-03-18 |title=Former NRC Member Says Renaissance is Dead, for Now |url=https://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/03/18/18greenwire-former-nrc-member-says-renaissance-is-dead-for-n-961.html |newspaper=The New York Times }}</ref><ref name=lowenuke>{{cite news |author=Ian Lowe |date=2011-03-20 |title=No nukes now, or ever |url=http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/no-nukes-now-or-ever-20110319-1c1ed.html |work=The Age |location=Melbourne}}</ref> However, some "nuclear cheerleaders" and lobbyists in the West continue to champion reactors, often with proposed new but largely untested designs, as a source of new power.<ref name=jmc/><ref name="Hannah Northey"/><ref name=leoh>{{cite news |author=Leo Hickman |date=2012-11-28 |title=Nuclear lobbyists wined and dined senior civil servants, documents show |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/nov/28/nuclear-lobbyists-senior-civil-servants |newspaper=The Guardian |location=London}}</ref><ref name="Diane Farseta 38–56">{{cite journal |author=Diane Farseta |date=2008-09-01 |title=The Campaign to Sell Nuclear |url=http://thebulletin.org/2008/september/campaign-sell-nuclear |journal=Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists |volume=64 |issue=4 |pages=38–56 |doi=10.2968/064004009}}</ref><ref name="The Nuclear Charm Offensive">{{cite journal |author=Jonathan Leake |date=2005-05-23 |title=The Nuclear Charm Offensive |url=http://www.newstatesman.com/node/150675 |journal=New Statesman}}</ref><ref name="ucsusa.org">{{cite web |url=http://www.ucsusa.org/news/media_alerts/nuclear-industry-spent-millions-to-sell-congress-on-new-reactors-0343.html |title=Nuclear Industry Spent Hundreds of Millions of Dollars Over the Last Decade to Sell Public, Congress on New Reactors, New Investigation Finds |date=2010-02-01 |website=Union of Concerned Scientists |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131127112542/http://www.ucsusa.org/news/media_alerts/nuclear-industry-spent-millions-to-sell-congress-on-new-reactors-0343.html |archive-date=2013-11-27}}</ref><ref name="businessweek.com">{{cite journal |date=2010-03-19 |title=Nuclear group spent $460,000 lobbying in 4Q |url=http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9EHS0580.htm |journal=Business Week}}</ref> | |||
| Much more new build activity is occurring in Asian countries like South Korea, India and China. | |||
| In March 2016, China had 30 reactors in operation, 24 under construction and plans to build more,<ref name="WNAChina">{{cite web|title=Nuclear Power in China|url=http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power.aspx|publisher=World Nuclear Association|accessdate=7 March 2016|location=London, UK|date=March 2016}}</ref><ref name="Nuclear Power in China">{{cite web |url=http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf63.html |title=Nuclear Power in China |date=2010-12-10 |website=World Nuclear Association}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.21cbh.com/HTML/2010-9-21/yMMDAwMDE5ODcyMA.html |title=China is Building the World's Largest Nuclear Capacity |date=2010-09-21 |website=21cbh.com |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20120306125100/http://en.21cbh.com/HTML/2010-9-21/yMMDAwMDE5ODcyMA.html |archivedate=2012-03-06 |df= }}</ref> However, according to a government research unit, China must not build "too many nuclear power reactors too quickly", in order to avoid a shortfall of fuel, equipment and qualified plant workers.<ref>{{cite news |date=2011-01-11 |title=China Should Control Pace of Reactor Construction, Outlook Says |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-11/china-should-control-pace-of-reactor-construction-outlook-says.html |work=Bloomberg News}}</ref> | |||
| In the United States, licenses of almost half its reactors have been extended to 60 years,<ref name="world-nuclear">{{cite web | url= http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf41.html#licence | title= Nuclear Power in the USA |date=June 2008 |work= | publisher= ] | accessdate= 2008-07-25 }}</ref><ref name=matt2010>{{cite web |url=http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/07/nuclear-renaissance-is-short-on-largess/ |title=Nuclear 'Renaissance' Is Short on Largess |author=Matthew L. Wald |date=2010-12-07 |website=]}}</ref> Two new ]s are under construction at ], a dual construction project which marks the end of a 34-year period of stagnation in construction of civil nuclear power reactors in the United States. The station operator licenses of almost half the present 104 power reactors in the United States, as of 2008, have been given ].<ref name="world-nuclear" /> As of 2012, U.S. nuclear industry officials expect five new reactors to enter service by 2020, all at existing plants.<ref name="us12" /> In 2013, four aging, uncompetitive, reactors were permanently closed.<ref name="Mark Cooper"/><ref name="mw11111" /> Relevant state legislatures are trying to close ] and ].<ref name="mw11111"/> | |||
| The U.S. NRC and the U.S. Department of Energy have initiated research into ] which is hoped will lead to allowing extensions of reactor licenses beyond 60 years, provided that safety can be maintained, as the loss in non-CO<sub>2</sub>-emitting generation capacity by retiring reactors "may serve to challenge U.S. energy security, potentially resulting in increased greenhouse gas emissions, and contributing to an imbalance between electric supply and demand."<ref name="LifeAfter60">{{cite web|url=http://www.energetics.com/nrcdoefeb08/pdfs/Life%20After%2060%20Workshop%20Report.pdf |title=NRC/DOE Life After 60 Workshop Report |format=PDF |year=2008 |accessdate=2009-04-01 }}{{dead link|date=May 2016|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref> Research into nuclear reactors that can last 100 years, known as ]s, is already being conducted.<ref name=r2>Sherrell R. Greene, "Centurion Reactors – Achieving Commercial Power Reactors With 100+ Year Operating Lifetimes'", Oak Ridge National Laboratory, published in transactions of Winter 2009 American Nuclear Society National Meeting, November 2009, Washington, D.C.</ref> | |||
| There is a possible impediment to production of nuclear power plants as only a few companies worldwide have the capacity to forge single-piece reactor pressure vessels,<ref> {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110613104418/http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectioncode=147&storyCode=2052302 |date=2011-06-13 }} Steve Kid, Nuclear Engineering International, 3/3/2009</ref> which are necessary in the most common reactor designs. Utilities across the world are submitting orders years in advance of any actual need for these vessels. Other manufacturers are examining various options, including making the component themselves, or finding ways to make a similar item using alternate methods.<ref> By Yoshifumi Takemoto and Alan Katz, bloomberg.com, 3/13/08.</ref> | |||
| According to the ], globally during the 1980s one new nuclear reactor started up every 17 days on average, and in the year 2015 it was estimated that this rate could in theory eventually increase to one every 5 days, although no plans exist for that.<ref>, World Nuclear Association</ref> As of 2007, ] in Tennessee, which came on-line on February 7, 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.<ref name="INL">{{cite web |url=http://nuclear.inl.gov/docs/papers-presentations/ga_tech_woodruff_3-4.pdf |title=Nuclear Energy's Role in Responding to the Energy Challenges of the 21st Century |work=] |format=PDF |accessdate = 2008-06-21}}</ref> ]s, 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 may renew the demand for nuclear power plants. | |||
| Following ] filing for ] protection in March 2017 because of US$9 billion of losses from nuclear construction projects in the United States,<ref name=nei-20170329>{{cite news |url=http://www.neimagazine.com/news/newswestinghouse-files-for-bankruptcy-5773901 |title=Westinghouse files for bankruptcy |publisher=Nuclear Engineering International |date=29 March 2017 |accessdate=4 April 2017}}</ref><ref name=bl-20170330>{{cite news |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-03-30/u-s-nuclear-setback-is-a-boon-to-russia-china |title=U.S. Nuclear Setback Is a Boon to Russia, China |first=Leonid |last=Bershidsky |publisher=Bloomberg |date=30 March 2017 |accessdate=21 April 2017}}</ref> the future of new nuclear plant construction has largely moved to Asia and the Middle East. China has 21 reactors under construction and 40 planned, Russia has 7 under construction and 25 planned, and South Korea has 3 under construction plus 4 it is building ].<ref name=wnn-20170420>{{cite news |url=http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-Reactor-suppliers-face-governance-challenge-20041701.html |title=Reactor suppliers face governance challenge |publisher=World Nuclear News |date=20 April 2017 |accessdate=21 April 2017}}</ref> | |||
| ==Nuclear power plants== | |||
| ] in operation.]] | |||
| {{main|Nuclear power plant}} | |||
| {{see also|List of nuclear reactors}} | |||
| Just as many conventional ]s generate electricity by harnessing the ] released from burning ], nuclear power plants convert the energy released from the nucleus of an atom via nuclear fission that takes place in a nuclear reactor. The heat is removed from the reactor core by a cooling system that uses the heat to generate steam, which drives a ] connected to a ] producing electricity. | |||
| A fission nuclear power plant is generally composed of a ], in which the nuclear reactions generating heat take place; a cooling system, which removes the heat from inside the reactor; a ], which transforms the heat in ]; an ], which transform the mechanical energy into electrical energy. | |||
| ==Installed capacity and electricity production== | |||
| {{Further|Nuclear power by country|List of nuclear reactors}} | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| {{multiple image | |||
| |direction = vertical | |||
| |align = right | |||
| |width = 220 | |||
| |image1=Annual electricity net generation in the world.svg | |||
| |image3=Nuclear power history.svg | |||
| |image5=Top 5 Nuclear Energy Producing Countries.png | |||
| |caption1=Net ] by source and growth from 1980 to 2010. (Brown) – fossil fuels.(Red) – Fission.(Green)- "all renewables". In terms of energy generated between 1980 and 2010, the contribution from fission grew the fastest. | |||
| |caption2=Worldwide civilian fission-electric power, installed ] (in blue) in units of ] and actual electrical generation (in red) in units of ]. 1980 to 2010 (EIA) | |||
| |caption3=The rate of new construction builds for civilian fission-electric reactors essentially halted in the late 1980s, with the effects of accidents having a ]. Increased ] realizations in existing reactors was primarily responsible for the continuing increase in electrical energy produced during this period. The halting of new builds c. 1985, resulted in greater fossil fuel generation, see above graph. | |||
| |caption5=Electricity generation trends in the top five fission-energy producing countries (US EIA data) | |||
| }} | |||
| Nuclear fission power stations, excluding the contribution from ], provided 11% of the world's electricity in 2012,<ref name="oecd_pdf">{{Cite journal | url= https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/kwes.pdf | title=Key World Energy Statistics 2012 | accessdate=2012-12-16 | publisher= ] | year=2012 | format=PDF | ref= harv}}</ref> somewhat less than that generated by ] at 16%. | |||
| Since electricity accounts for about 25% of humanity's energy usage with the majority of the rest coming from fossil fuel reliant sectors such as transport, manufacture and home heating, nuclear fission's contribution to the ] was about 2.5%.<ref>], ], ''Towards an electricity-powered world''. In: '']'' 4, (2011), 3193–3222, p. 3200, {{DOI|10.1039/c1ee01249e}}.</ref> | |||
| This is a little more than the combined global electricity production from wind, solar, ] and geothermal power, which together provided 2% of global final energy consumption in 2014.<ref></ref> | |||
| In 2013, the ] reported that there were 437 operational civil fission-electric reactors<ref name="iaea.org">{{cite web|url=http://www.iaea.org/pris/ |title=PRIS – Home |publisher=Iaea.org |accessdate=2013-06-14}}</ref> in ],<ref name="UIC">{{cite web|url=http://www.uic.com.au/reactors.htm |title=World Nuclear Power Reactors 2007–08 and Uranium Requirements |date=2008-06-09 |publisher=World Nuclear Association |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080303234143/http://www.uic.com.au/reactors.htm |archivedate=2008-03-03 |accessdate=2008-06-21 |deadurl=yes |df= }}</ref> although not every reactor was producing electricity.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2012/06/17/2003535527 |title=Japan approves two reactor restarts |publisher=Taipei Times |date=2013-06-07 |accessdate=2013-06-14}}</ref> | |||
| In addition, there were approximately 140 naval vessels using ] in operation, powered by about 180 reactors.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.engineersgarage.com/articles/nuclear-power-plants?page=2 |title=What is Nuclear Power Plant – How Nuclear Power Plants work | What is Nuclear Power Reactor – Types of Nuclear Power Reactors |publisher=EngineersGarage |accessdate=2013-06-14}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Non-Power-Nuclear-Applications/Transport/Nuclear-Powered-Ships/#.UV5yQsrpyJM |title=Nuclear-Powered Ships | Nuclear Submarines |publisher=World-nuclear.org |accessdate=2013-06-14}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ewp.rpi.edu/hartford/~ernesto/F2010/EP2/Materials4Students/Misiaszek/NuclearMarinePropulsion.pdf |title=Archived copy |accessdate=2015-06-04 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150226055625/http://www.ewp.rpi.edu/hartford/~ernesto/F2010/EP2/Materials4Students/Misiaszek/NuclearMarinePropulsion.pdf |archivedate=2015-02-26 |df= }} Naval Nuclear Propulsion, Magdi Ragheb. ''As of 2001, about 235 naval reactors had been built''</ref> | |||
