Nuclear power is a safe, sustainable energy source that reducescarbon emissions. This is because nuclear power generation causes one of the lowest levels of fatalities per unit of energy generated compared to other energy sources. "Economists estimate that each nuclear plant built could save more than 800,000 life years."[6] Coal, petroleum,natural gas and hydroelectricity have each caused more fatalities per unit of energy due toair pollution andaccidents. Nuclear power plants also emit nogreenhouse gases and result in less life-cycle carbon emissions than common sources ofrenewable energy. The radiological hazards associated with nuclear power are the primary motivations of theanti-nuclear movement, which contends that nuclear power poses threats to people and the environment, citing the potential foraccidents like theFukushima nuclear disaster in Japan in 2011, and is too expensive to deploy when compared to alternativesustainable energy sources.
The process of nuclear fission was discovered in 1938 after over four decades of work on the science ofradioactivity and the elaboration of newnuclear physics that described the components ofatoms. Soon after the discovery of the fission process, it was realized that neutrons released by a fissioning nucleus could, under the right conditions, induce fissions in nearby nuclei, thus initiating aself-sustaining chain reaction.[8] Once this was experimentally confirmed in 1939, scientists in many countries petitioned their governments for support for nuclear fission research, just on the cusp ofWorld War II, in order to develop anuclear weapon.[9]
Despite the military nature of the first nuclear devices, there was strong optimism in the 1940s and 1950s that nuclear power could provide cheap and endless energy.[12] Electricity was generated for the first time by a nuclear reactor on December 20, 1951, at theEBR-I experimental station nearArco, Idaho, which initially produced about 100kW.[13][14] In 1953, American PresidentDwight Eisenhower gave his "Atoms for Peace" speech at theUnited Nations, emphasizing the need to develop "peaceful" uses of nuclear power quickly. This was followed by theAtomic Energy Act of 1954 which allowed rapid declassification of U.S. reactor technology and encouraged development by the private sector.[15]
First power generation
The first organization to develop practical nuclear power was theU.S. Navy, with theS1W reactor for the purpose of propellingsubmarines andaircraft carriers. The first nuclear-powered submarine,USS Nautilus, was put to sea in January 1954.[16][17] The S1W reactor was apressurized water reactor. This design was chosen because it was simpler, more compact, and easier to operate compared to alternative designs, thus more suitable to be used in submarines. This decision would result in the PWR being the reactor of choice also for power generation, thus having a lasting impact on the civilian electricity market in the years to come.[18]
The total global installed nuclear capacity initially rose relatively quickly, rising from less than 1gigawatt (GW) in 1960 to 100GW in the late 1970s.[16] During the 1970s and 1980s rising economic costs (related to extended construction times largely due to regulatory changes and pressure-group litigation)[21] and falling fossil fuel prices made nuclear power plants then under construction less attractive. In the 1980s in the U.S. and 1990s in Europe, the flat electric grid growth andelectricity liberalization also made the addition of large newbaseload energy generators economically unattractive.[citation needed]
The1973 oil crisis had a significant effect on countries, such asFrance andJapan, which had relied more heavily on oil for electric generation to invest in nuclear power.[22] France would construct 25 nuclear power plants over the next 15 years,[23][24] and as of 2019, 71% of French electricity was generated by nuclear power, the highest percentage by any nation in the world.[25]
Some local opposition to nuclear power emerged in the United States in the early 1960s.[26] In the late 1960s, some members of the scientific community began to express pointed concerns.[27] Theseanti-nuclear concerns related tonuclear accidents,nuclear proliferation,nuclear terrorism andradioactive waste disposal.[28] In the early 1970s, there were large protests about a proposed nuclear power plant inWyhl, Germany. The project was cancelled in 1975. The anti-nuclear success at Wyhl inspired opposition to nuclear power in other parts of Europe and North America.[29][30]
By the mid-1970santi-nuclear activism gained a wider appeal and influence, and nuclear power began to become an issue of major public protest.[31][32] In some countries, thenuclear power conflict "reached an intensity unprecedented in the history of technology controversies".[33][34] The increased public hostility to nuclear power led to a longer license procurement process, more regulations and increased requirements for safety equipment, which made new construction much more expensive.[35][36] In the United States, over120 Light Water Reactor proposals were ultimately cancelled[37] and the construction of new reactors ground to a halt.[38] The 1979accident at Three Mile Island with no fatalities, played a major part in the reduction in the number of new plant constructions in many countries.[27]
Chernobyl and renaissance
The town ofPripyat abandoned since 1986, with the Chernobyl plant and theChernobyl New Safe Confinement arch in the distanceOlkiluoto 3 under construction in 2009. It was the firstEPR, a modernized PWR design, to start construction.
During the 1980s one new nuclear reactor started up every 17 days on average.[39] By the end of the decade, global installed nuclear capacity reached 300GW. Since the late 1980s, new capacity additions slowed significantly, with the installed nuclear capacity reaching 365GW in 2005.[40]
The 1986Chernobyl disaster in theUSSR, involving anRBMK reactor, altered the development of nuclear power and led to a greater focus on meeting international safety and regulatory standards.[41] It is considered the worst nuclear disaster in history both in total casualties, with 56 direct deaths, and financially, with the cleanup and the cost estimated at 18billionRbls (US$68billion in 2019, adjusted for inflation).[42][43] The international organization to promote safety awareness and the professional development ofoperators in nuclear facilities, theWorld Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO), was created as a direct outcome of the 1986 Chernobyl accident. The Chernobyl disaster played a major part in the reduction in the number of new plant constructions in the following years.[27] Influenced by these events, Italy voted against nuclear power in a 1987 referendum,[44] becoming the first major economy to completely phase out nuclear power in 1990.[45]
Netelectrical generation by source and growth from 1980. In terms of energy generated between 1980 and 2010, the contribution from fission grew the fastest.
The rate of new reactor constructions essentially halted in the late 1980s. Increasedcapacity factor in existing reactors was primarily responsible for the continuing increase in electrical energy produced during this period.
