Safe Nuclear Energy
|
“Through the release of atomic energy, our generation has brought into
the world the most revolutionary force since prehistoric man's discovery of
fire.” —Albert Einstein
|
Although Nuclear
Fusion is not available at this time, nuclear energy
from Nuclear Fission is available today.
The Energy
Quest web site gives an illustrated explanation of the difference
between Nuclear Fusion and Nuclear Fission for anyone who needs clarification.
Nuclear Fission creates no air pollution, but it does create a small
amount of
radioactive
by-products. Opponents of nuclear energy believe a nuclear power plant
accident would cause toxic radioactive nuclear material to be released
into the environment. Fear of exposure to Nuclear
Radiation has created public opposition to nuclear energy
However, even with the potential danger of nuclear
radiation, nuclear energy technology has a long history of safe operation.
Worldwide nuclear electricity has accumulated over 10,000 reactor-years
of operating experience. Today, the issue of nuclear energy safety and
nuclear waste disposal is not a technical problem but one of public and
political acceptance.
How toxic is Nuclear Radiation? “The direct
radiation effect is the one thing that is different about nuclear material,
as compared to other toxins, which may be the source of some of the fear
and mystique. All other toxins require ingestion or inhalation for harm
to occur. Radioactive material is the only toxin that can strike
from a distance. This is because chemical toxins need to be in
the body to cause chemical changes that harm cells and biological processes,
whereas radioactive material emits high energy particles that can travel
over distances.” Says Nuclear engineer James Hopf. “However...
direct radiation will never be a significant factor with respect to total
public health impact. Instead, the effects would come from dispersal of
radioisotopes onto the land, air, and water, and the subsequent ingestion
or inhalation of those isotopes. In all cases, the concentrations of radioisotopes
would be far too small for the soil, water, or air in question to cause
a significant direct radiation dose to a nearby person. However, if the
radioactive isotopes are ingested or inhaled, and they then spend a significant
residence time in the body, they will cause the adverse health effects
that the public fears. But in this respect, radioactive material does
not behave any differently from any other toxin. It basically has to be
inhaled or ingested to have effect... Thus, although the mystique exists,
it will never come into play in any real way, in any real situations.”
— Nuclear Radiation
— How Toxic is it? A Tutorial by Nuclear Engineer —
James Hopf.
A majority of Americans support nuclear energy and believe it
is safe
A Gallup
Poll taken March 4-7, 2010 shows that 62% of Americans favor
the use and expansion of nuclear energy:
“A majority of Americans
have typically favored using nuclear power to provide electricity for
the
United States
since Gallup began asking about this topic in 1994. Support has edged
up in the last two years, eclipsing 60% this year for the first time.
In addition, 28% of Americans now say they "strongly favor" nuclear
power, also the highest Gallup has measured since the question was first
asked
in 1994.
Last year, Gallup documented a significant increase
in support for nuclear power, and that upward trend has continued this year.”
“The strong public support shown for nuclear energy—and the
fact that support is being sustained at levels as high as they have been
in the 26 years that I have been conducting public opinion research on
this topic—indicates a real change. The levels of support found for
nuclear energy in recent months really are unprecedented,” said Bisconti
Research President Ann Bisconti.
Opposition to nuclear energy comes from a small but vocal minority
of the American public. Opponents of nuclear energy threaten lawsuits
and political action against electric power companies, intended to
cause construction delays and significantly increase the cost and risk
of financing nuclear power projects. For this reason, electric power
companies in the United States have not ordered a new
nuclear power plant in 30 years.
If the American people fail to communicate their support for nuclear
energy to their legislators, the opponents of nuclear energy will continue
to stop new power plants from being built. If the opponents of nuclear
energy continue to block the construction of nuclear power plants, there
will be no future for nuclear engineers in America. Universities will
stop offering nuclear engineering courses and the United States will fall
behind the technology. America is at risk of losing its nuclear engineering
expertise.