| Regional differences in the use of nuclear power are large. | |||
| The United States produces the most nuclear energy in the world, with nuclear power providing 19%<ref>{{cite web | url= http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epates.html | title= Summary status for the US | publisher= Energy Information Administration | date= 2010-01-21 | accessdate=2010-02-18}}</ref> of the electricity it consumes, while France produces the highest percentage of its electrical energy from nuclear reactors—80% as of 2006.<ref name="npr20060501">{{cite news | author=Eleanor Beardsley | author-link=Eleanor Beardsley | date=2006-05-01 | title=France Presses Ahead with Nuclear Power | url= https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5369610 | publisher=NPR | accessdate=2006-11-08}}</ref> | |||
| In the ] as a whole nuclear power provides 30% of the electricity.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=1996,39140985&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&screen=detailref&language=en&product=sdi_cc&root=sdi_cc/sdi_cc/sdi_cc_ene/sdi_cc2300 | title=Gross electricity generation, by fuel used in power-stations | accessdate=2007-02-03 | publisher=] | year=2006 | deadurl=yes | archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20061017154500/http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=1996%2C39140985&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&screen=detailref&language=en&product=sdi_cc&root=sdi_cc%2Fsdi_cc%2Fsdi_cc_ene%2Fsdi_cc2300 | archivedate=2006-10-17 | df= }}</ref> | |||
| Nuclear power is the single largest low-carbon electricity source in the United States,<ref name=issues> {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130927013232/http://www.issues.org/23.3/apt.html |date=2013-09-27 }}</ref> and accounts for two-thirds of the ]'s low-carbon electricity.<ref> {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140211100220/http://ec.europa.eu/energy/publications/doc/2010_setplan_brochure.pdf |date=2014-02-11 }}</ref> | |||
| ] differs among European Union countries, and some, such as Austria, ], Ireland and ], 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 ]s) ships use ].<ref>{{Cite news | url=http://www.bellona.org/english_import_area/international/russia/civilian_nuclear_vessels/icebreakers/30131 |title=Nuclear Icebreaker Lenin |publisher=Bellona |date=2003-06-20 |accessdate=2007-11-01 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20071015031630/http://www.bellona.org/english_import_area/international/russia/civilian_nuclear_vessels/icebreakers/30131 |archivedate=October 15, 2007 }}</ref> | |||
| A few space vehicles have been launched using ]s: 33 reactors belong to the Soviet ] series and one was the American ]. | |||
| International research is continuing into additional uses of process heat such as ] (in support of a ]), for ] sea water, and for use in ] systems. | |||
| ==Industry== | |||
| {{Further|List of companies in the nuclear sector}} | |||
| The nuclear industry comprises of a number of companies, organizations, governmental and international bodies. | |||
| The main fields of the industry include nuclear reactor building and operation; ] and nuclear fuel production; nuclear waste storage and processing; research and development.<ref name="WNA_industry">{{cite web |title=The Nuclear Industry - World Nuclear Association |url=http://www.world-nuclear.org/nuclear-basics/the-nuclear-industry.aspx |website=www.world-nuclear.org |accessdate=24 July 2018}}</ref> | |||
| Other components of the nuclear industry include nuclear regulators and nuclear industry national and international associations.<ref name="WNA_industry" /> | |||
| ==Economics== | |||
| {{Main|Economics of new nuclear power plants}} | |||
| ], a ] that cools by utilizing a secondary coolant ] with a large body of water, an alternative cooling approach to large ].]] | |||
| ]s typically have high capital costs for building the plant, but low fuel costs. | |||
| Although nuclear power plants can vary their output the electricity is generally less favorably priced when doing so. | |||
| Nuclear power plants are therefore typically run as much as possible to keep the cost of the generated electrical energy as low as possible, supplying mostly base-load electricity.<ref></ref> | |||
| Internationally the price of nuclear plants rose 15% annually in 1970–1990.<ref>{{cite book |last=Gore |first=Al |date=2009 |title=Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis |publisher=Rodale |location=Emmaus, PA |pages= |isbn = 978-1-59486-734-7}}</ref>{{page needed|date=December 2015}} | |||
| Yet, nuclear power has total costs in 2012 of about $96 per megawatt hour (MWh), most of which involves capital construction costs, compared with solar power at $130 per MWh, and natural gas at the low end at $64 per MWh.<ref>{{cite news |date=19 May 2015 |title=What does nuclear power actually cost #peakoil |url=http://northdenvernews.com/what-does-nuclear-power-actually-cost-peakoil/ |newspaper=North Denver News}}</ref> | |||
| In 2015, the '']'' unveiled the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Cost Calculator,<ref></ref> an online tool that estimates the full cost of electricity produced by three configurations of the nuclear fuel cycle. | |||
| Two years in the making, this interactive calculator is the first generally accessible model to provide a nuanced look at the economic costs of nuclear power; it lets users test how sensitive the price of electricity is to a full range of components—more than 60 parameters that can be adjusted for the three configurations of the nuclear fuel cycle considered by this tool (once-through, limited-recycle, full-recycle). Users can select the fuel cycle they would like to examine, change cost estimates for each component of that cycle, and even choose uncertainty ranges for the cost of particular components. This approach allows users around the world to compare the cost of different nuclear power approaches in a sophisticated way, while taking account of prices relevant to their own countries or regions. | |||
| In recent years there has been a slowdown of electricity demand growth.<ref name=kidd2011/> | |||
| In Eastern Europe, a number of long-established projects are struggling to find finance, notably Belene in Bulgaria and the additional reactors at Cernavoda in Romania, and some potential backers have pulled out.<ref name=kidd2011>{{cite web|url=http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectioncode=147&storyCode=2058653 |title=New reactors—more or less? |author=Kidd, Steve |date=2011-01-21 |work=Nuclear Engineering International |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20111212195417/http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectioncode=147&storyCode=2058653 |archivedate=2011-12-12 |df= }}</ref> Where the electricity market is competitive, cheap natural gas is available, and its future supply relatively secure, this also poses a major problem for nuclear projects<ref name=kidd2011/> and existing plants.<ref name=NYT122214>{{cite news |author1=Henry Fountain |date=2014-12-22 |title=Nuclear: Carbon Free, but Not Free of Unease |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/23/science/nuclear-carbon-free-but-not-free-of-unease-.html |newspaper=The New York Times |accessdate=2014-12-23 |quote=the plant had become unprofitable in recent years, a victim largely of lower energy prices resulting from a glut of natural gas used to fire electricity plants}}</ref> | |||
| Analysis of the economics of nuclear power must take into account who bears the risks of future uncertainties. To date all operating nuclear power plants were developed by ] or ] ]<ref name=ft-20100912>{{cite news |author=Ed Crooks |date=2010-09-12 |title=Nuclear: New dawn now seems limited to the east |url=http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ad15fcfe-bc71-11df-a42b-00144feab49a.html |newspaper=Financial Times |accessdate=2010-09-12}}</ref> where many of the risks associated with construction costs, operating performance, fuel price, accident liability and other factors were borne by consumers rather than suppliers. In addition, because the potential liability from a nuclear accident is so great, the full cost of liability insurance is generally limited/capped by the government, which the ] concluded constituted a significant subsidy.<ref>United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1983. The Price-Anderson Act: the Third Decade, NUREG-0957</ref> Many countries have now liberalized the ] where these risks, and the risk of cheaper competitors emerging before capital costs are recovered, are borne by plant suppliers and operators rather than consumers, which leads to a significantly different evaluation of the economics of new nuclear power plants.<ref name=MIT-2003>{{Cite book |url=http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/ |title=The Future of Nuclear Power |publisher=] |year=2003 |isbn=0-615-12420-8 |accessdate=2006-11-10 |postscript=<!--None-->}}</ref> | |||
| Following the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, costs are expected to increase for currently operating and new nuclear power plants, due to increased requirements for on-site spent fuel management and elevated design basis threats.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://web.mit.edu/mitei/research/studies/documents/nuclear-fuel-cycle/The_Nuclear_Fuel_Cycle-all.pdf |title=The Future of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle |author=Massachusetts Institute of Technology |year=2011 |work= |page=xv }}</ref> | |||
| The economics of new nuclear power plants is a controversial subject, since there are diverging views on this topic, and multibillion-dollar investments ride on the choice of an energy source. Comparison with other power generation methods is strongly dependent on assumptions about construction timescales and capital financing for nuclear plants as well as the future costs of fossil fuels and renewables as well as for energy storage solutions for intermittent power sources. Cost estimates also need to take into account ] and ] storage costs. On the other hand, measures to ] ], such as a ] or ], may favor the economics of nuclear power.{{citation needed|date=December 2015}} | |||
| ==Life cycle of nuclear fuel== | |||
| ]. 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 ] 95% of spent fuel can potentially be recycled to be returned to usage in a power plant (4).]] | |||
| {{Main|Nuclear fuel cycle}} | |||
| A nuclear reactor is only part of the life-cycle for nuclear power. The process starts with mining (see '']''). Uranium mines are underground, ], or ] mines. In any case, the uranium ore is extracted, usually converted into a stable and compact form such as ], and then transported to a processing facility. Here, the yellowcake is converted to ], which is then ] using various techniques. At this point, the enriched uranium, containing more than the natural 0.7% U-235, is used to make ] 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 ] where the short lived isotopes generated by fission can decay away. After about 5 years in a spent fuel pool 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=== | |||
| {{Main|Uranium market|Energy_development#Nuclear_energy|l2=Energy development - Nuclear}} | |||
| ] (blue) and uranium-235 (red) found naturally, versus grades that are ]. ]s require fuel enriched to (3–4%), while others such as the ] reactor uses natural uranium.]] | |||
| ] is a fairly common ] in the Earth's crust: it is approximately as common as ] or ], and is about 40 times more common than silver.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/uranium.aspx |title=uranium Facts, information, pictures | Encyclopedia.com articles about uranium |publisher=Encyclopedia.com |date=2001-09-11 |accessdate=2013-06-14}}</ref> Uranium is present in trace concentrations in most rocks, dirt, and ocean water, but can be economically extracted currently only where it is present in high concentrations. Still, the world's present measured resources of uranium, economically recoverable at the arbitrary price ceiling of 130 USD/kg, are enough to last for between 70 and 100 years.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/docs/policy-briefs/201101_RSU_PolicyBrief_1-2nd_Thought_Nuclear-Sovacool.pdf |title=Second Thoughts About Nuclear Power |work=A Policy Brief – Challenges Facing Asia |date=January 2011 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130116084833/http://spp.nus.edu.sg/docs/policy-briefs/201101_RSU_PolicyBrief_1-2nd_Thought_Nuclear-Sovacool.pdf |archivedate=January 16, 2013 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url= http://www.nea.fr/html/general/press/2008/2008-02.html | title= Uranium resources sufficient to meet projected nuclear energy requirements long into the future | date= 2008-06-03 | work= | publisher= ] (NEA) | accessdate= 2008-06-16 | deadurl= yes | archiveurl= https://web.archive.org/web/20081205121250/http://www.nea.fr/html/general/press/2008/2008-02.html | archivedate= 2008-12-05 | df= }}</ref><ref name="Red">{{cite book |date=2008-06-10 |title=Uranium 2007 – Resources, Production and Demand |url=http://www.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/display.asp?sf1=identifiers&st1=9789264047662 |publisher=], ] |isbn=978-92-64-04766-2 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20090130092151/http://www.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/display.asp?sf1=identifiers&st1=9789264047662 |archivedate=2009-01-30 |df= }}</ref> | |||