Electricity generation trends in the top producing countries (Our World in Data)
The accident prompted a re-examination ofnuclear safety andnuclear energy policy in many countries.[50] Germany approved plans to close all its reactors by 2022, and many other countries reviewed their nuclear power programs.[51][52] Following the disaster, Japan shut down all of its nuclear power reactors, some of them permanently, and in 2015 began a gradual process to restart the remaining 40 reactors, following safety checks and based on revised criteria for operations and public approval.[53]
In 2022, the Japanese government, under the leadership of Prime MinisterFumio Kishida, declared that 10 more nuclear power plants were to be reopened since the 2011 disaster.[54] Kishida is also pushing for research and construction of new safer nuclear plants to safeguard Japanese consumers from the fluctuating price of the fossil fuel market and reduce Japan's greenhouse gas emissions.[55] Kishida intends to have Japan become a significant exporter of nuclear energy and technology to developing countries around the world.[55]
Current prospects
By 2015, the IAEA's outlook for nuclear energy had become more promising, recognizing the importance of low-carbon generation for mitigatingclimate change.[56] As of 2015[update], the global trend was for new nuclear power stations coming online to be balanced by the number of old plants being retired.[57] In 2016, theU.S. Energy Information Administration projected for its "base case" that world nuclear power generation would increase from 2,344terawatt hours (TWh) in 2012 to 4,500TWh in 2040. Most of the predicted increase was expected to be in Asia.[58] As of 2018, there were over 150 nuclear reactors planned including 50 under construction.[59] In January 2019, China had 45 reactors in operation, 13 under construction, and planned to build 43 more, which would make it the world's largest generator of nuclear electricity.[60] As of 2021, 17 reactors were reported to be under construction. Its share of electricity from nuclear power was 5% in 2019.[61]
In October 2021, the Japanese cabinet approved the new Plan for Electricity Generation to 2030 prepared by the Agency for Natural Resources and Energy (ANRE) and an advisory committee, following public consultation. The nuclear target for 2030 requires the restart of another ten reactors. Prime MinisterFumio Kishida in July 2022 announced that the country should consider building advanced reactors and extending operating licences beyond 60 years.[62]
As of 2022, with world oil and gas prices on the rise, while Germany is restarting its coal plants to deal with loss of Russian gas that it needs to supplement itsEnergiewende,[63] many other countries have announced ambitious plans to reinvigorate ageing nuclear generating capacity with new investments. French PresidentEmmanuel Macron announced his intention to build six new reactors in coming decades, placing nuclear at the heart of France's drive forcarbon neutrality by 2050.[64] Meanwhile, in the United States, theDepartment of Energy, in collaboration with commercial entities,TerraPower andX-energy, is planning on building two different advanced nuclear reactors by 2027, with further plans for nuclear implementation in its long term green energy and energy security goals.[65]
Nuclear power plants arethermal power stations that generate electricity by harnessing thethermal energy released fromnuclear fission. A fission nuclear power plant is generally composed of: anuclear reactor, in which the nuclear reactions generating heat take place; a cooling system, which removes the heat from inside the reactor; asteam turbine, which transforms the heat intomechanical energy; anelectric generator, which transforms the mechanical energy into electrical energy.[67]
When aneutron hits the nucleus of auranium-235 orplutonium atom, it can split the nucleus into two smaller nuclei, which is a nuclear fission reaction. The reaction releases energy and neutrons. The released neutrons can hit other uranium or plutonium nuclei, causing new fission reactions, which release more energy and more neutrons. This is called achain reaction. In most commercial reactors, the reaction rate is contained bycontrol rods that absorb excess neutrons. The controllability of nuclear reactors depends on the fact that a small fraction of neutrons resulting from fission aredelayed. The time delay between the fission and the release of the neutrons slows changes in reaction rates and gives time for moving the control rods to adjust the reaction rate.[67][68]
Fuel cycle
The nuclear fuel cycle begins when uranium is mined, enriched, and manufactured into nuclear fuel (1), which is delivered to anuclear power plant. After use, the spent fuel is delivered to a reprocessing plant (2) or to a final repository (3). Innuclear reprocessing, 95% of spent fuel can potentially be recycled to be returned to use in a power plant (4).
The life cycle of nuclear fuel starts withuranium mining. Theuranium ore is then converted into a compactore concentrate form, known asyellowcake (U3O8), to facilitate transport.[69] Fission reactors generally needuranium-235, afissileisotope of uranium. The concentration of uranium-235 in natural uranium is low (about 0.7%). Some reactors can use this natural uranium as fuel, depending on theirneutron economy. These reactors generally have graphite orheavy water moderators. For light water reactors, the most common type of reactor, this concentration is too low, and it must be increased by a process calleduranium enrichment.[69] In civilian light water reactors, uranium is typically enriched to 3.5–5% uranium-235.[70] The uranium is then generally converted intouranium oxide (UO2), a ceramic, that is then compressivelysintered into fuel pellets, a stack of which formsfuel rods of the proper composition and geometry for the particular reactor.[70]
After some time in the reactor, the fuel will have reduced fissile material and increased fission products, until its use becomes impractical.[70] At this point, the spent fuel will be moved to aspent fuel pool which provides cooling for the thermal heat and shielding for ionizing radiation. After several months or years, the spent fuel is radioactively and thermally cool enough to be moved to dry storage casks or reprocessed.[70]
Proportions of the isotopesuranium-238 (blue) and uranium-235 (red) found in natural uranium and inenriched uranium for different applications. Light water reactors use 3–5% enriched uranium, whileCANDU reactors work with natural uranium.
Uranium is a fairly commonelement in the Earth's crust: it is approximately as common astin orgermanium, and is about 40 times more common thansilver.[71] Uranium is present in trace concentrations in most rocks, dirt, and ocean water, but is generally economically extracted only where it is present in relatively high concentrations. As of 2011 the world's known resources of uranium, economically recoverable at the arbitrary price ceiling of US$130/kg, were enough to last for between 70 and 100 years in current reactors.[72][failed verification]
