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
Nuclear ReactorsClean water vapor rises from the cooling towers. The nuclear reactors are inside the containment buildings next to the towers.

Although Nuclear Fusion is not available at this time, nuclear energy from Nuclear Fission is available today. The Energy Quest website 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 number 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 the 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 an 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

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 was 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 have 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 meltdown 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 program, 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, the preeminent world leader in the development of environmental consciousness. —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,

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 softball.
energy chart

“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 megawatt (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 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, ensuring 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 meters, which is about the internal volume of my modest home (10 meters 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 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

 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. The 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
– World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO)

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 —Everything you want to know about Nuclear Power

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 
The New Economics of Nuclear Power Report — This World Nuclear Association Report

entitled “The New Economics of Nuclear Power” provides an 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 is nothing for Nevadans to worry about
Radiation degrades nuclear waste-containing materials faster than expected
The 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:
Dirty Bombs – Know the facts
Understanding Radiation: Its Effects and Benefits
Health Hazards Associated with Interviewing Antinuclear Activists
 size: 14Kb – 1 page

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 organization 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
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
Nuclear resources
Molten salt reactor
Nuclear Power 2010
About Nuclear Energy
Idaho Energy Complex
Pressurized Water Reactors
Wayne’s View of Nuclear Power
Preventing nuclear proliferation
Introduction to the ALMR/PRISM
The Pebble-Bed Nuclear Reactor
—South Africa:
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

Leave a Comment