| According to the ] in 2006, there was an expected 85 years worth of uranium in already identified resources, when that uranium is used in ], in the OECD's red book of 2011, due to increased exploration, known uranium resources have grown by 12.5% since 2008, with this increase translating into greater than a century of uranium available if the metals usage rate were to continue at the 2011 level.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/display.asp?lang=EN&sf1=identifiers&st1=978-92-64-17803-8 |title=Uranium 2011 – OECD Online Bookshop |publisher=Oecdbookshop.org |accessdate=2013-06-14}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.oecd-nea.org/press/2012/2012-05.html |title=Global Uranium Supply Ensured For Long Term, New Report Shows |publisher=Oecd-nea.org |date=2012-07-26 |accessdate=2013-06-14}}</ref> The OECD also estimate 670 years of economically recoverable uranium in total conventional resources and ] ores, while also using present reactor technology, a resource that is recoverable from between 60–100 US$/kg of Uranium.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter4.pdf |title=Energy Supply |website= |page=271 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071215202932/http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter4.pdf |archive-date=2007-12-15}} and table 4.10.</ref> In a similar manner to every other natural metal resource, for every tenfold increase in the cost per kilogram of uranium, there is a three-hundredfold increase in available lower quality ores that would then become economical.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Deffeyes KS, MacGregor ID | year = 1980 | title = World uranium resources | url = | journal = Scientific American | volume = 242 | issue = 1| pages = 66–76 | doi=10.1038/scientificamerican0180-66| bibcode = 1980SciAm.242a..66D}}</ref> As the OECD note: {{Quote|Even if the nuclear industry expands significantly, sufficient fuel is available for centuries. If advanced ]s could be designed in the future to efficiently utilize recycled or depleted uranium and all actinides, then the resource utilization efficiency would be further improved by an additional factor of eight.}} For example, the OECD have determined that with a pure ] fuel cycle with a burn up of, and recycling of, all the Uranium and ], actinides which presently make up the most hazardous substances in ], there is 160,000 years worth of Uranium in total conventional resources and phosphate ore, at the price of 60–100 US$/kg of Uranium.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter4.pdf |title=Energy Supply |website= |page=271 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071215202932/http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter4.pdf |archive-date=2007-12-15}} and figure 4.10.</ref> | |||
| Current ]s make relatively inefficient use of nuclear fuel, mostly fissioning only the very rare uranium-235 isotope. ] can make this waste reusable, and more efficient reactor designs, such as the currently under construction ]s achieve a higher efficiency burn up of the available resources, than the current vintage ]s, which make up the vast majority of reactors worldwide.<ref name="wna-wmitnfc">{{cite web |url= http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf04.html |title=Waste Management in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle |accessdate=2006-11-09 |publisher=World Nuclear Association |year=2006 |work=Information and Issue Briefs}}</ref> | |||
| ===Breeding=== | |||
| {{Main|Breeder reactor|Nuclear power proposed as renewable energy}} | |||
| 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.<ref name="stanford-cohen">{{cite web |url=http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html |title=Facts From Cohen and Others |accessdate=2006-11-09 |publisher=Stanford |year=2006 |author=John McCarthy |authorlink=John McCarthy (computer scientist) |work=Progress and its Sustainability |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20070410165316/http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html |archivedate=2007-04-10 |df= }} Citing Breeder reactors: A renewable energy source, '']'', vol. 51, (1), Jan. 1983.</ref> | |||
| Breeder technology has been used in several reactors, but the high cost of reprocessing fuel safely, at 2006 technological levels, requires uranium prices of more than 200 USD/kg before becoming justified economically.<ref name="wna-anpr">{{cite web |url= http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf08.html |title=Advanced Nuclear Power Reactors |accessdate=2006-11-09 |publisher=World Nuclear Association |year=2006 |work=Information and Issue Briefs}}</ref> | |||
| Breeder reactors are however being pursued as they have the potential to burn up all of the ]s in the present inventory of nuclear waste while also producing power and creating additional quantities of fuel for more reactors via the breeding process.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.worldenergy.org/documents/p001515.pdf |title=Synergy between Fast Reactors and Thermal Breeders for Safe, Clean, and Sustainable Nuclear Power |website=World Energy Council |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110110121245/http://worldenergy.org/documents/p001515.pdf |archive-date=2011-01-10}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://e360.yale.edu/feature/are_fast-breeder_reactors_a_nuclear_power_panacea/2557/ |title=Are Fast-Breeder Reactors A Nuclear Power Panacea? by Fred Pearce: Yale Environment 360 |author=Rebecca Kessler |publisher=E360.yale.edu |accessdate=2013-06-14}}</ref> | |||
| As of 2017, there are only two breeder reactors producing commercial power: the ] and the ], both in Russia. | |||
| The BN-600, with a capacity of 600 MW, was built in 1980 in Beloyarsk and is planned to produce power until 2025. | |||
| The BN-800 is an updated version of the BN-600, and started operation in 2016 with a net electrical capacity of 789 MW. | |||
| The technical design of a yet larger breeder, the ] was originally scheduled to be finalized in 2013, with construction slated for 2015 but has since been delayed.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Large_fast_reactor_approved_for_Beloyarsk-2706124.html |title=Large fast reactor approved for Beloyarsk |publisher=World-nuclear-news.org |date=2012-06-27 |accessdate=2013-06-14}}</ref> | |||
| The ] breeder reactor in France was powered down in 2009 after 36 years of operation. | |||
| Japan's ] breeder reactor restarted (having been shut down in 1995) in 2010 for 3 months, but shut down again after equipment fell into the reactor during reactor checkups<ref>{{cite web |url=http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201211090056 |title=Atomic agency plans to restart Monju prototype fast breeder reactor – AJW by The Asahi Shimbun |publisher=Ajw.asahi.com |accessdate=2013-06-14 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130614042451/http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201211090056 |archivedate=2013-06-14 |df= }}</ref> and it is now planned to be decommissioned. | |||
| Both China and India are building breeder reactors. | |||
| The Indian 500 MWe ] is under construction, with plans to build five more by 2020.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/India-s-breeder-reactor-to-be-commissioned-in-2013/Article1-814183.aspx |title=India's breeder reactor to be commissioned in 2013 |publisher=Hindustan Times |accessdate=2013-06-14 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130426141852/http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/India-s-breeder-reactor-to-be-commissioned-in-2013/Article1-814183.aspx |archivedate=2013-04-26 |df= }}</ref> | |||
| The ] began producing power in 2011.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/business/2012-10/31/c_131942867.htm |title=China makes nuclear power development – Xinhua | English.news.cn |publisher=News.xinhuanet.com |accessdate=2013-06-14}}</ref> | |||
| Another alternative to fast breeders is thermal breeder reactors that use uranium-233 bred from ] as fission fuel in the ]. | |||
| Thorium is about 3.5 times more common than uranium in the Earth's crust, and has different geographic characteristics. This would extend the total practical fissionable resource base by 450%.<ref name="wna-thorium">{{cite web |url= http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html |title=Thorium |accessdate=2006-11-09 |publisher=World Nuclear Association |year=2006 |work=Information and Issue Briefs}}</ref> ] features the use of a thorium fuel cycle in the third stage, as it has abundant thorium reserves but little uranium. | |||
| ===Nuclear waste=== | |||
| ], the largest in the US with 3 ]s (PWRs), is situated in the ]. It uses ] from cities as its ] in 9 squat mechanical draft cooling towers.<ref>{{cite journal |date=2013-06-25 |title=An oasis filled with grey water |url=http://www.neimagazine.com/features/featurean-oasis-filled-with-grey-water/ |journal=NEI Magazine}}</ref><ref></ref> Its total ]/"waste" inventory produced since 1986, is contained in ] cylinders located between the artificial body of water and the ].]] | |||
| {{details|Radioactive waste}} | |||
| {{See also|List of nuclear waste treatment technologies}} | |||
| The most important waste stream from nuclear power plants is ]. It is primarily composed of unconverted uranium as well as significant quantities of transuranic actinides (plutonium and ], mostly). In addition, about 3% of it is fission products from nuclear reactions. 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.<ref>M. I. Ojovan, W.E. Lee. ''An Introduction to Nuclear Waste Immobilisation'', Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam, 315pp. (2005).</ref> | |||
| ====High-level radioactive waste==== | |||
| {{Main|Reactor-grade plutonium#Reuse in reactors|High-level radioactive waste management|List of nuclear waste treatment technologies}} | |||
| ] assembly bundle being inspected before entering a reactor.]] | |||
| ], the bundles of used fuel assemblies of a typical nuclear power station are often stored on site in the likes of the eight ] vessels pictured above.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/dry-cask-storage.html |title=NRC: Dry Cask Storage |publisher=Nrc.gov |date=2013-03-26 |accessdate=2013-06-22}}</ref> At ], which generated 44 billion ] of electricity over its lifetime, its complete spent fuel inventory is contained within sixteen casks.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.yankeerowe.com/ |title=Yankee Nuclear Power Plant |publisher=Yankeerowe.com |accessdate=2013-06-22}}</ref>]] | |||
| High-level radioactive waste management concerns management and disposal of highly radioactive materials created during production of nuclear power. The technical issues in accomplishing this are daunting, due to the extremely long periods ]s remain deadly to living organisms. Of particular concern are two ]s, ] (half-life 220,000 years) and ] (half-life 15.7 million years),<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.stoller-eser.com/Quarterlies/iodine.htm |title=Environmental Surveillance, Education and Research Program |publisher=Idaho National Laboratory |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20081121041307/http://www.stoller-eser.com/Quarterlies/iodine.htm |archivedate=2008-11-21 |accessdate=2009-01-05 |deadurl=yes |df= }}</ref> which dominate spent nuclear fuel radioactivity after a few thousand years. The most troublesome ]s in spent fuel are ] (half-life two million years) and ] (half-life 24,000 years).<ref>{{harvnb|Vandenbosch|2007|p=21.|Ref=none}}</ref> Consequently, high-level radioactive waste requires sophisticated treatment and management to successfully isolate it from the ]. This usually necessitates treatment, followed by a long-term management strategy involving permanent storage, disposal or transformation of the waste into a non-toxic form.<ref>{{cite book|author1=Ojovan, M. I. |author2=Lee, W.E. |title=An Introduction to Nuclear Waste Immobilisation|publisher=Elsevier Science Publishers|location=Amsterdam|page=315|year=2005|isbn=0-08-044462-8}}</ref> | |||
| Governments around the world are considering a range of waste management and disposal options, usually involving deep-geologic placement, although there has been limited progress toward implementing long-term waste management solutions.<ref>{{cite news |author= Brown, Paul| url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/apr/14/nuclear.greenpolitics|title=Shoot it at the sun. Send it to Earth's core. What to do with nuclear waste?|work=The Guardian|date=2004-04-14|location=London}}</ref> This is partly because the timeframes in question when dealing with radioactive waste range from 10,000 to millions of years,<ref>{{cite book |title=Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards |author=National Research Council |year=1995 |publisher=National Academy Press |location=Washington, D.C. |isbn=0-309-05289-0|url=https://books.google.com/?id=1DLyAtgVPy0C&pg=PA91|page=91}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/2006/january/article1.html |title=The Status of Nuclear Waste Disposal |date=January 2006 |publisher=The American Physical Society |accessdate=2008-06-06}}</ref> according to studies based on the effect of estimated radiation doses.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/yucca/70fr49013.pdf |title=Public Health and Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Yucca Mountain, Nevada; Proposed Rule |date=2005-08-22| publisher=United States Environmental Protection Agency |format=PDF |accessdate=2008-06-06}}</ref> | |||