Light water reactors (which account for almost all operational reactors) make relatively inefficient use of nuclear fuel, mostly using only the very rare uranium-235 isotope.[73] Limited uranium-235 supply may inhibit substantial expansion with the current nuclear technology.[74]Nuclear reprocessing can make this waste reusable, and newer reactors also achieve a more efficient use of the available resources than older ones.[73] More advanced nuclear reactor technologies, such asfast reactors, can use much more of the natural uranium, use current nuclear waste as fuel, as well as creating new fuel out of non-fissile material (seebreeder reactor). With a pure fast reactor fuel cycle with a burn up of all the uranium andactinides (which presently make up the most hazardous substances in nuclear waste), there is an estimated 160,000 years worth of uranium in total conventional resources and phosphate ore at the price of 60–100 US$/kg.[75] These advanced fuel cycles and nuclear reprocessing are currently not widely used because the price of uranium is very low compared to the cost of nuclear plants, so it's more economically viable to mine new uranium rather than reprocess it. Nuclear reprocessing also carries higher risk of nuclear proliferation, as it separates material that can be used to manufacture nuclear weapons.[76][77][78]
Unconventional uranium resources also exist. Uranium is naturally present in seawater at a concentration of about 3micrograms per liter,[79] with 4.4 billion tons of uranium considered present in seawater at any time.[80] In 2014 it was suggested that it would be economically competitive to produce nuclear fuel from seawater if the process was implemented at large scale.[81] Over geological timescales, uranium extracted on an industrial scale from seawater would be replenished by both river erosion of rocks and the natural process of uraniumdissolved from the surface area of the ocean floor, both of which maintain thesolubility equilibria of seawater concentration at a stable level.[80] Some commentators have argued that this strengthens the case fornuclear power to be considered a renewable energy.[82]
The normal operation of nuclear power plants and facilities produceradioactive waste, or nuclear waste. This type of waste is also produced during plant decommissioning. There are two broad categories of nuclear waste: low-level waste and high-level waste.[84] The first has low radioactivity and includes contaminated items such as clothing, which poses limited threat. High-level waste is mainly the spent fuel from nuclear reactors, which is very radioactive and must be cooled and then safely disposed of or reprocessed.[84]
Activity of spent UOx fuel in comparison to the activity of naturaluranium ore over time[85][83]Dry cask storage vessels storing spent nuclear fuel assemblies
High-level waste must be stored isolated from thebiosphere with sufficient shielding so as to limit radiation exposure. After being removed from the reactors, used fuel bundles are stored for six to ten years inspent fuel pools, which provide cooling and shielding against radiation. After that, the fuel is cool enough that it can be safely transferred todry cask storage.[88] The radioactivity decreases exponentially with time, such that it will have decreased by 99.5% after 100 years.[89] The more intensely radioactive short-livedfission products (SLFPs) decay into stable elements in approximately 300 years, and after about 100,000 years, the spent fuel becomes less radioactive than natural uranium ore.[83][90]
Commonly suggested methods to isolate long-lived fission product (LLFP) waste from the biosphere include separation andtransmutation,[83]synroc treatments, or deep geological storage.[91][92][93][94]
Thermal-neutron reactors, which presently constitute the majority of the world fleet, cannot burn up thereactor grade plutonium that is generated during the reactor operation. This limits the life of nuclear fuel to a few years. In some countries, such as the United States, spent fuel is classified in its entirety as a nuclear waste.[95] In other countries, such as France, it is largely reprocessed to produce a partially recycled fuel, known as mixed oxide fuel orMOX. For spent fuel that does not undergo reprocessing, the most concerning isotopes are the medium-livedtransuranic elements, which are led by reactor-grade plutonium (with ahalf-life 24,000 years).[96] Some proposed reactor designs, such as theintegral fast reactor andmolten salt reactors, can use as fuel the plutonium and other actinides in spent fuel from light water reactors, thanks to theirfast fission spectrum. This offers a potentially more attractive alternative to deep geological disposal.[97][98][99]
Thethorium fuel cycle results in similar fission products, though creates a much smaller proportion of transuranic elements fromneutron capture events within a reactor. Spent thorium fuel, although more difficult to handle than spent uranium fuel, may present somewhat lower proliferation risks.[100]
The nuclear industry also produces a large volume oflow-level waste, with low radioactivity, 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. Low-level waste can be stored on-site until radiation levels are low enough to be disposed of as ordinary waste, or it can be sent to a low-level waste disposal site.[101]
In countries with nuclear power, radioactive wastes account for less than 1% of total industrial toxic wastes, much of which remains hazardous for long periods.[73] Overall, nuclear power produces far less waste material by volume than fossil-fuel based power plants.[102] Coal-burning plants, in particular, produce large amounts of toxic and mildly radioactive ash resulting from the concentration ofnaturally occurring radioactive materials in coal.[103] A 2008 report fromOak Ridge National Laboratory concluded that coal power actually results in more radioactivity being released into the environment than nuclear power operation, and that the populationeffective dose equivalent from radiation from coal plants is 100 times that from the operation of nuclear plants.[104] Although coal ash is much less radioactive than spent nuclear fuel by weight, coal ash is produced in much higher quantities per unit of energy generated. It is also released directly into the environment asfly ash, whereas nuclear plants use shielding to protect the environment from radioactive materials.[105]
Nuclear waste volume is small compared to the energy produced. For example, atYankee Rowe Nuclear Power Station, which generated 44 billionkilowatt hours of electricity when in service, its complete spent fuel inventory is contained within sixteen casks.[106] It is estimated that to produce a lifetime supply of energy for a person at a westernstandard of living (approximately 3GWh) would require on the order of the volume of asoda can oflow enriched uranium, resulting in a similar volume of spent fuel generated.[107][108][109]
Nuclear waste flasks generated by the United States during the Cold War are stored underground at theWaste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) inNew Mexico. The facility is seen as a potential demonstration for storing spent fuel from civilian reactors.
Following interim storage in aspent fuel pool, the bundles of used fuel rod assemblies of a typical nuclear power station are often stored on site indry cask storage vessels.[110]
Disposal of nuclear waste is often considered the most politically divisive aspect in the lifecycle of a nuclear power facility.[111] The lack of movement of nuclear waste in the 2 billion year oldnatural nuclear fission reactors inOklo,Gabon is cited as "a source of essential information today."[112][113] Experts suggest that centralized underground repositories which are well-managed, guarded, and monitored, would be a vast improvement.[111] There is an "international consensus on the advisability of storing nuclear waste indeep geological repositories".[114] With the advent of new technologies, other methods includinghorizontal drillhole disposal into geologically inactive areas have been proposed.[115][116]
Most waste packaging, small-scale experimental fuel recycling chemistry andradiopharmaceutical refinement is conducted within remote-handledhot cells.
