Nuclear Power: Not in my backyard!
Jul 7, 2006 – This is not the only concern delaying nuclear power-plant … the cry of “not in my backyard” — even when the backyard is thousands of miles …
Oct 15, 2009 – NUCLEAR POWER—NOT IN MY BACKYARD? Duck and cover! That is what we practiced in grade school in Los Angeles in case of a nuclear …
May 6, 2011 – Green energy — but not in my back yard! … The trouble is that NIMBY syndrome not only affects nuclear power plants and incinerators.
Aug 13, 2009 – Keywords: debate, NIMBY, Not in my backyard, turbine, wind. Welcome to the first … Same goes for nuclear power stations or garbage plants.
Mar 12, 2012 – Nuclear Debris; the not-in-my-back-yard nuclear waste challenge in Japan … 1 nuclear power plant, a survey shows. Under the central …
by T Peters
As James Wall pointed out in “Storing Nuclear Waste: My Backyard or Yours?” (Nov. … toxic garbage on a community to the financial benefit of some power elite.
The building of nuclear power plants, for example, is often subject to NIABY concerns. There is also a growing YIMBY (Yes In My Back Yard) movement to …
Can the new Turkish-Russian nuclear plant be a model for safe energy, or will it be an environmental and proliferation risk?
BY EVE CONANT | NOVEMBER 21, 2012
Last fall, a pilot group of Turkish students arrived in the forested “Science City” of Obninsk, a once-secret location for Stalin’s nuclear program 60 miles outside Moscow. Sponsored by Russia’s nuclear industry, the students are the first of some 600 Turks who will be brought to Russia in small groups over the coming years to enroll in a six-and-a-half-year program to learn Russian and earn degrees in nuclear power and engineering, embarking on a program that will help bring Turkey into the nuclear club of nations.
I spoke with some of these students over tea and strudel at a quiet café in Obninsk. They were relieved to practice their English after months of grueling Russian lessons and spoke of missing their families but also their bright futures in the nuclear energy industry. The Russians claim that more than 9,000 Turkish math and physics students competed for these first scholarship slots, which will guarantee employment at four Russian-built reactors slated for construction next year on Turkey’s Mediterranean coast. With solid careers and good salaries ahead, they seemed more than willing to put up with freezing winters and Skype-filled nights.
“It’s possible we will be the first group to open the gates of our country’s first nuclear power plant — our country is counting on us,” says 21-year-old Gokcehan Tosun, who hails from the port city of Samsun on the Black Sea.
It’s been a long wait for nuclear boosters like her. Turkey has been flirting with nuclear power since President Dwight Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” cooperation agreement with the country in 1955 — a program of shared equipment and technology that sought to foster peaceful and transparent use of the energy resource, and helped build the first reactors in Pakistan and Iran. At the time, Turkey was just one of the many countries anxious to harness nuclear power. But even though feasibility studies into commercial scale reactors were first carried out in the 1960s, decades of efforts stalled. The reasons were myriad, but included the government’s failure to guarantee financing, post-Chernobyl jitters, and a deadly 1999 quake in Turkey that underscored the country’s dismal construction practices.
But with new legislation in 2007 easing multiple bureaucratic hurdles and a novel financing deal with Russia’s state-controlled nuclear corporation, Rosatom, the “Akkuyu” site along the Mediterranean coast — first licensed in 1976 — is expected to soon be the home of Turkey’s first reactors.
Nuclear suppliers from Japan, South Korea, China, and Canada have also sought deals in the new Turkish market. But Russia is first in line with an unusual and aggressive marketing plan they hope to spread to other nuclear “newcomers,” as Rosatom execs like to call new-to-nuclear countries like Turkey: the “build-own-operate” or “BOO” model. In short, the reactors built under the program reside in a foreign country — in this case, Turkey — but will still be owned by Russia. The BOO model has been used in other industries worldwide, such as water treatment and telecommunications, but the Russian-Turkish Akkuyu deal is the first time the model has been used for a nuclear power plant.
“We are a country without a nuclear power plant,” Turkish Energy Minister TanerYildiz told visitors at the World Economic Forum on the Middle East, North Africa, and Eurasia in Istanbul in June. ”However, we are determined to have nuclear power plants [with] at least 23 nuclear units by the year 2023.” That’s pretty ambitious, especially with the inevitable lengthy negotiations and construction times involved, and the first four reactors only expected on line by 2019 at the earliest. “It takes between 10 and 15 years from start to finish for one nuclear power plant,” says Sharon Squassoni, director and senior fellow of the Proliferation Prevention Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Her bet? They’ll have “two by 2023.”
Turkey has good reason to seek out new sources of energy. With a growing and energy-hungry population — electricity demand has grown an average of 8 percent per year over the past decade — Turkey finds itself importing more than 70 percent of its energy, primarily fossil fuels. As part of a larger plan to privatize and liberalize its energy market, the Turkish government wants to reduce gas imports and increase the share of renewable energy to 30 percent and nuclear to 10 percent of Turkish power by 2023, the 100th anniversary of the Turkish Republic. If they succeed, it could turn Turkey into “one of the most potentially lucrative and active nuclear markets in the world,” according to a comprehensive report on the country’s transition to nuclear power by the Istanbul-based Centre for Economic and Foreign Policy Studies (EDAM).
Turkey is also worried about its reliance on fossil fuels from neighbors like Iran and — ironically — Russia, which in 2009 famously shut off gas shipments through Ukraine over a pricing dispute, leaving Turkey and much of Europe shivering for several weeks in the dead of winter.
Yet many Turks are deeply uneasy with the nuclear ambitions of their government. There have been multiple protests, especially in the weeks and months following the Fukushima disaster. Residents around the planned facility are particularly upset. The Akkuyu site is in Turkey’s Mersin province, a tourist region along the Mediterranean coast that locals fear could lose its allure and prompt residents to move out. “This is a touristic place and a plant there could make the region lose significant tourism revenue,” says Necdet Pamir, chairman of the Energy Commission of the opposition Republican People’s Party, which opposes the project over safety concerns and has tried and failed to block it in Turkey’s Constitutional Court. The concerns are international as well. Worried about a potential catastrophe near their borders, Greece and Cyprus have called on the EU to scrutinize the project.
Earthquake risk is also a serious concern. In 1998 a 6.2 magnitude quake hit Adana, 110 miles away from Akkuyu Bay, killing 150 and causing an estimated $1 billion in damage.”Akkuyu is a dangerous location 20-25 kilometers away from an active fault plane and the license to build was granted before this was known,” says Pamir. “Also, Turkey has other, safer indigenous energy resources,” he says, that could be developed instead of nuclear, such as “clean-coal,” hydroelectricity, solar, or wind. None of those sources would be as risky as nuclear in a seismically active country, says Pamir. (Turkish officials insist that the sites being explored for reactors have a low seismic risk and that the Akkuyu site has been designed to withstand a magnitude 9.0 quake.)
The lack of a nuclear track record also raises questions. “It’s not clear that the Turkish regulator has the capacity to oversee the Russians building a Russian plant and operating this plant in its country,” says Kevin Massy, associate director of the Energy Security Initiative at the Brookings Institution. He visited Turkey earlier this year to study its energy plans for a report published this week. With regulators answering to the Energy Ministry, the same entity that is promoting the project, Sinan Ulgen, a former Turkish diplomat and chairman of the EDAM think tank, is also concerned. “The full independence of the nuclear regulatory authority is a crucial element in ensuring a safe and secure transition to nuclear power,” he says. “Many accidents, including at Fukushima, show that this is a core component of safe nuclear power.”
With transfers of nuclear technology and know-how there is also the concern of proliferation. In the Akkuyu deal, points out American Nuclear Society blogger Dan Yurman, Turkey will avoid the most controversial parts of the fuel cycle which are linked to proliferation and bomb-building. “Keep in mind that with the Russians, Turkey is not going to develop enrichment or fuel-reprocessing facilities. If they do the same with their other two potential power stations then their hands are clean,” he notes.
Washington has been largely silent so far. The State Department declined to comment on Turkey’s plan for reactors or the Russian deal for this story and has not made any official or public comment. “You can hardly hear any open criticism from the U.S.,” says Pamir. But, he adds, “If you flirt with the Russians it can be seen as a dangerous liaison.” (In the late 1990s the Clinton administration sanctioned four Russian entities for allegedly sharing nuclear and missile technology with Iran. Those sanctions were lifted in 2004).
“We’ve never objected to Turkey pursuing civilian nuclear power options because they’ve not — unlike Iran for instance — been in violation of their NPT agreement,” says former Ambassador to Turkey Eric Edelman. He says Turkey’s solid track record has meant there’s been little concern over country’s goals. But, he adds, “That could all change with a nuclear Iran. In fact, I think it would change. My own judgment is that although for the most part I think Turkey is motivated by a genuine interest in developing civilian nuclear power, the context has shifted. You now have to consider their pursuit of reactor deals not just with Russia but also with South Korea as a potential long-term hedging strategy against a possible proliferated Middle East.”
While Turkey is on record in opposition to a nuclear-armed Iran, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan reiterated his support for Iran’s civilian energy program earlier this year, saying that Turkey “has always clearly supported the nuclear positions of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and will continue to firmly follow the same policy in the future” — prompting a thank you from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose controversial Russian-completed Bushehr power plant reached full capacity on Aug. 31.
Meanwhile, Russia is refining its sales pitch. It wants to sell reactors all over the world — part of a plan announced by Rosatom chief Sergey Kirienko to double output at home and triple global sales by 2030. It’s unclear where Turkey will turn next if and when it inks a deal for a second plant. But Brookings’ Massy predicts any further plants won’t be Russian. While the electricity from Akkuyu would be coming from a domestic source, “it’s not really diversification from Russia if Russia is building, owning, operating and financing, their nuclear power plant,” he argues.
Still, for now, Russia’s nuclear package is a tough one to beat. During his first presidency, Vladimir Putin signed controversial legislation allowing Russia to import and permanently store another country’s spent nuclear fuel. This is a deal vendors from other countries may not be able to provide, presenting a spent fuel problem that Turkey will eventually have to face and which nuclear opponents will likely stress going forward. Disappointingly for activists, the Fukushima disaster hasn’t slowed Turkey’s desire for reactors or Russia’s aim to be the go-to country for the world’s nuclear newcomers.
As Putin said less than year after Fukushima, “There’s a rebirth, a renaissance of the nuclear sphere taking place right now,” and Russia plans to be right there in the thick of it.
ADEM ALTAN/AFP/Getty Images
Eve Conant is a former staff writer and Moscow correspondent for Newsweek. She traveled to Russia on a grant from the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting. Her reporting from the trip can be viewed here.
Welcome to Foreign Policy’s new commenting system! The good news is that it’s now easier than ever to comment and share your insights with friends. Here’s how it works: You can now sign in by creating a LiveFyre account (which will replace the ForeignPolicy.com accounts from now on), or using a Twitter or Facebook account, and carry on a conversation with your fellow commenters in the section below. You do not have to sign in using a social network if you choose to remain anonymous – simply use a LiveFyre account to continue commenting. For more information, click here.
Let me thank the writer, Eve Conant. As for her question, my answer is, who cares?
I understand that Russia is ready to train Turkish persons some essentials regarding operating a proposed plant. I wonder why? If Russia is going to build it, operate it and own it, why bother risking the operation with slightly Russian speaking Turkish employees?
A sovereign country, any one of several, Iran included, has a right to have their energy needs, both current and future, met with adequate plans. Nuclear power is essential to bring down pollution, among other things. Considering major accidents and ramifications thereof, we have learned to build slightly improved and better built varieties.
Progress is something that comes with the risks involved. If Turkey is willing to take such risk, knowing fully well the aftermath of a natural accident or the one involving an earthquake, why question their plan. So far, no one knows how much time, money and public outcry to stop this plan that could delay it.
Just for an example, India possesses twenty nuclear power plants and plans for major new facilities. Public protestations over two proposed plants, Jaitapur in Maharashtra and Koodankulam, in Tamil Nadu. have made it impossible for the government to go ahead. The same thing may happen in Turkey too.
…and I am Sid Harth@elcidharth.com
Conversation on FP.com
The article is not objective as usual, the U.S. and Russia are competitors. The United States also does not want Russia had good relations with Turkey.
Regarding technology, in Russia a huge experience of building the safest nuclear power plant, after the Chernobyl 1986 disaster was concluded. The nuclear power plant manufactured in Russia, resistant drop a large aircraft.
Turkey should go for either the European Pressurized Reactor or The Canadian Candu Reactor. These are by far the safest and have the lowest risk for a seismically active country such as Turkey. Boiling water reactors and the Westinghouse AP1000 are completely unsuitable for Turkey. The least Turkey should do is go for the Russian VVER-TOI version rather then the VVER-1200.
Russia has the extensive experience in the construction of NPP in earthquake-prone areas.
Seismic resistance of up to 9 points and above, depending on requirements of the customer.
December 7, 1988 at 11 h 41 min in the Northern regions of Armenia earthquake of more than 7 points, took away the lives of more than 26 thousand people. Nuclear power station is fully retained their serviceability (Two power stations are equipped Russian VVER 440 reactor of the first generation)
One of the Armenian Metsamor reactors had to be permanently shutdown due to possible damage sustained during the earthquake due to possible cracks developing in the structure. The EPR and Candu reactors are by far superior in terms of safety, there has been no major incident of a Candu reactor malfunctioning, similarly the EPR is the best generation III+ reactor in it’s class. Russian quality has improved since the fall of the USSR, but for a high risk country in terms of earthquakes, it should take no chances. For Turkey, I would even rule out GE boiling water reactors and the new Westinghouse AP1000 which I think has serious questions in terms of safety. Similarly Japanese, South Korean and Chinese reactors are unproven in terms of an earthquake prone country.
If Turkey does go for the VVER-1200, it will cost $25 billion for 4800MW . For the same price it could acquire 3 EPR- 1600 (4800MW). In technology and safety terms, the EPR is better. But France is unwilling to go down the Build Own Operating model so Turkey is going for the VVER-1200. I f they insist on working with the Russians, they should ask for the VVER-TOI with Finnish or AREVA safety instrumentation.
After comfort those in need were off both of the rector.
Resolution № 24 of January 15, 1989 the Council of Ministers of the Armenian SSR: « … Given the General seismic situation in connection with the earthquake on the territory of the Armenian SSR… to stop the first block February 25, and the second block on March 18, 1989″
Was the decision to hold the materials science on one of them, because it contributed to the piggy Bank of the experience of construction of seismic resistant nuclear power plant of the second and third generation. Russia also produces reactors of generation 3+.
Listen, if Russia was exporting these VVER-1200 reactors to another country that wasn’t earthquake prone, say Hungary or Kazakhstan, I would have no problem.
But Turkey is at a serious risk of a catastrophic earthquake, that could exceed 9.0 on the Richter scale. Just look at all the faultlines that run through Turkey,
The Eurasian plate is crashing into the Anatolian plate. Turkey is very high risk. Turkey should go for the safest options when it comes to reactor technology, because an earthquake involving a reactor in Turkey would be devastating.
The EPR and Candu reactors are the safest reactors currently available, if it was my choice, those would be the only two reactors being considered.
In Canada there is no practical experience of construction of earthquake-resistant nuclear power plants. You can spend the calculations, but the experience, which is in Russia, you don’t get until you experience your project on a real earthquake. Russia has practical experience of NPP construction in seismic regions.
While I am not a high level expert, much of the articles I saw on that globalresearch site regarding nuclear subjects are complete baloney. How can you argue the US NRC is beholden to industry when the current and former chairmen were appointed by antinuclear activists. Gregory Jackzko’s behavior was somewhat embarrassing
Sibir is right the VVER-1200 is an impressive reactor, I have heard so uch about AP 1000, but not as much about Russian one. Between active systems and passive systems VVER 1200 will be likely the safest reactor design wise, it is up to the Turkish government to see that it is built and managed correctly. This may get a bit political with Russia/Turkey relations.
Contrary to SIBIR’s suggestions the NRC is looking closely at the flooding issue, I recently heard a talk by Magwood and was impressed by the man’s professionalism.
Here is a link for a bit of info on the actual reactor http://www.oecd-nea.org/mdep/events/conf_sept_2009/conference-presentations/Session%204%20-1-4%20-%20ROSATOM.pdf
There does not seem to be any proliferation risk since the Russians are handling any reprocessing/enrichment. It is well known how to build a nuclear reactor to high enough earthquake standards, as long as the design is followed there should be no safety problems. The Russians are notorious for corruption and the construction industry in Turkey has a reputation for not strictly following building codes. The Turks must be sure to have a completely independent regulatory agency like in the US. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission is not allowed to even consider economic costs when setting safety standards, if the Turks do the same there should be no issues. The VVER 1200 has been upgraded with modern western passive safety features, it is way different from the 1968 Fukushima design.
Most of all nuclear power plants (63 NPP, 104 power generating unit) is operated in the United States. On the second place goes France (58 units), on the third – Japan (50 units). For comparison: in Russia is operated 10 nuclear power plants (33 power unit).
Centre for Research on Globalization. Canada
Coverup: Risk of Nuclear Melt-Down in U.S. Higher than it was at Fukushima Massive Cover-Up of Risks from Flooding to Numerous U.S. Nuclear Facilities. Revelation of NRC Whistleblowers.
The author of a complete layman in this matter. Fukushima – NPP American type, in the United States, such a lot. Russia is building the most modern and safe NPP in the world. In addition, nuclear power plants do not have anything in common with the spread of nuclear weapons. We are interested in, to take “spent” nuclear fuel from different countries, because we have mastered the nuclear reactors on fast neutrons.
vietnamrushvisa I have coverage on my blog from July 2010 that describes Vietnam’s plans to build up to eight new nuclear reactors. In November 2010 Vietnam signed commercial deals with Russia and Japan to build the first four units
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2012 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
West concerned about fuel move at Iran nuclear power plant
By Fredrik Dahl
VIENNA | Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:02pm EST
(Reuters) – Western officials voiced concern on Tuesday about what they described as an unexpected unloading of fuel at Iran’s first nuclear energy plant and said Tehran, which has dismissed it as a normal step, must clarify the issue.
The U.N. nuclear agency said in a confidential report on Friday that fuel assemblies were transferred last month from the reactor core of the Russian-built Bushehr plant to a spent fuel pond, but it gave no reason for the move.
The 1,000-megawatt Bushehr plant – whose start-up has been delayed for years – is a symbol of what Iran calls its peaceful nuclear ambitions, disputed by the West, and any new hitch would probably be seen as an embarrassment both for Tehran and Moscow.
“This is not a routine matter or something that’s quite ordinary,” a senior Western official who declined to be identified said. “So this is of great concern. We need answers.”
Another Western diplomat in Vienna, where the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is based, said he did not know what had happened at Bushehr but that the fuel development raised possible safety-related questions.
“It sounds a safety bell and then it potentially sounds a safeguards bell if it is used in a weird way,” the diplomat said, referring to the fact that plutonium usable for nuclear bombs could in theory be extracted from spent fuel.
The removal of the fuel came some two months after Russian state nuclear corporation Rosatom said the long-postponed plant on Iran’s Gulf coast was operating at full capacity.
It was plugged into Iran’s national grid in September 2011, a move intended to end protracted delays in its construction.
Iran’s envoy to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, said the fuel transfer was part of a “normal technical procedure” linked to transferring responsibility for the plant to Iranian from Russian engineers.
Iran’s ambassador to Moscow, Reza Sajjadi, said there was no reason for concern: “Before the handover of the station to Iranian specialists, the inspection work needs to be completed … Nothing unforeseen is happening there.”
But a senior diplomat familiar with Bushehr said last week about the fuel transfer: “It was certainly not foreseen, that’s for sure.”
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION RISK?
Iran is the only country with an operating nuclear power plant that is not part of the 75-nation Convention on Nuclear Safety (CNS), which was negotiated after the 1986 nuclear disaster at the Chernobyl nuclear plant.
Early last year, Iran said it was having to remove fuel for tests. A source close to the matter then said it was done due to concern that metal particles from nearly 30-year-old equipment used in the reactor’s construction had contaminated the fuel.
Russian builder NIAEP – part of Rosatom – was in October quoted as saying Bushehr would be formally “handed over for use” to Iran in March 2013, whereas earlier officials had said that would happen by the end of this year.
Iran, a major oil producer, says electricity generation is the main purpose of its nuclear activity but its adversaries say Tehran’s underlying goal is the ability to make atom bombs.
Bushehr is not considered a major proliferation risk by Western powers, whose concern is focused on sites where Iran enriches uranium, which can have civilian and military purposes.
Its construction was started by Germany’s Siemens before the 1979 Islamic Revolution that toppled the U.S.-backed shah, and it was taken over by Russian engineers in the 1990s.
Nuclear expert Greg Thielmann said Bushehr did not pose an “acute” proliferation threat as Iran was required to return any spent fuel to the Russian supplier and it did not have a reprocessing plant needed to separate out the plutonium.
But spent fuel from Iranian reactors poses “a long-term proliferation concern, because they would provide material from which fissile material could be derived”, said Thielmann, of the Washington-based Arms Control Association.
(This story corrected paragraph 10 to say that ambassador is from Iran, not Russia)
(Additional reporting by Steve Gutterman in Moscow; Editing by Kevin Liffey)
Iran unloads nuclear fuel for atomic power plant
A model of the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant
Nuclear power is the use of sustained nuclear fission to generate heat and electricity. Nuclear power plants provide about 6% of the world’s energy and 13–14% of the world’s electricity, with the U.S., France, and Japan together accounting for about 50% of nuclear generated electricity. In 2007, the IAEA reported there were 439 nuclear power reactors in operation in the world, operating in 31 countries. Also, more than 150 naval vessels using nuclear propulsion have been built.
There is an ongoing debate about the use of nuclear energy. Proponents, such as the World Nuclear Association, the IAEA and Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy contend that nuclear power is a sustainable energy source that reduces carbon emissions. Opponents, such as Greenpeace International and NIRS, believe that nuclear power poses many threats to people and the environment.
Nuclear power plant accidents include the Chernobyl disaster (1986), Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster (2011), and the Three Mile Island accident (1979). There have also been some nuclear-powered submarine mishaps. Despite these accidents, the safety record of nuclear power, in terms of lives lost per unit of electricity delivered, is better than every other major source of power in the world. With research into safety improvements continuing and nuclear fusion may be used in the future.
China has 25 nuclear power reactors under construction, with plans to build many more, while in the US the licenses of almost half its reactors have been extended to 60 years, and plans to build another dozen are under serious consideration. However, Japan’s 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster prompted a rethink of nuclear energy policy in many countries. Germany decided to close all its reactors by 2022, and Italy has banned nuclear power. Following Fukushima, the International Energy Agency halved its estimate of additional nuclear generating capacity to be built by 2035.
Historical and projected world energy use by energy source, 1980-2030, Source: International Energy Outlook 2007, EIA.
As of 2005, nuclear power provided 6.3% of the world’s energy and 15% of the world’s electricity, with the U.S., France, and Japan together accounting for 56.5% of nuclear generated electricity. In 2007, the IAEA reported there were 439 nuclear power reactors in operation in the world, operating in 31 countries. As of December 2009, the world had 436 reactors. Since commercial nuclear energy began in the mid 1950s, 2008 was the first year that no new nuclear power plant was connected to the grid, although two were connected in 2009.
Annual generation of nuclear power has been on a slight downward trend since 2007, decreasing 1.8% in 2009 to 2558 TWh with nuclear power meeting 13–14% of the world’s electricity demand. One factor in the nuclear power percentage decrease since 2007 has been the prolonged shutdown of large reactors at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant in Japan following the Niigata-Chuetsu-Oki earthquake.
The United States produces the most nuclear energy, with nuclear power providing 19% of the electricity it consumes, while France produces the highest percentage of its electrical energy from nuclear reactors—80% as of 2006. In the European Union as a whole, nuclear energy provides 30% of the electricity. Nuclear energy policy differs among European Union countries, and some, such as Austria, Estonia, Ireland and Italy, have no active nuclear power stations. In comparison, France has a large number of these plants, with 16 multi-unit stations in current use.
Many military and some civilian (such as some icebreaker) ships use nuclear marine propulsion, a form of nuclear propulsion. A few space vehicles have been launched using full-fledged nuclear reactors: the Soviet RORSAT series and the American SNAP-10A.
International research is continuing into safety improvements such as passively safe plants, the use of nuclear fusion, and additional uses of process heat such as hydrogen production (in support of a hydrogen economy), for desalinating sea water, and for use in district heating systems.
Use in space
Both fission and fusion appear promising for space propulsion applications, generating higher mission velocities with less reaction mass. This is due to the much higher energy density of nuclear reactions: some 7 orders of magnitude (10,000,000 times) more energetic than the chemical reactions which power the current generation of rockets.
Radioactive decay has been used on a relatively small scale (few kW), mostly to power space missions and experiments by using radioisotope thermoelectric generators such as those developed at Idaho National Laboratory.
|This section needs additional citations for verification. (November 2010)|
The pursuit of nuclear energy for electricity generation began soon after the discovery in the early 20th century that radioactive elements, such as radium, released immense amounts of energy, according to the principle of mass–energy equivalence. However, means of harnessing such energy was impractical, because intensely radioactive elements were, by their very nature, short-lived (high energy release is correlated with short half-lives). However, the dream of harnessing “atomic energy” was quite strong, even though it was dismissed by such fathers of nuclear physics like Ernest Rutherford as “moonshine.” This situation, however, changed in the late 1930s, with the discovery of nuclear fission.
In 1932, James Chadwick discovered the neutron, which was immediately recognized as a potential tool for nuclear experimentation because of its lack of an electric charge. Experimentation with bombardment of materials with neutrons led Frédéric and Irène Joliot-Curie to discover induced radioactivity in 1934, which allowed the creation of radium-like elements at much less the price of natural radium. Further work by Enrico Fermi in the 1930s focused on using slow neutrons to increase the effectiveness of induced radioactivity. Experiments bombarding uranium with neutrons led Fermi to believe he had created a new, transuranic element, which he dubbed hesperium.
But in 1938, German chemists Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann, along with Austrian physicist Lise Meitner and Meitner’s nephew, Otto Robert Frisch, conducted experiments with the products of neutron-bombarded uranium, as a means of further investigating Fermi’s claims. They determined that the relatively tiny neutron split the nucleus of the massive uranium atoms into two roughly equal pieces, contradicting Fermi. This was an extremely surprising result: all other forms of nuclear decay involved only small changes to the mass of the nucleus, whereas this process—dubbed “fission” as a reference to biology—involved a complete rupture of the nucleus. Numerous scientists, including Leó Szilárd, who was one of the first, recognized that if fission reactions released additional neutrons, a self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction could result. Once this was experimentally confirmed and announced by Frédéric Joliot-Curie in 1939, scientists in many countries (including the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and the Soviet Union) petitioned their governments for support of nuclear fission research, just on the cusp of World War II.
In the United States, where Fermi and Szilárd had both emigrated, this led to the creation of the first man-made reactor, known as Chicago Pile-1, which achieved criticality on December 2, 1942. This work became part of the Manhattan Project, which made enriched uranium and built large reactors to breed plutonium for use in the first nuclear weapons, which were used on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
After World War II, the prospects of using “atomic energy” for good, rather than simply for war, were greatly advocated as a reason not to keep all nuclear research controlled by military organizations. However, most scientists agreed that civilian nuclear power would take at least a decade to master, and the fact that nuclear reactors also produced weapons-usable plutonium created a situation in which most national governments (such as those in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and the USSR) attempted to keep reactor research under strict government control and classification. In the United States, reactor research was conducted by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, primarily at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Hanford Site, and Argonne National Laboratory.
Work in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and USSR proceeded over the course of the late 1940s and early 1950s. Electricity was generated for the first time by a nuclear reactor on December 20, 1951, at the EBR-I experimental station near Arco, Idaho, which initially produced about 100 kW. Work was also strongly researched in the US on nuclear marine propulsion, with a test reactor being developed by 1953 (eventually, the USS Nautilus, the first nuclear-powered submarine, would launch in 1955). In 1953, US President Dwight Eisenhower gave his “Atoms for Peace” speech at the United Nations, emphasizing the need to develop “peaceful” uses of nuclear power quickly. This was followed by the 1954 Amendments to the Atomic Energy Act which allowed rapid declassification of U.S. reactor technology and encouraged development by the private sector.
On June 27, 1954, the USSR‘s Obninsk Nuclear Power Plant became the world’s first nuclear power plant to generate electricity for a power grid, and produced around 5 megawatts of electric power.
Later in 1954, Lewis Strauss, then chairman of the United States Atomic Energy Commission (U.S. AEC, forerunner of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the United States Department of Energy) spoke of electricity in the future being “too cheap to meter“. Strauss was very likely referring to hydrogen fusion —which was secretly being developed as part of Project Sherwood at the time—but Strauss’s statement was interpreted as a promise of very cheap energy from nuclear fission. The U.S. AEC itself had issued far more conservative testimony regarding nuclear fission to the U.S. Congress only months before, projecting that “costs can be brought down… [to]… about the same as the cost of electricity from conventional sources…”  Significant disappointment would develop later on, when the new nuclear plants did not provide energy “too cheap to meter.”
In 1955 the United Nations‘ “First Geneva Conference”, then the world’s largest gathering of scientists and engineers, met to explore the technology. In 1957 EURATOM was launched alongside the European Economic Community (the latter is now the European Union). The same year also saw the launch of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The world’s first commercial nuclear power station, Calder Hall at Windscale, England, was opened in 1956 with an initial capacity of 50 MW (later 200 MW). The first commercial nuclear generator to become operational in the United States was the Shippingport Reactor (Pennsylvania, December 1957).
One of the first organizations to develop nuclear power was the U.S. Navy, for the purpose of propelling submarines and aircraft carriers. The first nuclear-powered submarine, USS Nautilus (SSN-571), was put to sea in December 1954. Two U.S. nuclear submarines, USS Scorpion and USS Thresher, have been lost at sea. Several serious nuclear and radiation accidents have involved nuclear submarine mishaps. The Soviet submarine K-19 reactor accident in 1961 resulted in 8 deaths and more than 30 other people were over-exposed to radiation. The Soviet submarine K-27 reactor accident in 1968 resulted in 9 fatalities and 83 other injuries.
The U.S. Army also had a nuclear power program, beginning in 1954. The SM-1 Nuclear Power Plant, at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, was the first power reactor in the U.S. to supply electrical energy to a commercial grid (VEPCO), in April 1957, before Shippingport. The SL-1 was a U.S. Army experimental nuclear power reactor at the National Reactor Testing Station in eastern Idaho. It underwent a steam explosion and meltdown in January 1961, which killed its three operators.
Installed nuclear capacity initially rose relatively quickly, rising from less than 1 gigawatt (GW) in 1960 to 100 GW in the late 1970s, and 300 GW in the late 1980s. Since the late 1980s worldwide capacity has risen much more slowly, reaching 366 GW in 2005. Between around 1970 and 1990, more than 50 GW of capacity was under construction (peaking at over 150 GW in the late 70s and early 80s) — in 2005, around 25 GW of new capacity was planned. More than two-thirds of all nuclear plants ordered after January 1970 were eventually cancelled. A total of 63 nuclear units were canceled in the USA between 1975 and 1980.
During the 1970s and 1980s rising economic costs (related to extended construction times largely due to regulatory changes and pressure-group litigation) and falling fossil fuel prices made nuclear power plants then under construction less attractive. In the 1980s (U.S.) and 1990s (Europe), flat load growth and electricity liberalization also made the addition of large new baseload capacity unattractive.
The 1973 oil crisis had a significant effect on countries, such as France and Japan, which had relied more heavily on oil for electric generation (39%[verification needed] and 73% respectively) to invest in nuclear power.
Some local opposition to nuclear power emerged in the early 1960s, and in the late 1960s some members of the scientific community began to express their concerns. These concerns related to nuclear accidents, nuclear proliferation, high cost of nuclear power plants, nuclear terrorism and radioactive waste disposal. In the early 1970s, there were large protests about a proposed nuclear power plant in Wyhl, Germany. The project was cancelled in 1975 and anti-nuclear success at Wyhl inspired opposition to nuclear power in other parts of Europe and North America. By the mid-1970s anti-nuclear activism had moved beyond local protests and politics to gain a wider appeal and influence, and nuclear power became an issue of major public protest. Although it lacked a single co-ordinating organization, and did not have uniform goals, the movement’s efforts gained a great deal of attention. In some countries, the nuclear power conflict “reached an intensity unprecedented in the history of technology controversies”. In France, between 1975 and 1977, some 175,000 people protested against nuclear power in ten demonstrations. In West Germany, between February 1975 and April 1979, some 280,000 people were involved in seven demonstrations at nuclear sites. Several site occupations were also attempted. In the aftermath of the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, some 120,000 people attended a demonstration against nuclear power in Bonn. In May 1979, an estimated 70,000 people, including then governor of California Jerry Brown, attended a march and rally against nuclear power in Washington, D.C. Anti-nuclear power groups emerged in every country that has had a nuclear power programme. Some of these anti-nuclear power organisations are reported to have developed considerable expertise on nuclear power and energy issues.
Health and safety concerns, the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island, and the 1986 Chernobyl disaster played a part in stopping new plant construction in many countries, although the public policy organization Brookings Institution suggests that new nuclear units have not been ordered in the U.S. because of soft demand for electricity, and cost overruns on nuclear plants due to regulatory issues and construction delays.
Unlike the Three Mile Island accident, the much more serious Chernobyl accident did not increase regulations affecting Western reactors since the Chernobyl reactors were of the problematic RBMK design only used in the Soviet Union, for example lacking “robust” containment buildings. Many of these RBMK reactors are still in use today. However, changes were made in both the reactors themselves (use of a safer enrichment of uranium) and in the control system (prevention of disabling safety systems), amongst other things, to reduce the possibility of a duplicate accident.
An international organization to promote safety awareness and professional development on operators in nuclear facilities was created: WANO; World Association of Nuclear Operators.
Opposition in Ireland and Poland prevented nuclear programs there, while Austria (1978), Sweden (1980) and Italy (1987) (influenced by Chernobyl) voted in referendums to oppose or phase out nuclear power. In July 2009, the Italian Parliament passed a law that cancelled the results of an earlier referendum and allowed the immediate start of the Italian nuclear program. After the Fukushima disaster a one year moratorium was placed on nuclear power development, followed by a referendum in which over 94% of voters (turnout 57%) rejected plans for new nuclear power.
Nuclear power plant
Just as many conventional thermal power stations generate electricity by harnessing the thermal energy released from burning fossil fuels, nuclear power plants convert the energy released from the nucleus of an atom via nuclear fission that takes place in a nuclear reactor. The heat is removed from the reactor core by a cooling system that uses the heat to generate steam, which drives a steam turbine connected to a generator producing electricity.
The nuclear fuel cycle begins when uranium is mined, enriched, and manufactured into nuclear fuel, (1) which is delivered to a nuclear power plant. After usage in the power plant, the spent fuel is delivered to a reprocessing plant (2) or to a final repository (3) for geological disposition. In reprocessing 95% of spent fuel can potentially be recycled to be returned to usage in a power plant (4).
A nuclear reactor is only part of the life-cycle for nuclear power. The process starts with mining (see Uranium mining). Uranium mines are underground, open-pit, or in-situ leach mines. In any case, the uranium ore is extracted, usually converted into a stable and compact form such as yellowcake, and then transported to a processing facility. Here, the yellowcake is converted to uranium hexafluoride, which is then enriched using various techniques. At this point, the enriched uranium, containing more than the natural 0.7% U-235, is used to make rods of the proper composition and geometry for the particular reactor that the fuel is destined for. The fuel rods will spend about 3 operational cycles (typically 6 years total now) inside the reactor, generally until about 3% of their uranium has been fissioned, then they will be moved to a spent fuel pool where the short lived isotopes generated by fission can decay away. After about 5 years in a spent fuel pool the spent fuel is radioactively and thermally cool enough to handle, and it can be moved to dry storage casks or reprocessed.
Conventional fuel resources
Uranium is a fairly common element in the Earth’s crust. Uranium is approximately as common as tin or germanium in Earth’s crust, and is about 40 times more common than silver. Uranium is a constituent of most rocks, dirt, and of the oceans. The fact that uranium is so spread out is a problem because mining uranium is only economically feasible where there is a large concentration. Still, the world’s present measured resources of uranium, economically recoverable at a price of 130 USD/kg, are enough to last for “at least a century” by some estimates, or at little at 70 years by others  This represents a higher level of assured resources than is normal for most minerals. On the basis of analogies with other metallic minerals, a doubling of price from present levels could be expected to create about a tenfold increase in measured resources, over time. However, the cost of nuclear power lies for the most part in the construction of the power station. Therefore the fuel’s contribution to the overall cost of the electricity produced is relatively small, so even a large fuel price escalation will have relatively little effect on final price. For instance, typically a doubling of the uranium market price would increase the fuel cost for a light water reactor by 26% and the electricity cost about 7%, whereas doubling the price of natural gas would typically add 70% to the price of electricity from that source. At high enough prices, eventually extraction from sources such as granite and seawater become economically feasible.
Current light water reactors make relatively inefficient use of nuclear fuel, fissioning only the very rare uranium-235 isotope. Nuclear reprocessing can make this waste reusable and more efficient reactor designs allow better use of the available resources.
As opposed to current light water reactors which use uranium-235 (0.7% of all natural uranium), fast breeder reactors use uranium-238 (99.3% of all natural uranium). It has been estimated that there is up to five billion years’ worth of uranium-238 for use in these power plants.
Breeder technology has been used in several reactors, but the high cost of reprocessing fuel safely requires uranium prices of more than 200 USD/kg before becoming justified economically. As of December 2005, the only breeder reactor producing power is BN-600 in Beloyarsk, Russia. The electricity output of BN-600 is 600 MW — Russia has planned to build another unit, BN-800, at Beloyarsk nuclear power plant. Also, Japan’s Monju reactor is planned for restart (having been shut down since 1995), and both China and India intend to build breeder reactors.
Another alternative would be to use uranium-233 bred from thorium as fission fuel in the thorium fuel cycle. Thorium is about 3.5 times more common than uranium in the Earth’s crust, and has different geographic characteristics. This would extend the total practical fissionable resource base by 450%. Unlike the breeding of U-238 into plutonium, fast breeder reactors are not necessary — it can be performed satisfactorily in more conventional plants. India has looked into this technology, as it has abundant thorium reserves but little uranium.
Fusion power advocates commonly propose the use of deuterium, or tritium, both isotopes of hydrogen, as fuel and in many current designs also lithium and boron. Assuming a fusion energy output equal to the current global output and that this does not increase in the future, then the known current lithium reserves would last 3000 years, lithium from sea water would last 60 million years, and a more complicated fusion process using only deuterium from sea water would have fuel for 150 billion years. Although this process has yet to be realized, many experts believe fusion to be a promising future energy source due to the short lived radioactivity of the produced waste, its low carbon emissions, and its prospective power output.
The most important waste stream from nuclear power plants is spent nuclear fuel. It is primarily composed of unconverted uranium as well as significant quantities of transuranic actinides (plutonium and curium, mostly). In addition, about 3% of it is fission products from nuclear reactions. The actinides (uranium, plutonium, and curium) are responsible for the bulk of the long-term radioactivity, whereas the fission products are responsible for the bulk of the short-term radioactivity.
High-level radioactive waste
The world’s nuclear fleet creates about 10,000 metric tons of high-level spent nuclear fuel each year. High-level radioactive waste management concerns management and disposal of highly radioactive materials created during production of nuclear power. The technical issues in accomplishing this are daunting, due to the extremely long periods radioactive wastes remain deadly to living organisms. Of particular concern are two long-lived fission products, Technetium-99 (half-life 220,000 years) and Iodine-129 (half-life 15.7 million years), which dominate spent nuclear fuel radioactivity after a few thousand years. The most troublesome transuranic elements in spent fuel are Neptunium-237 (half-life two million years) and Plutonium-239 (half-life 24,000 years). Consequently, high-level radioactive waste requires sophisticated treatment and management to successfully isolate it from the biosphere. This usually necessitates treatment, followed by a long-term management strategy involving permanent storage, disposal or transformation of the waste into a non-toxic form.
Governments around the world are considering a range of waste management and disposal options, usually involving deep-geologic placement, although there has been limited progress toward implementing long-term waste management solutions. This is partly because the timeframes in question when dealing with radioactive waste range from 10,000 to millions of years, according to studies based on the effect of estimated radiation doses.
Some proposed nuclear reactor designs however such as the American Integral fast reactor and the Molten salt reactor can use the nuclear waste from light water reactors as a fuel, transmutating it to isotopes that would be safe after hundreds, instead of tens of thousands of years. This offers a potentially more attractive alternative to deep geological disposal.
Another possibility is the use of thorium in a reactor especially designed for thorium (rather than mixing in thorium with uranium and plutonium (ie in existing reactors). Used thorium fuel remains only a few hundreds of years radioactive, instead of tens of thousands of years.
Since the fraction of a radioisotope’s atoms decaying per unit of time is inversely proportional to its half-life, the relative radioactivity of a quantity of buried human radioactive waste would diminish over time compared to natural radioisotopes (such as the decay chains of 120 trillion tons of thorium and 40 trillion tons of uranium which are at relatively trace concentrations of parts per million each over the crust’s 3 * 1019 ton mass). For instance, over a timeframe of thousands of years, after the most active short half-life radioisotopes decayed, burying U.S. nuclear waste would increase the radioactivity in the top 2000 feet of rock and soil in the United States (10 million km2) by ≈ 1 part in 10 million over the cumulative amount of natural radioisotopes in such a volume, although the vicinity of the site would have a far higher concentration of artificial radioisotopes underground than such an average.
Low-level radioactive waste
The nuclear industry also produces a large volume of low-level radioactive waste in the form of contaminated items like clothing, hand tools, water purifier resins, and (upon decommissioning) the materials of which the reactor itself is built. In the United States, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has repeatedly attempted to allow low-level materials to be handled as normal waste: landfilled, recycled into consumer items, etcetera.
Comparing radioactive waste to industrial toxic waste
In countries with nuclear power, radioactive wastes comprise less than 1% of total industrial toxic wastes, much of which remains hazardous indefinitely.[dubious – discuss] Overall, nuclear power produces far less waste material by volume than fossil-fuel based power plants. Coal-burning plants are particularly noted for producing large amounts of toxic and mildly radioactive ash due to concentrating naturally occurring metals and mildly radioactive material from the coal. A recent report from Oak Ridge National Laboratory concludes that coal power actually results in more radioactivity being released into the environment than nuclear power operation, and that the population effective dose equivalent from radiation from coal plants is 100 times as much as from ideal operation of nuclear plants. Indeed, coal ash is much less radioactive than nuclear waste, but ash is released directly into the environment, whereas nuclear plants use shielding to protect the environment from the irradiated reactor vessel, fuel rods, and any radioactive waste on site.
Disposal of nuclear waste is often said to be the Achilles’ heel of the industry. Presently, waste is mainly stored at individual reactor sites and there are over 430 locations around the world where radioactive material continues to accumulate. Some experts suggest that centralized underground repositories which are well-managed, guarded, and monitored, would be a vast improvement. There is an “international consensus on the advisability of storing nuclear waste in Deep geological repository“, with much confidence in the safety of the method coming from the analysis of the lack of movement of nuclear waste in the numerous 2 billion year old Natural nuclear fission reactors in Oklo Gabon.
As of 2009 there were no commercial scale purpose built underground repositories in operation. The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant has been taking Nuclear waste since 1999 from production reactors, but as the name suggests is a research and development facility.
Reprocessing can potentially recover up to 95% of the remaining uranium and plutonium in spent nuclear fuel, putting it into new mixed oxide fuel. This produces a reduction in long term radioactivity within the remaining waste, since this is largely short-lived fission products, and reduces its volume by over 90%. Reprocessing of civilian fuel from power reactors is currently done in Britain, France and (formerly) Russia, soon will be done in China and perhaps India, and is being done on an expanding scale in Japan. The full potential of reprocessing has not been achieved because it requires breeder reactors, which are not commercially available. France is generally cited as the most successful reprocessor, but it presently only recycles 28% (by mass) of the yearly fuel use, 7% within France and another 21% in Russia.
Reprocessing is not allowed in the U.S. The Obama administration has disallowed reprocessing of nuclear waste, citing nuclear proliferation concerns. In the U.S., spent nuclear fuel is currently all treated as waste.
Uranium enrichment produces many tons of depleted uranium (DU) which consists of U-238 with most of the easily fissile U-235 isotope removed. U-238 is a tough metal with several commercial uses—for example, aircraft production, radiation shielding, and armor—as it has a higher density than lead. Depleted uranium is also controversially used in munitions; DU penetrators (bullets or APFSDS tips) “self sharpen”, due to uranium’s tendency to fracture along shear bands.
The economics of new nuclear power plants is a controversial subject, since there are diverging views on this topic, and multi-billion dollar investments ride on the choice of an energy source. Nuclear power plants typically have high capital costs for building the plant, but low fuel costs. Therefore, comparison with other power generation methods is strongly dependent on assumptions about construction timescales and capital financing for nuclear plants as well as the future costs of fossil fuels and renewables as well as for energy storage solutions for intermittent power sources. Cost estimates also need to take into account plant decommissioning and nuclear waste storage costs. On the other hand measures to mitigate global warming, such as a carbon tax or carbon emissions trading, may favor the economics of nuclear power.
In recent years there has been a slowdown of electricity demand growth and financing has become more difficult, which has an impact on large projects such as nuclear reactors, with very large upfront costs and long project cycles which carry a large variety of risks. In Eastern Europe, a number of long-established projects are struggling to find finance, notably Belene in Bulgaria and the additional reactors at Cernavoda in Romania, and some potential backers have pulled out. Where cheap gas is available and its future supply relatively secure, this also poses a major problem for nuclear projects.
Analysis of the economics of nuclear power must take into account who bears the risks of future uncertainties. To date all operating nuclear power plants were developed by state-owned or regulated utility monopolies where many of the risks associated with construction costs, operating performance, fuel price, accident liability and other factors were borne by consumers rather than suppliers. In addition, because the potential liability from a nuclear accident is so great, the full cost of liability insurance is generally limited/capped by the government, which the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission concluded constituted a significant subsidy. Many countries have now liberalized the electricity market where these risks, and the risk of cheaper competitors emerging before capital costs are recovered, are borne by plant suppliers and operators rather than consumers, which leads to a significantly different evaluation of the economics of new nuclear power plants.
Following the 2011 Fukushima I nuclear accidents, costs are likely to go up for currently operating and new nuclear power plants, due to increased requirements for on-site spent fuel management and elevated design basis threats.
Accidents and safety, the human and financial costs
Some serious nuclear and radiation accidents have occurred. Nuclear power plant accidents include the Chernobyl disaster (1986), Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster (2011), and the Three Mile Island accident (1979). Nuclear-powered submarine mishaps include the K-19 reactor accident (1961), the K-27 reactor accident (1968), and the K-431 reactor accident (1985). International research is continuing into safety improvements such as passively safe plants, and the possible future use of nuclear fusion.
Nuclear power has caused far fewer accidental deaths per unit of energy generated than other major forms of power generation. Energy production from coal, natural gas, and hydropower have caused far more deaths due to accidents. In comparison nuclear power plant accidents rank first in terms of their economic cost, accounting for 41 percent of all property damage attributed to energy accidents.
Many technologies and materials associated with the creation of a nuclear power program have a dual-use capability, in that they can be used to make nuclear weapons if a country chooses to do so. When this happens a nuclear power program can become a route leading to the atomic bomb or a public annex to a secret bomb program. The crisis over Iran’s nuclear activities is a case in point.
A fundamental goal for American and global security is to minimize the nuclear proliferation risks associated with the expansion of nuclear power. If this development is “poorly managed or efforts to contain risks are unsuccessful, the nuclear future will be dangerous”.
A “number of high-ranking officials, even within the United Nations, have argued that they can do little to stop states using nuclear reactors to produce nuclear weapons”. A 2009 United Nations report said that:
The revival of interest in nuclear power could result in the worldwide dissemination of uranium enrichment and spent fuel reprocessing technologies, which present obvious risks of proliferation as these technologies can produce fissile materials that are directly usable in nuclear weapons.
On the other hand, one factor influencing the support of reactors is due to the appeal that reactors have at reducing Nuclear weapons arsenals through the Megatons to Megawatts Program, a program which has thus far eliminated 425 metric tons of highly enriched uranium, the equivalent of 17,000 nuclear warheads, by converting it into fuel for commercial nuclear reactors, and is the single most successful non-proliferation program to date.
Anti-Nuclear weapon advocates, such as the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists want to see the Megatons to Megawatts Program not only continue but be expanded, The program appeals to anti-Nuclear weapon advocates as it provides a financial incentive for countries with vast quantities of Nuclear weapons, like Russia, to dismantle their arsenal and sell the fissile fuel contained within to operators of Nuclear reactors.
United States and USSR/Russian nuclear weapons stockpiles, 1945-2006.The Megatons to Megawatts Program was the main driving force behind the sharp reduction in the quantity of Nuclear Weapons worldwide since the cold war ended. However without an increase in Nuclear reactors and greater demand for fissile fuel, the cost of dismantling has dissuaded Russia from continuing their disarmament.
The Megatons to Megawatts Program has been hailed as a major success by anti-nuclear weapon advocates as it has largely been the driving force behind the sharp reduction in the quantity of Nuclear Weapons worldwide since the cold war ended. However without an increase in Nuclear reactors and greater demand for fissile fuel, the cost of dismantling and downblending has dissuaded Russia from continuing their disarmament. Currently, according to Harvard professor Matthew Bunn: The Russians are not remotely interested in extending the program beyond 2013. We’ve managed to set it up in a way that costs them more and profits them less than them just making new low-enriched uranium for reactors from scratch. But there are other ways to set it up that would be very profitable for them and would also serve some of their strategic interests in boosting their nuclear exports.
As there are currently thiry one countries that have Civil Nuclear power plants, with only nine of which with Nuclear weapons it confirms that Nuclear weapons manufacture, generally, does not always follow the construction of civilian nuclear reactors. In contrast, almost every Nuclear weapons state began producing weapons first and not commercial Nuclear power plants. Together with the fact that commercial nuclear reactors are the most successful non-proliferation agent to date. The suggested link between reactors and proliferation is, although complex, with the Megatons to Megawatts Program the trend has been towards acting not as a proliferation risk, but on balance as a non-proliferation benefit.
A possible alternative to reactors that rely on Uranium-235 as the fissile material is reactor designs based on the thorium fuel cycle. Because the 233U produced in thorium fuels is inevitably contaminated with 232U, thorium-based used nuclear fuel possesses inherent proliferation resistance.
Furthermore there are many Nuclear weapon designs that do not require any reactor produced materials at all, meaning that if a state is motivated to produce weapons it does not necessarily have to go through the high profile process of constructing Nuclear power reactors or indeed production reactors. For example, the enriched Uranium necessary for the first primitive Nuclear weapon, designated Little Boy, did not require any appreciable reactor products, instead relying entirely on Uranium Enrichment technology.
A 2008 synthesis of 103 studies, published by Benjamin K. Sovacool, estimated that the value of CO2 emissions for nuclear power over the lifecycle of a plant was 66.08 g/kW·h. Comparative results for various renewable power sources were 9–32 g/kW·h. However a more recent 2012 study by Yale University revealed this nuclear estimate to be too high, and the mean value, depending on which Reactor design was analyzed, arrived at a range from 11 to 25 g/kW·h of total life cycle nuclear power CO2 emissions.
According to the United Nations (UNSCEAR), regular nuclear power plant operation including the nuclear fuel cycle causes radioisotope releases into the environment amounting to 0.0002 mSv (milli-Sievert) per year of public exposure as a global average. (Such is small compared to variation in natural background radiation, which averages 2.4 mSv/yr globally but frequently varies between 1 mSv/yr and 13 mSv/yr depending on a person’s location as determined by UNSCEAR). As of a 2008 report, the remaining legacy of the worst nuclear power plant accident (Chernobyl) is 0.002 mSv/yr in global average exposure (a figure which was 0.04 mSv per person averaged over the entire populace of the Northern Hemisphere in the year of the accident in 1986, although far higher among the most affected local populations and recovery workers).
Climate change causing weather extremes such as heat waves, reduced precipitation levels and droughts can have a significant impact on nuclear energy infrastructure. Seawater is corrosive and so nuclear energy supply is likely to be negatively affected by the fresh water shortage. This generic problem may become increasingly significant over time. This can force nuclear reactors to be shut down, as happened in France during the 2003 and 2006 heat waves. Nuclear power supply was severely diminished by low river ﬂow rates and droughts, which meant rivers had reached the maximum temperatures for cooling reactors. During the heat waves, 17 reactors had to limit output or shut down. 77% of French electricity is produced by nuclear power and in 2009 a similar situation created a 8GW shortage and forced the French government to import electricity. Other cases have been reported from Germany, where extreme temperatures have reduced nuclear power production 9 times due to high temperatures between 1979 and 2007. In particular:
- the Unterweser nuclear power plant reduced output by 90% between June and September 2003
- the Isar nuclear power plant cut production by 60% for 14 days due to excess river temperatures and low stream ﬂow in the river Isar in 2006
The price of energy inputs and the environmental costs of every nuclear power plant continue long after the facility has finished generating its last useful electricity. Both nuclear reactors and uranium enrichment facilities must be decommissioned, returning the facility and its parts to a safe enough level to be entrusted for other uses. After a cooling-off period that may last as long as a century, reactors must be dismantled and cut into small pieces to be packed in containers for final disposal. The process is very expensive, time-consuming, dangerous for workers, hazardous to the natural environment, and presents new opportunities for human error, accidents or sabotage.
The total energy required for decommissioning can be as much as 50% more than the energy needed for the original construction. In most cases, the decommissioning process costs between US $300 million to US$5.6 billion. Decommissioning at nuclear sites which have experienced a serious accident are the most expensive and time-consuming. In the U.S. there are 13 reactors that have permanently shut down and are in some phase of decommissioning, and none of them have completed the process.
Debate on nuclear power
The nuclear power debate is about the controversy which has surrounded the deployment and use of nuclear fission reactors to generate electricity from nuclear fuel for civilian purposes. The debate about nuclear power peaked during the 1970s and 1980s, when it “reached an intensity unprecedented in the history of technology controversies”, in some countries.
Proponents of nuclear energy contend that nuclear power is a sustainable energy source that reduces carbon emissions and increases energy security by decreasing dependence on imported energy sources. Proponents claim that nuclear power produces virtually no conventional air pollution, such as greenhouse gases and smog, in contrast to the chief viable alternative of fossil fuel. Nuclear power can produce base-load power unlike many renewables which are intermittent energy sources lacking large-scale and cheap ways of storing energy. M. King Hubbert saw oil as a resource that would run out, and believed uranium had much more promise as an energy source. Proponents claim that the risks of storing waste are small and can be further reduced by using the latest technology in newer reactors, and the operational safety record in the Western world is excellent when compared to the other major kinds of power plants.
Opponents believe that nuclear power poses many threats to people and the environment. These threats include the problems of processing, transport and storage of radioactive nuclear waste, the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation and terrorism, as well as health risks and environmental damage from uranium mining. They also contend that reactors themselves are enormously complex machines where many things can and do go wrong; and there have been serious nuclear accidents. Critics do not believe that the risks of using nuclear fission as a power source can be fully offset through the development of new technology. They also argue that when all the energy-intensive stages of the nuclear fuel chain are considered, from uranium mining to nuclear decommissioning, nuclear power is neither a low-carbon nor an economical electricity source.
Nuclear power organizations
Since about 2001 the term “nuclear renaissance” has been used to refer to a possible nuclear power industry revival, driven by rising fossil fuel prices and new concerns about meeting greenhouse gas emission limits. Being able to rely on an uninterrupted domestic supply of electricity is also a factor. In the words of the French, “We have no coal, we have no oil, we have no gas, we have no choice.” Improvements in nuclear reactor safety, and the public’s waning memory of past nuclear accidents (Three Mile Island in 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986), as well as of the plant construction cost overruns of the 1970s and 80s, are lowering public resistance to new nuclear construction.
At the same time, various barriers to a nuclear renaissance have been identified. These include: unfavourable economics compared to other sources of energy, slowness in addressing climate change, industrial bottlenecks and personnel shortages in nuclear sector, and the unresolved nuclear waste issue. There are also concerns about more accidents, security, and nuclear weapons proliferation.
New reactors under construction in Finland and France, which were meant to lead a nuclear renaissance, have been delayed and are running over-budget. China has 20 new reactors under construction, and there are also a considerable number of new reactors being built in South Korea, India, and Russia. At least 100 older and smaller reactors will “most probably be closed over the next 10-15 years”.
However, in 2011 the nuclear emergencies at Japan’s Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant and other nuclear facilities raised questions among commentators over the future of the renaissance. Platts has reported that “the crisis at Japan’s Fukushima nuclear plants has prompted leading energy-consuming countries to review the safety of their existing reactors and cast doubt on the speed and scale of planned expansions around the world”. Many countries are re-evaluating their nuclear energy programs and in April 2011 a study by UBS predicted that around 30 nuclear plants may be closed world-wide as a result, with those located in seismic zones or close to national boundaries being the most likely to shut. The UBS analysts believe that ‘even pro-nuclear counties such as France will be forced to close at least two reactors to demonstrate political action and restore the public acceptability of nuclear power’, noting that the events at Fukushima ‘cast doubt on the idea that even an advanced economy can master nuclear safety‘. Canadian uranium-mining company Cameco expects the size of world’s fleet of operating reactors in 2020 to increase by about 90 reactors, 10% less than before the Fukushima accident.
Future of the industry
As of 2007, Watts Bar 1 in Tennessee, which came on-line on February 7, 1996, was the last U.S. commercial nuclear reactor to go on-line. This is often quoted as evidence of a successful worldwide campaign for nuclear power phase-out. However, even in the U.S. and throughout Europe, investment in research and in the nuclear fuel cycle has continued, and some nuclear industry experts predict electricity shortages, fossil fuel price increases, global warming and heavy metal emissions from fossil fuel use, new technology such as passively safe plants, and national energy security will renew the demand for nuclear power plants.
According to the World Nuclear Association, globally during the 1980s one new nuclear reactor started up every 17 days on average, and by the year 2015 this rate could increase to one every 5 days.
There is a possible impediment to production of nuclear power plants as only a few companies worldwide have the capacity to forge single-piece reactor pressure vessels, which are necessary in the most common reactor designs. Utilities across the world are submitting orders years in advance of any actual need for these vessels. Other manufacturers are examining various options, including making the component themselves, or finding ways to make a similar item using alternate methods. Other solutions include using designs that do not require single-piece forged pressure vessels such as Canada’s Advanced CANDU Reactors or Sodium-cooled Fast Reactors.
China has 25 reactors under construction, with plans to build more, while in the US the licenses of almost half its reactors have been extended to 60 years, and plans to build another dozen are under serious consideration. China may achieve its long-term plan of having 40,000 megawatts of nuclear power capacity four to five years ahead of schedule. However, according to a government research unit, China must not build “too many nuclear power reactors too quickly”, in order to avoid a shortfall of fuel, equipment and qualified plant workers.
The U.S. NRC and the U.S. Department of Energy have initiated research into Light water reactor sustainability which is hoped will lead to allowing extensions of reactor licenses beyond 60 years, in increments of 20 years, provided that safety can be maintained, as the loss in non-CO2-emitting generation capacity by retiring reactors “may serve to challenge U.S. energy security, potentially resulting in increased greenhouse gas emissions, and contributing to an imbalance between electric supply and demand.”
Following the Fukushima I nuclear accidents, the International Energy Agency halved its estimate of additional nuclear generating capacity to be built by 2035. Platts has reported that “the crisis at Japan’s Fukushima nuclear plants has prompted leading energy-consuming countries to review the safety of their existing reactors and cast doubt on the speed and scale of planned expansions around the world”. In 2011, The Economist reported that nuclear power “looks dangerous, unpopular, expensive and risky”, and that “it is replaceable with relative ease and could be forgone with no huge structural shifts in the way the world works”.
In early April 2011, analysts at Swiss-based investment bank UBS said: “At Fukushima, four reactors have been out of control for weeks, casting doubt on whether even an advanced economy can master nuclear safety . . .. We believe the Fukushima accident was the most serious ever for the credibility of nuclear power”.
In 2011, Deutsche Bank analysts concluded that “the global impact of the Fukushima accident is a fundamental shift in public perception with regard to how a nation prioritizes and values its populations health, safety, security, and natural environment when determining its current and future energy pathways”. As a consequence, “renewable energy will be a clear long-term winner in most energy systems, a conclusion supported by many voter surveys conducted over the past few weeks. At the same time, we consider natural gas to be, at the very least, an important transition fuel, especially in those regions where it is considered secure”.
In September 2011, German engineering giant Siemens announced it will withdraw entirely from the nuclear industry, as a response to the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, and said that it would no longer build nuclear power plants anywhere in the world. The company’s chairman, Peter Löscher, said that “Siemens was ending plans to cooperate with Rosatom, the Russian state-controlled nuclear power company, in the construction of dozens of nuclear plants throughout Russia over the coming two decades”. Also in September 2011, IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano said the Japanese nuclear disaster “caused deep public anxiety throughout the world and damaged confidence in nuclear power”.
In February 2012, the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved the construction of two additional reactors at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, the first reactors to be approved in over 30 years since the Three Mile Island accident, but NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko cast a dissenting vote citing safety concerns stemming from Japan’s 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, and saying “I cannot support issuing this license as if Fukushima never happened”. One week after Southern received the license to begin major construction on the two new reactors, a dozen environmental and anti-nuclear groups are suing to stop the Plant Vogtle expansion project, saying “public safety and environmental problems since Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactor accident have not been taken into account”.
The nuclear reactors to be built at Vogtle are new AP1000 third generation reactors, which are said to have safety improvements over older power reactors. However, John Ma, a senior structural engineer at the NRC, is concerned that some parts of the AP1000 steel skin are so brittle that the “impact energy” from a plane strike or storm driven projectile could shatter the wall. Edwin Lyman, a senior staff scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, is concerned about the strength of the steel containment vessel and the concrete shield building around the AP1000. Arnold Gundersen, a nuclear engineer commissioned by several anti-nuclear groups, released a report which explored a hazard associated with the possible rusting through of the containment structure steel liner.
The Union of Concerned Scientists has referred to the European Pressurized Reactor, currently under construction in China, Finland and France, as the only new reactor design under consideration in the United States that “…appears to have the potential to be significantly safer and more secure against attack than today’s reactors.”
Current reactors in operation around the world are second or third generation systems, with most of the first-generation systems having been retired some time ago. Research into advanced generation IV reactor types was officially started by the Generation IV International Forum (GIF) based on eight technology goals, including to improve nuclear safety, improve proliferation resistance, minimize waste, improve natural resource utilization, the ability to consume existing nuclear waste in the production of electricity, and decrease the cost to build and run such plants. Most of these reactors differ significantly from current operating light water reactors, and are generally not expected to be available for commercial construction before 2030.
Nuclear fusion reactions have the potential to be safer and generate less radioactive waste than fission. These reactions appear potentially viable, though technically quite difficult and have yet to be created on a scale that could be used in a functional power plant. Fusion power has been under intense theoretical and experimental investigation since the 1950s.
- Alsos Digital Library for Nuclear Issues
- Anti-nuclear protests
- German nuclear energy project
- Generation IV reactor
- Integral Fast Reactor
- Molten Salt Reactor
- Linear no-threshold model
- Nuclear power in France
- Nuclear power phase-out
- Nuclear weapons debate
- Uranium mining debate
- World energy resources and consumption
- ^ a b c World Nuclear Association. Another drop in nuclear generation World Nuclear News, 05 May 2010.
- ^ a b (PDF) Key World Energy Statistics 2007. International Energy Agency. 2007. Retrieved 2008-06-21.
- ^ a b “Nuclear Power Plants Information. Number of Reactors Operation Worldwide”. International Atomic Energy Agency. Retrieved 2008-06-21.
- ^ a b “World Nuclear Power Reactors 2007-08 and Uranium Requirements”. World Nuclear Association. 2008-06-09. Archived from the original on March 3, 2008. Retrieved 2008-06-21.
- ^ Union-Tribune Editorial Board (March 27, 2011). “The nuclear controversy”. Union-Tribune.
- ^ a b James J. MacKenzie. Review of The Nuclear Power Controversy by Arthur W. Murphy The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Dec., 1977), pp. 467-468.
- ^ a b In February 2010 the nuclear power debate played out on the pages of the New York Times, see A Reasonable Bet on Nuclear Power and Revisiting Nuclear Power: A Debate and A Comeback for Nuclear Power?
- ^ a b U.S. Energy Legislation May Be ‘Renaissance’ for Nuclear Power.
- ^ a b Share. “Nuclear Waste Pools in North Carolina”. Projectcensored.org. Retrieved 2010-08-24.
- ^ a b NC WARN » Nuclear Power
- ^ a b Sturgis, Sue. “Investigation: Revelations about Three Mile Island disaster raise doubts over nuclear plant safety”. Southernstudies.org. Retrieved 2010-08-24.
- ^ a b c d e The Worst Nuclear Disasters
- ^ a b c Strengthening the Safety of Radiation Sources p. 14.
- ^ a b c d Johnston, Robert (September 23, 2007). “Deadliest radiation accidents and other events causing radiation casualties”. Database of Radiological Incidents and Related Events.
- ^ a b “Dr. MacKay Sustainable Energy without the hot air“. Data from studies by the Paul Scherrer Institute including non EU data. p. 168. Retrieved 15 September 2012.
- ^ a b Nils Starfelt; Carl-Erik Wikdahl, Economic Analysis of Various Options of Electricity Generation – Taking into Account Health and Environmental Effects, retrieved 2012-09-08
- ^ http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Using-a-Fusion-Fission-Hybrid-Reactor-to-Burn-Nuclear-Waste.html ‘Nuclear power is actually the safest form of power generation in existence, including all forms of renewables and hydrocarbons’
- ^ “Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors”. World Nuclear Association.. Retrieved 15 September 2012.
- ^ a b c David Baurac (2002). “Passively safe reactors rely on nature to keep them cool”. Logos (Argonne National Laboratory) 20 (1). Retrieved 2012-07-25.
- ^ a b World Nuclear Association (December 10, 2010). Nuclear Power in China
- ^ “Nuclear Power in the USA”. World Nuclear Association. June 2008. Retrieved 2008-07-25.
- ^ a b Matthew L. Wald (December 7, 2010). Nuclear ‘Renaissance’ Is Short on Largess The New York Times.
- ^ a b Sylvia Westall and Fredrik Dahl (June 24, 2011). “IAEA Head Sees Wide Support for Stricter Nuclear Plant Safety”. Scientific American.
- ^ a b “Gauging the pressure”. The Economist. 28 April 2011.
- ^ a b c Trevor Findlay (2010). The Future of Nuclear Energy to 2030 and its Implications for Safety, Security and Nonproliferation: Overview, The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI), Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, pp. 10-11.
- ^ Mycle Schneider, Steve Thomas, Antony Froggatt, and Doug Koplow (August 2009). The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2009 Commissioned by German Federal Ministry of Environment, Nature Conservation and Reactor Safety, p. 5.
- ^ “Summary status for the US”. Energy Information Administration. 2010-01-21. Retrieved 2010-02-18.
- ^ Eleanor Beardsley (2006). “France Presses Ahead with Nuclear Power”. NPR. Retrieved 2006-11-08.
- ^ “Gross electricity generation, by fuel used in power-stations”. Eurostat. 2006. Retrieved 2007-02-03.
- ^ Nuclear Power Generation, US Industry Report” IBISWorld, August 2008
- ^ “Nuclear Icebreaker Lenin”. Bellona. 2003-06-20. Retrieved 2007-11-01.
- ^ “Otto Hahn, The Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1944″. http://www.nobelprize.org. Retrieved 2007-11-01.
- ^ “Otto Hahn, Fritz Strassmann, and Lise Meitner”. http://www.chemheritage.org. Retrieved 2007-11-01.
- ^ “Otto Robert Frisch”. http://www.nuclearfiles.org. Retrieved 2007-11-01.
- ^ Bain, Alastair S.; et al. (1997). Canada enters the nuclear age: a technical history of Atomic Energy of Canada. Magill-Queen’s University Press. p. ix. ISBN 0-7735-1601-8.
- ^ “Reactors Designed by Argonne National Laboratory: Fast Reactor Technology”. U.S. Department of Energy, Argonne National Laboratory. 2012. Retrieved 2012-07-25.
- ^ “Reactor Makes Electricity.” Popular Mechanics, March 1952, p. 105.
- ^ “STR (Submarine Thermal Reactor) in “Reactors Designed by Argonne National Laboratory: Light Water Reactor Technology Development””. U.S. Department of Energy, Argonne National Laboratory. 2012. Retrieved 2012-07-25.
- ^ a b Kragh, Helge (1999). Quantum Generations: A History of Physics in the Twentieth Century. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press. p. 286. ISBN 0-691-09552-3.
- ^ “From Obninsk Beyond: Nuclear Power Conference Looks to Future”. International Atomic Energy Agency. Retrieved 2006-06-27.
- ^ “Nuclear Power in Russia”. World Nuclear Association. Retrieved 2006-06-27.
- ^ “This Day in Quotes: SEPTEMBER 16 – Too cheap to meter: the great nuclear quote debate”. This day in quotes. 2009. Retrieved 2009-09-16.
- ^ Pfau, Richard (1984) No Sacrifice Too Great: The Life of Lewis L. Strauss University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, p. 187, ISBN 978-0-8139-1038-3
- ^ David Bodansky (2004). Nuclear Energy: Principles, Practices, and Prospects. Springer. p. 32. ISBN 978-0-387-20778-0. Retrieved 2008-01-31.
- ^ “On This Day: October 17″. BBC News. 1956-10-17. Retrieved 2006-11-09.
- ^ a b “50 Years of Nuclear Energy” (PDF). International Atomic Energy Agency. Retrieved 2006-11-09.
- ^ McKeown, William (2003). Idaho Falls: The Untold Story of America’s First Nuclear Accident. Toronto: ECW Press. ISBN 978-1-55022-562-4.
- ^ The Changing Structure of the Electric Power Industry p. 110.
- ^ Bernard L. Cohen. “THE NUCLEAR ENERGY OPTION”. Plenum Press. Retrieved December 2007.
- ^ Evolution of Electricity Generation by Fuel PDF (39.4 KB)
- ^ Sharon Beder, ‘The Japanese Situation‘, English version of conclusion of Sharon Beder, “Power Play: The Fight to Control the World’s Electricity”, Soshisha, Japan, 2006.
- ^ Paula Garb. Review of Critical Masses, Journal of Political Ecology, Vol 6, 1999.
- ^ Rüdig, Wolfgang, ed. (1990). Anti-nuclear Movements: A World Survey of Opposition to Nuclear Energy. Detroit, MI: Longman Current Affairs. ISBN 0-8103-9000-0.[verification needed]
- ^ Brian Martin. Opposing nuclear power: past and present, Social Alternatives, Vol. 26, No. 2, Second Quarter 2007, pp. 43-47.
- ^ Stephen Mills and Roger Williams (1986). Public Acceptance of New Technologies Routledge, pp. 375-376.
- ^ Robert Gottlieb (2005). Forcing the Spring: The Transformation of the American Environmental Movement, Revised Edition, Island Press, USA, p. 237.
- ^ Jim Falk (1982). Global Fission: The Battle Over Nuclear Power, Oxford University Press, pp. 95-96.
- ^ a b Walker, J. Samuel (2004). Three Mile Island: A Nuclear Crisis in Historical Perspective (Berkeley: University of California Press), pp. 10-11.
- ^ a b Herbert P. Kitschelt. Political Opportunity and Political Protest: Anti-Nuclear Movements in Four Democracies British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 16, No. 1, 1986, p. 57.
- ^ a b Herbert P. Kitschelt. Political Opportunity and Political Protest: Anti-Nuclear Movements in Four Democracies British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 16, No. 1, 1986, p. 71.
- ^ Social Protest and Policy Change p. 45.
- ^ Lutz Mez, Mycle Schneider and Steve Thomas (Eds.) (2009). International Perspectives of Energy Policy and the Role of Nuclear Power, Multi-Science Publishing Co. Ltd, p. 279.
- ^ “The Rise and Fall of Nuclear Power”. Public Broadcasting Service. Retrieved 2006-06-28.
- ^ Rüdig, Wolfgang, ed. (1990). Anti-nuclear Movements: A World Survey of Opposition to Nuclear Energy. Detroit, MI: Longman Current Affairs. p. 1. ISBN 0-8103-9000-0.
- ^ “The Political Economy of Nuclear Energy in the United States” (PDF). Social Policy. The Brookings Institution. 2004. Retrieved 2006-11-09.
- ^ “Backgrounder on Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant Accident”. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Retrieved 2006-06-28.
- ^ http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf31.html
- ^ “Italy rejoins the nuclear family”. World Nuclear News. 2009-07-10. Retrieved 2009-07-17.
- ^ “Italy puts one year moratorium on nuclear”. 2011-03-13.
- ^ “Italy nuclear: Berlusconi accepts referendum blow”. BBC News. 2011-06-14.
- ^ http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/uranium.aspx
- ^ “Second Thoughts About Nuclear Power”. A Policy Brief – Challenges Facing Asia. January 2011.
- ^ “Uranium resources sufficient to meet projected nuclear energy requirements long into the future”. Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA). June 3, 2008. Retrieved 2008-06-16.
- ^ NEA, IAEA: Uranium 2007 – Resources, Production and Demand. OECD Publishing, June 10, 2008, ISBN 978-92-64-04766-2.
- ^   James Jopf (2004). “World Uranium Reserves”. American Energy Independence. Retrieved 2006-11-10.  
- ^ “Uranium in a global context”.
- ^ a b “Waste Management in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle”. Information and Issue Briefs. World Nuclear Association. 2006. Retrieved 2006-11-09.
- ^ John McCarthy (2006). “Facts From Cohen and Others”. Progress and its Sustainability. Stanford. Retrieved 2006-11-09. Citing Breeder reactors: A renewable energy source, American Journal of Physics, vol. 51, (1), Jan. 1983.
- ^ “Advanced Nuclear Power Reactors”. Information and Issue Briefs. World Nuclear Association. 2006. Retrieved 2006-11-09.
- ^ “Thorium”. Information and Issue Briefs. World Nuclear Association. 2006. Retrieved 2006-11-09.
- ^ J. Ongena; G. Van Oost. “Energy for Future Centuries: Will fusion be an inexhaustible, safe and clean energy source?” (PDF). Retrieved 2012-07-21.
- ^ M. I. Ojovan, W.E. Lee. An Introduction to Nuclear Waste Immobilisation, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam, 315pp. (2005).
- ^ Benjamin K. Sovacool (2011). Contesting the Future of Nuclear Power: A Critical Global Assessment of Atomic Energy, World Scientific, p. 141.
- ^ “Environmental Surveillance, Education and Research Program”. Idaho National Laboratory. Archived from the original on 2008-11-21. Retrieved 2009-01-05.
- ^ Vandenbosch 2007, p. 21.
- ^ Ojovan, M. I.; Lee, W.E. (2005). An Introduction to Nuclear Waste Immobilisation. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers. p. 315. ISBN 0-08-044462-8.
- ^ Brown, Paul (2004-04-14). “Shoot it at the sun. Send it to Earth’s core. What to do with nuclear waste?”. The Guardian.
- ^ National Research Council (1995). Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. p. 91. ISBN 0-309-05289-0.
- ^ “The Status of Nuclear Waste Disposal”. The American Physical Society. January 2006. Retrieved 2008-06-06.
- ^ “Public Health and Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Yucca Mountain, Nevada; Proposed Rule” (PDF). United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2005-08-22. Retrieved 2008-06-06.
- ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jul/09/nuclear-waste-burning-reactor
- ^ http://www.monbiot.com/2011/12/05/a-waste-of-waste/
- ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZR0UKxNPh8
- ^ NWT magazine, oktober 2012
- ^ Sevior M. (2006). “Considerations for nuclear power in Australia” (PDF). International Journal of Environmental Studies 63 (6): 859–872. doi:10.1080/00207230601047255.
- ^ Thorium Resources In Rare Earth Elements
- ^ American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2007, abstract #V33A-1161. Mass and Composition of the Continental Crust
- ^ Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 23:193-203;1998. Dr. Bernard L. Cohen, University of Pittsburgh. Perspectives on the High Level Waste Disposal Problem
- ^ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste
- ^ Alex Gabbard. “Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger”. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Retrieved 2008-01-31.
- ^ “Coal ash is not more radioactive than nuclear waste”. CE Journal. 2008-12-31.
- ^ a b Montgomery, Scott L. (2010). The Powers That Be, University of Chicago Press, p. 137.
- ^ a b Al Gore (2009). Our Choice, Bloomsbury, pp. 165-166.
- ^ www.efn.org.au/NucWaste-Comby.pdf international Journal of Environmental Studies, The Solutions for Nuclear waste, December 2005
- ^ “Oklo: Natural Nuclear Reactors”. U.S. Department of Energy Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Yucca Mountain Project, DOE/YMP-0010. November 2004. Archived from the original on August 25, 2009. Retrieved September 15, 2009.
- ^ “A Nuclear Power Renaissance?”. Scientific American. April 28, 2008. Retrieved 2008-05-15.
- ^ von Hippel, Frank N. (April 2008). “Nuclear Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It’s Worth”. Scientific American. Retrieved 2008-05-15.
- ^ Is the Nuclear Renaissance Fizzling?
- ^ IEEE Spectrum: Nuclear Wasteland. Retrieved on 2007-04-22
- ^ “Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing: U.S. Policy Development” (PDF). Retrieved 2009-07-25.
- ^ “Adieu to nuclear recycling”. Nature. 9 July 2009 (460, 152).
- ^ Processing of Used Nuclear Fuel for Recycle. WNA
- ^ Hambling, David (July 30, 2003). “‘Safe’ alternative to depleted uranium revealed”. New Scientist. Retrieved 2008-07-16.
- ^ Stevens, J. B.; R. C. Batra. “Adiabatic Shear Banding in Axisymmetric Impact and Penetration Problems”. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Retrieved 2008-07-16.
- ^ a b c Kidd, Steve (January 21, 2011). “New reactors—more or less?”. Nuclear Engineering International.
- ^ Ed Crooks (12 September 2010). “Nuclear: New dawn now seems limited to the east”. Financial Times. Retrieved 12 September 2010.
- ^ United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1983. The Price-Anderson Act: the Third Decade, NUREG-0957
- ^ The Future of Nuclear Power. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 2003. ISBN 0-615-12420-8. Retrieved 2006-11-10
- ^ Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2011). “The Future of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle”. p. xv.
- ^ “Visualizations : Deaths per TWh by energy sources”. 16 March 2011.
- ^ Benjamin K. Sovacool. A preliminary assessment of major energy accidents, 1907–2007, Energy Policy 36 (2008), pp. 1802-1820.
- ^ a b Steven E. Miller & Scott D. Sagan (Fall 2009). “Nuclear power without nuclear proliferation?”. Dædalus.
- ^ a b Benjamin K. Sovacool (2011). Contesting the Future of Nuclear Power: A Critical Global Assessment of Atomic Energy, World Scientific, p. 190.
- ^ a b c d “The Bulletin of atomic scientists support the megatons to megawatts program”. Retrieved 15 September 2012.
- ^ a b c http://www.usec.com/
- ^ https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121125743
- ^ http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf01.html
- ^ http://www.usec.com/news/megatons-megawatts-eliminates-equivalent-10000-nuclear-warheads
- ^ a b Benjamin K. Sovacool. Valuing the greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power: A critical survey. Energy Policy, Vol. 36, 2008, p. 2950.
- ^ “Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Nuclear Electricity Generation”. Yale. 2012.
- ^ Energy Balances and CO2 Implications World Nuclear Association November 2005
- ^ “Life-cycle emissions analyses”. Nei.org. Retrieved 2010-08-24.
- ^ a b c “UNSCEAR 2008 Report to the General Assembly”. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. 2008.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i Dr. Frauke Urban and Dr. Tom Mitchell 2011. Climate change, disasters and electricity generation. London: Overseas Development Institute and Institute of Development Studies
- ^ a b Benjamin K. Sovacool (2011). Contesting the Future of Nuclear Power: A Critical Global Assessment of Atomic Energy, World Scientific, p. 118-119.
- ^ Jim Falk (1982). Global Fission: The Battle Over Nuclear Power, Oxford University Press.
- ^ “Renewable Energy and Electricity”. World Nuclear Association. June 2010. Retrieved 2010-07-04.
- ^ M. King Hubbert (1956-06). “Nuclear Energy and the Fossil Fuels ‘Drilling and Production Practice’” (PDF). API. p. 36. Retrieved 2008-04-18.
- ^ Bernard Cohen. “The Nuclear Energy Option”. Retrieved 2009-12-09.
- ^ Greenpeace International and European Renewable Energy Council (January 2007). Energy Revolution: A Sustainable World Energy Outlook, p. 7.
- ^ Giugni, Marco (2004). Social Protest and Policy Change: Ecology, Antinuclear, and Peace Movements.
- ^ Benjamin K. Sovacool. The costs of failure: A preliminary assessment of major energy accidents, 1907–2007, Energy Policy 36 (2008), pp. 1802-1820.
- ^ Stephanie Cooke (2009). In Mortal Hands: A Cautionary History of the Nuclear Age, Black Inc., p. 280.
- ^ Kurt Kleiner. Nuclear energy: assessing the emissions Nature Reports, Vol. 2, October 2008, pp. 130-131.
- ^ Mark Diesendorf (2007). Greenhouse Solutions with Sustainable Energy, University of New South Wales Press, p. 252.
- ^ Mark Diesendorf. Is nuclear energy a possible solution to global warming?
- ^ “Nuclear renaissance faces realities”. Platts. (subscription required). Retrieved 2007-07-13.
- ^ The Nuclear Renaissance (by the World Nuclear Association)
- ^ Trevor Findlay. The Future of Nuclear Energy to 2030 and its Implications for Safety, Security and Nonproliferation February 4, 2010.
- ^ M.V. Ramana. Nuclear Power: Economic, Safety, Health, and Environmental Issues of Near-Term Technologies, Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 2009, 34, pp. 144-145.
- ^ International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook, 2009, p. 160.
- ^ James Kanter. In Finland, Nuclear Renaissance Runs Into Trouble New York Times, May 28, 2009.
- ^ James Kanter. Is the Nuclear Renaissance Fizzling? Green, 29 May 2009.
- ^ Rob Broomby. Nuclear dawn delayed in Finland BBC News, 8 July 2009.
- ^ Nuclear Power in China
- ^ Michael Dittmar. Taking stock of nuclear renaissance that never was Sydney Morning Herald, August 18, 2010.
- ^ Nuclear Renaissance Threatened as Japan’s Reactor Struggles Bloomberg, published March 2011, accessed 2011-03-14
- ^ Analysis: Nuclear renaissance could fizzle after Japan quake Reuters, published 2011-03-14, accessed 2011-03-14
- ^ Japan nuclear woes cast shadow over U.S. energy policy Reuters, published 2011-03-13, accessed 2011-03-14
- ^ Nuclear winter? Quake casts new shadow on reactors MarketWatch, published 2011-03-14, accessed 2011-03-14
- ^ Will China’s nuclear nerves fuel a boom in green energy? Channel 4, published 2011-03-17, accessed 2011-03-17
- ^ a b “NEWS ANALYSIS: Japan crisis puts global nuclear expansion in doubt”. Platts. 21 March 2011.
- ^ Nucléaire : une trentaine de réacteurs dans le monde risquent d’être fermés Les Échos, published 2011-04-12, accessed 2011-04-15
- ^ Krugel, Lauren (May 6, 2011). “Cameco sees minor drop in uranium demand”. The Canadian Press. Retrieved 9 May 2011.
- ^ “Nuclear Energy’s Role in Responding to the Energy Challenges of the 21st Century” (PDF). Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. Retrieved 2008-06-21.
- ^ Plans For New Reactors Worldwide, World Nuclear Association
- ^ New nuclear build – sufficient supply capability? Steve Kid, Nuclear Engineering International, 3/3/2009
- ^ Bloomberg exclusive: Samurai-Sword Maker’s Reactor Monopoly May Cool Nuclear Revival By Yoshifumi Takemoto and Alan Katz, bloomberg.com, 3/13/08.
- ^ the largest nuclear generating facility in the world
- ^ “Nuclear Power in the USA”. World Nuclear Association. June 2008. Retrieved 2008-07-25.
- ^ China is Building the World’s Largest Nuclear Capacity 21cbh.com, 21. Sep. 2010
- ^ “China Should Control Pace of Reactor Construction, Outlook Says”. Bloomberg News. January 11, 2011.
- ^ “NRC/DOE Life After 60 Workshop Report” (PDF). 2008. Retrieved 2009-04-01.[dead link]
- ^ “Nuclear power: When the steam clears”. The Economist. March 24, 2011.
- ^ Paton J (April 4, 2011). “Fukushima crisis worse for atomic power than Chernobyl, USB says”. Bloomberg.com.
- ^ Deutsche Bank Group (2011). The 2011 inflection point for energymarkets: Health, safety, security and the environment. DB Climate Change Advisors, May 2.
- ^ John Broder (October 10, 2011). “The Year of Peril and Promise in Energy Production”. New York Times.
- ^ “Siemens to quit nuclear industry”. BBC News. 18 September 2011.
- ^ “IAEA sees slow nuclear growth post Japan”. UPI. September 23, 2011.
- ^ a b Hsu, Jeremy (February 9, 2012). “First Next-Gen US Reactor Designed to Avoid Fukushima Repeat”. Live Science (hosted on Yahoo!). Retrieved February 9, 2012.
- ^ Ayesha Rascoe (Feb 9, 2012). “U.S. approves first new nuclear plant in a generation”. Reuters.
- ^ Kristi E. Swartz (February 16, 2012). “Groups sue to stop Vogtle expansion project”. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
- ^ a b Adam Piore (June 2011). “Nuclear energy: Planning for the Black Swan”. Scientific American.
- ^ Matthew L. Wald. Critics Challenge Safety of New Reactor Design New York Times, April 22, 2010.
- ^ “Nuclear Power in a Warming World” (PDF). Union of Concerned Scientists. Retrieved 1 October 2008.
- ^ http://ossfoundation.us/projects/energy/nuclear
- ^ Introduction to Fusion Energy, J. Reece Roth, 1986.[page needed]
- ^ T. Hamacher and A.M. Bradshaw (October 2001). “Fusion as a Future Power Source: Recent Achievements and Prospects” (PDF). World Energy Council. Archived from the original on 2004-05-06.
- Clarfield, Gerald H. and William M. Wiecek (1984). Nuclear America: Military and Civilian Nuclear Power in the United States 1940-1980, Harper & Row.
- Cooke, Stephanie (2009). In Mortal Hands: A Cautionary History of the Nuclear Age, Black Inc.
- Cravens, Gwyneth (2007). Power to Save the World: the Truth about Nuclear Energy. New York: Knopf. ISBN 0-307-26656-7.
- Elliott, David (2007). Nuclear or Not? Does Nuclear Power Have a Place in a Sustainable Energy Future?, Palgrave.
- Falk, Jim (1982). Global Fission: The Battle Over Nuclear Power, Oxford University Press.
- Ferguson, Charles D., (2007). Nuclear Energy: Balancing Benefits and Risks Council on Foreign Relations.
- Herbst, Alan M. and George W. Hopley (2007). Nuclear Energy Now: Why the Time has come for the World’s Most Misunderstood Energy Source, Wiley.
- Schneider, Mycle, Steve Thomas, Antony Froggatt, Doug Koplow (August 2009). The World Nuclear Industry Status Report, German Federal Ministry of Environment, Nature Conservation and Reactor Safety.
- Walker, J. Samuel (1992). Containing the Atom: Nuclear Regulation in a Changing Environment, 1993-1971, Berkeley: University of California Press.
- Walker, J. Samuel (2004). Three Mile Island: A Nuclear Crisis in Historical Perspective, Berkeley: University of California Press.
- Weart, Spencer R. The Rise of Nuclear Fear. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012. ISBN 0-674-05233-1
|Find more about Nuclear power on Wikipedia’s sister projects:|
|Definitions and translations from Wiktionary|
|Images and media from Commons|
|Learning resources from Wikiversity|
|News stories from Wikinews|
|Quotations from Wikiquote|
|Source texts from Wikisource|
|Textbooks from Wikibooks|
- Reactor Power Plant Technology Education[dead link] — Includes the PC-based BWR reactor simulation.
- Alsos Digital Library for Nuclear Issues — Annotated Bibliography on Nuclear Power
- An entry to nuclear power through an educational discussion of reactors
- Argonne National Laboratory
- Briefing Papers from the Australian EnergyScience Coaltion
- British Energy — Understanding Nuclear Energy / Nuclear Power
- Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger?
- Congressional Research Service report on Nuclear Energy Policy PDF (94.0 KB)
- Energy Information Administration provides lots of statistics and information
- How Nuclear Power Works
- IAEA Website The International Atomic Energy Agency
- Nuclear Power: Climate Fix or Folly? (2009)
- Nuclear Power Education
- Nuclear Tourist.com, nuclear power information
- Nuclear Waste Disposal Resources
- The World Nuclear Industry Status Reports website
- Wilson Quarterly — Nuclear Power: Both Sides
- TED Talk – Bill Gates on energy: Innovating to zero!
- LFTR in 5 Minutes – Creative Commons Film Compares PWR to Th-MSR/LFTR Nuclear Power.
Nuclear power in India
Nuclear power is the fourth-largest source of electricity in India after thermal, hydroelectric and renewable sources of electricity. As of 2012, India has 20 nuclear reactors in operation in six nuclear power plants, generating 4,780 MW while seven other reactors are under construction and are expected to generate an additional 5,300 MW.
In October 2010, India drew up “an ambitious plan to reach a nuclear power capacity of 63,000 MW in 2032″, but “populations around proposed Indian NPP sites have launched protests, raising questions about atomic energy as a clean and safe alternative to fossil fuels”. There have been mass protests against the French-backed 9900 MW Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project in Maharashtra and the 2000 MW Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant in Tamil Nadu. The state government of West Bengal state has also refused permission to a proposed 6000 MW facility near the town of Haripur that intended to host six Russian reactors. A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has also been filed against the government’s civil nuclear program at the Supreme Court. Despite these impediments the capacity factor of Indian reactors was at 79% in the year 2011-12 as against 71% in 2010-11. Nine out of Twenty Indian reactors recorded an unprecedented 97% Capacity factor during 2011-12. With the imported Uranium from France, the 220 MW Kakrapar 2 PHWR reactors recorded 99% capacity factor during 2011-12. The Availability factor for the year 2011-12 was at 89%.
India has been making advances in the field of thorium-based fuels, working to design and develop a prototype for an atomic reactor using thorium and low-enriched uranium, a key part of India’s three stage nuclear power programme. The country has also recently re-initiated its involvement in the LENR research activities, in addition to supporting work done in the fusion power area through the ITER initiative.
Nuclear fuel reserves
India’s domestic uranium reserves are small and the country is dependent on uranium imports to fuel its nuclear power industry. Since early 1990s, Russia has been a major supplier of nuclear fuel to India. Due to dwindling domestic uranium reserves, electricity generation from nuclear power in India declined by 12.83% from 2006 to 2008. Following a waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers Group in September 2008 which allowed it to commence international nuclear trade, India has signed bilateral deals on civilian nuclear energy technology cooperation with several other countries, including France, the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada. and South Korea. India has also uranium supply agreements with Russia, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Argentina and Namibia. An Indian private company won a uranium exploration contract in Niger.
Large deposits of natural uranium, which promises to be one of the top 20 of the world’s reserves, have been found in the Tummalapalle belt in the southern part of the Kadapa basin in Andhra Pradesh in March 2011. The Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and Research (AMD) of India, which explores uranium in the country, has so far discovered 44,000 tonnes of natural uranium (U3O8) in just 15 kilometres (9.3 mi) of the 160 kilometres (99 mi) long belt.
Nuclear agreements with other nations
The nuclear agreement with USA led to India issuing a Letter of Intent for purchasing 10,000 MW from the USA. However, liability concerns and a few other issues are preventing further progress on the issue. Experts say that India’s nuclear liability law discourages foreign nuclear companies. This law gives accident victims the right to seek damages from plant suppliers in the event of a mishap. It has “deterred foreign players like General Electric and Westinghouse Electric, a US-based unit of Toshiba, with companies asking for further clarification on compensation liability for private operators”.
Russia has an ongoing agreement of 1988 vintage with India regarding establishing of two VVER 1000 MW reactors (water-cooled water-moderated light water power reactors) at Koodankulam in Tamil Nadu. A 2008 agreement caters for provision of an additional four third generation VVER-1200 reactors of capacity 1170 MW each. Russia has assisted in India’s efforts to design a nuclear plant for its nuclear submarine. In 2009, the Russians stated that Russia would not agree to curbs on export of sensitive technology to India. A new accord signed in Dec 2009 with Russia gives India freedom to proceed with the closed fuel cycle, which includes mining, preparation of the fuel for use in reactors, and reprocessing of spent fuel.
France was the first country to sign a civilian nuclear agreement with India on 30 September 2008 after the complete waiver provided by the NSG. During the December 2010 visit of the French President Nicholas Sarkozy to India, framework agreements were signed for the setting up two third-generation EPR reactors of 1650 MW each at Jaitapur, Maharashtra by the French company Areva. The deal caters for the first set of two of six planned reactors and the supply of nuclear fuel for 25 years. The contract and pricing is yet to be finalised. Construction is unlikely to start before 2014 because of regulatory issues and difficulty in sourcing major components from Japan due to India not being a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
India and Mongolia signed a crucial civil nuclear agreement on 15 June 2009 for supply of Uranium to India, during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh‘s visit to Mongolia making it the fifth nation in the world to seal a civil nuclear pact with India. The MoU on “development of cooperation in the field of peaceful uses of radioactive minerals and nuclear energy” was signed by senior officials in the department of atomic energy of the two countries.
On 2 September 2009, India and Namibia signed five agreements, including one on civil nuclear energy which allows for supply of Uranium from the African country. This was signed during President Hifikepunye Pohamba‘s five-day visit to India in May 2009. Namibia is the fifth largest producer of uranium in the world. The Indo-Namibian agreement in peaceful uses of nuclear energy allows for supply of Uranium and setting up of nuclear reactors.
On 14 October 2009, India and Argentina signed an agreement in New Delhi on civil nuclear cooperation and nine other pacts to establish strategic partnership. According to official sources, the agreement was signed by Vivek Katju, Secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs and Argentine foreign minister Jorge Talana. Taking into consideration their respective capabilities and experience in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, both India and Argentina have agreed to encourage and support scientific, technical and commercial cooperation for mutual benefit in this field.
The Prime Ministers of India and Canada signed a civil nuclear cooperation agreement in Toronto on 28 June 2010 which when all steps are taken, will provide access for Canada’s nuclear industry to India’s expanding nuclear market and also fuel for India’s reactors. Canada is the world’s largest exporter of Uranium and the two countries are the only users of heavy water nuclear technology. On 6 November 2012, India and Canada finalised their 2010 nuclear export agreement, opening the way for Canada to begin uranium exports to India.
On 16 April 2011, India and Kazakhstan signed an inter-governmental agreement for Cooperation in Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, that envisages a legal framework for supply of fuel, construction and operation of atomic power plants, exploration and joint mining of uranium, exchange of scientific and research information, reactor safety mechanisms and use of radiation technologies for healthcare. PM Manmohan Singh visited Astana where a deal was signed. After the talks, the Kazakh President Nazarbaev announced that his country would supply India with 2100 tonnes of uranium and was ready to do more. India and Kazakhstan already have civil nuclear cooperation since January 2009 when Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) and Kazakh nuclear company KazAtomProm signed an MoU during the visit of Nazarbaev to Delhi. Under the contract, KazAtomProm supplies uranium which is used by Indian reactors.
South Korea became the latest country to sign a nuclear agreement with India after it got the waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group (NSG) in 2008. On 25 July 2011 India and South Korea signed a nuclear agreement, which will allow South Korea with a legal foundation to participate in India’s nuclear expansion program, and to bid for constructing nuclear power plants in India.
Nuclear power growth in India
India now envisages to increase the contribution of nuclear power to overall electricity generation capacity from 2.8% to 9% within 25 years. By 2020, India’s installed nuclear power generation capacity will increase to 20,000 MW ( 2.0×1010 Watts, which is 20 GW). As of 2009, India stands 9th in the world in terms of number of operational nuclear power reactors. Indigenous atomic reactors include TAPS-3, and -4, both of which are 540 MW reactors. India’s US$717 million fast breeder reactor project is expected to be operational by 2012-13.
The Indian nuclear power industry is expected to undergo a significant expansion in the coming years thanks in part to the passing of the U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Agreement. This agreement will allow India to carry out trade of nuclear fuel and technologies with other countries and significantly enhance its power generation capacity. When the agreement goes through, India is expected to generate an additional 25,000 MW of nuclear power by 2020, bringing total estimated nuclear power generation to 45,000 MW.
India has already been using imported enriched uranium for light-water reactors that are currently under IAEA safeguards, but it has developed other aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle to support its reactors. Development of select technologies has been strongly affected by limited imports. Use of heavy water reactors has been particularly attractive for the nation because it allows Uranium to be burnt with little to no enrichment capabilities. India has also done a great amount of work in the development of a thorium centered fuel cycle. While Uranium deposits in the nation are limited (see next paragraph) there are much greater reserves of thorium and it could provide hundreds of times the energy with the same mass of fuel. The fact that thorium can theoretically be utilized in heavy water reactors has tied the development of the two. A prototype reactor that would burn Uranium-Plutonium fuel while irradiating a thorium blanket is under construction at the Madras/Kalpakkam Atomic Power Station.
Uranium used for the weapons program has been separated from the power program, using uranium from indigenous reserves. This domestic reserve of 80,000 to 112,000 tons of uranium (approx 1% of global uranium reserves) is large enough to supply all of India’s commercial and military reactors as well as supply all the needs of India’s nuclear weapons arsenal. Currently, India’s nuclear power reactors consume, at most, 478 tonnes of uranium per year. Even if India were quadruple its nuclear power output (and reactor base) to 20 GW by 2020, nuclear power generation would only consume 2000 tonnes of uranium per annum. Based on India’s known commercially viable reserves of 80,000 to 112,000 tons of uranium, this represents a 40–50 years uranium supply for India’s nuclear power reactors (note with reprocessing and breeder reactor technology, this supply could be stretched out many times over). Furthermore, the uranium requirements of India’s Nuclear Arsenal are only a fifteenth (1/15) of that required for power generation (approx. 32 tonnes), meaning that India’s domestic fissile material supply is more than enough to meet all needs for it strategic nuclear arsenal. Therefore, India has sufficient uranium resources to meet its strategic and power requirements for the foreseeable future.
Indian President A.P.J.Abdul Kalam, stated while he was in office, that “energy independence is India’s first and highest priority. India has to go for nuclear power generation in a big way using thorium-based reactors. Thorium, a non fissile material is available in abundance in our country.” India has vast thorium reserves and quite limited uranium reserves.
Nuclear power plants
|Power station||Operator||State||Type||Units||Total capacity (MW)|
|Kaiga||NPCIL||Karnataka||PHWR||220 x 4||880|
|Kakrapar||NPCIL||Gujarat||PHWR||220 x 2||440|
|Kalpakkam||NPCIL||Tamil Nadu||PHWR||220 x 2||440|
|Narora||NPCIL||Uttar Pradesh||PHWR||220 x 2||440|
|Rawatbhata||NPCIL||Rajasthan||PHWR||100 x 1
200 x 1
220 x 4
|Tarapur||NPCIL||Maharashtra||BWR (PHWR)||160 x 2
540 x 2
The projects under construction are:
|Power station||Operator||State||Type||Units||Total capacity (MW)|
|Kudankulam||NPCIL||Tamil Nadu||VVER-1000||1000 x 2||2000|
|Kalpakkam||Bhavini||Tamil Nadu||PFBR||500 x 1||500|
|Kakrapar||NPCIL||Gujarat||PHWR||700 x 2||1400|
|Rawatbhata||NPCIL||Rajasthan||PHWR||700 x 2||1400|
Especially since the March 2011 Japanese Fukushima nuclear disaster, “populations around proposed Indian NPP sites have launched protests that are now finding resonance around the country, raising questions about atomic energy as a clean and safe alternative to fossil fuels”. There have thus been mass protests against the French-backed 9900 MW Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project in Maharashtra and the 2000 MW Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant in Tamil Nadu. The state government of West Bengal state has also refused permission to a proposed 6000 MW facility near the town of Haripur that intended to host six Russian reactors.
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has also been filed against the government’s civil nuclear program at the apex Supreme Court. The PIL specifically asks for the “staying of all proposed nuclear power plants till satisfactory safety measures and cost-benefit analyses are completed by independent agencies”.
The People’s Movement Against Nuclear Energy is an anti-nuclear power group in Tamil Nadu, India. The aim of the group is to close the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant site and to preserve the largely untouched coastal landscape, as well as educate locals about nuclear power.
- ^ “~6429693.xls” (PDF). Retrieved 22 August 2010.
- ^ “India’s 20th nuclear power plant goes critical”. Hindustan Times. 27 November 2010. Retrieved 13 March 2011.
- ^ Verma, Nidhi (18 August 2008). “Westinghouse, Areva eye India nuclear plants-paper”. Reuters. Retrieved 22 August 2010.
- ^ “India eyeing 64,000 MW nuclear power capacity by 2032: NPCIL”. The Economic Times. 11 October 2010.
- ^ a b c d e f Siddharth Srivastava (27 October 2011). “India’s Rising Nuclear Safety Concerns”. Asia Sentinel.
- ^ a b Ranjit Devraj (25 October 2011). “Prospects Dim for India’s Nuclear Power Expansion as Grassroots Uprising Spreads”. Inside Climate News.
- ^ Pham, Lisa (20 October 2009). “Considering an Alternative Fuel for Nuclear Energy”. The New York Times.
- ^ “Cold fusion turns hot, city to host meet”. The Times Of India. 25 January 2011.
- ^ “Russia fulfills promise, supplies uranium to India”. Expressindia.com. Retrieved 22 August 2010.
- ^ “Uranium shortage holding back India’s nuclear power drive – Corporate News”. livemint.com. 30 June 2008. Retrieved 22 August 2010.
- ^ “Ministry of Power”. Powermin.gov.in. Retrieved 22 August 2010.
- ^ “news.outlookindia.com”. Outlookindia.com. Retrieved 22 August 2010.
- ^ “India, France agree on civil nuclear cooperation”. Rediff.com. Retrieved 22 August 2010.
- ^ “Bush signs India-US nuclear deal into law – Home”. livemint.com. 9 October 2008. Retrieved 22 August 2010.
- ^ “UK, India sign civil nuclear accord”. Reuters. 13 February 2010. Retrieved 22 August 2010.
- ^ “Canada, India reach nuclear deal”. Montreal Gazette. 29 November 2009. Retrieved 22 August 2010.
- ^ “India, South Korea ink civil nuclear deal”. The Times Of India. 25 July 2011.
- ^ “India to get 510 tonnes of uranium from Kazakhstan, Russia”. Hindu Business Line.
- ^ “South Asia | Russia agrees India nuclear deal”. BBC News. 11 February 2009. Retrieved 22 August 2010.
- ^ “India, Kazakhstan sign nuclear pact”. Financial Express.
- ^ Sanjay Dutta, TNN, 23 January 2009, 01.35am IST (23 January 2009). “Kazakh nuclear, oil deals hang in balance”. The Times of India. Retrieved 22 August 2010.
- ^ India, Argentina ink agreement on peaceful uses of N-energy, The Hindu
- ^ “India, Namibia sign uranium supply deal”.
- ^ “Indian firm acquires uranium mining rights in Niger | Uranium, Niger, Company, Bajla, Government”. taurianresources.co.in. Retrieved 22 December 2010.
- ^ Subramanian, T. S. (20 March 2011). “Massive uranium deposits found in Andhra Pradesh”. The Hindu (Chennai, India).
- ^ “India’s nuclear plans losing steam; Anti-nuclear protests hinder plans to ramp up power generation”. Power Engineering. 27 February 2012.
- ^ George, Nirmala (21 June 1998). “Moscow Ends Atomic Power Blockade to India”. Indian Express. Retrieved 21 August 2011.
- ^ Sasi, Anil (12 October 2008). “NPCIL to go into details with 4 reactor suppliers”. The Hindu (Business Online). Retrieved 21 August 2011.
- ^ “Russia: Nuclear Exports to India”. NTI. 2010. Retrieved 21 August 2011.
- ^ PTI (7 December 2009). “India, Russia sign nuclear deal”. Times of India. Retrieved 21 August 2011.
- ^ Bagchi, Indrani (20 August 2011). “Keep your word, we will keep ours, India tells NSG (pg 1)”. , Times of India. Retrieved 21 August 2011.
- ^ Samanta, Pranab Dhal (1 October 2008). “India, France ink nuclear deal, first after NSG waiver”. Indian Express. Retrieved 21 August 2011.
- ^ Yep, Eric & Jagota, Mukesh (6 December 2010). “Areva and NPCIL Sign Nuclear Agreement”. The Wall Street Journal – Business (online). Retrieved 21 August 2011.
- ^ Makarand Gadgil (29 November 2011). “Jaitapur nuclear plant work may not start before 2014″. livemint.com (Wall Street Journal). Retrieved 29 November 2011.
- ^ Bureau reporters (15 September 2009). “India signs civil nuclear deal with Mongolia”. Financial Express. Retrieved 13 August 2011.
- ^ “taragana.com” (2 September 2009). “India, Namibia sign uranium supply deal”. Republikein Online. Retrieved 21 August 2011.
- ^ Chatterjee, Amit Kumar (30 October 2009). “Argentina -India’s seventh nuclear destination”. India – Articles (#2996). Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies. Retrieved 21 August 2011.
- ^ Staff reporters (14 October 2009). “India signs N-pact with Argentina”. OneIndia (online). Retrieved 21 August 2011.
- ^ Sinha, Mohnish (6 April 2010). “Indo-Canada Nuclear Accord”. IndiaStand. Retrieved 21 August 2011.
- ^ “India and Canada finalise conditions of nuclear deal”. BBC. 6 November 2012. Retrieved 18 November 2012.
- ^ “India, Kazakhstan ink civil nuclear cooperation deal”. The Times of India. 17 April 2011. Retrieved 21 August 2011.
- ^ “India, Kazakh ink nuke and oil pacts”. Indian EXpress. 16 April 2009. Retrieved 21 August 2011.
- ^ Sriniwas, Laxman. “India & South Korea Sign Civil Nuclear Agreement”. Retrieved 21 August 2011.
- ^ “Slowdown not to affect India’s nuclear plans”. Business Standard. 21 January 2009. Retrieved 21 August 2011.
- ^ “Nuclear power generation to touch 6,000 Mw by next year”. Business Standard. Retrieved 26 August 2010.
- ^ “Plants Under Operation”. NPCIL. Retrieved 21 August 2011.
- ^ “India’s fast breeder reactor nears second milestone”. Chennai, India: Hindu.com. 16 June 2009. Retrieved 26 August 2010.
- ^ [dead link]
- ^ “At G-8, Singh, Bush reaffirm commitment to nuclear deal”. livemint.com. 10 July 2008. Retrieved 22 August 2010.
- ^ a b http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/atomsforwarfinal4.pdf
- ^ “Thorium Reactors Integral To Indian Energy Independence”. The Energy Daily. 8 May 2007.
- ^ Rahman, Maseeh (1 November 2011). “How Homi Bhabha’s vision turned India into a nuclear R&D leader”. Mumbai: Guardian. Retrieved 20 March 2012.
- ^ “A future energy giant? India’s thorium-based nuclear plans”. Physorg.com. 1 October 2010. Retrieved 20 March 2012.
- ^ “Nuclear Power Plants In India”. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL). Retrieved 21 January 2011.
- ^ “India’s 20th nuclear reactor connected to power grid”. The Times of India. 19 January 2011. Retrieved 22 January 2011.
- ^ “Projects Under Construction”. NPCIL. Retrieved 20 July 2012.
- ^ Fiona Harvey (8 March 2012). “Dramatic fall in new nuclear power stations after Fukushima”. The Guardian (London).
- ^ Nidhi Dutt (22 November 2011). “India faces people power against nuclear power”. BBC News.