| Some proposed nuclear reactor designs however such as the American ] and the ] can use the nuclear waste from light water reactors as a fuel, transmutating it to isotopes that would be safe after hundreds, instead of tens of thousands of years. This offers a potentially more attractive alternative to deep geological disposal.<ref>{{cite news|author=Duncan Clark |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jul/09/nuclear-waste-burning-reactor |title=Nuclear waste-burning reactor moves a step closer to reality | Environment | guardian.co.uk |publisher=Guardian |date=2012-07-09 |accessdate=2013-06-14 |location=London}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.monbiot.com/2011/12/05/a-waste-of-waste/ |title=George Monbiot – A Waste of Waste |publisher=Monbiot.com |accessdate=2013-06-14}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZR0UKxNPh8 |title=Energy From Thorium: A Nuclear Waste Burning Liquid Salt Thorium Reactor |publisher=YouTube |date=2009-07-23 |accessdate=2013-06-14}}</ref> | |||
| Another possibility is the use of thorium in a reactor especially designed for thorium (rather than mixing in thorium with uranium and plutonium (i.e. in existing reactors). Used thorium fuel remains only a few hundreds of years radioactive, instead of tens of thousands of years.<ref>NWT magazine, October 2012</ref> | |||
| Since the fraction of a radioisotope's atoms decaying per unit of time is inversely proportional to its half-life, the relative radioactivity of a quantity of buried human radioactive waste would diminish over time compared to natural radioisotopes (such as the decay chains of 120 trillion tons of thorium and 40 trillion tons of uranium which are ] over the crust's 3 * 10<sup>19</sup> ton mass).<ref>{{cite journal |author=Sevior M. |title=Considerations for nuclear power in Australia |journal=International Journal of Environmental Studies |volume=63 |issue=6 |pages=859–872 |doi=10.1080/00207230601047255 |year=2006 |url=http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a767886528 |format=PDF |ref=harv}}</ref><ref></ref><ref>American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2007, abstract #V33A-1161. </ref> For instance, over a timeframe of thousands of years, after the most active short half-life radioisotopes decayed, burying U.S. nuclear waste would increase the radioactivity in the top 2000 feet of rock and soil in the United States (10 million km<sup>2</sup>) by ] 1 part in 10 million over the cumulative amount of ] in such a volume, although the vicinity of the site would have a far higher concentration of artificial radioisotopes underground than such an average.<ref>Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 23:193–203;1998. Dr. Bernard L. Cohen, University of Pittsburgh. </ref> | |||
| ====Low-level radioactive waste==== | |||
| {{See also|Low-level waste}} | |||
| The nuclear industry also produces a large 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, etcetera. | |||
| ====Waste relative to other types==== | |||
| In countries with nuclear power, radioactive wastes comprise less than 1% of total industrial toxic wastes, much of which remains hazardous for long periods.<ref name="wna-wmitnfc" /> Overall, nuclear power produces far less waste material by volume than fossil-fuel based power plants.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/TheRisksOfNuclearPower|title=The Challenges of Nuclear Power}}</ref> Coal-burning plants are particularly noted for producing large amounts of toxic and mildly radioactive ash due to concentrating naturally occurring metals and mildly radioactive material from the coal.<ref>{{cite journal |date=2007-12-13 |title=Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste |url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste |journal=Scientific American}}</ref> A 2008 report from ] concluded that coal power actually results in more radioactivity being released into the environment than nuclear power operation, and that the population ] equivalent, or dose to the public from radiation from coal plants is 100 times as much as from the operation of nuclear plants.<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=2008-02-05 |work= |publisher=Oak Ridge National Laboratory |pages= |doi= |accessdate=2008-01-31 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20070205103749/http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html |archivedate=February 5, 2007 }}</ref> Indeed, coal ash is much less radioactive than spent nuclear fuel on a weight per weight basis, but coal ash is produced in much higher quantities per unit of energy generated, and this is released directly into the environment as ], whereas nuclear plants use shielding to protect the environment from radioactive materials, for example, in ] vessels.<ref name="cejournal">{{cite journal |date=2008-12-31 |title=Coal ash is ''not'' more radioactive than nuclear waste |url= http://www.cejournal.net/?p=410 |journal=CE Journal |publisher=Center for Environmental Journalism |pages= |doi= |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20090827045039/http://www.cejournal.net/?p=410 |archivedate=2009-08-27 |dead-url=yes |accessdate= |df= }}</ref> | |||
| ====Waste disposal==== | |||
| Disposal of nuclear waste is often said to be the Achilles' heel of the industry.<ref name=mont2011>Montgomery, Scott L. (2010). ''The Powers That Be'', University of Chicago Press, p. 137.</ref> Presently, waste is mainly stored at individual reactor sites and there are over 430 locations around the world where radioactive material continues to accumulate. Some experts suggest that centralized underground repositories which are well-managed, guarded, and monitored, would be a vast improvement.<ref name=mont2011/> There is an "international consensus on the advisability of storing nuclear waste in ]",<ref name=go/> with the lack of movement of nuclear waste in the 2 billion year old ]s in ], ] being cited as "a source of essential information today."<ref>{{cite web|url= http://www.efn.org.au/NucWaste-Comby.pdf |title=international Journal of Environmental Studies, The Solutions for Nuclear waste, December 2005 |format=PDF |accessdate=2013-06-22}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0010.shtml |title=Oklo: Natural Nuclear Reactors |publisher=U.S. Department of Energy Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Yucca Mountain Project, DOE/YMP-0010 | |||
| |date=November 2004 |accessdate=2009-09-15 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20090825013752/http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0010.shtml |archivedate=2009-08-25 |deadurl=yes |df= }}</ref> | |||
| There are no commercial scale purpose built underground repositories in operation.<ref name=go>{{cite book |last=Gore |first=Al |date=2009 |title=Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis |publisher=Rodale |location=Emmaus, PA |pages=165–166 |isbn = 978-1-59486-734-7}}</ref><ref>{{cite web| url= http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-nuclear-renaissance&print=true| title= A Nuclear Power Renaissance?| date= 2008-04-28 |work= | publisher= '']''| accessdate= 2008-05-15 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web| url= http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuel-recycling| title= Nuclear Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth | |||
| | last= von Hippel | first= Frank N. | authorlink= Frank N. von Hippel| date= April 2008 |work= |publisher= ''Scientific American''| accessdate= 2008-05-15 }}</ref><ref></ref> The ] (WIPP) in ] has been taking nuclear waste since 1999 from production reactors, but as the name suggests is a research and development facility. A radiation leak at WIPP in 2014 brought renewed attention to the need for R&D on disposal of radioactive waste and spent fuel.<ref name="Jeff Tollefson">{{cite web |url=http://www.nature.com/news/us-seeks-waste-research-revival-1.14804 |title=US seeks waste-research revival: Radioactive leak brings nuclear repositories into the spotlight |author=Jeff Tollefson |date=4 March 2014 |work=] }}</ref> | |||
| ===Reprocessing=== | |||
| {{details|Nuclear reprocessing}} | |||
| Reprocessing can potentially recover up to 95% of the remaining uranium and plutonium in spent nuclear fuel, putting it into new ]. 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 in Europe, Russia, Japan, and India. The full potential of reprocessing has not been achieved because it requires breeder reactors, which are not commercially available.<ref name=berrytoll/><ref name="IEEE Spectrum">. Retrieved on 2007-04-22</ref> | |||
| Nuclear reprocessing reduces the volume of high-level waste, but by itself does not reduce radioactivity or heat generation and therefore does not eliminate the need for a geological waste repository. Reprocessing has been politically controversial because of the potential to contribute to ], the potential vulnerability to ], the political challenges of repository siting (a problem that applies equally to direct disposal of spent fuel), and because of its high cost compared to the once-through fuel cycle. Several different methods for reprocessing been tried, but many have had safety and practicality problems which have led to their discontinuation.<ref name=berrytoll>R. Stephen Berry and George S. Tolley, , The University of Chicago, 2013.</ref><ref name=bas2011>{{cite web |url=http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/managing-nuclear-spent-fuel-policy-lessons-10-country-study |title=Managing nuclear spent fuel: Policy lessons from a 10-country study |author=Harold Feiveson|year=2011 |work=Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists |display-authors=etal}}</ref> | |||
| In the United States, the Obama administration stepped back from President Bush's plans for commercial-scale reprocessing and reverted to a program focused on reprocessing-related scientific research.<ref>{{cite journal |title=Adieu to nuclear recycling |doi=10.1038/460152b |year=2009|journal=Nature |volume=460 |issue=7252 |page=152 |bibcode = 2009Natur.460R.152. |pmid=19587715}}</ref> Reprocessing is not allowed in the U.S.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RS22542.pdf |title=Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing: U.S. Policy Development |format=PDF |accessdate=2009-07-25}}</ref><ref name="nature.com">{{cite journal |url=http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7252/full/460152b.html |title=Adieu to nuclear recycling|doi=10.1038/460152b |ref=harv |year=2009 |journal=Nature |volume=460 |issue=7252 |page=152 |bibcode = 2009Natur.460R.152. |pmid=19587715}}</ref> In the United States, spent nuclear fuel is currently all treated as waste.<ref>. WNA</ref> A major recommendation of the ] was that "the United States should undertake an integrated nuclear waste management program that leads to the timely development of one or more permanent deep geological facilities for the safe disposal of spent fuel and high-level nuclear waste".<ref name="Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future">{{cite web |title= Disposal Subcommittee Report to the Full Commission |author= Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future |url= http://www.brc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/disposal_report_updated_final.pdf |accessdate= 1 January 2016 |deadurl= yes |archiveurl= https://web.archive.org/web/20120601181726/http://brc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/disposal_report_updated_final.pdf |archivedate= 1 June 2012 |df= }}</ref> | |||
| ====Depleted uranium==== | |||
| {{Main|Depleted uranium}} | |||
| Uranium enrichment produces many tons of ] (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 controversially used in munitions; DU penetrators (bullets or ] tips) "self sharpen", due to uranium's tendency to fracture along shear bands.<ref>{{cite news | url= https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4004-safe-alternative-to-depleted-uranium-revealed.html | title= 'Safe' alternative to depleted uranium revealed | |||
| | last= Hambling | first= David |date= 2003-07-30 |work= ] |publisher= | accessdate= 2008-07-16 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.sv.vt.edu/research/batra-stevens/pent.html |title=Adiabatic Shear Banding in Axisymmetric Impact and Penetration Problems |last=Stevens |first=J. B. |author2=R. C. Batra |work= |publisher=] |accessdate=2008-07-16 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20081007233308/http://www.sv.vt.edu/research/batra-stevens/pent.html |archivedate=2008-10-07 |df= }}</ref> | |||
| ==Accidents, attacks and safety== | |||
| ===Accidents=== | |||
| ], the world's worst ] since 1986, displaced 50,000 households after ] leaked into the air, soil and sea.<ref>{{cite news |author1=Tomoko Yamazaki |author2=Shunichi Ozasa |lastauthoramp=yes |date=2011-06-27 |title=Fukushima Retiree Leads Anti-Nuclear Shareholders at Tepco Annual Meeting |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-26/fukushima-retiree-to-lead-anti-nuclear-motion.html |work=Bloomberg }}</ref> Radiation checks led to bans of some shipments of vegetables and fish.<ref>{{cite news |author=Mari Saito |date=2011-05-07 |title=Japan anti-nuclear protesters rally after PM call to close plant |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/07/us-japan-nuclear-idUSTRE74610J20110507 |work=Reuters}}</ref>]] | |||
| {{See also|Energy accidents|Nuclear safety|Nuclear and radiation accidents|Lists of nuclear disasters and radioactive incidents}} | |||
| Some serious ] have occurred. ] has reported that worldwide there have been 99 accidents at nuclear power plants.<ref name=critev/> Fifty-seven accidents have occurred since the Chernobyl disaster, and 57% (56 out of 99) of all nuclear-related accidents have occurred in the United States.<ref name=critev>{{cite journal |author=Benjamin K. Sovacool |date=August 2010 |title=A Critical Evaluation of Nuclear Power and Renewable Electricity in Asia |url=http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a923050767~db=all~jumptype=rss |journal=Journal of Contemporary Asia |volume=40 |issue=3 |pages=393–400 |doi=10.1080/00472331003798350}}</ref><ref name=bksaccident>Benjamin K. Sovacool (2009). {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120821162134/http://www.touchoilandgas.com/ebooks/A1ioj0/eandpvol7iss2/resources/134.htm |date=August 21, 2012 }}</ref> | |||