Mostthermal-neutron reactors run on aonce-through nuclear fuel cycle, mainly due to the low price of fresh uranium. However, many reactors are also fueled with recycled fissionable materials that remain in spent nuclear fuel. The most common fissionable material that is recycled is thereactor-grade plutonium (RGPu) that is extracted from spent fuel. It is mixed with uranium oxide and fabricated into mixed-oxide orMOX fuel. Because thermal LWRs remain the most common reactor worldwide, this type of recycling is the most common. It is considered to increase the sustainability of the nuclear fuel cycle, reduce the attractiveness of spent fuel to theft, and lower the volume of high level nuclear waste.[120] Spent MOX fuel cannot generally be recycled for use in thermal-neutron reactors. This issue does not affectfast-neutron reactors, which are therefore preferred in order to achieve the full energy potential of the original uranium.[121][122]
The main constituent of spent fuel from LWRs is slightlyenriched uranium. This can be recycled intoreprocessed uranium (RepU), which can be used in a fast reactor, used directly as fuel inCANDU reactors, or re-enriched for another cycle through an LWR. Re-enriching of reprocessed uranium is common in France and Russia.[123] Reprocessed uranium is also safer in terms of nuclear proliferation potential.[124][125][126]
Reprocessing has the potential to recover up to 95% of the uranium and plutonium fuel in spent nuclear fuel, as well as reduce long-term radioactivity within the remaining waste. However, reprocessing has been politically controversial because of the potential fornuclear proliferation and varied perceptions of increasing the vulnerability tonuclear terrorism.[121][127] Reprocessing also leads to higher fuel cost compared to the once-through fuel cycle.[121][127] While reprocessing reduces the volume of high-level waste, it does not reduce thefission products that are the primary causes of residual heat generation and radioactivity for the first few centuries outside the reactor. Thus, reprocessed waste still requires an almost identical treatment for the initial first few hundred years.[citation needed]
Reprocessing of civilian fuel from power reactors is currently done in France, the United Kingdom, Russia, Japan, and India. In the United States, spent nuclear fuel is currently not reprocessed.[123] TheLa Hague reprocessing facility in France has operated commercially since 1976 and is responsible for half the world's reprocessing as of 2010.[128] It produces MOX fuel from spent fuel derived from several countries. More than 32,000 tonnes of spent fuel had been reprocessed as of 2015, with the majority from France, 17% from Germany, and 9% from Japan.[129]
Breeding is the process of converting non-fissile material into fissile material that can be used as nuclear fuel. The non-fissile material that can be used for this process is calledfertile material, and constitute the vast majority of current nuclear waste. This breeding process occurs naturally inbreeder reactors. As opposed to light water thermal-neutron reactors, which use uranium-235 (0.7% of all natural uranium), fast-neutron breeder reactors use uranium-238 (99.3% of all natural uranium) or thorium. A number of fuel cycles and breeder reactor combinations are considered to be sustainable or renewable sources of energy.[130][131] In 2006 it was estimated that with seawater extraction, there was likely five billion years' worth of uranium resources for use in breeder reactors.[132]
Breeder technology has been used in several reactors, but as of 2006, the high cost of reprocessing fuel safely requires uranium prices of more than US$200/kg before becoming justified economically.[133] Breeder reactors are however being developed for their potential to burn all of the actinides (the most active and dangerous components) in the present inventory of nuclear waste, while also producing power and creating additional quantities of fuel for more reactors via the breeding process.[134][135] As of 2017, there are two breeders producing commercial power,BN-600 reactor and theBN-800 reactor, both in Russia.[136] ThePhénix breeder reactor in France was powered down in 2009 after 36 years of operation.[136] Both China and India are building breeder reactors. The Indian 500 MWePrototype Fast Breeder Reactor is in the commissioning phase,[137] with plans to build more.[138]
Another alternative to fast-neutron breeders are thermal-neutron breeder reactors that use uranium-233 bred fromthorium as fission fuel in thethorium fuel cycle.[139] Thorium is about 3.5 times more common than uranium in the Earth's crust, and has different geographic characteristics.[139]India's three-stage nuclear power programme features the use of a thorium fuel cycle in the third stage, as it has abundant thorium reserves but little uranium.[139]
Nuclear decommissioning is the process of dismantling anuclear facility to the point that it no longer requires measures for radiation protection,[140] returning the facility and its parts to a safe enough level to be entrusted for other uses.[141] Due to the presence of radioactive materials, nuclear decommissioning presents technical and economic challenges.[142] The costs of decommissioning are generally spread over the lifetime of a facility and saved in a decommissioning fund.[143]
Civilian nuclear power supplied 2,602terawatt hours (TWh) of electricity in 2023, equivalent to about 9% ofglobal electricity generation,[3] and was the second largestlow-carbon power source afterhydroelectricity.[145] Nuclear power's contribution to global energy production was about 4% in 2023. This is a little more than wind power, which provided 3.5% of global energy in 2023.[146] Nuclear power's share of global electricity production has fallen from 16.5% in 1997, in large part because the economics of nuclear power have become more difficult.[147]
As of November 2024,[update] there are415 civilian fission reactors in the world, with a combined electrical capacity of 374gigawatt (GW).[4] There are also 66 nuclear power reactors under construction and 87 reactors planned, with a combined capacity of 72GW and 84GW, respectively.[5] The United States has the largest fleet of nuclear reactors, generating over 800TWh per year with an averagecapacity factor of 92%.[148] Most reactors under construction aregeneration III reactors in Asia.[149]
Regional differences in the use of nuclear power are large. The United States produces the most nuclear energy in the world, with nuclear power providing 19% of the electricity it consumes, while France produces the highest percentage of its electrical energy from nuclear reactors—65% in 2023.[25] In theEuropean Union, nuclear power provides 22% of the electricity as of 2022.[150]Nuclear power is the single largest low-carbon electricity source in the United States,[151] and accounts for about half of the European Union's low-carbon electricity.[150]Nuclear energy policy differs among European Union countries, and some, such as Austria,Estonia, Ireland andItaly, have no active nuclear power stations.[152]
A comparison oflevelized cost of energy (LCOE) over time for nuclear power and other sources. While wind turbines and solar panels can be mass-produced and thus enjoylearning curve effects, nuclear are almost always one-of-a-kind projects due to the limited number of reactors being built. The source of this chart,Our World in Data notes that the costs presented here is the globalaverage, and these costs were driven up by 2 projects in the United States. The organization recognises that themedian cost of the most exported and produced nuclear energy facility in the 2010s the South KoreanAPR1400, remained "constant", including in export.[157]
The economics of new nuclear power plants is a controversial subject. Nuclear power plants typically have high capital costs for building the plant. For this reason, comparison with other power generation methods is strongly dependent on assumptions about construction timescales and capital financing for nuclear plants. Because of this strong dependency, the final cost of electricity from nuclear power is strongly dependent on thecost of capital.[158]
