AF 2020
there's a good graph on pg 27 that I don't know how to move to these notecards
Grandin, Karl, et al. "Nuclear Energy." Ambio, vol. 39, 2010, pp. 26-30. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40801588. Accessed 21 Sept. 2020.
No chemical separation process is ever absolutely complete, and for instance, water from fuel cooling ponds at the Sellafield reprocessing plant still retains some traces of fission products from damaged elements after nearly all have been removed. The volumes concerned are too great for concentration and storage to be feasible and are therefore discharged into the Irish Sea under restrictions on content that have been progressively tightened over the years. Some of the distinctive nuclides are nevertheless detectable hundreds of miles from the point of discharge, even when their contribution to radioactivity is negligible compared with that of natural potassium-40.
WILSON, PETER D. "Nuclear Energy." Science Progress (1933-), vol. 93, no. 4, 2010, pp. 335-359. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/43424252. Accessed 21 Sept. 2020.
"[as of 2012], nuclear power plants produce about 14 percent of global electricity. Without sustained and aggressive government support, this percentage is expected to decline to about 10 percent by 2030, according to the International Energy Agency." pg 10 need to find the statistics from the international energy agency
Ahearne, John F. "The Future of Nuclear Power in the United States." Fas.org, 1981, pp. 73-75., doi:10.1016/0149-1970(81)90035-4.
This is a bulky qoute about costs and money "• 2001: the National Energy Policy Development Group recommends supporting "the expansion of nuclear energy in the United States as a major component of our national energy policy," including research and development for spent fuel recycling with the aim of reducing waste streams and enhancing proliferation resistance. • 2002: Nuclear Power 2010 spends $550 million to help jump-start new power reactor construction. Includes shared costs with industry for regulatory approval of new reactor sites, applying for licenses and preparing detailed plant designs. Also includes development of early site permits separate from reactor design reviews to facilitate licensing process. • 2001-2009: DOE R&D budget triples for nuclear energy. Programs included Generation IV program, the Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative Program (NHI), and the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI). • 2005: Energy Policy Act of 2005 includes incentives such as production tax credits, energy facility loan guarantees, cost-sharing, limited liability and delay insurance. • 2010: Additional loan guarantees announced. Of all these, the Energy Policy Act (EPACT) of 2005 and the issue of loan guarantees deserve more description. Under EPACT 2005, a production tax credit would provide 1.8 cents/kWh during the first eight years of operation of qualified new nuclear power plants. To put this in context, the average wholesale price of electricity in 2005 was 5 cents/kWh.9 The credit has a limit of $7.5 billion, or the first 6,000 MW of capacity (equivalent to about five plants). Only those projects that have applied for a combined construction-operating license by December 2008, and that begin construction by January 2014 and operation by 2021 are eligible for the credit. The U.S. nuclear industry has singled out government loan guarantees as essential because the private market finds loans for nuclear power plants to be too risky, and U.S. utilities are too small to take on a bigger equity to debt ratio, which would lower the cost of capital, a key element in the cost of the new plants. Under the loan guarantee program, the U.S. Treasury will guarantee 100 percent of a loan which is limited to 80 percent of the construction costs. This effectively transfers the risk of cost overruns due to lengthier construction times from project owners to the taxpayer. Congress appropriated $18.5 billion in loan guarantees for nuclear power facilities, and President Obama has recommended tripling this to $54 billion. This still falls far short of the $122 billion in requests. Industry sources suggest DOE will be able to support no more than 2-4 reactors, given costs of $5 billion to $12 billion per reactor. The Department of Energy awarded the first loan guarantee to the Vogtle reactor project in Georgia (over $8 billion) in 2010." pg 17 Its worth going through and reading as it highlights some good info
Ahearne, John F. "The Future of Nuclear Power in the United States." Fas.org, 1981, pp. 73-75., doi:10.1016/0149-1970(81)90035-4.
Further research should be encouraged to develop the next generation of more sustainable nuclear energy systems, Generation IV. The goal is to develop systems for worldwide deployment within 20 years. These future power plants are expected to have advantages that include sustainability, reduced capital costs, enhanced safety, minimal generation of waste, and further reduction of the risk of weapons material proliferation
Grandin, Karl, et al. "Nuclear Energy." Ambio, vol. 39, 2010, pp. 26-30. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40801588. Accessed 21 Sept. 2020.
If commercial fusion reactors ever become a reality, fission will presumably be no longer required. That is far from certain, however, with immense engineering problems to be solved. The basic difficulty is that fusing two atomic nuclei requires overcoming a mutual electrostatic repulsion varying inversely with the distance between them, and the distances involved are unimaginable.
WILSON, PETER D. "Nuclear Energy." Science Progress (1933-), vol. 93, no. 4, 2010, pp. 335-359. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/43424252. Accessed 21 Sept. 2020.
"As of December 2010, 17 licenses for constructing and operating 26 new reactors were filed with the NRC. By type of reactor, these include: fourteen AP-1000 (Westinghouse-Toshiba) at seven sites; three ESBWR (GE-Hitachi) at three sites; four EPR (AREVA) at four sites; two ABWR (GE-Hitachi) at a single site; and three APWR (Mitsubishi) at two sites." page 21 these are all different types of reactors in the market, the details of which are on a table on the previous page and the locations of each type of reactor on the US on the following
Ahearne, John F. "The Future of Nuclear Power in the United States." Fas.org, 1981, pp. 73-75., doi:10.1016/0149-1970(81)90035-4.