| Nuclear power plant accidents include the ] (1986) with approximately 60 deaths so far attributed to the accident and a predicted, eventual total death toll, of from 4000 to 25,000 latent cancers deaths. The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster (2011), has not caused any radiation related deaths, with a predicted, eventual total death toll, of from 0 to 1000, and the Three Mile Island accident (1979), no ] deaths, cancer or otherwise, have been found in follow up studies of this accident.<ref name=timenuke/> Nuclear-powered submarine mishaps include the ] reactor accident (1961),<ref name="rad"/> the ] reactor accident (1968),<ref name="johnston2007"/> and the ] reactor accident (1985).<ref name="timenuke"/> International research is continuing into safety improvements such as passively safe plants,<ref name="David Baurac 2002">{{Cite journal | url= http://www.ne.anl.gov/About/hn/logos-winter02-psr.shtml | author=David Baurac | title=Passively safe reactors rely on nature to keep them cool| journal = Logos | volume=20 | issue =1 | year = 2002 | publisher= ] | accessdate=2012-07-25 | ref= harv}}</ref> and the possible future use of nuclear fusion. | |||
| In terms of lives lost per unit of energy generated, nuclear power has caused fewer accidental deaths per unit of energy generated than all other major sources of energy generation. Energy produced by coal, petroleum, natural gas and ] has caused more deaths per unit of energy generated, from air pollution and ]. This is found in the following comparisons, when the immediate nuclear related deaths from accidents are compared to the immediate deaths from these other energy sources,<ref name="without the hot air" /> when the latent, or predicted, indirect cancer deaths from nuclear ] are compared to the immediate deaths from the above energy sources,<ref name="theage2006"/><ref name="tandfonline1"/><ref>https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/ with and without Chernobyl's total predicted, by the ], cancer deaths included.</ref> and when the combined immediate and indirect fatalities from nuclear power and all fossil fuels are compared, fatalities resulting from the mining of the necessary natural resources to power generation and to air pollution.<ref name=MarkandyaWilkinson2007/> With these data, the use of nuclear power has been calculated to have prevented in the region of 1.8 million deaths between 1971 and 2009, by reducing the proportion of energy that would otherwise have been generated by fossil fuels, and is projected to continue to do so.<ref name="autogenerated1">{{cite web|url=http://cen.acs.org/articles/91/web/2013/04/Nuclear-Power-Prevents-Deaths-Causes.html |title=Nuclear Power Prevents More Deaths Than It Causes | Chemical & Engineering News |publisher=Cen.acs.org |accessdate=2014-01-24}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal | last1 = Kharecha | first1 = P. A. | last2 = Hansen | first2 = J. E. | doi = 10.1021/es3051197 | title = Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power | journal = Environmental Science & Technology | volume = 47 | issue = 9 | pages = 4889 | year = 2013 | pmid = | pmc = |bibcode = 2013EnST...47.4889K }}</ref> | |||
| Although according to Benjamin K. Sovacool, fission energy accidents ranked first in terms of their total economic cost, accounting for 41 percent of all property damage attributed to energy accidents.<ref>{{Cite journal | last1 = Sovacool | first1 = B. K. | title = The costs of failure: A preliminary assessment of major energy accidents, 1907–2007 | doi = 10.1016/j.enpol.2008.01.040 | journal = Energy Policy | volume = 36 | issue = 5 | pages = 1802–1820 | year = 2008 | pmid = | pmc = }}</ref> Analysis presented in the international journal, ''Human and Ecological Risk Assessment'' found that coal, oil, ] and hydroelectric accidents(primarily due to the ] burst) have resulted in greater economic impacts than nuclear power accidents.<ref name=tandfonline1/> | |||
| Following the 2011 Japanese ], authorities shut down the nation's 54 nuclear power plants, but it has been estimated that if Japan had never adopted nuclear power, accidents and pollution from coal or gas plants would have caused more lost years of life.<ref>{{cite journal|author=Dennis Normile |date=2012-07-27 |title=Is Nuclear Power Good for You? |url=http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/07/is-nuclear-power-good-for-you.html |journal=Science |page=395 |volume=337 |issue=6093 |doi=10.1126/science.337.6093.395-b |ref=harv |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://www.webcitation.org/6EPZQYUB0?url=http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/07/is-nuclear-power-good-for-you.html |archivedate=2013-02-13 |df= }}</ref> As of 2013, the Fukushima site remains ], with some 160,000 evacuees still living in temporary housing, and some land will be unfarmable for centuries. The difficult ] will take 40 or more years, and cost tens of billions of dollars.<ref name="Richard Schiffman">{{cite news |author=Richard Schiffman |date=2013-03-12 |title=Two years on, America hasn't learned lessons of Fukushima nuclear disaster |url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/12/fukushima-nuclear-accident-lessons-for-us |work=The Guardian |location=London}}</ref><ref name="Martin Fackler">{{cite news |author=Martin Fackler |date=2011-06-01 |title=Report Finds Japan Underestimated Tsunami Danger |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/02/world/asia/02japan.html?_r=1&ref=world |newspaper=The New York Times }}</ref> | |||
| Forced evacuation from a nuclear accident may lead to social isolation, anxiety, depression, psychosomatic medical problems, reckless behavior, even suicide. Such was the outcome of the 1986 ] in Ukraine. A comprehensive 2005 study concluded that "the mental health impact of Chernobyl is the largest public health problem unleashed by the accident to date".<ref name=riv12>{{cite news |author=Andrew C. Revkin |author-link=Andrew C. Revkin |date=2012-03-10 |title=Nuclear Risk and Fear, from Hiroshima to Fukushima |url=http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/10/nuclear-risk-and-fear-from-hiroshima-to-fukushima/ |newspaper=The New York Times}}</ref> ], an American scientist, commented on the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, saying that "fear of ionizing radiation could have long-term psychological effects on a large portion of the population in the contaminated areas".<ref name="Frank N. von Hippel 27–36">{{cite journal |url=http://bos.sagepub.com/content/67/5/27.full |title=The radiological and psychological consequences of the Fukushima Daiichi accident |author= Frank N. von Hippel |date= September–October 2011 |volume= 67 |issue= 5 |work= Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists |pages= 27–36 |doi=10.1177/0096340211421588 |ref=harv }}</ref> A 2015 report in '']'' explained that serious impacts of nuclear accidents were often not directly attributable to radiation exposure, but rather social and psychological effects. Evacuation and long-term displacement of affected populations created problems for many people, especially the elderly and hospital patients.<ref>Arifumi Hasegawa, Koichi Tanigawa, Akira Ohtsuru, Hirooki Yabe, Masaharu Maeda, Jun Shigemura, et al. , '']'', 1 August 2015.</ref> | |||
| ===Attacks and sabotage=== | |||
| {{Main|Vulnerability of nuclear plants to attack|Nuclear terrorism|Nuclear safety in the United States}} | |||
| Terrorists could target ]s in an attempt to release ] into the community. The United States 9/11 Commission has said that nuclear power plants were potential targets originally considered for the ]. An attack on a reactor’s ] could also be serious, as these pools are less protected than the reactor core. The release of radioactivity could lead to thousands of near-term deaths and greater numbers of long-term fatalities.<ref name=fas12>{{cite web |url=https://fas.org/pubs/_docs/Nuclear_Energy_Report-lowres.pdf |title=The Future of Nuclear Power in the United States |author1=Charles D. Ferguson |author2=Frank A. Settle |lastauthoramp=yes |year=2012 |work=Federation of American Scientists }}</ref> | |||
| If nuclear power use is to expand significantly, nuclear facilities will have to be made extremely safe from attacks that could release massive quantities of radioactivity into the community. New reactor designs have features of ], such as the flooding of the reactor core without active intervention by reactor operators. But these safety measures have generally been developed and studied with respect to accidents, not to the deliberate reactor attack by a terrorist group. However, the U.S. ] does now also require new reactor license applications to consider security during the design stage.<ref name=fas12/> In the United States, the NRC carries out "Force on Force" (FOF) exercises at all Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) sites at least once every three years.<ref name=fas12/> In the United States, plants are surrounded by a double row of tall fences which are electronically monitored. The plant grounds are patrolled by a sizeable force of armed guards.<ref>. Accessed 23 July 2007</ref> | |||
| Insider sabotage regularly occurs, because insiders can observe and work around security measures. Successful insider crimes depended on the perpetrators' observation and knowledge of security vulnerabilities.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.amacad.org/content/publications/pubContent.aspx?d=1427 |title=A Worst Practices Guide to Insider Threats: Lessons from Past Mistakes |author=Matthew Bunn |author-link=Matthew Bunn |author2=Scott Sagan|author2-link=Scott Sagan |last-author-amp=yes |date=2014 |publisher=The American Academy of Arts & Sciences}}</ref> | |||
| A fire caused 5–10 million dollars worth of damage to New York's ] in 1971. | |||
| The arsonist turned out to be a plant maintenance worker. | |||
| Sabotage by workers has been reported at many other reactors in the United States: at ] (1974), ], ], ], ] (1974), ] (1980), and ] (1981). Many reactors overseas have also reported sabotage by workers.<ref name="Amory Lovins 2001 145–146">{{cite book |url=http://www.natcapsolutions.org/publications_files/BrittlePower/BrittlePower_Parts123.pdf |title=Brittle Power |author=Amory Lovins |author-link=Amory Lovins |date=2001 |pages=145–146}}</ref> | |||
| ==Nuclear proliferation== | |||
| {{further|Nuclear proliferation}} | |||
| Many technologies and materials associated with the creation of a nuclear power program have a dual-use capability, in that they can be used to make ]s if a country chooses to do so. When this happens a nuclear power program can become a route leading to a nuclear weapon or a public annex to a "secret" weapons program. The concern over ] is a case in point.<ref name=dfall2009>{{cite journal |title=Nuclear power without nuclear proliferation? |author1=Steven E. Miller |author2=Scott D. Sagan |lastauthoramp=yes |date=Fall 2009 |journal=Dædalus |doi=10.1162/daed.2009.138.4.7 |volume=138 |issue=4 |page=7 |ref=harv }}</ref> | |||
| ]/Russian ] stockpiles, 1945-2006.The ] was the main driving force behind the sharp reduction in the quantity of nuclear weapons worldwide since the cold war ended.<ref name="thebulletin.org"/><ref name="usec.com">{{cite web|url=http://www.usec.com/ |title=home |publisher=usec.com |date=2013-05-24 |accessdate=2013-06-14 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130621223711/http://www.usec.com/ |archivedate=2013-06-21 |df= }}</ref> However without an increase in nuclear reactors and greater demand for ] fuel, the cost of dismantling has dissuaded Russia from continuing their disarmament.]] | |||
| A fundamental goal for American and global security is to minimize the nuclear proliferation risks associated with the expansion of nuclear power. If this development is "poorly managed or efforts to contain risks are unsuccessful, the nuclear future will be dangerous".<ref name=dfall2009/> The ] is one such international effort to create a distribution network in which developing countries in need of energy, would receive ] at a discounted rate, in exchange for that nation agreeing to forgo their own indigenous develop of a uranium enrichment program. The France-based ]/''European Gaseous Diffusion Uranium Enrichment Consortium'' was/is one such program that successfully implemented this concept, with ] and other countries without enrichment facilities buying a share of the fuel produced at the French controlled enrichment facility, but without a transfer of technology.<ref>http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Conversion-Enrichment-and-Fabrication/Uranium-Enrichment/</ref> Iran was an early participant from 1974, and remains a shareholder of Eurodif via ]. | |||
| According to Benjamin K. Sovacool, a "number of high-ranking officials, even within the United Nations, have argued that they can do little to stop states using nuclear reactors to produce nuclear weapons".<ref name=bks2011/> A 2009 United Nations report said that: | |||
| <blockquote>the revival of interest in nuclear power could result in the worldwide dissemination of uranium enrichment and spent fuel reprocessing technologies, which present obvious risks of proliferation as these technologies can produce fissile materials that are directly usable in nuclear weapons.<ref name=bks2011>{{cite book |last=Sovacool |first=Benjamin |authorlink=Benjamin K. Sovacool |date=2011 |title=]: A Critical Global Assessment of Atomic Energy |publisher=] |location=Hackensack, NJ |page=190 |isbn=978-981-4322-75-1}}</ref></blockquote> | |||