Analysis of the economics of nuclear power must also take into account who bears the risks of future uncertainties. As of 2010, all operating nuclear power plants have been developed by state-owned orregulatedelectric utility monopolies.[159] Many countries have since liberalized theelectricity 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.[160]
Thelevelized cost of electricity (LCOE) from a new nuclear power plant is estimated to be 69USD/MWh, according to an analysis by theInternational Energy Agency and theOECDNuclear Energy Agency. This represents the median cost estimate for an nth-of-a-kind nuclear power plant to be completed in 2025, at adiscount rate of 7%. Nuclear power was found to be the least-cost option amongdispatchable technologies.[161]Variable renewables can generate cheaper electricity: the median cost of onshore wind power was estimated to be 50USD/MWh, and utility-scale solar power 56USD/MWh.[161] However, these sources are not directly comparable to nuclear power as they are notdispatchable.Measures tomitigate global warming, such as acarbon tax orcarbon emissions trading, may favor the economics of nuclear power.[162][163] At the assumed CO2 emission cost of 30USD/ton, power from coal (88USD/MWh) and gas (71USD/MWh) is more expensive than low-carbon technologies. Electricity from long-term operation of nuclear power plants by lifetime extension was found to be the least-cost option, at 32USD/MWh.[161]
The high cost of construction is one of the biggest challenges for nuclear power plants. Nuclear power cost trends show large disparity by nation, design, build rate and the establishment of familiarity in expertise. The only two nations for which data is available that saw cost decreases in the 2000s were India and South Korea.[164]Newsmall modular reactors, such as those developed byNuScale Power, are aimed at reducing the investment costs for new construction by making the reactors smaller and modular, so that they can be built in a factory.[citation needed]
Certain designs had considerable early positive economics, such as theCANDU, which realized a much highercapacity factor and reliability when compared to generation II light water reactors up to the 1990s.[165]Due to the on-line refueling reactor design,PHWRs (of which the CANDU design is a part) continue to hold many world record positions for longest continual electricity generation, often over 800 days.[166] The specific record as of 2019 is held by a PHWR atKaiga Atomic Power Station, generating electricity continuously for 962 days.[167]
Nuclear power plants, though capable of some grid-load following, are typically run as much as possible to keep the cost of the generated electrical energy as low as possible, supplying mostlybase-load electricity.[168]
In some cases, Governments were found to force "consumers to pay upfront for potential cost overruns"[169] or subsidize uneconomic nuclear energy[170] or be required to do so.[171] Nuclear operators are liable to pay for the waste management in the European Union.[172] In the U.S., the Congress reportedly decided 40 years ago that the nation, and not private companies, would be responsible for storing radioactive waste with taxpayers paying for the costs.[173] The World Nuclear Waste Report 2019 found that "even in countries in which the polluter-pays-principle is a legal requirement, it is applied incompletely" and notes the case of the GermanAsse II deep geological disposal facility, where the retrieval of large amounts of waste has to be paid for by taxpayers.[174] Similarly, other forms of energy, including fossil fuels and renewables, have a portion of their costs covered by governments.[175]
The most common use of nuclear power in space is the use ofradioisotope thermoelectric generators, which useradioactive decay to generate power. These power generators are relatively small scale (few kW), and they are mostly used to powerspace missions and experiments for long periods where solar power is not available in sufficient quantity, such as in theVoyager 2 space probe.[176] A few space vehicles have been launched usingnuclear reactors: 34 reactors belong to the SovietRORSAT series and one was the AmericanSNAP-10A.[176]
Death rates per unit of electricity production for different energy sources
Nuclear power plants have three unique characteristics that affect their safety, as compared to other power plants. Firstly, intenselyradioactive materials are present in a nuclear reactor. Their release to the environment could be hazardous. Secondly, thefission products, which make up most of the intensely radioactive substances in the reactor, continue to generate a significant amount ofdecay heat even after the fissionchain reaction has stopped. If the heat cannot be removed from the reactor, the fuel rods may overheat and release radioactive materials. Thirdly, acriticality accident (a rapid increase of the reactor power) is possible in certain reactor designs if the chain reaction cannot be controlled. These three characteristics have to be taken into account when designing nuclear reactors.[178]
All modern reactors are designed so that an uncontrolled increase of the reactor power is prevented by natural feedback mechanisms, a concept known as negativevoid coefficient of reactivity. If the temperature or the amount of steam in the reactor increases, the fission rate inherently decreases. The chain reaction can also be manually stopped by insertingcontrol rods into the reactor core.Emergency core cooling systems (ECCS) can remove the decay heat from the reactor if normal cooling systems fail.[179] If the ECCS fails, multiple physical barriers limit the release of radioactive materials to the environment even in the case of an accident. The last physical barrier is the largecontainment building.[178]
With a death rate of 0.03 perTWh, nuclear power is the second safest energy source per unit of energy generated, after solar power, in terms of mortality when the historical track-record is considered.[180] Energy produced by coal, petroleum, natural gas andhydropower has caused more deaths per unit of energy generated due toair pollution andenergy accidents. This is found when comparing the immediate deaths from other energy sources to both the immediate and the latent, or predicted, indirect cancer deaths from nuclear energy accidents.[181][182] When the direct and indirect fatalities (including fatalities resulting from the mining and air pollution) from nuclear power and fossil fuels are compared,[183] the use of nuclear power has been calculated to have prevented about 1.84 million deaths from air pollution between 1971 and 2009, by reducing the proportion of energy that would otherwise have been generated by fossil fuels.[184][185] Following the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, it has been estimated that if Japan had never adopted nuclear power, accidents and pollution from coal or gas plants would have caused more lost years of life.[186]
Serious impacts of nuclear accidents are often not directly attributable to radiation exposure, but rather social and psychological effects. Evacuation and long-term displacement of affected populations created problems for many people, especially the elderly and hospital patients.[187] Forced evacuation from a nuclear accident may lead to social isolation, anxiety, depression, psychosomatic medical problems, reckless behavior, and suicide. A comprehensive 2005 study on the aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster concluded that the mental health impact is the largest public health problem caused by the accident.[188]Frank N. von Hippel, an American scientist, commented that a disproportionate fear of ionizing radiation (radiophobia) could have long-term psychological effects on the population of contaminated areas following the Fukushima disaster.[189]
Accidents
Following the 2011Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, the world's worstnuclear accident since 1986, 50,000 households were displaced afterradiation leaked into the air, soil and sea.[190] Radiation checks led to bans of some shipments of vegetables and fish.[191]Reactordecay heat as a fraction of full power after the reactor shutdown, using two different correlations. To remove the decay heat, reactors need cooling after the shutdown of the fission reactions. A loss of the ability to remove decay heat caused theFukushima accident.