"At least 27 nations since 2005 have declared they will install nuclear power for the first time and a total of 65 countries have expressed interest to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). is contrasts with the thirty countries plus Taiwan that are already operating nuclear power plants. The rganization for Economic Cooperation and Development's (OECD) Nuclear Energy Agency suggested in its 2008 Nuclear Energy Outlook that the world could be building 54 reactors per year in the coming decades to meet all these challenges." pg 10
Ahearne, John F. "The Future of Nuclear Power in the United States." Fas.org, 1981, pp. 73-75., doi:10.1016/0149-1970(81)90035-4.
"Long before Three Mile Island, regulations on nuclear power in the United States began to tighten. In the early 1970s, critics of the AEC argued that its regulation was "insufficiently rigorous in several important areas, including radiation protection standards, reactor safety, plant siting, and environmental protection." A 1974 reorganization of the AEC created the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA, now the Department of Energy) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Council on Environmental Quality and new requirements for environmental impact statements also had a significant impact, as did growing public interest in environmental issues. More than half the challenges to almost 100 construction permits for nuclear power plants between 1962 and 1971 came from environmentalists concerned about the impact of waste heat from power plants on the local waterways. e creation of the Critical Mass Energy Program (which reportedly had 200,000 members) by Public Citizen founder Ralph Nader in 1974 to lobby against nuclear power further increased the pressure." pg 14 while it i a bulky qoute most of it's good info to use sources in the qoute: 4 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Our History. Washington, DC. 2009. Available at: http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/history.html.
Ahearne, John F. "The Future of Nuclear Power in the United States." Fas.org, 1981, pp. 73-75., doi:10.1016/0149-1970(81)90035-4.
"Nuclear power reactors in the United States each year generate about 2,000 metric tons of fuel. So far, the United States has accumulated about 57,700 metric tons of spent fuel, which is stored in spent fuel ponds and in dry storage casks at 121 sites in 39 states. According to the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA), nuclear power plant operators are required to pay into the Nuclear Waste Fund (now estimated at $20 billion) in return for DOE waste disposal services - that is, eventual disposal in a geologic waste repository" page 25 the locations of each waste site on a map of the US can be seen on the previous page
Ahearne, John F. "The Future of Nuclear Power in the United States." Fas.org, 1981, pp. 73-75., doi:10.1016/0149-1970(81)90035-4.
"Perhaps most importantly, the March 2011 accident at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant shook the confidence of the public not just in Japan but also abroad. The devastating earthquake and tsunami that killed tens of thousands of people eliminated off-site and backup electricity for four of six reactors and their spent fuel pools at Fukushima Daiichi. Hydrogen explosions destroyed secondary containments, exposing spent fuel pools, and three of the reactors had partial core meltdowns. The Japanese government evacuated some of the population immediately. The clean-up effort at Fukushima will drag on for years and the cost will likely range in the billions of dollars" pg 11
Ahearne, John F. "The Future of Nuclear Power in the United States." Fas.org, 1981, pp. 73-75., doi:10.1016/0149-1970(81)90035-4.
One of the biggest problems when switching to nuclear power is getting the people behind the idea. To do that it not only needs to be environmentally conscious, but financially incentivising. Many have proposed a sort of "carbon tax" but, "A carbon 'tax' would need to be higher than $30/ton of carbon dioxide and possibly as high as $100/ton.21 Yet prices in carbon trading in Europe in the first three years varied from about €30/mt to less than €0.02/mt; in the second round of trading, allowances have been hovering in the low €20/mt (equivalent to $50/mt) range.22 In the first half of 2009, the price hovered at 13 Euros/mt. A stable, long-term price for carbon is far from assured." page 29
Ahearne, John F. "The Future of Nuclear Power in the United States." Fas.org, 1981, pp. 73-75., doi:10.1016/0149-1970(81)90035-4.
Improved nuclear plant operations have reduced nuclear power costs, and average O&M costs declined from a high of 4 0/kWh in 1987 to below 2.25 0/kWh in 2001 (2006 dollars).1 By 2005, the average operating cost was 1.9 c/kWh.
Bezdek, Roger H. "NUCLEAR POWER PROSPECTS IN THE USA: THE CONTINUING PROBLEM OF THE WASTE ISSUE." Energy & Environment, vol. 20, no. 3, 2009, pp. 375-385. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/43734829. Accessed 2 Oct. 2020.
No new U.S. nuclear plant has been ordered in the U.S. since 1978 and no U.S. reactor has been completed since 1996. However, interest in new U.S. reactors is increasing, and a dozen companies have announced plans to apply for licenses, for a total of 34 new nuclear units. The first application to build a new U.S. nuclear plant was filed by NRG Energy in September 2007.
Bezdek, Roger H. "NUCLEAR POWER PROSPECTS IN THE USA: THE CONTINUING PROBLEM OF THE WASTE ISSUE." Energy & Environment, vol. 20, no. 3, 2009, pp. 375-385. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/43734829. Accessed 2 Oct. 2020.
Radioactive spent fuel produced by nuclear reactors poses a disposal problem that could limit new nuclear plant construction. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 commits the federal government to providing for permanent disposal of spent fuel in return for a fee on nuclear power generation. However, the schedule for opening the planned national nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, has slipped two decades past NWPA's deadline of 01-01-98. DOE currently hopes to begin receiving waste at Yucca Mountain by 20 17. 17 In the meantime, more than 50,000 tons of spent fuel are being stored nuclear facility sites
Bezdek, Roger H. "NUCLEAR POWER PROSPECTS IN THE USA: THE CONTINUING PROBLEM OF THE WASTE ISSUE." Energy & Environment, vol. 20, no. 3, 2009, pp. 375-385. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/43734829. Accessed 2 Oct. 2020.
Studies of the nuclear power economics have been conducted by MIT, the University of Chicago (U of C), the Congressional Research Service (CRS), AEI/Brookings, and others.4 These studies reached similar conclusions: First, new nuclear plants are not competitive with coal or natural gas-fired power plants; second, for nuclear plants to be competitive, substantial cost reductions and federal incentives are required; third, large carbon taxes could increase the costs of fossil fuel plants sufficiently to make nuclear power competitive.
Bezdek, Roger H. "NUCLEAR POWER PROSPECTS IN THE USA: THE CONTINUING PROBLEM OF THE WASTE ISSUE." Energy & Environment, vol. 20, no. 3, 2009, pp. 375-385. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/43734829. Accessed 2 Oct. 2020.
The U of C study analyzed the costs of nuclear power generated by the nuclear fuel cycle, and considered two options for spent fuel disposition: On-site storage followed by centralized disposal; and on-site storage and reprocessing followed by centralized disposal.24 The front-end costs of nuclear fuel are relevant regardless of which alternative is used. As shown in Table 4, these costs amount to $3.50 to $5.50 per MWh, or about 5% to 12% of the cost of nuclear power generation. In the U.S., the direct method of spent fuel disposal has been used, without reprocessing. Disposal costs consist of on-site storage costs plus a charge to pay for eventual permanent storage. The back-end costs are about $1.20 per MWh, as shown in Table 5, which is about 2% of the overall LCOE. Thus, plausible differences in fuel cycle costs are not likely to be a major factor in the economic competitiveness of nuclear power
Bezdek, Roger H. "NUCLEAR POWER PROSPECTS IN THE USA: THE CONTINUING PROBLEM OF THE WASTE ISSUE." Energy & Environment, vol. 20, no. 3, 2009, pp. 375-385. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/43734829. Accessed 2 Oct. 2020.
that the inability to solve the nuclear waste issue will likely limit new nuclear plant development. Nuclear waste disposal poses a serous, seemingly intractable problem for the future of nuclear power, and the waste issue could be a show stopper for new nuclear plants: Seven states have specific laws that link approval for new nuclear power plants to adequate waste disposal capacity, and other states have a variety of similar restrictions
Bezdek, Roger H. "NUCLEAR POWER PROSPECTS IN THE USA: THE CONTINUING PROBLEM OF THE WASTE ISSUE." Energy & Environment, vol. 20, no. 3, 2009, pp. 375-385. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/43734829. Accessed 2 Oct. 2020.
U.S. nuclear power production has grown steadily and now exceeds electricity generated from oil, natural gas, and hydro plants, and trails only coal, which accounts for more than half of U.S. electricity generation. At present, 103 nuclear reactors are operating. Although no new U.S. reactors have come on line since 1996, U.S. nuclear electricity generation has increased by more than 20% over the past decade , and much of this additional output resulted from reduced downtime
Bezdek, Roger H. "NUCLEAR POWER PROSPECTS IN THE USA: THE CONTINUING PROBLEM OF THE WASTE ISSUE." Energy & Environment, vol. 20, no. 3, 2009, pp. 375-385. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/43734829. Accessed 29 Sept. 2020.
A leader in the nuclear energy field, France currently gets 75 percent of its electricity from nuclear power but laid plans to reduce that dependence to 50 percent by 2025 — primarily by retiring aging reactors and increasing the overall amount of energy produced. However, French dependence on the industry and the country's greenhouse gas emissions targets cause some to wonder if new French President Emmanuel Macron may decide to amend this target.
DECKER, DEBRA, et al. Current and Emerging Nuclear Trends. Stimson Center, 2017, pp. 11-14, RE-ENERGIZING NUCLEAR SECURITY: Trends and Potential Collaborations Post Security Summits, www.jstor.org/stable/resrep10971.8. Accessed 2 Oct. 2020.
Concerns about climate change and the need for a stable source of electricity have caused increased interest in nuclear as a base load source of clean energy. Fraught with high levels of air pollution combined with increasing energy requirements, China has committed to building dozens of new nuclear plants domestically.11 Other countries — from India to the United Arab Emirates to Turkey — are also looking to nuclear power for a secure domestic power supply to satisfy growing energy needs, including for desalination to provide needed supplies of fresh water.
DECKER, DEBRA, et al. Current and Emerging Nuclear Trends. Stimson Center, 2017, pp. 11-14, RE-ENERGIZING NUCLEAR SECURITY: Trends and Potential Collaborations Post Security Summits, www.jstor.org/stable/resrep10971.8. Accessed 2 Oct. 2020.
Power reactors are only one aspect of the nuclear fuel cycle; industry actors involved in other processes within the cycle will undoubtedly feel the same opportunities or pressures, depending on whether a favorable view on nuclear energy continues to gain traction. The nuclear industry also involves other activities, such as the operation of research and test reactors — which number 250 now operating in 55 countries, with 11 planned builds — and other applications of nuclear energy and radioactive materials to medical, agricultural, and industrial uses.
DECKER, DEBRA, et al. Current and Emerging Nuclear Trends. Stimson Center, 2017, pp. 11-14, RE-ENERGIZING NUCLEAR SECURITY: Trends and Potential Collaborations Post Security Summits, www.jstor.org/stable/resrep10971.8. Accessed 2 Oct. 2020.
Unlike large reactors that can produce over 1000 MWe, SMRs typically will generate up to 300 MWe, feeding into local or microgrids. They are expected to be built off-site and delivered, with a reduction in construction time and cost, as well as reduced reliance on long transmission lines. Companies developing SMR designs draw attention to their potential for increased safety, security, and nonproliferation benefits. Most are designed to be sited underground with passive safety systems, which companies claim require no operator action in the event of an accident.
DECKER, DEBRA, et al. Current and Emerging Nuclear Trends. Stimson Center, 2017, pp. 11-14, RE-ENERGIZING NUCLEAR SECURITY: Trends and Potential Collaborations Post Security Summits, www.jstor.org/stable/resrep10971.8. Accessed 2 Oct. 2020.
While construction of two new reactors in the United States halted cost and schedule overruns, U.S. policy under the Trump administration is encouraging a revival of the nuclear energy industry; the 99 operating reactors in the United States' provide 20 percent of U.S. electricity and represent the world's largest fleet of operating reactors
DECKER, DEBRA, et al. Current and Emerging Nuclear Trends. Stimson Center, 2017, pp. 11-14, RE-ENERGIZING NUCLEAR SECURITY: Trends and Potential Collaborations Post Security Summits, www.jstor.org/stable/resrep10971.8. Accessed 2 Oct. 2020.
According to the World Nuclear Association (WNA), 436 nuclear power reactors (2010) in 29 countries provide 15% of the electricity supply worldwide and 30% within the EU. A total of 53 new reactors are currently being built (51 GWe), and according to the World Nuclear Association 142 more reactors are planned (159 GWe). Thus, 195 new reactors are planned or under construction, of which 85 are located in China or India. In addition, 327 reactors (343 GWe) are being proposed in 36 different countries. Reactors being constructed, planned, and proposed (550 GWe) could contribute 3,700 TWh electricity or more than 20% of today's electricity production. At the same time, older reactors will be shut down and not all of the proposed new reactors will be realized.
Grandin, Karl, et al. "Nuclear Energy." Ambio, vol. 39, 2010, pp. 26-30. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40801588. Accessed 21 Sept. 2020.
At the Energy Committee's symposium Energy 2050, experts addressed some of the above topics. In his talk about "The Future of Nuclear Energy", Mujid Kazimi from MIT, outlined the reasons for the renewed interest in nuclear energy, and pointed to: economic stability; environmental concerns; energy security; and an excellent operational record during the past 15 years. This operational record consists of high load factors but also less events and shutdowns as well as small dose levels for workers at the US plants. According to Kazimi, to build on these advances and to make the huge investments needed for the new plants feasible, the advanced Generation III-h reactors must enhance safety, standardize design as well as reduce construction costs.
Grandin, Karl, et al. "Nuclear Energy." Ambio, vol. 39, 2010, pp. 26-30. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40801588. Accessed 21 Sept. 2020.
During the past 50 years, a steadily growing collaboration on fusion research has taken place within the world scientific community. Large successful projects are being conducted in many of the industrialized countries such as JET (EU), TFTR and DIII-D (USA), and JT60-U (Japan). These are now followed by an even larger international experiment, ITER, initiated in 2005 and aiming at a burning full-scale reactor-like plasma. This is a joint project of the EU, USA, Japan, Russia, China, South Korea, and India. A further step after ITER is a demonstration reactor, DEMO, to be decided on around 2020. The international strategy also comprises back-up activities including concept improvements of the stellarator, the spherical tokamak and the reversed field pinch, coordination of national research activities on inertial confinement and possible alternative concepts as well as long-term fusion reactor technology. I understood very little of that
Grandin, Karl, et al. "Nuclear Energy." Ambio, vol. 39, 2010, pp. 26-30. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40801588. Accessed 21 Sept. 2020.
IAEA now estimates 5.5 million tonnes of uranium in assured sources at costs below $130/ kg and another 10.5 million tonnes are considered likely. However, other experts consider that 25 to 50 million tonnes of conventional uranium can become available at reasonable prices. In addition, huge amounts of unconventional resources can be found in sandstone, phosphates, and seawater. In a recent MIT study, it was shown that with a 2.5% rate of growth of nuclear energy, the cumulative uranium demand by 2100 will be 22 million tonnes with the current LWR cycle or 30 million tonnes with a 4% growth.
Grandin, Karl, et al. "Nuclear Energy." Ambio, vol. 39, 2010, pp. 26-30. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40801588. Accessed 21 Sept. 2020.
In his talk "Fusion energy - ready for use by 2050?" Friedrich Wagner addressed the state of the development of fusion energy. Fusion energy, being the energy source of the stars, has the advantage of being both sustainable and environmental friendly. He pointed out that the energy within 1 g of fusion fuel corresponds to that of 12 tonnes of coal. The fuel for the first generation of a fusion reactor would be deuterium and tritium, where deuterium can be obtained from seawater and tritium can be bred from lithium, which is contained in the earth's crust. In order for fusion reactions to take place, the repelling Coulomb forces of the nuclear constituents have to be overcome, which may occur at temperatures of 150 million °C. At such temperatures the fuel is in a plasma state, and needs magnetic confinement. The most popular fusion research facility is of the Tokamak type with magnetic confinement. An alternative way of obtaining fusion energy is by using a Stellarator type device with magnetic confinement in three dimensions
Grandin, Karl, et al. "Nuclear Energy." Ambio, vol. 39, 2010, pp. 26-30. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40801588. Accessed 21 Sept. 2020.
Nuclear energy cannot, as once believed, solve all of the world's energy problems, but it can play an important carbon-free role in the production of electrical energy. For this reason, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences' Energy Committee sees a need for continued and strengthened research for the development of the third and especially fourth generations of fission reactors. Without functioning fourth generation reactors, nuclear fission energy will not be sustainable, but with such reactor designs in operation it will be a viable option for a long time. Fusion energy has the potential of becoming a longterm environmental friendly and material-efficient energy option. However, concerted scientific research and technology development on an international scale is required for fusion to become a cost-effective energy option in this century.
Grandin, Karl, et al. "Nuclear Energy." Ambio, vol. 39, 2010, pp. 26-30. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40801588. Accessed 21 Sept. 2020.
Some key issues in the use of fusion: • Advantages and disadvantages compared to fission • Technical and physical issues (initial confinement, magnetic confinement) • From JET to ITER to DEMO to a power producing reactor • Non-proliferation and waste • Economical competiveness • Time scale of realization Due to the inherent physics, fusion has a safety advantage over fission, and no long-lived radioactive waste is produced. However, there is a long road ahead before all the physical and technological issues are solved. The roadmap will address these aspects.
Grandin, Karl, et al. "Nuclear Energy." Ambio, vol. 39, 2010, pp. 26-30. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40801588. Accessed 21 Sept. 2020.
The industry is faced with huge challenges since it has not offered any new reactors and plants for many years. Kazimi pointed at four important aspects of this: manufacturing infrastructure; manpower skills; costs and financing; public support. He was also of the opinion that for a quick build-up of nuclear energy, industrial infrastructure must begin to grow again.
Grandin, Karl, et al. "Nuclear Energy." Ambio, vol. 39, 2010, pp. 26-30. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40801588. Accessed 21 Sept. 2020.
The most important issue right now, as Kazimi saw it, was the cost of producing new plants, where standardized designs and modern IT will help to keep costs down. Finally, Kazimi concluded, if nuclear energy is to increase its part of the global energy supply it becomes even more important than today that the system of trade in nuclear fuel operates in forms acceptable to all parties and questions regarding storage and enrichment must be adequately resolved.
Grandin, Karl, et al. "Nuclear Energy." Ambio, vol. 39, 2010, pp. 26-30. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40801588. Accessed 21 Sept. 2020.
There are six key issues in regard to the use of nuclear energy, according to the Energy Committee. These are: • Safety • Nuclear waste • Non-proliferation • Fuel availability • Life-cycle analysis • Economic competiveness Safety is and will continue to be a key issue for nuclear fission. Experience from several decades of operation of the present generation reactors and emerging new results of R&D form the basis for future design, and provide knowhow for upgrading the present systems for extended operation. Future reactor generations should put more emphasis on safety in all stages of the fuel cycle. This is also essential if public approval is to be obtained. A
Grandin, Karl, et al. "Nuclear Energy." Ambio, vol. 39, 2010, pp. 26-30. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40801588. Accessed 21 Sept. 2020.
neration IV reactors with breeder technology will use nuclear fuel much more efficiently and will also be able to use spent fuel (from existing reactors), thus minimizing the waste and drastically shortening the required storage time for the final waste. Breeder systems will increase the available energy from natural uranium by a factor 60-70. we love options
Grandin, Karl, et al. "Nuclear Energy." Ambio, vol. 39, 2010, pp. 26-30. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40801588. Accessed 21 Sept. 2020.
"In the absence or under limited availability of mitigation technologies (such as bioenergy, CCS and their combination BECCS, nuclear, wind/solar), mitigation costs can increase substantially depending on the technology considered. Delaying additional mitigation increases mitigation costs in the medium to long term. Many models could not limit likely warming to below 2°C over the 21st century relative to pre-industrial levels if additional mitigation is considerably delayed." pg 24 essentially alternative energies to fossil fuels such as nuclear and renewables are considered "mitigation technologies" and are necessary for the prevention of climate change
IPPC. Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report, 2015, archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf.
Figure 4.2 on page 100 has the, "Influence of energy demand on the deployment of energy supply technologies in 2050 in mitigation scenarios." The report later states that, "high energy demands non-fossil fuel technologies are scaled up more rapidly." Again, I'm gonna need to talk about this with someone smarter to make sure that I understand it.
IPPC. Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report, 2015, archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf.
On the top right of page 84 there is a graph for the share of zero and low-carbon energy. the document says, "The arrows in the right panel show the magnitude of zero and low-carbon energy supply upscaling from between 2030 and 2050, subject to different 2030 GHG emission levels. Zero- and low-carbon energy supply includes renewable energy, nuclear energy and fossil energy with carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) or bioenergy with CCS (BECCS). Only scenarios that apply the full, unconstrained mitigation technology portfolio of the underlying models (default technology assumption) are shown." I'm still gonna need to go over this with someone smarter as I can only get the gist of it
IPPC. Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report, 2015, archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf.
Theres a very good table at the top of pg 25 that I dont quite understand but it shows the, "increase in global mitigation costs due to either limited availability of specific technologies or delays in additional mitigation a relative to cost-effective scenarios" and it shows how successful each model would be without each individual mitigation technology.(?) I need someone smarter to make sure I got that right
IPPC. Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report, 2015, archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf.
one of the most important, Table 4.4 on page 101 details "Sectoral carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, associated energy system changes and examples of mitigation measures (including for non-CO2 gases; see Box 3.2 for metrics regarding the weighting and abatement of non-CO2 emissions)." My understanding is that this is showing the potential reductions on CO2 emissions switching away form fossil fuels. Still want to understand the rest of the graph
IPPC. Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report, 2015, archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf.
A broad range of imperatives— including national commitments to reduce air pollution and carbon emissions and the need to meet growing energy demands, diversify energy supplies, ensure long-term price stability, and conserve land and natural resources—are driving an increasing number of countries to embark on nuclear energy development programs. Unlike during the 1970s and '80s when the frst global wave of nuclear construction took place, there are now multiple alternatives to US suppliers and several nations to which aspiring nuclear programs can turn to acquire civilian nuclear reactor technology.
Kotek, John F., and K. P. Lau. "Reinvigorating Nuclear Energy." Issues in Science and Technology, vol. 34, no. 3, 2018, pp. 10-13. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/26594256. Accessed 21 Sept. 2020.
Clearly, the dwindling domestic market will not be able to support a robust nuclear industry. It is also arguable that from a national security perspective, the United States needs to maintain a viable civilian nuclear industry to retain its influence in the nonproliferation arena. BP Energy has projected that over the next 20 years three-quarters of the new nuclear reactors built will be in China. China has 36 operating plants today, but the number will double in 20 years, and by 2050 China will have over 100 plants, the largest operating feet in the world. thats a take
Kotek, John F., and K. P. Lau. "Reinvigorating Nuclear Energy." Issues in Science and Technology, vol. 34, no. 3, 2018, pp. 10-13. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/26594256. Accessed 21 Sept. 2020.
There is no question that the best outcome for the US economy, national security, and global standing is for the United States to reestablish itself as the nuclear energy supplier of choice in burgeoning markets in Asia, the Middle East, and elsewhere. Given that the private US companies pursuing global nuclear energy opportunities are competing against state-owned enterprises, the US government must concern itself with helping US frms compete—by expanding investments in clean energy research, development, and demonstration to ensure that the nation retains its place as the leader in nuclear energy innovation; by restoring a functional export credit agency; and by creating opportunities for US firms through government-to-government agreements.
Kotek, John F., and K. P. Lau. "Reinvigorating Nuclear Energy." Issues in Science and Technology, vol. 34, no. 3, 2018, pp. 10-13. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/26594256. Accessed 21 Sept. 2020.
[if congress decides to] eliminate all energy subsidies. Absent subsidies, wind and solar power would largely disappear from the marketplace, being less reliable and more expensive than other sources of power. Coal, hydropower, natural gas, and nuclear power would thrive, competing solely on the basis of reliability and price, rather than government favors. This action would also strongly encourage state legislators to repeal renewable energy mandates. H. Sterling Burnett
Kotek, John F., and K. P. Lau. "Reinvigorating Nuclear Energy." Issues in Science and Technology, vol. 34, no. 3, 2018, pp. 10-13. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/26594256. Accessed 21 Sept. 2020.
Under EPACT 2005, a production tax credit would provide 1.8 cents/kWh during the first eight years of operation of qualified new nuclear power plants. To put this in context, the average wholesale price of electricity in The Future of Nuclear Power in the United States February 2012 17 Federation of American Scientists www.FAS.org 2005 was 5 cents/kWh.9 e credit has a limit of $7.5 billion, or the first 6,000 MW of capacity (equivalent to about five plants). Only those projects that have applied for a combined construction-operating license by December 2008, and that begin construction by January 2014 and operation by 2021 are eligible for the credit
NEA (2020), Nuclear Energy Data 2019, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1786b86b-en-fr.
on page 5 theres a handy little chart detailing the nuclear energy generation in NEA and OECD areas. it shows that total electricity generation in these areas increased as nuclear capacity declined as the overall percentage of nuclear generated energy remains at around 10%.
NEA (2020), Nuclear Energy Data 2019, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1786b86b-en-fr.
Another desirable feature is a "negative void coefficient" in which a loss or partial vaporisation of coolant slows the reaction. Where the coolant also serves as moderator, this follows automa- tically. Although other factors contributed to its severity, the Chernobyl accident was made possible by having a fixed graphite moderator while at the enrichment level then used, the light water coolant was more an absorber of neutrons; consequently, under conditions set up by a deliberate flouting of operating instructions that would normally have prevented them, positive feedback between the rates of reaction and boiling overcame any possibility of control until the core melted, a steam explosion blew the lid off the reactor vessel and the red-hot graphite exposed to air caught fire, sending radioactive debris high into the atmosphere.
WILSON, PETER D. "Nuclear Energy." Science Progress (1933-), vol. 93, no. 4, 2010, pp. 335-359. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/43424252. Accessed 21 Sept. 2020.