| On the other hand, one factor influencing the support of power reactors is due to the appeal that these reactors have at reducing nuclear weapons arsenals through the ], a program which eliminated 425 metric tons of ](HEU), the equivalent of 17,000 nuclear warheads, by diluting it with ] making it equivalent to ](LEU), and thus suitable as nuclear fuel for commercial fission reactors. This is the single most successful ] program to date.<ref name="thebulletin.org">{{cite web |url=http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/op-eds/support-of-the-megatons-to-megawatts-program |title=The Bulletin of atomic scientists support the megatons to megawatts program |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110708162741/http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/op-eds/support-of-the-megatons-to-megawatts-program |archivedate=2011-07-08 |accessdate=2012-09-15}}</ref> | |||
| The Megatons to Megawatts Program, the brainchild of Thomas Neff of ],<ref name="A Farewell to Arms, 2014"></ref><ref></ref> was hailed as a major success by anti-nuclear weapon advocates as it has largely been the driving force behind the sharp reduction in the quantity of nuclear weapons worldwide since the cold war ended.<ref name="thebulletin.org"/> However without an increase in nuclear reactors and greater demand for fissile fuel, the cost of dismantling and down blending has dissuaded Russia from continuing their disarmament. | |||
| Currently, according to Harvard professor Matthew Bunn: "The Russians are not remotely interested in extending the program beyond 2013. We've managed to set it up in a way that costs them more and profits them less than them just making new low-enriched uranium for reactors from scratch. But there are other ways to set it up that would be very profitable for them and would also serve some of their strategic interests in boosting their nuclear exports."<ref>{{cite news |date=2009-12-05 |title=Future Unclear For 'Megatons To Megawatts' Program |url=https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121125743 |work=All Things Considered |publisher=NPR |accessdate=2013-06-22}}</ref> | |||
| Up to 2005, the Megatons to Megawatts Program had processed $8 billion of HEU/weapons grade uranium into LEU/reactor grade uranium, with that corresponding to the elimination of 10,000 nuclear weapons.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.usec.com/news/megatons-megawatts-eliminates-equivalent-10000-nuclear-warheads |title=Megatons to Megawatts Eliminates Equivalent of 10,000 Nuclear Warheads |publisher=Usec.com |date=2005-09-21 |accessdate=2013-06-22 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130426130245/http://www.usec.com/news/megatons-megawatts-eliminates-equivalent-10000-nuclear-warheads |archivedate=2013-04-26 |df= }}</ref> | |||
| For approximately two decades, this material generated nearly 10 percent of all the electricity consumed in the United States (about half of all U.S. nuclear electricity generated) with a total of around 7 trillion ] of electricity produced.<ref name="ReferenceB">{{cite journal |author=Dawn Stover |date=2014-02-21 |title=More megatons to megawatts |url=http://thebulletin.org/more-megatons-megawatts |journal=The Bulletin}}</ref> Enough energy to energize the entire United States electric grid for about two years.<ref name="A Farewell to Arms, 2014"/> In total it is estimated to have cost $17 billion, a "bargain for US ratepayers", with Russia profiting $12 billion from the deal.<ref name="ReferenceB"/> Much needed profit for the ], which after the collapse of the ], had difficulties paying for the maintenance and security of the Russian Federations highly enriched uranium and warheads.<ref name="A Farewell to Arms, 2014"/> | |||
| In April 2012 there were ] that have civil nuclear power plants,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf01.html |title=Nuclear Power in the World Today |publisher=World-nuclear.org |accessdate=2013-06-22}}</ref> of which ], with the vast majority of these ]s having first produced weapons, before commercial fission electricity stations. Moreover, the re-purposing of civilian nuclear industries for military purposes would be a breach of the ], of which 190 countries adhere to. | |||
| ==Environmental impact== | |||
| {{Main|Environmental impact of nuclear power}} | |||
| ], the only substance leaving the cooling towers of ] is non-radioactive water vapour and thus does not ] or cause ].]] | |||
| ===Carbon emissions=== | |||
| {{see also|Life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions of energy sources}} | |||
| ] of 103 studies, published by Benjamin K. Sovacool, estimated that the value of CO<sub>2</sub> emissions for nuclear power over the lifecycle of a plant was 66.08 g/kW·h. Comparative results for various ] sources were 9–32 g/kW·h.<ref name=sov>Benjamin K. Sovacool. . '']'', Vol. 36, 2008, p. 2950.</ref> A 2012 study by ] arrived at a different value, with the mean value, depending on which Reactor design was analyzed, ranging from 11 to 25 g/kW·h of ] nuclear power CO<sub>2</sub> emissions.<ref>{{Cite journal | last1 = Warner | first1 = E. S. | last2 = Heath | first2 = G. A. | doi = 10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00472.x | title = Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Nuclear Electricity Generation | journal = Journal of Industrial Ecology | volume = 16 | pages = S73 | year = 2012 | pmid = | pmc = }}</ref>]] | |||
| Nuclear power is one of the leading ] methods of producing ], and in terms of ], has emission values comparable to or lower than ].<ref name="Nrel.gov"/><ref> {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170506114117/http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/sustain_lca_results.html |date=2017-05-06 }}</ref> | |||
| A 2014 analysis of the ] literature by the ] (IPCC) reported that the embodied ] ] of fission electricity has a median value of 12 g {{CO2}}]/] which is the lowest out of all commercial ] energy sources.<ref name="IPCC 2014 Annex III">{{cite web|url=http://report.mitigation2014.org/report/ipcc_wg3_ar5_annex-iii.pdf |title=IPCC Working Group III – Mitigation of Climate Change, Annex II I: Technology – specific cost and performance parameters |year=2014 |publisher=IPCC |page=10 |accessdate=2014-08-01 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141215013236/http://report.mitigation2014.org/report/ipcc_wg3_ar5_annex-iii.pdf |archivedate=2014-12-15 |df= }}</ref><ref name="report.mitigation2014.org">{{cite web|url=http://report.mitigation2014.org/report/ipcc_wg3_ar5_annex-ii.pdf |title=IPCC Working Group III – Mitigation of Climate Change, Annex II Metrics and Methodology. pg 37 to 40,41 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150908235241/http://report.mitigation2014.org/report/ipcc_wg3_ar5_annex-ii.pdf |archivedate=2015-09-08 |df= }}</ref> | |||
| This is contrasted with coal and ] at 820 and 490 g {{CO2}} eq/kWh.<ref name="IPCC 2014 Annex III"/><ref name="report.mitigation2014.org"/> | |||
| From the beginning of ] commercialization in the 1970s, nuclear power prevented the emission of about 64 billion tonnes of ] that would have otherwise resulted from the burning of fossil fuels in ]s.<ref name="Kharecha Pushker A 2013 4889–4895"/> | |||
| ===Radiation=== | |||
| According to the United Nations (]), regular nuclear power plant operation including the nuclear fuel cycle causes radioisotope releases into the environment amounting to 0.0002 ]s (mSv) per year of public exposure as a global average.<ref name=UNSCEAR_GA>{{cite web |url= http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/09-86753_Report_2008_GA_Report_corr2.pdf |title=UNSCEAR 2008 Report to the General Assembly |publisher=United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation |year=2008}}</ref> | |||
| This is small compared to variation in natural ], which averages 2.4 mSv/a globally but frequently varies between 1 mSv/a and 13 mSv/a depending on a person's location as determined by UNSCEAR.<ref name=UNSCEAR_GA/> | |||
| As of a 2008 report, the remaining legacy of the worst nuclear power plant accident (Chernobyl) is 0.002 mSv/a in global average exposure (a figure which was 0.04 mSv per person averaged over the entire populace of the Northern Hemisphere in the year of the accident in 1986, although far higher among the most affected local populations and recovery workers).<ref name=UNSCEAR_GA/> | |||
| ===Waste heat=== | |||
| {{See also|Environmental impact of nuclear power#Waste heat}} | |||
| ] causing weather extremes such as ], reduced precipitation levels and ] can have a significant impact on all ] infrastructure, including large biomass-electric and fission-electric stations alike, if cooling in these power stations, namely in the ] is provided by certain ] sources.<ref name=ODI1>Dr. Frauke Urban and Dr. Tom Mitchell 2011. {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120920024704/http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/details.asp?id=5792&title=climate-change-disasters-electricity-generation |date=2012-09-20 }}. London: ] and ]</ref> While many thermal stations use indirect seawater cooling or ]s that in comparison use little to no freshwater, those that were designed to ] with rivers and lakes, can run into economic problems. | |||
| This presently infrequent generic problem may become increasingly significant over time.<ref name=ODI1/> This can force nuclear reactors to be shut down, as happened in France during the 2003 and 2006 heat waves. Nuclear power supply was severely diminished by low river flow rates and droughts, which meant rivers had reached the maximum temperatures for cooling reactors.<ref name=ODI1/> During the heat waves, 17 reactors had to limit output or shut down. 77% of French electricity is produced by nuclear power and in 2009 a similar situation created a 8GW shortage and forced the French government to import electricity.<ref name=ODI1/> Other cases have been reported from Germany, where extreme temperatures have reduced nuclear power production only 9 times due to high temperatures between 1979 and 2007.<ref name=ODI1/> In particular: | |||
| * the ] reduced output by 90% between June and September 2003<ref name=ODI1/> | |||
| * the ] cut production by 60% for 14 days due to excess river temperatures and low stream flow in the river Isar in 2006<ref name=ODI1/> However the more modern Isar II station did not have to cut production, as unlike its sister station Isar I, Isar II was built with a cooling tower. | |||
| Similar events have happened elsewhere in Europe during those same hot summers.<ref name=ODI1/> | |||
| If global warming continues, this disruption is likely to increase or alternatively, station operators could instead retro-fit other means of cooling, like ], despite these frequently being large structures and therefore sometimes unpopular with the public. | |||
| ==Comparison with renewable energy== | |||
| {{See also|Renewable energy debate|Nuclear power proposed as renewable energy|100% renewable energy|Cost of electricity by source}} | |||
| There is an ongoing debate on the relative benefits of nuclear power compared to renewable energy sources for the generation of low-carbon electricity. | |||
| Proponents of renewable energy argue that wind power and solar power are already cheaper and safer than nuclear power. | |||
| Nuclear power proponents argue that renewable energy sources such as wind and solar do not offer the scalability necessary for a large scale decarbonization of the electric grid, mainly due to their intermittency.<ref name=Kloor>{{cite news |last=Kloor |first=Keith |date=2013-01-11 |title=The Pro-Nukes Environmental Movement |url= http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/nuclear_power/2013/01/nuclear_energy_and_climate_change_environmentalists_debate_how_to_stop_global.html |work=Slate.com "The Big Questions" Blog |publisher=The Slate Group |accessdate=2013-03-11}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Smil |first=Vaclav |date=2012-06-28 |title=A Skeptic Looks at Alternative Energy |url=http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/a-skeptic-looks-at-alternative-energy/0 |journal=IEEE Spectrum |accessdate=2014-01-24}}</ref> | |||
| Although the majority of installed renewable energy across the world is currently in the form of ], solar and wind power are growing at a much higher pace, especially in developed countries. | |||
| Several studies report that it is in principle possible to cover most of energy generation with renewable sources. | |||
| The ] (IPCC) has said that if governments were supportive, and the full complement of renewable energy technologies were deployed, renewable energy supply could account for almost 80% of the world's energy use within forty years.<ref name=ipccccc/> | |||
| ], chairman of the IPCC, said the necessary investment in renewables would cost only about 1% of global GDP annually. | |||
| This approach could contain greenhouse gas levels to less than 450 parts per million, the safe level beyond which climate change becomes catastrophic and irreversible.<ref name=ipccccc>{{cite news |author=Fiona Harvey |date=2011-05-09 |title=Renewable energy can power the world, says landmark IPCC study |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/may/09/ipcc-renewable-energy-power-world |newspaper=The Guardian |location=London}}</ref> | |||
| However, other studies suggest that solar and wind energy are not cost-effective compared to nuclear power. | |||
| The ] published ''The Net Benefits of Low and No-Carbon Electricity Technologies'' in 2014 which states, after performing an energy and emissions cost analysis, that "The net benefits of new nuclear, hydro, and natural gas combined cycle plants far outweigh the net benefits of new wind or solar plants", with the most cost effective low carbon power technology being determined to be nuclear power.<ref></ref><ref></ref><ref></ref> | |||