Some seriousnuclear and radiation accidents have occurred. The severity of nuclear accidents is generally classified using theInternational Nuclear Event Scale (INES) introduced by theInternational Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The scale ranks anomalous events or accidents on a scale from 0 (a deviation from normal operation that poses no safety risk) to 7 (a major accident with widespread effects). There have been three accidents of level 5 or higher in the civilian nuclear power industry, two of which, theChernobyl accident and theFukushima accident, are ranked at level 7.[citation needed]
The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident was caused by the2011 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami. The accident has not caused any radiation-related deaths but resulted in radioactive contamination of surrounding areas. The difficultcleanup operation is expected to cost tens of billions of dollars over 40 or more years.[195][196] TheThree Mile Island accident in 1979 was a smaller scale accident, rated at INES level 5. There were no direct or indirect deaths caused by the accident.[197]
The impact of nuclear accidents is controversial. According toBenjamin K. Sovacool, fissionenergy accidents ranked first among energy sources in terms of their total economic cost, accounting for 41% of all property damage attributed to energy accidents.[198] Another analysis found that coal, oil,liquid petroleum gas and hydroelectric accidents (primarily due to theBanqiao Dam disaster) have resulted in greater economic impacts than nuclear power accidents.[199] The study compares latent cancer deaths attributable to nuclear power with immediate deaths from other energy sources per unit of energy generated, and does not include fossil fuel related cancer and other indirect deaths created by the use of fossil fuel consumption in its "severe accident" (an accident with more than five fatalities) classification. The Chernobyl accident in 1986 caused approximately 50 deaths from direct and indirect effects, and some temporary serious injuries fromacute radiation syndrome.[200] The future predicted mortality from increases in cancer rates is estimated at 4000 in the decades to come.[201][202][203]
Nuclear power works under aninsurance framework that limits or structures accident liabilities in accordance with national and international conventions.[204] It is often argued that this potential shortfall in liability represents an external cost not included in the cost of nuclear electricity. This cost is small, amounting to about 0.1% of thelevelized cost of electricity, according to a study by theCongressional Budget Office in the United States.[205] These beyond-regular insurance costs for worst-case scenarios are not unique to nuclear power.Hydroelectric power plants are similarly not fully insured against a catastrophic event such asdam failures. For example, the failure of theBanqiao Dam caused the death of an estimated 30,000 to 200,000 people, and 11 million people lost their homes. As private insurers base dam insurance premiums on limited scenarios, major disaster insurance in this sector is likewise provided by the state.[206]
Terrorists could targetnuclear power plants in an attempt to releaseradioactive contamination into the community. The United States 9/11 Commission has said that nuclear power plants were potential targets originally considered for theSeptember 11, 2001 attacks. An attack on a reactor'sspent fuel pool could also be serious, as these pools are less protected than the reactor core. The release of radioactivity could lead to thousands of near-term deaths and greater numbers of long-term fatalities.[207]
In the United States, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission carries out "Force on Force" (FOF) exercises at all nuclear power plant sites at least once every three years.[207] In the United States, plants are surrounded by a double row of tall fences which are electronically monitored. The plant grounds are patrolled by a sizeable force of armed guards.[208]
Insider sabotage is also a threat because insiders can observe and work around security measures. Successful insider crimes depended on the perpetrators' observation and knowledge of security vulnerabilities.[209] A fire caused 5–10 million dollars' worth of damage to New York'sIndian Point Energy Center in 1971.[210] The arsonist was a plant maintenance worker.[211]
Nuclear proliferation is the spread ofnuclear weapons, fissionable material, and weapons-related nuclear technology to states that do not already possess nuclear weapons. Many technologies and materials associated with the creation of a nuclear power program have a dual-use capability, in that they can also be used to make nuclear weapons. For this reason, nuclear power presents proliferation risks.[citation needed]
Nuclear power program can become a route leading to a nuclear weapon. An example of this is the concern overIran's nuclear program.[212] The re-purposing of civilian nuclear industries for military purposes would be a breach of theNon-Proliferation Treaty, to which 190 countries adhere. As of April 2012, there arethirty one countries that have civil nuclear power plants,[213] of which nine have nuclear weapons. The vast majority of thesenuclear weapons states have produced weapons before commercial nuclear power stations.[citation needed]
A fundamental goal for global security is to minimize the nuclear proliferation risks associated with the expansion of nuclear power.[212] TheGlobal Nuclear Energy Partnership was an international effort to create a distribution network in which developing countries in need of energy would receivenuclear fuel at a discounted rate, in exchange for that nation agreeing to forgo their own indigenous development of a uranium enrichment program. The France-basedEurodif/European Gaseous Diffusion Uranium Enrichment Consortium is a program that successfully implemented this concept, withSpain and other countries without enrichment facilities buying a share of the fuel produced at the French-controlled enrichment facility, but without a transfer of technology.[214] Iran was an early participant from 1974 and remains a shareholder of Eurodif viaSofidif.[citation needed]
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.[215]
On the other hand, power reactors can also reduce nuclear weapon arsenals when military-grade nuclear materials are reprocessed to be used as fuel in nuclear power plants. TheMegatons to Megawatts Program is considered the single most successfulnon-proliferation program to date.[216] Up to 2005, the program had processed $8 billion of high enriched, weapons-grade uranium intolow enriched uranium suitable as nuclear fuel for commercial fission reactors by diluting it withnatural uranium. This corresponds to the elimination of 10,000 nuclear weapons.[217] For approximately two decades, this material generated nearly 10 percent of all the electricity consumed in the United States, or about half of all U.S. nuclear electricity, with a total of around 7,000TWh of electricity produced.[218] In total it is estimated to have cost $17 billion, a "bargain for US ratepayers", with Russia profiting $12 billion from the deal.[218] Much needed profit for the Russian nuclear oversight industry, which after the collapse of theSoviet economy, had difficulties paying for the maintenance and security of the Russian Federation's highly enriched uranium and warheads.[219] The Megatons to Megawatts Program was hailed as a major success by anti-nuclear weapon advocates as it has largely been the driving force behind the sharp reduction in the number of nuclear weapons worldwide since the cold war ended.[216] However, without an increase in nuclear reactors and greater demand for fissile fuel, the cost of dismantling and down blending has dissuaded Russia from continuing their disarmament. As of 2013, Russia appears to not be interested in extending the program.[220]
Being a low-carbon energy source with relatively little land-use requirements, nuclear energy can have a positive environmental impact. It also requires a constant supply of significant amounts of water and affects the environment through mining and milling.[221][222][223][224] Its largest potential negative impacts on the environment may arise from its transgenerational risks for nuclear weapons proliferation that may increase risks of their use in the future, risks for problems associated with the management of the radioactive waste such as groundwater contamination, risks for accidents and for risks for various forms of attacks on waste storage sites or reprocessing- and power-plants.[225][226][227][228][229][224][230][231] However, these remain mostly only risks as historically there have only been few disasters at nuclear power plants with known relatively substantial environmental impacts.[citation needed]
The average dose from naturalbackground radiation is 2.4millisievert per year (mSv/a) globally. It varies between 1mSv/a and 13mSv/a, depending mostly on the geology of the location. According to the United Nations (UNSCEAR), regular nuclear power plant operations, including the nuclear fuel cycle, increases this amount by 0.0002mSv/a of public exposure as a global average. The average dose from operating nuclear power plants to the local populations around them is less than 0.0001mSv/a.[237] For comparison, the average dose to those living within 50 miles (80 km) of acoal power plant is over three times this dose, at 0.0003mSv/a.[238]
Chernobyl resulted in the most affected surrounding populations and male recovery personnel receiving an average initial 50 to 100mSv over a few hours to weeks, while the remaining global legacy of the worst nuclear power plant accident in average exposure is 0.002mSv/a and is continuously dropping at the decaying rate, from the initial high of 0.04mSv per person averaged over the entire populace of the Northern Hemisphere in the year of the accident in 1986.[237]
The nuclear power debate concerns the controversy which has surrounded the deployment and use of nuclear fission reactors to generate electricity from nuclear fuel for civilian purposes.[32][239][33]