Another objection to nuclear energy is that it generates plutonium which might hypothetically be diverted or stolen for use in weapons. Whether current civil plutonium could actually be made to explode is disputed but its dispersion would at the very least be exceedingly troublesome, and any credible threat a potent means of blackmail. Physical security against diversion is therefore stringent, with analytical checks on compatibility with records. Unfortunately, although discrete items such as canisters may be counted, indivi- dually small amounts on cleaning materials etc. defy reliable measurement, while estimates of generated quantities and analyses of existing stock both have margins of error, so that an apparently considerable discrepancy in either direction ("material unaccounted for" or MUF) is unlikely to be significant. Despite all precautions, anxieties persist about the possibility of misuse, with consequent calls for stocks to be destroyed and no more generated. The only means of destruction is a nuclear reactor, which if normally fuelled would generate enough new plutonium from U-238 to diminish seriously the net rate of consumption. Without such a fertile component in the fuel, the reactor control characteristics would be somewhat degraded and intervals between refuelling prohibitively short or the required range of reactivity control excessively wide.
WILSON, PETER D. "Nuclear Energy." Science Progress (1933-), vol. 93, no. 4, 2010, pp. 335-359. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/43424252. Accessed 21 Sept. 2020.
Another way proposed to ensure stability is to drive a sub-critical array of fissile and fertile material, i.e. a reactor incapable of sustaining a chain reaction independently, with neutrons derived from the impact of high-energy protons on a heavy metal target. In case of emergency the proton accelerator would simply be switched off. However, if the emergency were a loss of coolant after a period of sustained operation, there would still be a serious risk of melt- down due to the heat of fission-product decay. The cost of the accelerator and its power supply would be substantial, and perhaps for this among other reasons, a projected series of stations on this principle in northern Spain came to nothing.
WILSON, PETER D. "Nuclear Energy." Science Progress (1933-), vol. 93, no. 4, 2010, pp. 335-359. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/43424252. Accessed 21 Sept. 2020.
Because the half-life of U-235 is much shorter than that of U-238, its proportion has now fallen to 0.72%, and such natural reactors are no longer possible because over the increased distance between fissile atoms, U-238 and ordinary water absorb too many of the neutrons rather than merely slowing them down. A reactor can run on natural uranium, but only if a less neutron-absorbing moderator is employed. Two such are graphite, used in the UK, and heavy water (highly enriched in the second isotope of hydrogen, deuterium) in Canada. The latter CANDU type of reactor has been fairly successful not only at home but internationally, with several dozen operating around the world, including a locally-designed version much used in India. The separation of deuterium oxide from ordinary water is a slow process taking a great deal of energy, whereas graphite can be used directly. On the other hand, it is a less efficient moderator: a colliding neutron shares momentum, the product of mass and velocity, so most of the energy (proportional to the square of the velocity) remains with it rather than with the twelve-times-heavier carbon atom. Consequently a long flight path must be allowed for the necessary collisions. For this among other reasons, graphite- moderated reactors of the early British types are inherently large, expensive structures and no more are planned. The overwhelming majority of power reactors currently operating or projected use ordinary water as moderator and so require the natural U-235 content to be enhanced to several percent by concentration from a larger feedstock. This also allows the required power to be generated in a compact unit, as originally designed for submarine propulsion. This goes a little bit more in depth into the types of different reactors.
WILSON, PETER D. "Nuclear Energy." Science Progress (1933-), vol. 93, no. 4, 2010, pp. 335-359. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/43424252. Accessed 21 Sept. 2020.
However, without clearer evidence than is likely to be obtainable, it would be rash to dismiss the possibility of harm to the general public from the marginal addition to natural radiation levels due to industrial sources; keeping them as low as reasonably practicable is therefore a sensible precaution, but the alarming casualty figures sometimes predicted for them, or indeed for considerably more substantial exposures, have no direct basis. we dont know so its fine
WILSON, PETER D. "Nuclear Energy." Science Progress (1933-), vol. 93, no. 4, 2010, pp. 335-359. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/43424252. Accessed 21 Sept. 2020.
In case of accident to the reactor vessel, the escape of radioactive material should be prevented by an outer containment (a precaution omitted from the Russian RBMK type as used at Chernobyl). To regulate the power level, or close down the reactor in case of emergency, there must be an effective and reliable control system. why chernobly was a one off case
WILSON, PETER D. "Nuclear Energy." Science Progress (1933-), vol. 93, no. 4, 2010, pp. 335-359. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/43424252. Accessed 21 Sept. 2020.
Nevertheless large doses of radiation can undoubtedly cause cancer, or in the most severe cases fatal injury to vital organs. At lower doses, where any consequences are indistinguishable from those that occur naturally and not necessarily from radiation, the risk can only be estimated from some unverifiable assumption about its relationship to dose. The simplest relationship is direct proportionality which is assumed for the purpose of regulating the occupational exposures received by radiographers and workers with radioactive materials. Experimental studies that might give clear positive results would obviously be unethical, and the basic data are inevitably for high doses received over a short time interval under uncontrolled conditions, such as by the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is known that spreading a dose over a longer time reduces the risk, so this "linear no threshold" assumption is held to be pessimistic, adding a safety margin for operators whose exposures are cumula- tively significant but spread over months or years.
WILSON, PETER D. "Nuclear Energy." Science Progress (1933-), vol. 93, no. 4, 2010, pp. 335-359. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/43424252. Accessed 21 Sept. 2020.
The Chernobyl accident involved vastly higher doses, causing about fifty known deaths, perhaps 2,000 treatable thyroid cancers that might have been avoided but for attempts to conceal the event, and presumably a number of other cancers that cannot be estimated on any realistic basis. A comparable combination of critically flawed design, ill-trained staff, flagrant disregard of vital instruc- tions and gross mismanagement under political pressure cannot be totally excluded from future possibilities, but the particular combi- nation of technical features that made this accident possible (fixed moderator and cooling by water) is not shared by any modern reactor type and never likely to be. Loss of coolant could however cause melting of the fuel by the heat of decaying fission products, as happened at Three Mile Island owing to operational errors. On that occasion no one was harmed and little radioactive material escaped, but to guard against a recurrence modern reactor designs favour fail-safe systems in which emergency cooling is supplied without human intervention. concerns with chernobyl and TMI
WILSON, PETER D. "Nuclear Energy." Science Progress (1933-), vol. 93, no. 4, 2010, pp. 335-359. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/43424252. Accessed 21 Sept. 2020.
The environmental pollution caused by Chernobyl was widespread and substantial, still significant in the contamination of Cumbrian hill pastures, but accidental. Other discharges from nuclear facilities are deliberate, justified on the grounds that the radioactive content is too slight to warrant unreliable or disproportionately burdensome measures to contain it. An example is iodine- 129 which could be released through the action of acid on a retained form and is considered better diluted with natural iodine in the sea than at risk of delivering a high local dose. The gaseous fission product krypton-85 (half-life 1 1 years) is discharged to the atmosphere for a similar reason and because being chemically unreactive it is hard to separate from ventilating air. Almost entirely ignoring the chemistry concerns, under normal conditions these types of reactors and elements can be dispersed without any effect on the local area.
WILSON, PETER D. "Nuclear Energy." Science Progress (1933-), vol. 93, no. 4, 2010, pp. 335-359. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/43424252. Accessed 21 Sept. 2020.
The fuel must be capable of maintaining the required power level for an economically-acceptable residence time. Unlike a conventional solid fuel, it scarcely alters its original dimensions, and when exhausted must therefore be readily removed and replaced. For ease of handling, many basic units are generally held together in a larger structure. A working power reactor must not only produce energy but deliver it to an electricity generator, usually by way of a steam turbine. Since this also prevents the reactor itself from over-heating, the heat-transfer medium is conventionally known as the coolant. For the sake of operators and maintenance staff, it is important that the coolant should be kept as free as practicable from radio- active fission products; the fuel substance itself is therefore encased in a metallic cladding.
WILSON, PETER D. "Nuclear Energy." Science Progress (1933-), vol. 93, no. 4, 2010, pp. 335-359. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/43424252. Accessed 21 Sept. 2020.
The greatest impact of the industry on the environment is at source, in the mining and milling of uranium ores. The richest ores contain over 20% uranium but less than 1% is usual, so large volumes then need to be extracted, by open-cast mining if the deposit is less than 200 metres below the surface. The uranium is separated and concentrated by a combination of mechanical and chemical means leaving what amounts to sand together with the accumulated decay products, notably radium which is highly radio- toxic. The residue should therefore be treated to prevent dispersion, but in the alternative procedure of "in- situ leaching" used in the USA, where the uranium is dissolved by a reagent pumped into one set of boreholes and retrieved from another, there is an obvious risk of contaminating ground water. In view of this legacy, there is an ethical incentive to make the best use of uranium already mined rather than discard it after a single pass through reactors that can utilise so little of it.
WILSON, PETER D. "Nuclear Energy." Science Progress (1933-), vol. 93, no. 4, 2010, pp. 335-359. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/43424252. Accessed 21 Sept. 2020.
Fuel exposure and security of supply - very few countries have sufficient indigenous resources of oil & gas to meet their energy requirements, and importing countries are exposed to political instability in the exporting nations. Uranium is plentiful and available from countries with a history of greater stab
Young, Martin. "THE NUCLEAR RENAISSANCE, AN EQUITY ANALYST'S PERSPECTIVE." Energy & Environment, vol. 22, no. 1/2, 2011, pp. 47-54. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/43734992. Accessed 16 Oct. 2020.
Such is the enthusiasm for new nuclear, adding the new build targets (planned and proposed) of those countries with aspirations to build new nuclear capacity would point to 500 GWe of new nuclear plant including the 51 GWe under construction. For many reasons, we believe not all of this will be built, particularly within a reasonable timeframe of 15-2
Young, Martin. "THE NUCLEAR RENAISSANCE, AN EQUITY ANALYST'S PERSPECTIVE." Energy & Environment, vol. 22, no. 1/2, 2011, pp. 47-54. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/43734992. Accessed 16 Oct. 2020.
extensions, and we believe others will follow, notably France. The costs of extending nuclear operating life vary given the length of the extension, the safety standards imposed, and whether there is a capacity increase, but ignoring the outliers, and focusing on recent data points, analysis suggests a cost range of EUR 400-700 /kW for 10-20 years of additional operation, an attractive proposition versus the EUR 2,500-3,100 /kW cost o
Young, Martin. "THE NUCLEAR RENAISSANCE, AN EQUITY ANALYST'S PERSPECTIVE." Energy & Environment, vol. 22, no. 1/2, 2011, pp. 47-54. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/43734992. Accessed 16 Oct. 2020.