| Nuclear power is also proposed as a tested and practical way to implement a low-carbon energy infrastructure, as opposed to renewable sources. | |||
| Analysis in 2015 by Professor and Chair of Environmental Sustainability ] and his colleagues on the topic of replacing fossil fuels entirely, from the electric grid of the world, has determined that at the historically modest and proven-rate at which nuclear energy was added to and replaced fossil fuels in France and Sweden during each nation's building programs in the 1980s, nuclear energy could displace or remove fossil fuels from the electric grid completely within 10 years, "allow the world to meet the most stringent greenhouse-gas mitigation targets.".<ref name="journals.plos.org"></ref> | |||
| In a similar analysis, Brook had earlier determined that 50% of all ], that is not solely electricity, but transportation ] etc. could be generated within approximately 30 years, if the global nuclear fission build rate was identical to each of these nation's already proven installation rates in units of installed ], ] per year, per unit of global ] (GW/year/$).<ref name="sciencedirect.com">{{cite journal|url = http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421511009189 | doi=10.1016/j.enpol.2011.11.041 | volume=42 | title=Could nuclear fission energy, etc., solve the greenhouse problem? The affirmative case | year=2012 | journal=Energy Policy | pages=4–8 | author=Brook Barry W}}</ref> | |||
| This is in contrast to the conceptual studies for a '']'' world, which would require an orders of magnitude more costly global investment per year, which has no historical precedent,<ref name="onlinelibrary.wiley.com">{{cite journal | author = Loftus | display-authors = etal | year = 2014 | title = A critical review of global decarbonization scenarios: what do they tell us about feasibility?, . | url = | journal = WIREs Clim Change | volume = 6 | issue = | pages = 93–112 | doi = 10.1002/wcc.324 }}</ref><ref name="qualenergia.it"></ref> along with far greater land that would have to be devoted to the wind, wave and solar projects, and the inherent assumption that humanity will use less, and not more, energy in the future.<ref name="sciencedirect.com"/><ref name="onlinelibrary.wiley.com"/><ref name="ReferenceC"></ref> | |||
| As Brook notes, the "principal limitations on nuclear fission are not technical, economic or fuel-related, but are instead linked to complex issues of societal acceptance, fiscal and political inertia, and inadequate critical evaluation of the real-world constraints facing low-carbon alternatives."<ref name="sciencedirect.com"/> | |||
| Several studies conclude that wind and solar power have costs that are comparable or lower than nuclear power, when considering price per kWh. | |||
| The ] reactor designs has followed an increasing trend due to ]s and ] whereas the ] (LCOE) is declining for wind and solar power.<ref> {{webarchive |url= https://web.archive.org/web/20121021062622/http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ems/reports/wind-energy-costs-2-2012.pdf |date=October 21, 2012 }}</ref> | |||
| In 2010 a report from Solar researchers at Duke University suggested{{quantify|date=October 2017}} that solar power is already cheaper than nuclear power.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Powers|first1=Diana S.|title=Nuclear Energy Loses Cost Advantage|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/27/business/global/27iht-renuke.html|work=The New York Times|date=26 July 2010}}</ref><ref name=ncwarn>{{cite web |url=http://www.ncwarn.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/NCW-SolarReport_final1.pdf |title=Solar and Nuclear Costs — The Historic Crossover |date=July 2010 |website=NC WARN |format=PDF |accessdate=2013-01-16}}</ref>{{better source|date=October 2017}} | |||
| However they state that if subsidies were removed for solar power, the crossover point would be delayed by years.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://phys.org/news200578033.html |title=Is solar power cheaper than nuclear power? |date=2010-08-09 |accessdate=2013-01-04}}</ref> | |||
| Data from the ] in 2011 estimated that in 2016, solar will have a levelized cost of electricity almost twice as expensive as nuclear (21¢/kWh for solar, 11.39¢/kWh for nuclear), and wind somewhat less expensive than nuclear (9.7¢/kWh).<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/electricity_generation.html |title=Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2011 |date=November 2010 |website=U.S. Energy Information Administration |accessdate=2013-01-16 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20121104092151/http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/electricity_generation.html |archivedate=2012-11-04 |df= }}</ref> | |||
| However, the U.S. ] has also cautioned that levelized costs of intermittent sources such as wind and solar are not directly comparable to costs of "dispatchable" sources (those that can be adjusted to meet demand), as intermittent sources need costly large-scale back-up power supplies for when the weather changes.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.eia.gov/conference/2013/pdf/presentations/namovicz.pdf |title=Assessing the Economic Value of New Utility-Scale Renewable Generation Projects |author=Chris Namovicz |date=2013-06-17 |website=US Energy Information Administration Energy Conference}}</ref> | |||
| A 2010 study by the Global Subsidies Initiative compared global relative ], or government financial aid for the deployment of different energy sources. | |||
| Results show that fossil fuels receive about 1 U.S. cents per kWh of energy they produce, nuclear energy receives 1.7 cents / kWh, renewable energy (excluding hydroelectricity) receives 5.0 cents / kWh and biofuels receive 5.1 cents / kWh in subsidies.<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.iisd.org/gsi/sites/default/files/relative_energy_subsidies.pdf |title= Relative Subsidies to Energy Sources: GSI estimates 19 APRIL 2010 |deadurl= yes |archiveurl= https://web.archive.org/web/20130513055956/http://www.iisd.org/gsi/sites/default/files/relative_energy_subsidies.pdf |archivedate= 13 May 2013 |df= }}</ref><ref></ref> | |||
| Nuclear power is comparable to, and in some cases lower, than many renewable energy sources in terms of lives lost per unit of electricity delivered.<ref name="MarkandyaWilkinson2007"/><ref name="without the hot air"/><ref name="Starfelt">{{cite web|url=http://manhaz.cyf.gov.pl/manhaz/strona_konferencja_EAE-2001/15%20-%20Polenp~1.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927230434/http://manhaz.cyf.gov.pl/manhaz/strona_konferencja_EAE-2001/15%20-%20Polenp~1.pdf |dead-url=yes |archive-date=2007-09-27 |title=Economic Analysis of Various Options of Electricity Generation – Taking into Account Health and Environmental Effects |author1=Nils Starfelt |author2=Carl-Erik Wikdahl |accessdate=2012-09-08 |ref=harv }}</ref> | |||
| However, as opposed to renewable energy, conventional designs for nuclear reactors produce intensely radioactive spent fuel that needs to be stored or reprocessed.<ref>{{cite journal |author=David Biello |date=2009-01-28 |title=Spent Nuclear Fuel: A Trash Heap Deadly for 250,000 Years or a Renewable Energy Source? |url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=nuclear-waste-lethal-trash-or-renewable-energy-source |journal=Scientific American |accessdate=2014-01-24}}</ref> | |||
| A nuclear plant also needs to be disassembled and removed and much of the disassembled nuclear plant needs to be stored as low level nuclear waste for a few decades.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.unep.org/yearbook/2012/pdfs/UYB_2012_CH_3.pdf |title=Closing and Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants |date=2012-03-07 |website=United Nations Environment Programme |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20160518164428/http://www.unep.org/yearbook/2012/pdfs/UYB_2012_CH_3.pdf |archivedate=2016-05-18 |df= }}</ref> | |||
| ==Nuclear decommissioning== | |||
| {{main|nuclear decommissioning}} | |||
| The financial costs of every nuclear power plant continues for some time after the facility has finished generating its last useful electricity. Once no longer economically viable, nuclear reactors and uranium enrichment facilities are generally decommissioned, returning the facility and its parts to a safe enough level to be entrusted for other uses, such as ]. | |||
| After a cooling-off period that may last decades, reactor core materials are dismantled and cut into small pieces to be packed in containers for interim storage or ] experiments. The consensus on how to approach the task is one that is relatively inexpensive, but it has the potential to be hazardous to the natural environment as it presents opportunities for ], accidents or sabotage.<ref name=sov11/> | |||
| In the United States a ] and Nuclear Decommissioning Trust Fund is legally required, with utilities banking 0.1 to 0.2 cents/kWh during operations to fund future decommissioning. They must report regularly to the ] (NRC) on the status of their decommissioning funds. About 70% of the total estimated cost of decommissioning all U.S. nuclear power reactors has already been collected (on the basis of the average cost of $320 million per reactor-steam turbine unit).<ref></ref><ref></ref> | |||
| In the United States in 2011, there are 13 reactors that had permanently shut down and are in some phase of decommissioning.<ref name=sov11>{{cite book |last=Sovacool |first=Benjamin |authorlink=Benjamin K. Sovacool |date=2011 |title=]: A Critical Global Assessment of Atomic Energy |publisher=] |location=Hackensack, NJ |pages=118–119 |isbn=978-981-4322-75-1}}</ref> With ] and ] having completed the process in 2006–2007, after ceasing commercial electricity production circa 1992. | |||
| The majority of the 15 years, was used to allow the station to naturally cool-down on its own, which makes the manual disassembly process both safer and cheaper. | |||
| Decommissioning at nuclear sites which have experienced a serious accident are the most expensive and time-consuming. | |||
| Working under an ] framework that limits or structures accident liabilities in accordance with the ], the Brussels supplementary convention, and the ]<ref>. ].</ref> and in the United States the ]. | |||
| It is often argued that this potential shortfall in liability represents an external cost not included in the cost of nuclear electricity; but the cost is small, amounting to about 0.1% of the levelized cost of electricity, according to a CBO study.<ref> ], May 2008.</ref> | |||
| These beyond-regular-insurance costs for worst-case scenarios are not unique to nuclear power, as ] plants are similarly not fully insured against a catastrophic event such as the ] disaster, where 11 million people lost their homes and from 30,000 to 200,000 people died, or large ]s in general. As private insurers base dam insurance premiums on limited scenarios, major disaster insurance in this sector is likewise provided by the state.<ref> {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160108185336/http://www.damsafety.org/media/documents/fema/availabilityofdaminsurance.pdf |date=2016-01-08 }} 1999</ref> | |||
| ==Debate on nuclear power== | |||
| {{Main|Nuclear power debate}} | |||
| {{See also|Nuclear energy policy|Pro-nuclear movement|Anti-nuclear movement}} | |||
| The nuclear power debate concerns the controversy<ref name="jstor.org"/><ref name="A Reasonable Bet on Nuclear Power"/><ref name=eleven/> which has surrounded the deployment and use of nuclear fission reactors to generate electricity from nuclear fuel for civilian purposes. The debate about nuclear power peaked during the 1970s and 1980s, when it "reached an intensity unprecedented in the history of technology controversies", in some countries.<ref name="marcuse.org"/><ref>{{cite book |last=Falk |first=Jim |date=1982|title=Global Fission: The Battle Over Nuclear Power |location = Melbourne |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-554315-5}}</ref>{{page needed|date=December 2015}} | |||
| Proponents of nuclear energy contend that nuclear power is a ] source that reduces ] and increases ] by decreasing dependence on imported energy sources.<ref name="bloomberg.com"/> | |||
| Proponents claim that nuclear power produces virtually no conventional air pollution, such as greenhouse gases and smog, in contrast to the main alternative of ]s.<ref>{{cite news |last=Patterson |first=Thom |date=2013-11-03 |title=Climate change warriors: It's time to go nuclear |url=http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/03/world/nuclear-energy-climate-change-scientists/index.html |newspaper=CNN}}</ref> Nuclear power can produce ] power unlike many renewables which are ]s lacking large-scale and cheap ways of storing energy.<ref>{{cite web| url= http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf10.html| title= Renewable Energy and Electricity|date=June 2010 | publisher= World Nuclear Association| accessdate= 2010-07-04 }}</ref> ] saw oil as a resource that would ], and proposed nuclear energy as a replacement energy source.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/1956/1956.pdf |title=Nuclear Energy and the Fossil Fuels 'Drilling and Production Practice' |author=M. King Hubbert |publisher=] |page=36 |date=June 1956 |accessdate=2008-04-18 |format=PDF |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080527233843/http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/1956/1956.pdf |archivedate=2008-05-27 |df= }}</ref> | |||