Proponents of nuclear energy regard it as asustainable energy source that reducescarbon emissions and increasesenergy security by decreasing dependence on other energy sources that are often dependent on imports.[240][241][242] For example, proponents note that annually, nuclear-generated electricity reduces 470 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions that would otherwise come from fossil fuels.[243] Additionally, the amount of comparatively low waste that nuclear energy does create is safely disposed of by the large scale nuclear energy production facilities or it is repurposed/recycled for other energy uses.[244]
Proponents also claim that the present quantity of nuclear waste is small and can be reduced through the latest technology of newer reactors and that the operational safety record of fission-electricity in terms of deaths is so far "unparalleled".[21] Kharecha andHansen estimated that "global nuclear power has prevented an average of 1.84 million air pollution-related deaths and 64 gigatonnes of CO2-equivalent (GtCO2-eq) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that would have resulted from fossil fuel burning" and, if continued, it could prevent up to 7 million deaths and 240GtCO2-eq emissions by 2050.[185]
Proponents also bring to attention the opportunity cost of using other forms of electricity. For example, theUnited States Environmental Protection Agency estimates that coal kills 30,000 people a year as a result of its environmental impact,[245] while 60 people died in the Chernobyl disaster.[246] A real world example of impact provided by proponents is the 650,000 ton increase in carbon emissions in the two months following the closure of theVermont Yankee nuclear plant.[247]
Opponents believe that nuclear power poses many threats to people's health and environment[248][249] such as the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation, long-term safe waste management and terrorism in the future.[250][251] They also contend that nuclear power plants are complex systems where many things can and have gone wrong.[252][253]
Critics find that one of the largest drawbacks to building new nuclear fission power plants are the high costs when compared to alternatives of sustainable energy sources.[254][255][223][256] Proponents note that focusing on thelevelized cost of energy (LCOE), however, ignores the value premium associated with 24/7 dispatchable electricity and the cost of storage and backup systems necessary to integrate variable energy sources into a reliable electrical grid.[257] "Nuclear thus remains the dispatchable low-carbon technology with the lowest expected costs in 2025. Only large hydro reservoirs can provide a similar contribution at comparable costs but remain highly dependent on the natural endowments of individual countries."[258]
Overall, many opponents find that nuclear energy cannot meaningfully contribute to climate change mitigation. In general, they find it to be too dangerous, too expensive, to take too long for deployment, as much as to be an obstacle to achieving a transition towards sustainability and carbon-neutrality.[259][260][261][262] These opponents find nuclear to be effectively a distraction in the competition for resources (i.e. human, financial, time, infrastructure and expertise) for the deployment and development of alternative, sustainable,energy system technologies[263][264][169][259][265]
Nevertheless, there is ongoing research and debate over costs of new nuclear, especially in regions where seasonal energy storage is difficult to provide and which aim tophase out fossil fuels in favor oflow carbon power faster than the global average.[266] Some find that financial transition costs for a 100% renewables-based European energy system that has completely phased out nuclear energy could be more costly by 2050 based on current technologies (i.e. not considering potential advances in e.g.green hydrogen, transmission and flexibility capacities, ways to reduce energy needs, geothermal energy and fusion energy) when the grid only extends across Europe.[267] Arguments of economics and safety are used by both sides of the debate.
Slowingglobal warming requires a transition to alow-carbon economy, mainly by burning far lessfossil fuel. This has generated considerable interest and dispute in determining the best path forward to rapidly replace fossil-based fuels in the globalenergy mix,[268][269] with intense academic debate.[270][271] Sometimes the IEA says that countries without nuclear should develop it as well as their renewable power.[272]
World total primary energy supply of 162,494TWh (or 13,792Mtoe) by fuels in 2017 (IEA, 2019)[273]: 6, 8
Nuclear power is comparable to, and in some cases lower, than many renewable energy sources in terms of lives lost per unit of electricity delivered.[183][181][274]
Nuclear reactors produce a much smaller volume of waste compared to renewable energy sources, although nuclear waste is much more toxic, expensive to manage and longer-lived compared to waste from renewable technologies.[275][227] Nuclear waste can be dangerous if leaked to the environment, and need to be stored safely for thousands or even hundreds of thousand of years.[276][277][278]
Nuclear plants are also far more complex to decommission compared to renewable energy plants. A nuclear plant needs to be disassembled and removed and much of the disassembled nuclear plant needs to be stored as low-level nuclear waste for a few decades.[279]
Analysis in 2015 by professorBarry W. Brook and colleagues found that nuclear energy could displace or remove fossil fuels from the electric grid completely within 10 years. This finding was based on the historically modest and proven rate at which nuclear energy was added in France and Sweden during their building programs in the 1980s.[280][281] In a similar analysis, Brook had earlier determined that 50% of allglobal energy, including transportationsynthetic fuels etc., could be generated within approximately 30 years if the global nuclear fission build rate was identical to historical proven installation rates calculated inGW per year per unit of globalGDP (GW/year/$).[282] This is in contrast to the conceptual studies for100% renewable energy systems, which would require an order of magnitude more costly global investment per year, which has no historical precedent.[283] These renewable scenarios would also need far greater land devoted to onshore wind and onshore solar projects.[282][283] Brook notes that the "principal limitations on nuclear fission are not technical, economic or fuel-related, but are instead linked to complex issues of societal acceptance, fiscal and political inertia, and inadequate critical evaluation of the real-world constraints facing [the other] low-carbon alternatives."[282]
Land use
The median land area used by US nuclear power stations per 1GW installed capacity is 1.3square miles (3.4 km2).[284][285] To generate the same amount of electricity annually (taking into accountcapacity factors) fromsolar PV would require about 60 square miles (160 km2), and from a wind farm about 310 square miles (800 km2).[284][285] Not included in this, is land required for the associated transmission lines, water supply, rail lines, mining and processing of nuclear fuel, and for waste disposal.[286]
Current fission reactors in operation around the world aresecond orthird generation systems, with most of the first-generation systems having been already retired. Research into advancedgeneration IV reactor types was officially started by the Generation IV International Forum (GIF) based on eight technology goals, including to improve economics, safety, proliferation resistance, natural resource use and the ability to consume existing nuclear waste in the production of electricity. Most of these reactors differ significantly from current operating light water reactors, and are expected to be available for commercial construction after 2030.[287]
Hybrid nuclear power is a proposed means of generating power by the use of a combination of nuclear fusion and fission processes. The concept dates to the 1950s and was briefly advocated byHans Bethe during the 1970s, but largely remained unexplored until a revival of interest in 2009, due to delays in the realization of pure fusion. When a sustained nuclear fusion power plant is built, it has the potential to be capable of extracting all the fission energy that remains in spent fission fuel, reducing the volume of nuclear waste by orders of magnitude, and more importantly, eliminating all actinides present in the spent fuel, substances which cause security concerns.[288]
Fusion
Schematic of theITERtokamak under construction in France
Nuclear fusion reactions have the potential to be safer and generate less radioactive waste than fission.[289][290] These reactions appear potentially viable, though technically quite difficult and have yet to be created on a scale that could be used in a functional power plant. Fusion power has been under theoretical and experimental investigation since the 1950s.Nuclear fusion research is underway but fusion energy is not likely to be commercially widespread before 2050.[291][292][293]
Several experimental nuclear fusion reactors and facilities exist. The largest and most ambitious international nuclear fusion project currently in progress isITER, a largetokamak under construction in France. ITER is planned to pave the way for commercial fusion power by demonstrating self-sustained nuclear fusion reactions with positive energy gain. Construction of the ITER facility began in 2007, but the project has run into many delays and budget overruns. The facility is now not expected to begin operations until the year 2034.[294] A follow on commercial nuclear fusion power station,DEMO, has been proposed.[295][296] There are also suggestions for a power plant based upon a different fusion approach, that of aninertial fusion power plant.[citation needed]
Fusion-powered electricity generation was initially believed to be readily achievable, as fission-electric power had been. However, the extreme requirements for continuous reactions andplasma containment led to projections being extended by several decades. In 2020, more than 80 years afterthe first attempts, commercialization of fusion power production was thought to be unlikely before 2050.[295][297][298][299][300]
^Wendt, Gerald; Geddes, Donald Porter (1945).The Atomic Age Opens. New York: Pocket Books. Archived fromthe original on 2016-03-28. Retrieved2017-11-03.
^Hill, C. N. (2013).An atomic empire: a technical history of the rise and fall of the British atomic energy programme. London, England: Imperial College Press.ISBN978-1-908977-43-4.
^Johnson, Thomas (author/director) (2006).The battle of Chernobyl. Play Film / Discovery Channel.Archived from the original on 2021-03-07. Retrieved2021-03-23. (see 1996 interview with Mikhail Gorbachev.)
^Martin, Brian (1 January 2015)."Nuclear power and civil liberties".Faculty of Law, Humanities and the Arts – Papers (Archive):1–6.Archived from the original on 25 November 2021. Retrieved26 November 2021.
^Kemp, R. Scott (29 June 2016)."Environmental Detection of Clandestine Nuclear Weapon Programs".Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences.44 (1):17–35.Bibcode:2016AREPS..44...17K.doi:10.1146/annurev-earth-060115-012526.hdl:1721.1/105171.ISSN0084-6597.Archived from the original on 25 November 2021. Retrieved26 November 2021.Although commercial reprocessing involves large, expensive facilities, some of which are identifiable in structure, a small, makeshift operation using standard industrial supplies is feasible (Ferguson 1977, US GAO 1978). Such a plant could be constructed to have no visual signatures that would reveal its location by overhead imaging, could be built in several months, and once operational could produce weapon quantities of fissile material in several days
^Ojovan, Michael I. (2014).An introduction to nuclear waste immobilisation, second edition (2nd ed.). Kidlington, Oxford, U.K.: Elsevier.ISBN978-0-08-099392-8.
^"High-level radioactive waste".nuclearsafety.gc.ca. Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. February 3, 2014. Archived fromthe original on April 14, 2022. RetrievedApril 19, 2022.
^Ojovan, M. I.; Lee, W. E. (2005).An Introduction to Nuclear Waste Immobilisation. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers. p. 315.ISBN978-0-08-044462-8.
^"Role of Thorium to Supplement Fuel Cycles of Future Nuclear Energy Systems"(PDF). IAEA. 2012.Archived(PDF) from the original on 6 May 2021. Retrieved7 April 2021.Once irradiated in a reactor, the fuel of a thorium–uranium cycle contains an admixture of 232U (half-life 68.9 years) whose radioactive decay chain includes emitters (particularly 208Tl) of high energy gamma radiation (2.6MeV). This makes spent thorium fuel treatment more difficult, requires remote handling/control during reprocessing and during further fuel fabrication, but on the other hand, may be considered as an additional non-proliferation barrier.
^"Oklo: Natural Nuclear Reactors". U.S. Department of Energy Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Yucca Mountain Project, DOE/YMP-0010. November 2004. Archived fromthe original on 2009-08-25. Retrieved2009-09-15.
^Brundtland, Gro Harlem (20 March 1987)."Chapter 7: Energy: Choices for Environment and Development".Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. Oslo.Archived from the original on 21 January 2013. Retrieved27 March 2013.Today's primary sources of energy are mainly non-renewable: natural gas, oil, coal, peat, and conventional nuclear power. There are also renewable sources, including wood, plants, dung, falling water, geothermal sources, solar, tidal, wind, and wave energy, as well as human and animal muscle-power. Nuclear reactors that produce their own fuel ('breeders') and eventually fusion reactors are also in this category
^"Backgrounder on Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants". United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Archived from the original on 3 May 2021. Retrieved27 August 2021.Before a nuclear power plant begins operations, the licensee must establish or obtain a financial mechanism – such as a trust fund or a guarantee from its parent company – to ensure there will be sufficient money to pay for the ultimate decommissioning of the facility
^Ragheb, Magdi."Naval Nuclear Propulsion"(PDF). Archived fromthe original(PDF) on 2015-02-26. Retrieved2015-06-04.As of 2001, about 235 naval reactors had been built.
^abMarkandya, A.; Wilkinson, P. (2007). "Electricity generation and health".Lancet.370 (9591):979–990.doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61253-7.PMID17876910.S2CID25504602.Nuclear power has lower electricity related health risks than Coal, Oil, & gas. ...the health burdens are appreciably smaller for generation from natural gas, and lower still for nuclear power. This study includes the latent or indirect fatalities, for example those caused by the inhalation of fossil fuel created particulate matter, smog induced cardiopulmonary events, black lung etc. in its comparison.
^IDO-19313: Additional Analysis of the SL-1 ExcursionArchived 2011-09-27 at theWayback MachineFinal Report of Progress July through October 1962, November 21, 1962, Flight Propulsion Laboratory Department, General Electric Company, Idaho Falls, Idaho, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Division of Technical Information.
^McKeown, William (2003).Idaho Falls: The Untold Story of America's First Nuclear Accident. Toronto, Canada: ECW Press.ISBN978-1-55022-562-4.
^MacKenzie, James J. (December 1977). "Review of The Nuclear Power Controversy by Arthur W. Murphy".The Quarterly Review of Biology.52 (4):467–468.doi:10.1086/410301.JSTOR2823429.
^ab"Beyond ITER".The ITER Project. Information Services, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory. Archived fromthe original on 2006-11-07. Retrieved2011-02-05. – Projected fusion power timeline.
"AEC Atom Information Booklets".OSTI.gov. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. Archived fromthe original on 2019-01-07.Both series, "Understanding the Atom" and "The World of the Atom". A total of 75 booklets published in the 1960s and 1970s, authored by scientists. Taken together, the booklets comprise the history of nuclear science and its applications at the time.
Mahaffey, James (2015).Atomic accidents: a history of nuclear meltdowns and disasters: from the Ozark Mountains to Fukushima. Pegasus Books.ISBN978-1-60598-680-7.
Walker, J. Samuel (1992).Containing the Atom: Nuclear Regulation in a Changing Environment, 1946–1971. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.
.jpg)
.svg)
.jpg)