The anti-nuclear protesters are irrational, says a psychiatrist and
expert on fears and phobias who has studied and analyzed social perceptions
of
nuclear energy, see:
A PBS interview with Dr. Robert DuPont
— Dr. Robert L. DuPont is a practicing
psychiatrist and a clinical professor of psychiatry at Georgetown University
School of Medicine.
He is also the author of “The Selfish Brain: Learning from Addiction” and “Nuclear
phobia—phobic thinking about nuclear power: A discussion
with Robert L. DuPont”.
Nuclear energy is the only proven technology that can deliver baseload
electricity on a large scale, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, regardless-of-the-weather,
without producing carbon dioxide emissions. Nuclear power plants
emit no carbon pollution—no carbon monoxide, no sulfur oxides
and no nitrogen oxides to the atmosphere. And, nuclear power plants
will not contaminate streams and rivers with mercury.
The United States now burns 400 million more tons of coal per year
than was burned in 1980, because the U.S. stopped building nuclear
power plants after the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor melt-down
in 1979, even though no one was hurt, and the radiation was contained.
There was no physical harm to public health; although anti-nuclear
groups continue to inflict psychological harm on the public.
We need nuclear power, says the man who inspired the Greens:
We
need nuclear power, says James Lovelock, the man who inspired
the Greens. “We
reject nuclear energy with the same unreasoning arguments that our
ancestors would have used to reject geothermal energy, the effort
to harness the
heat of the Earth. Compared with the imaginary dangers of nuclear
power, the threat from the intensifying greenhouse effect seems
all too real.
I wholly support the Green wish to see all energy eventually come from
renewable sources but I do not think that we have the time to wait
until
this happens. Nuclear power is unpopular but it is safer than power
from fossil fuel. The worst that could happen, if Chernobyls become
endemic, is that we live a little less long in a mildly radioactive
world. To me this is preferable to the loss of our hard-won civilization
in a greenhouse catastrophe.
“Nuclear electricity is now a well-tried and soundly engineered
practice that is both safe and economic; given the will it could
be applied
quickly. It is risky if improperly
used but, even taking the Chernobyl disaster into account, it is,
according to a recent Swiss study, by far the safest of the power industries.
Disinformation about its dangers sustains
a climate of fearful ignorance and has artificially inflated the
difficulties
of disposing of nuclear waste and the cost of nuclear power. If permitted,
I would happily store high-level
waste on my own land and use the heat from it to warm my home. There
seems no sensible reason why nuclear waste should not be disposed
of in the deep subducting regions of the ocean where tectonic forces
draw all deposits down into the magma.
“What stands against the use of nuclear power are not sensible
scientific or economic arguments but a widespread, but unjustified,
public fear... The Greens, have so frightened their supporters that
a change of mind would be almost impossible.
“The accident at Chernobyl is almost always presented as if it were the
greatest industrial disaster of the 20th century. Even the BBC, in a recent programme,
stated that thousands had died there. Such
exaggeration suspends rational thought and is an unnerving triumph
of fiction over science. In fact, 45 died at Chernobyl, according to the UN report
on the disaster, and many of them were the firemen
and helicopter crews who tried to extinguish the fire. It was an
awful event and should never have happened, but it was far less lethal than the
smog of 1952, when 5,000 Londoners died from poisoning
by coal smoke.”
— James
Lovelock, preeminent world leader in the development of environmental
consciousness.
www.jameslovelock.org —The
personal website of James Lovelock, originator of Gaia
theory,
inventor of the electron capture detector (which made possible the detection
of CFCs and other atmospheric nano-pollutants)
and of the microwave oven.
A DOSE OF NUCLEAR RADIATION By James Lovelock, Excerpt from The
Ages of Gaia
NATURAL NUCLEAR REACTORS (OKLO) By James Lovelock, Excerpt from
The Ages of Gaia
Something
Nasty in the Greenhouse By James Lovelock
In recent years, a growing
number of environmentalists have taken a new look at the safety record
and benefits of nuclear energy:
STEWART BRAND IS
A SELF-PROFESSED “GREENIE.” AN ORIGINAL
hippie of the 1960s and founder of the “Whole Earth
Catalog,” he
has spent decades promoting environmental and social causes.
So it came as a shock to many when last year, Brand wrote
an essay for Technology Review in which he touted the benefits
of nuclear power. In the piece, titled “Environmental
Heresies,” Brand embraced nuclear as the only technology
currently available that can help save the planet from global warming.
Soon, people began mentioning Brand with other prominent environmentalists
who had also spoken in favor of nuclear: scientist James
Lovelock,
who proposed the Gaia hypothesis; Patrick
Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace;
and Anglican Bishop Hugh
Montefiore, a former board member of Friends
of the Earth. According to Brand, others are following suit. “I’m
seeing much less resistance from my fellow greenies,” he
said at a forum held at MIT in September. “Not total conversion,
but fewer opposing it.”
Nuclear is getting a second look from environmentalists because,
unlike coal, natural gas and other fossil fuels, it does not produce
carbon dioxide as a byproduct. Carbon dioxide released into
the atmosphere traps heat radiating from the Earth’s
surface, thus leading to a gradual rise in global temperature. Scientific
and governmental bodies around the world agree that much of the warming
of the planet seen in the last 50 years is due to this kind
of human activity, including the burning of fossil fuels for energy.
— By Corinna Wu, PRISM magazine, January 2006
The total “waste” from a lifetime of energy consumed by one
person—if all of their energy was produced by nuclear power—is
about the size of a soft-ball.
|
“The great advantage of nuclear power is
its ability to wrest enormous energy from a small volume of fuel. Nuclear
fission, transforming matter directly to energy is several million times
as energetic as chemical burning, which merely breaks chemical bonds.
One ton of nuclear fuel produces energy equivalent to 2 to 3 million tons
of fossil fuel… Running a 1000 mega-watt (a continuous one million
kilowatt) power plant for a year requires 2000 train cars of coal or 10
supertankers of oil but only 12 cubic meters of natural uranium…
The spent nuclear fuel and other radioactive waste requiring disposal
after one year would be about 20 cubic meters in all when compacted (roughly,
the volume of two automobiles)… The high-level waste is intensely
radioactive, of course… But thanks to its small volume and the fact
that it is not released into the environment, this high-level waste can
be meticulously sequestered behind multiple barriers. Waste from coal,
dispersed across the landscape in smoke or buried near the surface, remains
toxic forever. Radioactive nuclear waste decays steadily, losing 99% of
its toxicity after 600 years – well within the range of human experience…
Nuclear waste disposal is a political problem in the United States because
of widespread fear disproportionate to the reality of risk. But it is
not an engineering problem.”
- Excerpt from: The
Need For Nuclear Power, by Richard Rhodes and Denis Beller
By all practical definitions, nuclear fission is a sustainable source of energy.
Enough uranium exists in the earth's crust and oceans to last thousands of
years. Future advanced fast reactors will produce 60 to 100 times more energy
out of the uranium fuel, extending the reserves to tens of thousands of years.
Is there enough
Uranium to supply a world dependent on nuclear energy? Yes,
says Nuclear Engineer James Hopf, “the actual recoverable uranium
supply is likely to be enough to last several hundred (up to 1000) years,
even
using standard reactors. With breeders (advanced fast reactors), it is
essentially infinite. Hundreds of thousands of years is certainly enough
time to develop fusion
power,
or renewable sources that can meet all our power needs.”
World Uranium Reserves by
James Hopf.
Forty percent (40%) of all U.S. man-made carbon dioxide (CO2)
emissions are created when fossil fuels are burned to produce the nation's
electricity. And, fifty percent (50%) of America's electricity is produced
by electric power plants that burn coal, yet coal-fired power plants
are responsible for 80% of all CO2 emitted from USA electric power
plants—which equals 32% of all U.S. man-made CO2 emissions.
The replacement of coal power plants with
nuclear power plants would reduce America’s atmospheric CO2 emissions
by 32%.
Nuclear Energy can replace
power plants that burn coal, gas or oil. And, Nuclear Energy
can help the USA develop
a replacement
for
its
Petroleum based transportation fuel.
Nuclear
energy can provide the process heat and hydrogen gas required
for the manufacture of synthetic fuels from coal. If nuclear heat and
nuclear
generated hydrogen is used to produce synthetic fuels from coal, then
the yield of synthetic fuel from coal would be much higher than if
the coal is used to provide the process heat and hydrogen. Resulting
in much less
CO2 being released in the process.
If coal power plants were replaced by nuclear power plants, for baseload
electricity, and coal is then used to make synthetic fuels, Americans
who are dependent on the coal mining industry for their incomes would
support nuclear energy. Today, the USA burns about one billion tons
of coal per year in power plants. Using one billion tons of coal to
produce synthetic fuel would replace 65% of America’s imported
oil. (At 12 million imported barrels
per day, 65% is 7,800,000 barrels per day.) Just over 20%
of oil imported into the USA today comes from Persian Gulf Nations,
which are also members of OPEC.
Less than 45% of oil imported into the USA today comes from
OPEC countries.
The U.S. has an estimated 270 billion tons of recoverable coal in
existing mines, having more than four times as much energy in coal
than the Middle East has in oil—enough to last the U.S. a couple
of centuries or more. That's only the coal in existing mines. If
you consider total recoverable reserves, the U.S. has over 500 billion
tons of coal available to replace imported oil.
Nuclear Hydrogen for Production of Liquid Hydrocarbon Transport
Fuels:
Liquid fuels (gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel) have major advantages as transport
fuels: a high energy density per unit volume and mass, ease of storage, and ease
of transport. However, there are major disadvantages: crude oil is increasingly
expensive, most of the world's crude oil comes from unstable parts of the world,
and burning of hydrocarbons releases greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. These
disadvantages may be reduced or eliminated by use of hydrogen
and oxygen produced
from water using nuclear energy as the energy source, and by use of alternative
carbon
feedstocks in the production of liquid fuels.
As oil becomes scarce, liquid fuels will be produced with increasing frequency from heavier feedstocks such as heavy oil, tar sands, oil shale, and coal. With current technology, this conversion process can be summarized as follows:
Carbon-based feedstock + Water + Oxygen —> Liquid fuels
+ Carbon dioxide (1)
With nuclear
hydrogen, this conversion process can become:
Carbon-based
feedstock + Water + Nuclear energy —> Liquid fuels (2)
When nuclear energy is used (Equation 2), no carbon dioxide is released from the fuel production process. All the carbon is incorporated into the fuel. The carbon in the feedstock is not used as an energy source in the liquid-fuel production process. Carbon dioxide is released only from the burning of the liquid fuels. For feedstocks such as coal, which have low hydrogen-to-carbon ratios, the traditional technologies such as coal liquefaction (Equation 1) may release more carbon dioxide to the environment in the fuel production process than will be released from burning the liquid fuel.
Hydrocarbon liquid fuels that have no greenhouse impacts can
be produced if the carbon source for the manufacture of the liquid
fuels is carbon recycled from the atmosphere (via biomass collection
or direct
removal from air). With nuclear hydrogen production, this
conversion process becomes:
Recycle
carbon + Water + Nuclear energy —> Liquid fuels (No greenhouse)
—by Charles
Forsberg Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Nuclear Hydrogen Production Process Design and Economics
University
Professor sees a Nuclear Age dawning... again:
“Have you ever felt as if you have experienced time travel (déjà
vu)?” asks Research Professor Denis Beller in an essay titled: Atomic Time Machines: Back to the Nuclear Future.
Dr. Denis E. Beller says, “When reading about or listening to present-day
news items or speeches about the nuclear power industry, whether
they
are by or about industry leaders, nuclear scientists or engineers,
or anti-nuclear individuals or organizations, some people might think
they
have been transported back in time in a time machine. Many people
in the nuclear power industry and academia at the beginning of the
twenty-first
century have the same optimistic outlook as the founders did a half-century
ago, and opponents of technology, especially nuclear technology,
feel
as if they’re facing the same battles they fought in the 1970s
and 80s. For a variety of reasons that will be explained in this
essay,
young nuclear proponents have what appears to be a brilliant future...”
Atomic Time Machines: Back
to the Nuclear Future By Dr. Denis E. Beller, Research Professor
of Nuclear Engineering
Nuclear
Fission Power Plant Technology — Generation III
The Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear power plant design is the first Generation
III+ reactor to receive a
Final Design Approval (FDA) from the United States Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (U.S. NRC).
The General Atomics
Gas Turbine - Modular Helium Reactor (GT-MHR)
—The GT-MHR combines a meltdown-proof
reactor and advanced gas turbine technology in a power plant with thermal
efficiency approaching 50%. This efficiency
makes possible much lower power costs, without the environmental degradation
and resource depletion of burning fossil fuels.
Conventional, low-temperature nuclear plants
operate at about 32% thermal efficiency. GT-MHR power plants
can achieve thermal efficiencies
of close to 50% now, and even higher efficiencies in the future.
• 50% more electrical power from the same number of fissions.
• Dramatically lower high-level radioactive waste per unit of
energy – today’s reactors produce 50% more high-level
waste than will the GT-MHR.
• Much less thermal discharge to the environment. Plants can
use air cooling, which allows for more flexible siting options.
Nuclear waste:
It has been suggested that the Yucca Mountain
repository
should be regarded as a strategic uranium
reserve, insuring that the spent fuel stored in the
repository is retrievable for future generations of Americans. Light-Water
Reactors (LWR's) consume less than 2% of the potential energy within their
uranium fuel - If, sometime
in the near future, all of the “spent-fuel” from the LWR's
is reprocessed and made into new fuel for nuclear power plants, then
Yucca Mountain will not be a radioactive
problem 10,000 years from now.
| |
|
Argonne National Laboratory has developed a revolutionary process that in one step converts spent
commercial nuclear fuel, which is a ceramic oxide, into metal. The product can
then be treated with Argonne's electrorefining technology to recover the uranium
and transuranic elements for recycling into new fuel. Argonne chemist
Laurel Barnes prepares for a test of the metal-oxide conversion process in a
glove box.
Argonne National Laboratory photo
|
"The volume of the entire world's spent nuclear fuel (air spaces,
shielding and cladding removed) for a year - assuming a specific gravity
of about 8 is less than 2,000 cubic metres, which is about the internal
volume of my modest home (10 metres by 20 by 10). No wonder there is no
immediate need to do anything with it. And, it is also NOT waste, but
represents a recyclable resource as only about 1 to 3 percent of the contained
energy is used in the first pass through the reactor cycle. Store it retrievably,
and we will eventually use it for the remaining energy content."
-John K. Sutherland, Chief Scientist, Edutech Enterprises
Nuclear Power Comparisons and Perspective
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence
than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know
much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never
be solved by science.” — Charles Darwin.
“Marie Curie, one of the early pioneers of radioactive research
and the winner of two Nobel prizes, recognized the social value of dispelling
ignorance, when she stated: 'Nothing is to be feared. It is to be understood'.
Marie Curie herself was so radioactive from her 'bucket chemistry', and
inhaling radon and ingesting radium and other nuclides, that when she
entered any physics laboratory, it was noted that any charged electroscopes
immediately lost their charge. She died, possibly of leukemia, at age
66, having outlived most of her generation. Nuclear wastes must surely
be one of the most difficult and thorny topics to address in the complete
absence of perspective, which is the way they are usually addressed. The
general belief seems to be that only nuclear wastes are dangerous or socially
damaging not only now, but also into the far distant future, and that
wastes from other sources of energy are not. This general lack of perspective,
and inability to compare social risks today and over time, is not only
unnerving, but also expensive and hazardous to society's continued health.”
“The issues of nuclear power, radiation, and nuclear wastes
are rife with ignorance, political manipulation, environmental obfuscation,
and fear. As a result, they are either a political minefield, or a goldmine
of emotions, depending upon which side of these politicized issues you
stand...”
- Dr. John K. Sutherland, Health Physicist
Nuclear
Waste Perspectives
“…Nearly everyone agrees privately that safe disposal of
spent fuel or other high-level radioactive material is not a technical
problem, but a political one… If one accepts the view apparently
held by the majority of scientists working in the nuclear waste field
that public apprehension regarding the problem is grossly exaggerated,
then it is reasonable to ask how this condition came to exist. How did
the myth evolve? …the public has been rational. Their fears and
apprehensions are understandable, given the information available to them.
“In ancient times, myths (beliefs not necessarily based upon fact)
became embedded in the folklore of a culture over long periods of time
by passing from generation to generation. Often such myths were embellished
and amplified with each passage. Laws and rules governing society, such
as the witchcraft laws in colonial America, were predicated on such beliefs
since they came to be regarded as fundamental truths. Today, in the age
of mass communication, myths can become established far more quickly.
The advent of science during the last few centuries may have had a mitigating
effect on adherence to mythology, particularly in modem societies, but
this is by no means always the case. The folklore regarding nuclear waste
presents a particular case in point where beliefs, not supported by science
and logic, have played a major role in the development of our policies,
rules and laws.”
Nuclear Waste Disposal: the Nature of the Problem
— Jerry J. Cohen, Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory (Retired)
Advanced Nuclear Fuel Cycle:
Next
generation nuclear reactors with
a pyroprocessing-based
fuel cycle can provide a vast improvement in energy efficiency. By
recycling spent fuel, such a fast reactor system can deliver 100 times
more energy from available uranium resources than today's reactors without harmful
greenhouse gas emissions thereby assuring a sustainable long-term energy source.
The Closed fuel cycle — A closed fuel cycle reprocesses
spent reactor fuel to extract uranium and plutonium, the main elements
that power the reactor. The alternative is to place spent fuel in repositories
without reprocessing. Some closed fuels cycles, such as Argonne’s
pyroprocessing technology, extract minor actinides—waste elements
such as neptunium and americium that take hundreds of thousands of
years
to decay—along with uranium and plutonium and recycle them all
into new fuel. The reactor destroys the actinides by fission as it generates
electricity. With the actinides gone, the short-lived wastes need environmental
isolation for less than 1,000 years. "In that time,"
said John Sackett, Argonne associate laboratory director for engineering
research, "they decay until they are less radioactive than
the natural ore the original fuel came from. You’d still need
repositories, but you’d have less material to fill them, and
they would be less costly to build and maintain."
Smarter Use of Nuclear Waste — By William H. Hannum, Gerald
E. Marsh and George S. Stanford
 size:
575Kb — Fast-neutron reactors
could extract much more energy from recycled nuclear fuel, minimize
the risks of weapons proliferation and markedly reduce the time nuclear waste must be isolated.
The
Path to Sustainable Nuclear Energy September 2005
Basic and Applied Research Opportunities for Advanced Fuel Cycles
size: 853 Kb - 22 pages
ADVANCED FUEL CYCLE INITIATIVE (AFCI) — PROGRAM PLAN May
1, 2005
size: 1.5Mb - 100 pages
New
Life for Nuclear Power: By Alvin M. Weinberg
“If nuclear reactors receive normal maintenance, they will
never wear out, and this will profoundly affect the economic performance
of the reactors. Time annihilates capital costs. The economic Achilles'
heel of nuclear energy has been its high capital cost. In this respect,
nuclear energy resembles renewable energy sources such as wind turbines,
hydroelectric facilities, and photovoltaic cells, which have high capital
costs but low operating expenses. If a reactor lasts beyond its amortization
time, the burden of debt falls drastically. Indeed, according to one
estimate, fully amortized nuclear reactors with total electricity
production costs (operation and maintenance, fuel, and capital costs)
below 2 cents
per kilowatt hour are possible. Electricity that inexpensive would
make it economically feasible to power operations such as seawater desalinization...
If power reactors are virtually immortal, we have in principle achieved
nuclear electricity too cheap to meter. But there is a major catch.
The very inexpensive electricity does not kick in until the reactor
is fully amortized, which means that the generation that pays for the
reactor is giving a gift of cheap electricity to the next generation.
Because such altruism is not likely to drive investment, the task becomes
to develop accounting or funding methods that will make it possible
to build the generation capacity that will eventually be a virtually
permanent part of society's infrastructure.
If the only benefit of these reactors is to produce less expensive
electricity and the market is the only force driving investment,
then we will not
see a massive investment in nuclear power. But if immortal reactors
by their very nature serve purposes that fall outside of the market
economy, their original capital cost can be handled in the way that
society pays for infrastructure.”
-Alvin M. Weinberg is a former director of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Nuclear organizations:
- US Nuclear Energy
- American Nuclear Society
- World Nuclear Association
- Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy
- Clean and Safe Energy Coalition — Co-Founded
by Dr. Patrick Moore, Former Leader of Greenpeace; And Christine
Todd Whitman, Former NJ Governor and EPA Administrator.
Recommended reading about Nuclear Energy:
The
Nuclear Energy Option By Dr. Bernard L. Cohen
The Need for
Nuclear Power By Richard Rhodes and Dr. Denis Beller
Why the French like Nuclear Energy — In
France, unlike in America, nuclear energy is accepted, even popular
Nuclear
Waste Perspectives By John K. Sutherland, Chief Scientist, Edutech
Enterprises
Nuclear
Waste Perspectives - Part II — Spent Fuel is too valuable
to be Nuclear Waste
Nuclear Power Comparisons and Perspective Caution: Reading this article
may prove dangerous to your perceptions about nuclear power, energy in
general, and low-grade but well-heeled environmental activism.
Nuclear Energy Basics:
Clean and Safe Energy Coalition
NuclearInfo.net
—Everything you want to know about Nuclear Power
U.S. Nonproliferation Policy:
THE U.S. DOMESTIC CIVIL NUCLEAR INFRASTRUCTURE AND U.S. NONPROLIFERATION POLICY
— A White Paper Presented by the
American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness
size: 194Kb - 34 pages
Cost of Nuclear Energy:
The Economics of Nuclear Power (March 2008)
The New
Economics of Nuclear Power Report
— This World Nuclear Association Report (December 2005) entitled “The New Economics
of Nuclear Power” provides international perspective and definitive analysis of the costs of constructing
and operating nuclear power plants in the 21st century.
size: 310Kb - 32 pages
Nuclear Power Plant Fuel:
Nuclear Power Plant Fuel
World Uranium Reserves
Uranium Information
Centre
Physical
Properties of Uranium
Spent Nuclear Fuel (Waste):
Radiation tutorial
Radiation and Life
Plutonium Peril - 1999
Yucca
Mountain Project
Nuclear Waste Disposal
Nuclear Waste: The Facts
Nuclear Waste Perspectives
Used Nuclear Fuel Management
U.S. Nuclear Waste Review Board
High Level Waste Storage and Disposal
Dry Cask Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel
The Advanced Fuel Cycle
Initiative (AFCI)
Accelerator driven Transmutation System
U.N. report fuels Chernobyl radiation debate
Spent Nuclear Fuel 300-Year Disposal Solution
Spent Fuel is too valuable to be Nuclear Waste
How Much Nuclear Waste is in the United States?
PBS interview with a former U.S. Nuclear Waste Negotiator
Transportation to Yucca Mountain nothing for Nevadans to worry about
Radiation degrades nuclear waste-containing materials faster than expected
Reprocessing method could allay weapons fear — By Gerald E. Marsh and George S. Stanford
Energy
Department-funded Scientists Decode DNA of Bacterium that Cleans Up Uranium
Contamination and Generates Electricity
Nuclear Radiation:
www.RadioChemistry.org
Dirty Bombs - Know the facts
Understanding Radiation: Its Effects and Benefits
Health Hazards Associated with Interviewing Antinuclear Activists
size: 14Kb - 1 page
Uranium in Coal Combustion:
* how many people know that
burning coal to produce electricity releases radioactive particles into the
atmosphere?
Radioactive Elements in Coal and Fly Ash
Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger?
Unique and Historical Agreement for Non-Conventional Uranium Resource Evaluation
in China
Nuclear Safety and Security:
Safe and Secure: Protecting Our Nuclear Energy Facilities
—Watch a 6-minute Video clip presenting the security measures in effect at nuclear power plants, including a regimen of armed guards, patrols, detection equipment, and physical barriers, as well as the design of the plant itself.
The History
of Nuclear Safety
Plant Safety: Defense in Depth
Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors
Regulation: Effective Plant Oversight
Dispelling Myths About Nuclear Energy
Why do Americans fear Nuclear Power?
Advocates laud safety of new nuclear reactors
The World Association
of Nuclear Operators (WANO)
—WANO is an organisation created to improve
safety at every nuclear power plant in the world.
The TMI 2 Accident: Its Impact, Its Lessons
Three Mile Island and the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations
Nuclear Power Plant Security Praised By Coordinators of Terrorism Simulation
------
Independent study demonstrates through state-of-the-art computer modeling
techniques that structures housing reactor fuel at U.S. nuclear power
plants would protect against a release of radiation even if struck by
a large commercial jetliner.
Aircraft Crash Impact Analyses Demonstrate Nuclear Power Plant's Structural
Strength
size: 370Kb - 10 pages
------
Transportation
National Academies Report Endorses Safety Record of Used Nuclear Fuel Transport System
------
Transporting Nuclear Waste
Transportation Container Cutaway Illustration
Safety Every Step of the Way: Diagram
Fact Sheet: Spent Nuclear Fuel Transportation
Department
of Energy's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management's (OCRWM)
------
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC)
Nuclear Fission links:
Nuclear Power
NuclearInfo.net
www.nuclear.gov
Nuclear resources
Molten salt reactor
Nuclear Power 2010
About Nuclear Energy
Idaho Energy Complex
www.aboutnuclear.org
Pressurized Water Reactors
www.SustainableNuclear.org
Wayne's View of Nuclear Power
Preventing nuclear proliferation
Introduction to the ALMR/PRISM
The Pebble-Bed Nuclear Reactor
—South Africa:
www.pbmr.co.za
China plans nuclear energy future
The Radiation Information Network
World Nuclear Generation of Electricity
Nuclear Cycles and Nuclear Resources
Nuclear Energy Research
Initiative (NERI)
Nuclear plants may be clean hydrogen source
Nuclear Fission
at Argonne National Laboratory
Frequently Asked Questions About Nuclear Energy
Nuclear Cycles and Nuclear Resources
PBS interview with Glenn Seaborg—Nobel Laureate and one of the founding
fathers of the atomic age
A nuclear fission reactor at the center of the Earth:
Nuclear
Planet —Earth is a gigantic natural nuclear power plant,
Says geophysicist J. Marvin Herndon
Natural Nuclear Reactors
|