| Proponents claim that the risks of storing waste are small and can be further reduced by using the latest technology in newer reactors, and the operational safety record in the Western world is excellent when compared to the other major kinds of power plants.<ref>{{cite book |author=Bernard L. Cohen |date=1990 |title=The Nuclear Energy Option: An Alternative for the 90s |url=http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/BOOK.html |location=New York |publisher=Plenum Press |isbn=978-0-306-43567-6}}</ref> | |||
| Opponents believe that nuclear power poses many threats to people and the environment.<ref name="Share"/><ref name="NC WARN » Nuclear Power"/><ref name="Sturgis"/> | |||
| These threats include the problems of processing, transport and storage of radioactive nuclear waste, the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation and terrorism, as well as health risks and environmental damage from uranium mining.<ref name=gierec>Greenpeace International and European Renewable Energy Council (January 2007). '' {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090806121526/http://www.energyblueprint.info/fileadmin/media/documents/energy_revolution.pdf |date=2009-08-06 }}'', p. 7.</ref><ref name=protest>Giugni, Marco (2004). ''''.</ref> They also contend that reactors themselves are enormously complex machines where many things can and do go wrong; and there have been serious ].<ref name=bksenpol>{{cite journal | author = Sovacool Benjamin K. | authorlink = Benjamin K. Sovacool | year = 2008 | title = The costs of failure: A preliminary assessment of major energy accidents, 1907–2007 | url = | journal = ] | volume = 36 | issue = 5| pages = 1802–1820 | doi=10.1016/j.enpol.2008.01.040}}</ref><ref>] (2009). '']'', Black Inc., p. 280.</ref> Critics do not believe that the risks of using nuclear fission as a power source can be fully offset through the development of new technology. In years past, they also argued that when all the energy-intensive stages of the ] are considered, from uranium mining to ], nuclear power is neither a low-carbon nor an economical electricity source.<ref>Kurt Kleiner. ''Nature Reports'', Vol. 2, October 2008, pp. 130–131.</ref><ref>] (2007). '']'', University of New South Wales Press, p. 252.</ref><ref name=markd>Mark Diesendorf. {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120722213838/http://www.ceem.unsw.edu.au/content/userDocs/NukesSocialAlternativesMD.pdf |date=July 22, 2012 }}</ref> | |||
| Arguments of ] and ] are used by both sides of the debate. | |||
| ==Use in space== | |||
| ] (MMRTG), used in several space missions such as the ] ]] | |||
| {{main|Nuclear power in space}} | |||
| Both ] and fusion appear promising for ] applications, generating higher mission velocities with less ]. This is due to the much higher energy density of nuclear reactions: some 7 orders of magnitude (10,000,000 times) more energetic than the chemical reactions which power the current generation of rockets. | |||
| ] has been used on a relatively small scale (few kW), mostly to power ]s and experiments by using ]s such as those developed at ]. | |||
| ==Research== | |||
| ===Advanced fission reactor designs=== | |||
| {{Main|Generation IV reactor}} | |||
| ]]] | |||
| Current fission reactors in operation around the world are second or third generation systems, with most of the first-generation systems having been retired some time ago. Research into advanced generation IV reactor types was officially started by the Generation IV International Forum (GIF) based on eight technology goals, including to improve nuclear safety, improve proliferation resistance, minimize waste, improve natural resource utilization, the ability to consume existing nuclear waste in the production of electricity, and decrease the cost to build and run such plants. Most of these reactors differ significantly from current operating light water reactors, and are generally not expected to be available for commercial construction before 2030.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://ossfoundation.us/projects/energy/nuclear |title=4th Generation Nuclear Power — OSS Foundation |publisher=Ossfoundation.us |accessdate=2014-01-24}}</ref> | |||
| The nuclear reactors to be built at Vogtle are new ] third generation reactors, which are said to have safety improvements over older power reactors.<ref name=yah12/> However, John Ma, a senior structural engineer at the NRC, is concerned that some parts of the AP1000 steel skin are so brittle that the "impact energy" from a plane strike or storm driven projectile could shatter the wall.<ref name=bs11/> Edwin Lyman, a senior staff scientist at the ], is concerned about the strength of the steel containment vessel and the concrete shield building around the AP1000.<ref name=bs11>{{cite journal |author=Adam Piore |date=June 2011 |title=Nuclear energy: Planning for the Black Swan |journal=Scientific American}}</ref><ref name=mlw>{{cite web |url=http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/21/critics-challenge-safety-of-new-nuclear-reactor-design/?src=busln |title=Critics Challenge Safety of New Reactor Design |author=Matthew L. Wald |date= 2010-04-22 |website=The New York Times}}</ref> | |||
| The Union of Concerned Scientists has referred to the ], currently under construction in China, Finland and France, as the only new reactor design under consideration in the United States that "...appears to have the potential to be significantly safer and more secure against attack than today's reactors."<ref name="NPIAWW">{{cite web |url=http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear-power-in-a-warming-world.pdf |title=Nuclear Power in a Warming World |work=Union of Concerned Scientists |format=PDF |accessdate=2008-10-01}}</ref> | |||
| One disadvantage of any new reactor technology is that safety risks may be greater initially as reactor operators have little experience with the new design. Nuclear engineer ] has explained that almost all serious nuclear accidents have occurred with what was at the time the most recent technology. He argues that "the problem with new reactors and accidents is twofold: scenarios arise that are impossible to plan for in simulations; and humans make mistakes".<ref name=safe/> As one director of a U.S. research laboratory put it, "fabrication, construction, operation, and maintenance of new reactors will face a steep learning curve: advanced technologies will have a heightened risk of accidents and mistakes. The technology may be proven, but people are not".<ref name=safe>{{cite journal |author=Benjamin K. Sovacool |date=August 2010 |title=A Critical Evaluation of Nuclear Power and Renewable Electricity in Asia |url=http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a923050767~db=all~jumptype=rss |journal=Journal of Contemporary Asia |volume=40 |issue=3 |page=381}}</ref> | |||
| ===Hybrid nuclear fusion-fission=== | |||
| {{main|Nuclear fusion–fission hybrid}} | |||
| Hybrid nuclear power is a proposed means of generating power by use of a combination of nuclear fusion and fission processes. The concept dates to the 1950s, and was briefly advocated by ] during the 1970s, but largely remained unexplored until a revival of interest in 2009, due to delays in the realization of pure fusion. When a sustained nuclear fusion power plant is built, it has the potential to be capable of extracting all the fission energy that remains in spent fission fuel, reducing the volume of nuclear waste by orders of magnitude, and more importantly, eliminating all actinides present in the spent fuel, substances which cause security concerns.<ref name="hybrid">{{cite journal | author = Gerstner, E. | title = Nuclear energy: The hybrid returns | year = 2009 | journal = ] | volume = 460 | issue = 7251| pages = 25–8 | pmid = 19571861|doi=10.1038/460025a|url=http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090701/pdf/460025a.pdf | ref = harv}}</ref> | |||
| ===Nuclear fusion=== | |||
| ] ] under construction in France.]] | |||
| {{Main|Nuclear fusion|Fusion power}} | |||
| ] reactions have the potential to be safer and generate less radioactive waste than fission.<ref>''Introduction to Fusion Energy'', J. Reece Roth, 1986.{{Page needed|date=April 2011}}</ref><ref name="WorldEnergyCouncil">{{cite web |url=http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/publications/default/tech_papers/18th_Congress/downloads/ds/ds6/ds6_5.pdf |format=PDF |title=Fusion as a Future Power Source: Recent Achievements and Prospects |author1=T. Hamacher |author2=A.M. Bradshaw |lastauthoramp=yes |publisher=World Energy Council |date=October 2001 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20040506065141/http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/publications/default/tech_papers/18th_Congress/downloads/ds/ds6/ds6_5.pdf |archivedate=2004-05-06 |deadurl=yes |df= }}</ref> | |||
| These reactions appear potentially viable, though technically quite difficult and have yet to be created on a scale that could be used in a functional power plant. | |||
| Fusion power has been under theoretical and experimental investigation since the 1950s. | |||
| Several experimental nuclear fusion reactors and facilities exist. | |||
| The largest and most ambitious international nuclear fusion project currently in progress is ], a large ] under construction in France. | |||
| ITER is planned to pave the way for commercial fusion power by demonstrating self-sustained nuclear fusion reactions with positive energy gain. | |||
| Construction of the ITER facility began in 2007, but the project has run into many delays and budget overruns. | |||
| The facility is now not expected to begin operations until the year 2027 – 11 years after initially anticipated.<ref>{{cite journal |author=W Wayt Gibbs |date=2013-12-30 |title=Triple-threat method sparks hope for fusion |url=http://www.nature.com/news/triple-threat-method-sparks-hope-for-fusion-1.14445 |journal=Nature}}</ref> A follow on commercial nuclear fusion power station, ], has been proposed.<ref name="ITERorg">{{cite web|url=http://www.iter.org/Future-beyond.htm |title=Beyond ITER |publisher=Information Services, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory |work=The ITER Project |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20061107220145/http://www.iter.org/Future-beyond.htm |archivedate=2006-11-07 |accessdate=2011-02-05 |deadurl=yes |df= }} – Projected fusion power timeline</ref><ref name="EFDA_Activities">{{cite web|url=http://www.efda.org/about_efda/downloads/EFDAoverview.ppt |title=Overview of EFDA Activities |work=] |publisher=] |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20061001123645/http://www.efda.org/about_efda/downloads/EFDAoverview.ppt |archivedate=2006-10-01 |accessdate=2006-11-11 |deadurl=yes |df= }}</ref> There are also suggestions for a power plant based upon a different fusion approach, that of an ]. | |||
| Fusion powered electricity generation was initially believed to be readily achievable, as fission-electric power had been. However, the extreme requirements for continuous reactions and ] led to projections being extended by several decades. In 2010, more than 60 years after the first attempts, commercial power production was still believed to be unlikely before 2050.<ref name="ITERorg" /> | |||
| ==See also== | |||
| {{Portal|Nuclear technology|Energy}} | |||
| {{div col|colwidth=20em}} | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| {{div col end}} | |||
| {{clear}} | |||
| ==References== | |||
| {{reflist|30em}} | |||
| ==Further reading== | |||
| {{See also|List of books about nuclear issues|List of films about nuclear issues}} | |||
| * Armstrong, Robert C., Catherine Wolfram, Robert Gross, Nathan S. Lewis, and ] et al. , ''Nature Energy'', Vol 1, 11 January 2016. | |||
| *Clarfield, Gerald H. and William M. Wiecek (1984). ''Nuclear America: Military and Civilian Nuclear Power in the United States 1940–1980'', Harper & Row. | |||
| *] (2009). '']'', Black Inc. | |||
| *{{Cite book | |||
| | last = Cravens | |||
| | first = Gwyneth | |||
| | title = Power to Save the World: the Truth about Nuclear Energy | |||
| | publisher = Knopf | |||
| | year = 2007 | |||
| | location = New York | |||
| | page = | |||
| | url = | |||
| | isbn = 0-307-26656-7}} | |||
| *] (2007). '']'', Palgrave. | |||
| * Ferguson, Charles D., (2007). ''Nuclear Energy: Balancing Benefits and Risks'' ]. | |||
| * Garwin, Richard L. and Charpak, Georges (2001) ] A Turning Point in the Nuclear Age?, Knopf. | |||
| *Herbst, Alan M. and George W. Hopley (2007). ''Nuclear Energy Now: Why the Time has come for the World's Most Misunderstood Energy Source'', Wiley. | |||
| *], ], ], Doug Koplow (2016). '']: World Nuclear Industry Status as of 1 January 2016''. | |||
| *Walker, J. Samuel (1992). ''Containing the Atom: Nuclear Regulation in a Changing Environment, 1993-1971'', Berkeley: University of California Press. | |||
| *] ''The Rise of Nuclear Fear''. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012. {{ISBN|0-674-05233-1}} | |||
| ==External links== | |||
| {{Sister project links|Nuclear power}} | |||
| {{sister project|project=Wikiversity | |||
| |text=]}} | |||
| * – a partnership between the ], ], ], and Nuclear Pathways | |||
| * provides statistics and information | |||
| * by ] and others | |||
| {{Nuclear power by country}} | |||
| {{Nuclear technology}} | |||
| {{Electricity generation}} | |||
| {{Natural resources}} | |||
| {{Authority control}} | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
Revision as of 01:45, 30 July 2018
Nuclear energy may refer to:
- Nuclear power, the use of sustained nuclear fission to generate heat and electricity
- Nuclear binding energy, the energy required to split a nucleus of an atom
- Nuclear Energy (sculpture), a bronze sculpture by Henry Moore in the University of Chicago
- Nuclear potential energy, the potential energy of the particles inside an atomic nucleus
This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the title Nuclear energy.If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article. Category: