Nuclear power 22153 226174241 2008-07-17T04:14:20Z SEWilco 18620 /* Reliability */ moved KK non-accident to talk as suggested {{pp-semi-protected|small=yes}} {{otheruses4|applications of nuclear reactors as power sources|the underlying energy itself|Nuclear energy|nuclear energy policy|Nuclear energy policy|countries which possess nuclear weapons|List of states with nuclear weapons}} [[Image:Ikata Nuclear Powerplant.JPG|thumb|right|The [[Ikata Nuclear Power Plant]], a [[pressurized water reactor]] that has no cooling tower, but cools by direct exchange with the ocean.]] [[Image:Susquehanna steam electric station.jpg|thumb|right|The [[Susquehanna Steam Electric Station]], a [[boiling water reactor]]. The nuclear reactors are located inside the rectangular [[containment building]]s towards the front of the [[cooling tower]]s. The towers in the background vent water vapor.]] '''Nuclear power''' is any [[nuclear technology]] designed to extract usable [[energy]] from [[atomic nucleus|atomic nuclei]] via controlled [[nuclear reaction]]s. The most common method today is through [[nuclear fission]], though other methods include [[nuclear fusion]] and [[radioactive decay]]. All current methods involve [[heat]]ing a working fluid such as water, which is then converted into [[work (thermodynamics)|mechanical work]] for the purpose of generating [[electricity]] or [[Nuclear propulsion|propulsion]]. Today, more than 15% of the world's electricity comes from nuclear power, over 150 nuclear-powered naval vessels have been built, and a few [[radioisotope rocket]]s have been produced. == Use == [[Image:EIA2007 f4.jpg|thumb|right|Historical and projected world energy use by energy source, 1980-2030, Source: International Energy Outlook 2007, [[Energy Information Administration|EIA]].]] [[Image:Nuclear power stations.png|thumb|right|The status of nuclear power globally. Click image for legend.]] {{seealso|Nuclear power by country|List of nuclear reactors}} As of 2005, nuclear power provided 6.3% of the world's energy and 15% of the world's electricity, with the [[Nuclear power in the United States|U.S.]], [[Nuclear power in France|France]], and [[Nuclear power in Japan|Japan]] together accounting for 56.5% of nuclear generated electricity.<ref name="iea_pdf"> {{Cite paper | url= http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2007/key_stats_2007.pdf | title=Key World Energy Statistics 2007 | accessdate=2008-06-21 | publisher= [[International Energy Agency]] | year=2007 | format=PDF}} </ref> As of 2007, the [[International Atomic Energy Agency|IAEA]] reported there are 439&nbsp;nuclear power reactors in operation in the world,<ref name=iaea_reactors> {{Cite web | url= http://www.iaea.org/cgi-bin/db.page.pl/pris.oprconst.htm | title= Nuclear Power Plants Information. Number of Reactors Operation Worldwide | publisher= [[International Atomic Energy Agency]] | accessdate=2008-06-21}} </ref> operating in 31&nbsp;countries.<ref name="UIC"> {{cite web | url= http://www.uic.com.au/reactors.htm | title= World Nuclear Power Reactors 2007-08 and Uranium Requirements | publisher= World Nuclear Association | date= 2008-06-09 | accessdate=2008-06-21}} </ref> The [[United States]] produces the most nuclear energy, with nuclear power providing 19%<ref>{{cite web | url= http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat1p1.html | title= Net Generation by Energy Source by Type of Producer | publisher= Energy Information Administration | date= 2007-10-22 | accessdate=2008-06-21}} </ref> of the electricity it consumes, while [[France]] produces the highest percentage of its electrical energy from nuclear reactors—78% as of 2006.<ref name="npr20060501"> {{Cite web | url= http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5369610 | title=France Presses Ahead with Nuclear Power | accessdate=2006-11-08 | publisher=NPR | year=2006 | author=Eleanor Beardsley}} </ref> In the [[European Union]] as a whole, nuclear energy provides 30% of the electricity.<ref> {{Cite web | url= http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=1996,39140985&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&screen=detailref&language=en&product=sdi_cc&root=sdi_cc/sdi_cc/sdi_cc_ene/sdi_cc2300 | title=Gross electricity generation, by fuel used in power-stations | accessdate=2007-02-03 | publisher=[[Eurostat]] | year=2006}} </ref> [[Nuclear energy policy]] differs between European Union countries, and some, such as [[Austria]] and [[Ireland]], 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]].<ref> {{Cite news | url= http://www.bellona.org/english_import_area/international/russia/civilian_nuclear_vessels/icebreakers/30131 | title=Nuclear Icebreaker Lenin | Publisher= Bellona | date=2003-06-20 | accessdate= 2007-11-01}} </ref> A few space vehicles have been launched using full-fledged [[nuclear reactor]]s: the Soviet [[RORSAT]] series and the American [[SNAP-10A]]. International research is continuing into safety improvements such as [[passively safe]] plants,<ref> {{Cite journal | url= http://www.anl.gov/Media_Center/logos20-1/passive01.htm | author=David Baurac | title=Passively safe reactors rely on nature to keep them cool | journal = Logos | volume=20 | issue =1 | year = 2002 | publisher= [[Argonne National Laboratory]] | accessdate=2007-11-01}} </ref> the use of [[nuclear fusion]], and additional uses of process heat such as [[Hydrogen production#High-temperature electrolysis (HTE)|hydrogen production]] (in support of a [[hydrogen economy]]), for [[desalination|desalinating]] sea water, and for use in [[district heating]] systems. == History == === Origins === [[Nuclear fission]] was first experimentally achieved by [[Enrico Fermi]] in 1934 when his team bombarded [[uranium]] with neutrons.<ref>{{Cite web |url= http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1938/fermi-bio.html |title=Enrico Fermi, The Nobel Prize for Physics, 1938 |accessdate=2007-11-03 |Publisher=http://www.nobelprize.org }}</ref> In 1938, German chemists [[Otto Hahn]]<ref>{{Cite web |url= http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1944/hahn-bio.html |title=Otto Hahn, The Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1944 |accessdate=2007-11-01 |Publisher=http://www.nobelprize.org }}</ref> and [[Fritz Strassmann]], along with Austrian physicists [[Lise Meitner]]<ref>{{Cite web |url= http://www.chemheritage.org/classroom/chemach/atomic/hahn-meitner.html |title=Otto Hahn, Fritz Strassmann, and Lise Meitner |accessdate=2007-11-01 |Publisher=http://www.chemheritage.org }}</ref> and Meitner's nephew, [[Otto Robert Frisch]],<ref>{{Cite web |url= http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/library/biographies/bio_frisch-otto.htm |title=Otto Robert Frisch |accessdate=2007-11-01 |Publisher=http://www.nuclearfiles.org }}</ref> conducted experiments with the products of neutron-bombarded uranium. They determined that the relatively tiny neutron split the nucleus of the massive uranium atoms into two roughly equal pieces, which was a surprising result. Numerous scientists, including [[Leo Szilard]] who was one of the first, recognized that if fission reactions released additional neutrons, a self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction could result. This spurred scientists in many countries (including the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and the Soviet Union) to petition their government for support of nuclear fission research. In the United States, where Fermi and Szilard 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 built large reactors at the [[Hanford Site]] (formerly the town of [[Hanford, Washington]]) to breed [[plutonium]] for use in the first [[nuclear weapon]]s. A parallel uranium [[enriched uranium|enrichment]] effort also was pursued. After [[World War II]], the fear that reactor research would encourage the rapid spread of nuclear weapons and technology, combined with what many scientists thought would be a long road of development, created a situation in which reactor research was kept under strict government control and classification. In addition, most reactor research centered on purely military purposes. 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&nbsp;kW (the Arco Reactor was also the first to experience partial [[Nuclear meltdown|meltdown]], in 1955). In 1952, a report by the Paley Commission (''The President's Materials Policy Commission'') for President [[Harry Truman]] made a "relatively pessimistic" assessment of nuclear power, and called for "aggressive research in the whole field of [[solar energy]]."<ref name="ieer">{{Cite web |url= http://www.ieer.org/reports/npd.html |title=The Nuclear Power Deception |accessdate= |publisher=Institute for Energy and Environmental Research |year=1996 |author=Makhijani, Arjun and Saleska, Scott}}</ref> A December 1953 speech by President [[Dwight Eisenhower]], "[[Atoms for Peace]]," emphasized the useful harnessing of the atom and set the U.S. on a course of strong government support for international use of nuclear power. === Early years === [[Image:Calderhall.jpeg|thumb|right|[[Sellafield|Calder Hall]] nuclear power station in [[England]], [[United Kingdom]] was the world's first{{dubious}} nuclear power station.]] [[Image:Shippingport Reactor.jpg|thumb|The [[Shippingport Atomic Power Station]] in [[Shippingport, Pennsylvania]] was the first commercial reactor in the [[United States of America|USA]] and was opened in 1957.]] In 1954, [[Lewis Strauss]], then chairman of the [[United States Atomic Energy Commission]] (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."<ref name="cns-snc">{{Cite web |url= http://www.cns-snc.ca/media/toocheap/toocheap.html |title=Too Cheap to Meter? |accessdate=2006-11-09 |publisher=Canadian Nuclear Society |year=2006}}</ref> While few doubt he was thinking of atomic energy when he made the statement, he may have been referring to hydrogen fusion, rather than uranium fission.<ref>{{cite web | url= http://books.google.com/books?id=qBqbr8uV9c8C&pg=PA32&ots=X_NiY853vH&dq=strauss+son+cheap+meter&sig=NJRVHP66IqtX80mgp38UfttAIPc | title= ''Nuclear Energy: Principles, Practices, and Prospects'' |author= David Bodansky |date= |year= |month= |format= |work= |publisher= |pages= 32 |language= |doi= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote= | accessdate= 2008-01-31 }}</ref> Actually, the consensus of government and business at the time was that nuclear (fission) power might eventually become merely economically competitive with conventional power sources. 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 electric power.<ref name="IAEANews">{{cite web |title=From Obninsk Beyond: Nuclear Power Conference Looks to Future|work=[[International Atomic Energy Agency]] |url= http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2004/obninsk.html | accessdate = 2006-06-27}}</ref><ref name="WNA">{{cite web |title=Nuclear Power in Russia |work=[[World Nuclear Association]] |url= http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf45.htm | accessdate = 2006-06-27}}</ref> 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]] in [[Sellafield]], [[England]] was opened in 1956 with an initial capacity of 50 MW (later 200 MW).<ref name="bbc17oct">{{Cite web |url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/17/newsid_3147000/3147145.stm |title=On This Day: [[17 October]] |accessdate=2006-11-09 |publisher=BBC News}}</ref> 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 [[United States Navy|U.S. Navy]], for the purpose of propelling [[submarine]]s and [[aircraft carrier]]s. It has a good record in nuclear safety, perhaps because of the stringent demands of Admiral [[Hyman G. Rickover]], who was the driving force behind nuclear marine propulsion as well as the Shippingport Reactor. The U.S. Navy has operated more nuclear reactors than any other entity, including the [[Soviet Navy]],{{Fact|date=March 2008}}{{Dubious|date=March 2008}} with no publicly known major incidents. The first nuclear-powered submarine, [[USS Nautilus (SSN-571)|USS ''Nautilus'' (SSN-571)]], was put to sea in December 1954.<ref name="iaeapdf">{{Cite web |url= http://www.iaea.org/About/Policy/GC/GC48/Documents/gc48inf-4_ftn3.pdf |title=50 Years of Nuclear Energy |accessdate=2006-11-09 |publisher=International Atomic Energy Agency |format=PDF}}</ref> Two U.S. nuclear submarines, [[USS Scorpion (SSN-589)|USS ''Scorpion'']] and [[USS Thresher (SSN-593)|USS ''Thresher'']], have been lost at sea. These vessels were both lost due to malfunctions in systems not related to the reactor plants. Also, the sites are monitored and no known leakage has occurred from the onboard reactors. Enrico Fermi and [[Leó Szilárd]] in 1955 shared {{US patent|2708656}} for the nuclear reactor, belatedly granted for the work they had done during the Manhattan Project. === Development === [[Image:Nuclear Power History.png|thumb|right|History of the use of nuclear power (top) and the number of active nuclear power plants (bottom).]] 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.<ref name="iaeapdf">{{Cite web |url= http://www.iaea.org/About/Policy/GC/GC48/Documents/gc48inf-4_ftn3.pdf |title=50 Years of Nuclear Energy |accessdate=2006-11-09 |publisher=International Atomic Energy Agency |format=PDF}}</ref> [[Image:Satsop Development Park 07780.JPG|right|thumb|[[Washington Public Power Supply System]] Nuclear Power Plants 3 and 5 were never completed.]] During the 1970s and 1980s rising economic costs (related to extended construction times largely due to regulatory changes and pressure-group litigation)<ref>{{Cite web |url= http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html |title=THE NUCLEAR ENERGY OPTION |author=Bernard L. Cohen |publisher=Plenum Press |accessmonth=December |accessyear=2007 }}</ref> 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% and 73% respectively) to invest in nuclear power.<ref>{{PDFlink|[http://www.iea.org/textbase/stats/pdf_graphs/FRELEC.pdf Evolution of Electricity Generation by Fuel]|39.4&nbsp;KB}}</ref><ref> [http://homepage.mac.com/herinst/sbeder/japan.html The Japanese Situation]<!-- this appears to be a draft, and not the published paper --></ref> Today, nuclear power supplies about 80% and 30% of the electricity in those countries, respectively. A general movement against nuclear power arose during the last third of the 20th century, based on the fear of a possible [[nuclear accident]], fears of [[ionizing radiation|radiation]], [[nuclear proliferation]], and on the opposition to [[nuclear waste]] production, transport and final storage. Perceived risks on the citizens' health and safety, the 1979 accident at [[Three Mile Island accident|Three Mile Island]] and the 1986 [[Chernobyl disaster]] played a part in stopping new plant construction in many countries,<ref name="PBS">{{cite web |title=The Rise and Fall of Nuclear Power |work=[[Public Broadcasting Service]] |url= http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/maps/chart2.html | accessdate = 2006-06-28}}</ref> although the public policy organization Brookings Institution suggests that new nuclear units have not been ordered in the U.S. because the Institution's research concludes they cost 15–30% more over their lifetime than conventional coal and natural gas fired plants.<ref name="tbi">{{Cite web |url= http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2004/09environment_nivola/pb138.pdf |title=The Political Economy of Nuclear Energy in the United States |format=PDF |accessdate=2006-11-09 |publisher=The Brookings Institution |year=2004 |work=Social Policy}}</ref> 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 building]]s.<ref name="NRC">{{cite web |title=Backgrounder on Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant Accident |work=[[Nuclear Regulatory Commission]] |url= http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/chernobyl-bg.html | accessdate = 2006-06-28}}</ref> Many of these reactors are still in use today. However, changes were made in both the reactors themselves (use of low enriched uranium) and in the control system (prevention of disabling safety systems) to prevent the possibility of a duplicate accident. An international organization to promote safety awareness and professional development on operators in nuclear facilities was created: [[World Association of Nuclear Operators|WANO]]; World Association of Nuclear Operators. Opposition in [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]], [[New Zealand]] 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. == Future of the industry == [[Image:Diablo canyon nuclear power plant.jpg|thumbnail|[[Diablo Canyon Power Plant]] in San Luis Obispo County, California, USA]] {{seealso|Nuclear energy policy|Mitigation of global warming|Economics of new nuclear power plants}} As of 2007, [[Watts Bar Nuclear Generating Station|Watts Bar 1]], which came on-line in [[7 February]] [[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, political resistance to nuclear power has only ever been successful in New Zealand, and parts of Europe and the [[Philippines]]. Even in the U.S. and throughout Europe, investment in research and in the [[nuclear fuel cycle]] has continued, and some experts<ref name="INL">{{cite web |title=Nuclear Energy's Role in Responding to the Energy Challenges of the 21st Century |work=[[Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory]] |url= http://nuclear.inl.gov/docs/papers-presentations/ga_tech_woodruff_3-4.pdf | accessdate = 2008-06-21}}</ref> predict that [[electricity shortage]]s, 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. Many countries remain active in developing nuclear power, including [[Japan]], [[China]] and [[India]], all actively developing both fast and thermal technology, [[South Korea]] and the United States, developing thermal technology only, and [[South Africa]] and China, developing versions of the [[Pebble bed reactor|Pebble Bed Modular Reactor]] (PBMR). Several EU member states actively pursue nuclear programs, while some other member states continue to have a ban for the nuclear energy use. Japan has an active nuclear construction program with new units brought on-line in 2005. In the U.S., three consortia responded in 2004 to the [[United States Department of Energy|U.S. Department of Energy's]] solicitation under the [[Nuclear Power 2010 Program]] and were awarded matching funds—the [[Energy Policy Act of 2005]] authorized loan guarantees for up to six new reactors, and authorized the Department of Energy to build a reactor based on the Generation IV [[Very-High-Temperature Reactor]] concept to produce both electricity and [[hydrogen power|hydrogen]]. As of the early 21st century, nuclear power is of particular interest to both China and India to serve their rapidly growing economies—both are developing [[fast breeder reactor]]s. See also [[energy development#Nuclear energy|energy development]]. In the [[energy policy of the United Kingdom]] it is recognized that there is a likely future energy supply shortfall, which may have to be filled by either new nuclear plant construction or maintaining existing plants beyond their programmed lifetime. There is a possible impediment to production of nuclear power plants, due to a backlog at [[Japan Steel Works]], the only factory in the world able to manufacture the central part of a nuclear reactor's containment vessel in a single piece,{{Fact|date=June 2008}} which reduces the risk of a radiation leak. The company can only make four per year of the steel forgings. It will double its capacity in the next two years, but still will not be able to meet current global demand alone. Utilities across the world are submitting orders years in advance of any actual need. Other manufacturers are examining various options, including making the component themselves, or finding ways to make a similar item using alternate methods.<ref> [http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aaVMzCTMz3ms&s=polyhoo Bloomberg exclusive: Samurai-Sword Maker's Reactor Monopoly May Cool Nuclear Revival] By Yoshifumi Takemoto and Alan Katz, bloomberg.com, 3/13/08. </ref> Other solutions include using designs that do not require single piece forged pressure vessles such as [[Canada]]'s [[Advanced CANDU Reactor]]s or [[Sodium-cooled fast reactor|Sodium-cooled Fast Reactor]]s. Other companies able to make the large forgings required for reactor pressure vessels include: Russia's [[OMZ]], which is upgrading to be able to manufacture three or four pressure vessels per year;<ref> [http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/newNuclear/Russia_s_nuclear_forging_supplier_ups_capacity_301007.shtml?terms=forgings Russia's nuclear forging supplier ups capacity], ''[[World Nuclear News]]'', [[30 October]] [[2007]].</ref> South Korea's [[Doosan Heavy Industries]];<ref>[http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/corporate/270407-Westinghouse_enlists_Doosan_in_China_projects.shtmln Westinghouse enlists Doosan for China], ''World Nuclear News'', [[27 April]] [[2007]]</ref><ref> [http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C_South_Koreas_nuclear_power_independence_2805082.html South Korea's nuclear power independence], ''World Nuclear News'', [[28 May]] [[2008]]</ref> and [[Mitsubishi Heavy Industries]], which is doubling capacity for reactor pressure vessels and other large nuclear components.<ref>[http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C_MHI_tools_up_for_surge_in_construction_0906083.html?terms=mhi MHI tools up for surge inconstruction], ''World Nuclear News'', [[9 June]] [[2008]].</ref> The UK's [[Sheffield Forgemasters]] is evaluating the benefit of tooling-up for nuclear forging work. == Nuclear reactor technology == {{main|Nuclear reactor technology}} {{Refimprove|date=June 2008}} [[Image:Nuclear Power Plant Cattenom a.png|right|thumb|[[Cattenom Nuclear Power Plant]].]] Conventional thermal power plants all have a fuel source to provide heat. Examples are gas, coal, or oil. For a nuclear power plant, this heat is provided by [[nuclear fission]] inside the [[nuclear reactor]]. When a relatively large [[fissile]] [[atomic nucleus]] is struck by a [[neutron]] it forms two or more smaller nuclei as [[fission product]]s, releasing energy and neutrons in a process called nuclear fission. The neutrons then trigger further fission, and so on. When this nuclear chain reaction is controlled, the energy released can be used to heat water, produce steam and drive a [[turbine]] that generates electricity. While a nuclear power plant uses the same fuel, [[uranium-235]] or [[plutonium-239]], a [[nuclear explosive]] involves an uncontrolled chain reaction, and the rate of fission in a reactor is not capable of reaching sufficient levels to trigger a [[nuclear explosion]] because commercial reactor grade nuclear fuel is not [[enriched uranium|enriched]] to a high enough level. Naturally found uranium contains 0.711% U-235 by mass, the rest being [[uranium-238|U-238]] and trace amounts of other isotopes. Most reactor fuel is enriched to only 3–4%, but some designs use natural uranium or highly enriched uranium. Reactors for [[nuclear submarine]]s and large naval surface ships, such as aircraft carriers, commonly use highly enriched uranium. Although highly enriched uranium is more expensive, it reduces the frequency of refueling, which is very useful for military vessels. [[CANDU reactor]]s are able to use unenriched uranium because the [[heavy water]] they use as a [[neutron moderator|moderator]] and [[coolant]] does not absorb neutrons like light water does. The chain reaction is controlled through the use of materials that absorb and moderate neutrons. In uranium-fueled reactors, neutrons must be moderated (slowed down) because slow neutrons are more likely to cause fission when colliding with a uranium-235 nucleus. [[Light water reactors]] use ordinary water to moderate and cool the reactors. When at operating temperatures if the temperature of the water increases, its density drops, and fewer neutrons passing through it are slowed enough to trigger further reactions. That [[negative feedback]] stabilizes the reaction rate. The current types of plants (and their common components) are discussed in the article [[nuclear reactor technology]]. A number of other designs for nuclear power generation, the [[Generation IV reactor]]s, are the subject of active research and may be used for practical power generation in the future. A number of the advanced nuclear reactor designs could also make critical fission reactors much cleaner, much safer and/or much less of a risk to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It should be noted that such Generation IV reactors are not necessarily fuel by uranium but by [[thorium]], a more abundant fertile material that decays into U233 after being exposed to neutrons. Such reactors use about 1/300 the amount of fuel to power them. The [[Liquid Fluoride Reactor]] is one such example of this. For the future, design changes are being pursued to lessen the risks of fission reactors; in particular, [[passive nuclear safety|passively safe]] plants (such as the [[Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor|ESBWR]]) are available to be built and [[inherently safe]] designs are being pursued. [[Fusion power|Fusion reactors]], which may be viable in the future, have no risk of explosive radiation-releasing accidents, and even smaller risks than the already extremely small risks associated with nuclear fission. Whilst fusion power reactors will produce a very small amount of reasonably short lived, intermediate-level radioactive waste at decommissioning time, as a result of neutron activation of the reactor vessel, they will not produce any high-level, long-lived materials comparable to those produced in a fission reactor. Even this small radioactive waste aspect can be mitigated through the use of low-activation steel alloys for the [[tokamak]] vessel. == Life cycle == [[Image:Nuclear Fuel Cycle.png|thumb|'''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 [[nuclear reprocessing|reprocessing]] 95% of spent fuel can be recycled to be returned to usage in a power plant (4).]] {{Main|Nuclear fuel cycle}} 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 mining|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 [[uranium enrichment|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 cooling pond, 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 === {{Main|Uranium market|Energy_development#Nuclear_energy|l2=Energy development - Nuclear energy}} [[Uranium]] is a fairly common [[chemical element|element]] in the Earth's crust. Uranium is approximately as common as [[tin]] or [[germanium]] in Earth's crust, and is about 35&nbsp;times more common than [[silver]]. Uranium is a constituent of most rocks, dirt, and of the oceans. The world's present measured resources of uranium, economically recoverable at a price of 130&nbsp;USD/kg, are enough to last for "at least a century" at current consumption rates.<ref>{{cite web | url= http://www.nea.fr/html/general/press/2008/2008-02.html | title= "Uranium resources sufficient to meet projected nuclear energy requirements long into the future" |date= [[3 June]] [[2008]] |work= |publisher= [[Nuclear Energy Agency]] (NEA) | accessdate= 2008-06-16 }}</ref><ref name="Red">[[Nuclear Energy Agency|NEA]], [[IAEA]]: [http://www.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/display.asp?sf1=identifiers&st1=9789264047662 Uranium 2007 – Resources, Production and Demand]. [[OECD]] Publishing, [[10 June]] [[2008]], ISBN 9789264047662.</ref> 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. 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.<ref> [http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.html] [http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html] {{Cite web |url= http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/uranium.html |title=World Uranium Reserves |accessdate=2006-11-10 |publisher=American Energy Independence |year=2004 |author=James Jopf}} [http://www.ans.org/pubs/journals/nt/va-144-2-274-278] [http://www.nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeEnergyLifecycleOfNuclear_Power] </ref><ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.uraniumworld.org |title=Uranium in a global context}}</ref> Current [[light water reactor]]s 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.<ref name="wna-wmitnfc">{{Cite web |url= http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf04.html |title=Waste Management in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle |accessdate=2006-11-09 |publisher=World Nuclear Association |year=2006 |work=Information and Issue Briefs}}</ref> ==== Breeding ==== {{main|Breeder reactor}} 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.<ref name="stanford-cohen">{{Cite web |url= http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html |title=Facts From Cohen and Others |accessdate=2006-11-09 |publisher=Stanford |year=2006 |author=John McCarthy |authorlink=John McCarthy (computer scientist) |work=Progress and its Sustainability}} Citing Breeder reactors: A renewable energy source, ''[[American Journal of Physics]]'', vol.&nbsp;51, (1), Jan.&nbsp;1983.</ref> 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.<ref name="wna-anpr">{{Cite web |url= http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf08.html |title=Advanced Nuclear Power Reactors |accessdate=2006-11-09 |publisher=World Nuclear Association |year=2006 |work=Information and Issue Briefs}}</ref> 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 as common as uranium in the Earth's crust, and has different geographic characteristics. This would extend the total practical fissionable resource base by 450%.<ref name="wna-thorium">{{Cite web |url= http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html |title=Thorium |accessdate=2006-11-09 |publisher=World Nuclear Association |year=2006 |work=Information and Issue Briefs}}</ref> 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 ==== [[Fusion power]] commonly propose the use of [[deuterium]], an [[isotope]] of [[hydrogen]], as fuel and in many current designs also [[lithium]]. 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.<ref>{{cite web | url= http://www.fusie-energie.nl/artikelen/ongena.pdf | title= "Energy for Future Centuries: Will fusion be an inexhaustible, safe and clean energy source?" |author= J. Ongena |coauthors= G. Van Oost |date= |year= |month= |format= [[PDF]] |work= |publisher= |pages= |language= |doi= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote= | accessdate= 2008-01-31 }} </ref> ===Water=== {{See also|Water#Industrial_applications|Environmental effects of nuclear power}} Like all forms of power generation using steam turbines, Nuclear power plants use large amounts of water for cooling. At [[Sellafield]], which is no longer producing electricity, a maximum of 18,184.4&nbsp;m³ a day (over 4 million gallons) and 6,637,306&nbsp;m³ a year (figures from the Environment Agency) of fresh water from [[Wast Water]] is still abstracted to use on site for various processes. As with most power plants, two-thirds of the energy produced by a nuclear power plant goes into waste heat (see [[Carnot cycle]]), and that heat is carried away from the plant in the water (which remains uncontaminated by radioactivity). The emitted water either is sent into cooling towers where it goes up and is emitted as water droplets (literally a cloud) or is discharged into large bodies of water — cooling ponds, lakes, rivers, or oceans.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/nuclear_safety/got-water-nuclear-power.html |title=Got Water? Nuclear power plant cooling water needs |publisher=Union of Concerned Scientists |language=English }}</ref> Droughts can pose a severe problem by causing the source of cooling water to run out.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22804065/ |title=Drought could shut down nuclear power plants |publisher=[[MSNBC]] |date=2008-01-23 |language=English }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0711-04.htm |title=Dangerous Summer for Nuclear Power Plants |publisher=[[Common Dreams]] |author=Julio Godoy |date=2005-07-11 |language=English }}</ref> The [[Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station]] near [[Phoenix, AZ]] is the only nuclear generating facility in the world that is not located adjacent to a large body of water. Instead, it uses treated sewage from several nearby municipalities to meet its cooling water needs, recycling 20 billion US&nbsp;gallons (76,000,000&nbsp;m³) of wastewater each year. Like conventional power plants, nuclear power plants generate large quantities of waste heat which is expelled in the [[Condenser (heat transfer)|condenser]], following the [[steam turbine|turbine]]. [[Colocation]] of plants that can take advantage of this thermal energy has been suggested by [[Oak Ridge National Laboratory]] (ORNL) as a way to take advantage of process [[synergy]] for added energy efficiency. One example would be to use the power plant steam to produce hydrogen from water.<ref>{{cite web | url= http://www.ornl.gov/~webworks/cppr/y2001/rpt/125102.pdf | title= "Assessment of Nuclear-Hydrogen Synergies with Renewable Energy Systems and Coal Liquefaction Processes" |author= C. W. Forsberg |date= August 2006 |format= PDF |work= |publisher= [[Oak Ridge National Laboratory]] |pages= |language= |doi= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote= | accessdate= 2008-01-31 }} </ref> The hydrogen would cost less, and the nuclear power plant would exhaust less heat into the atmosphere and water vapor, which is a short-lived greenhouse gas. === Solid waste === {{details|Radioactive waste}} The safe storage and disposal of nuclear waste is a significant challenge. The most important waste stream from nuclear power plants is spent fuel. A large nuclear reactor produces 3 cubic metres (25–30 tonnes) of spent fuel each year.<ref name="uic-waste">{{Cite web |url= http://www.uic.com.au/wast.htm |title=Radioactive Waste Management |accessdate=2006-11-09 |publisher=Uranium & Nuclear Power Information Centre |year=2002}}</ref> 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 made of fission products. 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.<ref>M. I. Ojovan, W.E. Lee. ''An Introduction to Nuclear Waste Immobilisation'', Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam, 315pp. (2005).</ref> ==== High level radioactive waste ==== Spent fuel is highly radioactive and needs to be handled with great care and forethought. However, spent nuclear fuel becomes less radioactive over time. After 40 years, the [[radiation flux]] is 99.9% lower than it was the moment the spent fuel was removed, although still dangerously radioactive.<ref name="wna-wmitnfc" /> [[Spent fuel rod]]s are stored in shielded basins of water (spent fuel pools), usually located on-site. The water provides both cooling for the still-decaying fission products, and shielding from the continuing radioactivity. After a few decades some on-site storage involves moving the now cooler, less radioactive fuel to a dry-storage facility or [[dry cask storage]], where the fuel is stored in steel and concrete containers until its radioactivity decreases naturally ("decays") to levels safe enough for other processing. This interim stage spans years or decades, depending on the type of fuel. Most U.S. waste is currently stored in temporary storage sites requiring oversight, while suitable permanent disposal methods are discussed. As of 2007, the United States had accumulated more than 50,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel from nuclear reactors.<ref>{{cite web | url= http://www.nei.org/keyissues/nuclearwastedisposal/factsheets/safelymanagingusednuclearfuel/ | title= Safely Managing Used Nuclear Fuel |author= |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= |date= |work= | publisher= Nuclear Energy Institute | accessdate= 2008-04-25 }}</ref> Underground storage at [[Yucca Mountain]] in U.S. has been proposed as permanent storage. After 10,000 years of radioactive decay, according to [[United States Environmental Protection Agency]] standards, the spent nuclear fuel will no longer pose a threat to public health and safety.{{Fact|date=January 2008}} The amount of waste can be reduced in several ways, particularly [[Nuclear power#Reprocessing|reprocessing]]. Even so, the remaining waste will be substantially radioactive for at least 300 years even if the actinides are removed, and for up to thousands of years if the actinides are left in.{{Fact|date=January 2008}} Even with separation of all actinides, and using fast breeder reactors to destroy by [[Nuclear transmutation|transmutation]] some of the longer-lived non-actinides as well, the waste must be segregated from the environment for one to a few hundred years, and therefore this is properly categorized as a long-term problem. [[Subcritical reactor]]s or [[fusion reactors]] could also reduce the time the waste has to be stored.<ref name="wna-adne">{{Cite web |url= http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf35.htm |title=Accelerator-driven Nuclear Energy |accessdate=2006-11-09 |publisher=World Nuclear Association |year=2003 |work=Information and Issue Briefs}}</ref> It has been argued that the best solution for the nuclear waste is above ground temporary storage since technology is rapidly changing. The current waste may well become a valuable resource in the future. France is one of the world's most densely populated countries. According to a 2007 story broadcast on ''[[60 Minutes]]'', nuclear power gives France the cleanest air of any industrialized country, and the cheapest electricity in all of Europe.<ref>{{cite web | url= http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/06/60minutes/main2655782.shtml | title= "France: Vive Les Nukes" |author= Steve Kroft |authorlink= Steve Kroft |date= [[April 8]], [[2007]] |work= |publisher= ''[[60 Minutes]]'' |pages= |language= |doi= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote= | accessdate= 2008-01-31 }} </ref> France reprocesses its nuclear waste to reduce its mass and make more energy.<ref name="pbs-french"/> However, the article continues, "Today we stock containers of waste because currently scientists don't know how to reduce or eliminate the toxicity, but maybe in 100 years perhaps scientists will ... Nuclear waste is an enormously difficult political problem which to date no country has solved. It is, in a sense, the Achilles heel of the nuclear industry ... If France is unable to solve this issue, says Mandil, then 'I do not see how we can continue our nuclear program.'"<ref name="pbs-french">{{cite web |url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/french.html |title=Why the French like nuclear energy |publisher=[[PBS|PBS Frontline]] |author=Jon Palfreman |date= }}</ref> Further, reprocessing itself has its critics, such as the [[Union of Concerned Scientists]].<ref>{{PDFlink|[http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_security/Nuclear-Reprocessing-Factsheet.pdf Nuclear Reprocessing: Dangerous, Dirty, and Expensive: Why Extracting Plutonium from Spent Nuclear Reactor Fuel Is a Bad Idea] |174&nbsp;KB}}</ref> ==== Low-level radioactive waste ==== The nuclear industry also produces a 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, et cetera. Most low-level waste releases very low levels of radioactivity and is only considered radioactive waste because of its history. For example, according to the standards of the NRC, the radiation released by coffee is enough to treat it as low level waste.{{Fact|date=October 2007}} ==== Comparing radioactive waste to industrial toxic waste ==== In countries with nuclear power, radioactive wastes comprise less than 1% of total industrial toxic wastes, which remain hazardous indefinitely unless they decompose or are treated so that they are less toxic or, ideally, completely non-toxic.<ref name="wna-wmitnfc" /> Overall, nuclear power produces far less waste material 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 radioactive material from the coal. Contrary to popular belief, coal power actually results in more radioactive waste being released into the environment than nuclear power. The population [[effective dose]] equivalent from radiation from coal plants is 100 times as much as nuclear plants.<ref name="colmain"/> === Reprocessing === {{details|Nuclear reprocessing}} 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 would produce 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 on large scale in Britain, France and (formerly) Russia, will be 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 reactor]]s, which are not yet 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.<ref name="IEEE Spectrum">[http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/feb07/4891 IEEE Spectrum: Nuclear Wasteland]. Retrieved on [[2007]]-[[04-22]]</ref> Unlike other countries, the US has stopped civilian reprocessing as one part of US non-proliferation policy, since reprocessed material such as plutonium can be used in nuclear weapons. Spent fuel is all currently treated as waste.<ref>[http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf69.html Processing of Used Nuclear Fuel for Recycle]. WNA</ref> In February, 2006, a new U.S. initiative, the [[Global Nuclear Energy Partnership]] was announced. It would be an international effort to reprocess fuel in a manner making nuclear proliferation unfeasible, while making nuclear power available to developing countries.<ref>{{cite journal |quotes= |last=Baker |first=Peter |authorlink= |coauthors=Linzer, Dafna |year= |month= |title= Nuclear Energy Plan Would Use Spent Fuel|journal= Washington Post|volume= |issue=[[2007-01-26]] |pages= |id= |url= http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/25/AR2006012502229.html|accessdate=2007-01-31 }}</ref> ==== Depleted uranium ==== {{Main|Depleted uranium}} 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 useful in munitions as DU penetrators (bullets or [[APFSDS]] tips) 'self sharpen', due to uranium's tendency to fracture along adiabatic shear bands.<ref> {{cite news | url= http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4004-safe-alternative-to-depleted-uranium-revealed.html | title= 'Safe' alternative to depleted uranium revealed | last= Hambling | first= David |date= 30 July 2003 |work= [[New Scientist]] |publisher= | accessdate= 2008-07-16 }} </ref><ref> {{cite web | url= http://www.sv.vt.edu/research/batra-stevens/pent.html | title= Adiabatic Shear Banding in Axisymmetric Impact and Penetration Problems | last= Stevens | first= J. B. | coauthors= R. C. Batra |date= |year= |month= |format= |work= |publisher= [[Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University]] | accessdate= 2008-07-16 }}</ref> There are concerns that U-238 may lead to health problems in groups exposed to this material excessively, like tank crews and civilians living in areas where large quantities of DU ammunition have been used. In January 2003 the [[World Health Organization]] released a report finding that contamination from DU munitions were localized to a few tens of meters from the impact sites and contamination of local vegetation and water was 'extremely low'. The report also states that approximately 70% of ingested DU will leave the body after twenty four hours and 90% after a few days.<ref> {{cite web | url= http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/index.html | title= Depleted uranium | date= January 2003 | publisher= [[World Health Organization]] | accessdate= 2008-07-16 }}</ref> == Debate on nuclear power == Proponents of nuclear energy argue that nuclear power is a [[sustainable energy]] source that reduces [[carbon emissions]] and increases energy security by decreasing dependence on foreign oil.<ref>[http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aXb5iuqdZoD4&refer=us U.S. Energy Legislation May Be `Renaissance' for Nuclear Power].</ref> Proponents also claim that the risks of storing waste are small and can be further reduced by the technology in the new reactors and the operational safety record is already good when compared to the other major kinds of power plants. Critics claim that nuclear power is a potentially dangerous energy source, and dispute whether the risks can be reduced through new [[technology]]. Critics also point to the problem of storing [[radioactive waste]], the potential for possibly severe [[radioactive contamination]] by accident or sabotage, the possibility of [[nuclear proliferation]] and the disadvantages of centralized electrical production. Arguments of [[Economics of new nuclear power plants|economics]] and [[Nuclear safety|safety]] are used by both sides of the debate. === Reliability === {{Seealso|Intermittent power sources}} ''All'' sources of electrical power sometimes fail, differing only in why, how often, how much, for how long, and how predictably. Even the most reliable giant power plants are intermittent: they fail unexpectedly, often for long periods.<ref name=lov>[http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E08-01_AmbioNuclIlusion.pdf The Nuclear Illusion] pp. 24-25.</ref> In 2005, out of all nuclear power plants in the world, the average capacity factor was 86.8%, the number of [[SCRAM]]s per 7,000 hours critical was 0.6, and the unplanned capacity loss factor was 1.6%.<ref>World Nuclear Association. [http://www.wano.org.uk/PerformanceIndicators/PI_Trifold/WANO15yrsProgress.pdf 15 years of progress].</ref> Capacity factor is the net power produced over the maximum amount possible running at 100% all the time, thus this includes all maintenance/refueling outages as well as unplanned losses. The 7,000 hours is roughly representitive of how long any given reactor will remain critical in a year, meaning that the scram rates translates into a sudden and unplanned shutdown about 0.6 times per year for any given reactor in the world. The unplanned capacity loss factor represents amount of power not produced due to unplanned scrams and postponed restarts. === Economics === {{Main|Economics of new nuclear power plants}} This is a controversial subject, since multi-billion dollar investments ride on the choice of an energy source. Which power source (generally coal, natural gas, nuclear or wind) is most cost-effective depends on the assumptions used in a particular study — several are quoted in the main article. Nuclear plants generally have higher capital costs, but in 1983 their operating cost was half that of coal.<ref> {{cite web | url= http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE2D61739F934A35752C1A965948260 | title= "Cheap Nuclear Power" | author= Donald C. Winston | date= [[November 7]], [[1983]] | format= Letter to the editor | publisher= ''[[The New York Times]]'' | accessdate= 2008-06-11 }} </ref> In May 2001, ''The Economist'' stated that “Nuclear power, once claimed to be too cheap to meter, is now too costly to matter” — cheap to run but very expensive to build.<ref> [http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E08-01_AmbioNuclIlusion.pdf The Nuclear Illusion] p. 3.</ref> Since then, it has become even more expensive, but so have other sources of baseload power, especially if the potential cost of carbon emissions is included. In June 2008, ''The Economist'' stated that "nuclear reactors are the one proven way to make carbon-dioxide-free electricity in large and reliable quantities that does not depend (as hydroelectric and geothermal energy do) on the luck of the geographical draw."<ref> {{cite web | url= http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11565609 | title= Life after death: Nuclear power is clean, but can it overcome its image problem? | date= 2008-06-19 | work= [[The Economist]] |publisher= |pages= |language= |doi= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote= If you want to make an environmentalist squirm, mention nuclear power. Atomic energy was the green movement’s darkest nightmare: ... And not even cheap. Well, times change. | accessdate= 2008-07-16 }}</ref> === Environmental effects === {{main|Environmental effects of nuclear power}} The primary environmental impacts of nuclear power include [[Uranium mining]], radioactive effluent emissions, and [[waste heat]]. Under normal generating conditions, nuclear power does not produce greenhouse gas emissions ({{chem|C||O|2}}, {{chem|N||O|2}}) directly, but the nuclear fuel cycle produces them indirectly, though at much smaller rates than fossil fuels.<ref> {{cite web | url= http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeGreenhouseEmissionsOfNuclearPower | title= Greenhouse Emissions of Nuclear Power |date= |year= |month= |format= |work= | publisher= nuclearinfo.net | accessdate= 2008-07-08 }} </ref> Which power source produces the least amount of greenhouse gases is controversial since renewables also produce indirect greenhouse emissions from sources such as mining and construction. Nuclear generation does not directly produce sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury or other pollutants associated with the combustion of fossil fuels. Other issues include disposal of [[nuclear waste]], with high level waste proposed to go in [[Deep geological repository|Deep geological repositories]] and [[nuclear decommissioning]]. === Safety === {{main|Nuclear safety}} {{see also|Nuclear safety in the U.S.}} The topic of nuclear safety covers: * The research and testing of the possible incidents/events at a nuclear power plant, * What equipment and actions are designed to prevent those incidents/events from having serious consequences, * The calculation of the probabilities of multiple systems and/or actions failing thus allowing serious consequences, * The evaluation of the worst-possible timing and scope of those serious consequences (the worst-possible in extreme cases being a release of radiation), * The actions taken to protect the public during a release of radiation, * The training and rehearsals performed to ensure readiness in case an incident/event occurs. Numerous different and usually redundantly duplicated safety features have been designed into (and in some cases backfitted to) nuclear power plants. In the United States, the [[Nuclear Regulatory Commission]] (NRC) has the ultimate responsibility for nuclear safety. ==== Accidents ==== {{Main|Nuclear and radiation accidents}} The [[International Nuclear Event Scale]] (INES), developed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), is used to communicate the severity of [[nuclear accidents]] on a scale of 0 to 7. The two most well-known events are the Three Mile Island accident and the [[Chernobyl disaster]]. The [[Chernobyl disaster]] in 1986 at the [[Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant]] in the [[Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic]] (now [[Ukraine]]) was the worst nuclear accident in history and is the only event to receive an INES score of 7. The power excursion and resulting steam explosion and fire spread radioactive contamination across large portions of Europe. The UN report 'CHERNOBYL : THE TRUE SCALE OF THE ACCIDENT' published 2005 concluded that the death toll includes the 50 workers who died of acute radiation syndrome, nine children who died from [[thyroid cancer]], and an estimated 4000 excess cancer deaths in the future.<ref> {{PDFlink |[http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/Chernobyl/pdfs/pr.pdf Chernobyl: The True Scale of the Accident]}}</ref> This accident occurred due to both the flawed operation of the reactors and critical design flaws in the Soviet RBMK reactors, such as lack of a containment building. This disaster however has led to some "lessons learned" for Western power plants, large improvements in safety at Soviet-designed nuclear power plants and major improvements to the remaining RBMK reactors.<ref>{{cite web | url= http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.html | title= Chernobyl Accident |author= |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= |date= May 2007 |work= |publisher= World Nuclear Association |pages= |language= |doi= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote= | accessdate= 2008-01-31 }} </ref> The 1979 [[Three Mile Island accident|accident at Three Mile Island Unit 2]] was the worst civilian nuclear accident outside the [[Soviet Union]] (INES score of 5). The reactor experienced a partial core [[nuclear meltdown|meltdown]]. However, according to the [[NRC]], the [[reactor vessel]] and containment building were not breached and little radiation was released to the environment, with no significant impact on health or the environment. Several studies have found no increase in cancer rates.<ref name="usnrc-tmi">{{Cite web |url= http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html |title=Fact Sheet on the Accident at Three Mile Island |accessdate=2006-11-10 |publisher=U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |url= http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2000/108p545-552talbott/abstract.html |title=Mortality among the Residents of the Three Mile Island Accident Area: 1979–1992 |author=Evelyn O. Talbott et al. |publisher=[[University of Pittsburgh]] |journal=Environmental Health Perspectives |volume=108 |number=6 |date=2000-06 |language=English }}</ref> [[Greenpeace]] has produced a report titled ''[http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/usa/press/reports/an-american-chernobyl-nuclear.pdf An American Chernobyl: Nuclear “Near Misses” at U.S. Reactors Since 1986]'' which "reveals that nearly two hundred “near misses” to nuclear meltdowns have occurred in the United States". At almost 450 nuclear plants in the world that risk is greatly magnified, they say. This is not to mention numerous incidents,<ref>{{cite web | url= http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/nuclearaccidentscalendar | title= The nuclear calendar - 365 reasons to oppose nuclear power (link to PDF) |author= |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= |date= [[26 April]] [[2006]] |work= |publisher= Greenpeace |pages= |language= |doi= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote= | accessdate= 2008-01-31 }} </ref> many supposedly unreported, that have occurred. Another report produced by Greenpeace called [http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/nuclearreactorhazards Nuclear Reactor Hazards: Ongoing Dangers of Operating Nuclear Technology in the 21st Century] claims that risk of a major accident has increased in the past years.<ref>{{cite web | url= http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/nuclear-power-and-climate.html | title= UCS Position on Nuclear Power and Global Warming |author= |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= |date= 12/10/07 |work= |publisher= [[Union of Concerned Scientists]] |pages= |language= |doi= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote= | accessdate= 2008-01-31 }} </ref> Underlying much of the distrust is the fact that it has often been the case that populations are not informed of hazards from various technologies that may impact on them. For example Brookhaven National Laboratory's leaking of radioactive tritium into community groundwater for up to 12 years which angered the local community,<ref>{{cite web | url= http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9807E5D61F31F931A35756C0A961958260&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/B/Brookhaven%20National%20Laboratory | title= "U.S. Energy Chief Removes Manager for Brookhaven |author= Dan Barry |date= [[May 2]], [[1997]] |work= |publisher= ''[[New York Times]]'' |pages= |language= |doi= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote= | accessdate= 2008-01-31 }}</ref> dangerous coverups at the Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant<ref>{{cite web | url= http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/04/1420209 | title= Colorado’s Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant |author= |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= |date= [[May 4]], [[2004]] |work= |publisher= [[Democracy Now]] |pages= |language= |doi= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote= | accessdate= 2008-01-31 }}</ref> or the pollution of [[Anniston, Alabama]] and other locations by Monsanto that went unreported for four decades,<ref>{{cite web | url= http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto%27s_Global_Pollution_Legacy&oldid=281405 | title= Monsanto's Global Pollution Legacy |author= |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= |date= Revision as of [[14 December]] [[2007]] |work= |publisher= [[Source Watch]] |pages= |language= |doi= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote= | accessdate= 2008-01-31 }}</ref> however such mistrust is often misdirected — while the industrial sites that were built to support the Manhattan Project and the Cold War's nuclear arms race in the United States display many cases of significant environmental contamination and other safety concerns, in the US such facilities are operated and regulated completely separately from commercial nuclear power plants. ==== Contrasting radioactive accident emissions with industrial emissions ==== Claims exist that the problems of nuclear waste do not come anywhere close to approaching the problems of fossil fuel waste.<ref>{{cite web | url= http://units.aps.org/units/fps/energy/bodansky.cfm | title= The Environmental Paradox of Nuclear Power |author= David Bodansky |date= |year= |month= |format= |work= |publisher= [[American Physical Society]] |pages= |language= |doi= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote= (reprinted from ''Environmental Practice'', vol.&nbsp;3, no.&nbsp;2 (June 2001), pp.86–88 {Oxford University Press)) | accessdate= 2008-01-31 }} </ref><ref>{{cite web | url= http://russp.org/nucfacts.html | title= Some Amazing Facts about Nuclear Power |author= |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= |date= August 2002 |work= |publisher= |pages= |language= |doi= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote= | accessdate= 2008-01-31 }} </ref> A 2004 article from the BBC states: "The [[World Health Organization]] (WHO) says 3 million people are killed worldwide by outdoor air pollution annually from vehicles and industrial emissions, and 1.6 million indoors through using solid fuel."<ref>{{cite web | url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4086809.stm | title= "Pollution: A life and death issue" | author= Alex Kirby | date= 13 December, 2004, |publisher= ''[[BBC News]]'' |pages= |language= |doi= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote= | accessdate= 2008-01-31 }} </ref> In the U.S. alone, fossil fuel waste kills 20,000 people each year.<ref>{{cite web | url= http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05180/529969.stm | title= "State sues utility for U.S. pollution violations" |author= Don Hopey | date= [[June 29]], [[2005]] | publisher= ''[[Pittsburgh Post-Gazette]]'' |pages= |language= |doi= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote= | accessdate= 2008-01-31 }} </ref> A coal power plant releases 100 times as much radiation as a nuclear power plant of the same wattage.<ref name="colmain">{{cite web | url= http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html | title= Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger |author= Alex Gabbard |date= |year= |month= |format= |work= |publisher= Oak Ridge National Laboratory |pages= |language= |doi= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote= | accessdate= 2008-01-31 }} </ref> It is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times as much radioactivity into the atmosphere as the [[Three Mile Island]] incident.<ref>[http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~aubrecht/coalvsnucMarcon.pdf#page=8 Nuclear proliferation through coal burning] — Gordon J. Aubrecht, II, Ohio State University</ref> The [[World Nuclear Association]] provides a comparison of deaths due to accidents among different forms of energy production. In their comparison, deaths per TW-yr of electricity produced from 1970 to 1992 are quoted as 885 for hydropower, 342 for coal, 85 for natural gas, and 8 for nuclear.<ref name="wna">{{cite web|url=http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf06.html|title=Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors}}</ref> ==== Health effect on population near nuclear plants and workers==== [[Image:Trojan1.jpg|thumb|Fishermen near the decommissioned [[Trojan Nuclear Power Plant]]. The reactor dome is visible on the left, and the large cooling tower on the right.]] Most human exposure to radiation comes from natural [[background radiation]]. Most of the remaining exposure comes from medical procedures. Several large studies in the US, Canada, and Europe have found no evidence of any increase in cancer mortality among people living near nuclear facilities. For example, in 1991, the [[National Cancer Institute]] (NCI) of the [[National Institutes of Health]] announced that a large-scale study, which evaluated mortality from 16 types of cancer, found no increased incidence of cancer mortality for people living near 62 nuclear installations in the United States. The study showed no increase in the incidence of childhood leukemia mortality in the study of surrounding counties after start-up of the nuclear facilities. The NCI study, the broadest of its kind ever conducted, surveyed 900,000 cancer deaths in counties near nuclear facilities.<ref>{{cite web | url= http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/nuclear-facilities | title= No Excess Mortality Risk Found in Counties with Nuclear Facilities |author= |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= | date= 1996-05-20 |work= | publisher= [[National Cancer Institute]] |pages= |language= |doi= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote= | accessdate= 2008-01-31 }} </ref> Some areas of Britain near industrial facilities, particularly near [[Sellafield]], have displayed elevated childhood [[leukemia]] levels, in which children living locally are 10 times more likely to contract the cancer. One study of those near Sellafield has ruled out any contribution from nuclear sources, and the reasons for these increases, or clusters, are unclear. Apart from anything else, the levels of radiation at these sites are [[orders of magnitude]] too low to account for the excess incidences reported. One explanation is viruses or other infectious agents being introduced into a local community by the mass movement of migrant workers.<ref>[[Richard Doll|Sir Richard Doll]], quoted in the ''[[The Independent]]'' [[1999-08-16]] {{cite web | url= http://www.acor.org/ped-onc/diseases/kinlen.html | title= "Researcher Says Childhood Leukemia Is Caused By Infection" |author= |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= |date= [[August 16]], [[1999]] |work= |publisher= |pages= |language= |doi= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote= | accessdate= 2008-01-31 }}.</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last =Laurier | first =Dominique | authorlink = | coauthors =Bard, Denis | title =Epedemiologic Studies of Leukemia among Persons under 25 Years of Age Living Near Nuclear Sites | journal = Epedemiologic Reviews | volume =21 | issue =12 | pages = | publisher =Johns Hopkins University | date=1999 | url =http://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/21/2/188.pdf | doi = | id = | accessdate = 2007-04-26 }}</ref> Likewise, small studies have found an increased incidence of childhood leukemia near some nuclear power plants has been found in [[Germany]]<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9210727 A cluster of childhood leukemia near a nuclear reactor in northern Germany.]</ref> and France.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ieer.org/ensec/no-4/lahague.html|title=Leukemia Clusters Near La Hague and Sellafield}}</ref> Nonetheless, the results of larger multi-site studies in these countries invalidate the hypothesis of an increased risk of leukemia related to nuclear discharge. The methodology and very small samples in the studies finding an increased incidence has been criticized.<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11990512&dopt=Abstract Risk of childhood leukaemia in the vicinity of nuclear installations&mdash;findings and recent controversies.] accessed [[23 July]] [[2007]]</ref><ref>{{PDFlink|[http://www.nei.org/filefolder/radiation_safety_at_nuclear_power_plants_1-07.pdf Radiation Safety at Nuclear Power Plants: Studies Look at Public, Workers]}} accessed [[23 July]] [[2007]]</ref><ref>[http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf05.html Radiation and Nuclear Energy] accessed [[23 July]] [[2007]]</ref><ref>[http://www.personalmd.com/news/n0818103222.shtml Researcher Says Childhood Leukemia Is Caused By Infection] accessed [[23 July]] [[2007]]</ref> In December of 2007, it was reported that a study showed that German children who lived near nuclear power plants had a higher rate of cancer than those who did not. However, the study also stated that there was no extra radiation near the nuclear power plants, and scientists were puzzled as to what was causing the higher rate of cancer.<ref>{{cite web | url= http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2994904,00.html | title= Study Finds More Childhood Cancer Near Nuclear Power Plants |author= |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= |date= 08.12.2007 |work= |publisher= [[Deutsche Welle]] |pages= |language= |doi= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote= | accessdate= 2008-01-31 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url= http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=40610 | title= "Health: Nuclear Plants Raise Leukemia Threat" |author= Julio Godoy |date= [[December 27]], [[2007]] |work= |publisher= [[Inter Press Service]] |pages= |language= |doi= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote= | accessdate= 2008-01-31 }} </ref> ====Alternative reactor designs==== The US Government is leading a plan to develop small "disposable" nuclear reactors for deployment in developing countries. However, there has been considerable debate about the security and [[nuclear proliferation]] risks of such a proposal.<ref>[http://technology.newscientist.com/article/dn13459-disposable-nuclear-reactors-raise-security-fears.html 'Disposable' nuclear reactors raise security fears]</ref> Russia announced in 2007 that construction has started on the first of seven ships which each will carry a 70-megawatt nuclear reactor. The ships will provide power to remote coastal towns, or be sold abroad, and 12 countries, including Algeria and Indonesia, have expressed interest. There is considerable debate about the safety of such "floating" nuclear reactors.<ref name=guard>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/apr/18/energy.business How safe is a floating nuclear power plant?]</ref> The Estonian Maritime Academy has developed a project to construct an underwater nuclear reactor off the Baltic Sea coast. The project, submitted to the Estonian Eesti Energia company, proposes the construction of a 1,000-MWt nuclear power plant on a granite shelf of the Muuga Bay. The Head of the Academy has said that the construction of a nuclear reactor on the seabed is completely safe. However, an underwater nuclear power plant would be more costly than a similar land-based project. Local environmentalists have also expressed doubts about the ecological safety of such a giant undertaking on the sea shelf.<ref>[http://en.rian.ru/world/20070620/67541197.html Estonian scientists propose underwater nuclear reactor project]</ref> In 2003, [[New Scientist]] reported that the US Air Force was contemplating a "nuclear-powered unmanned aircraft", to be airborne for months at a time.<ref name=guard/> === Nuclear proliferation and terrorism concerns === {{details|Nuclear proliferation}} Nuclear proliferation is the spread of nuclear weapons and related technology to nations not recognized as "Nuclear Weapon States" by the [[Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty]]. Since the days of the [[Manhattan Project]] it has been known that reactors could be used for weapons-development purposes—the first nuclear reactors were developed for exactly this reason—as the operation of a nuclear reactor converts U-238 into plutonium. As a consequence, since the 1950s there have been concerns about the possibility of using reactors as a [[dual-use technology]], whereby apparently peaceful technological development could serve as an approach to nuclear weapons capability. ==== Vulnerability of plants to attack ==== In the US, 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.<ref>[http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/security-enhancements.html Nuclear Security – Five Years After 9/11] accessed [[23 July]] [[2007]]</ref> The NRC's "Design Basis Threat" criteria for plants is a secret, and so what size attacking force the plants are able to protect against is unknown. However, to [[scram]] a plant takes less than 5 seconds while unimpeded restart takes hours, severely hampering a terrorist force in a goal to release radioactivity. ==== Use of waste byproduct as a weapon ==== [[Image:TaskForce One.jpg|thumbnail|Nuclear aircraft carrier USS Enterprise in 1964]] An additional concern with nuclear power plants is that if the by-products of nuclear fission—the nuclear waste generated by the plant—were to be unprotected it could be used as a [[radiological weapon]], colloquially known as a "[[dirty bomb]]". There have been incidents of nuclear plant workers attempting to sell nuclear materials for this purpose (for example, there was such an incident in Russia in 1999 where plant workers attempted to sell 5 grams of radioactive material on the open market,<ref name="nti-nwfu">{{Cite web |url= http://www.nti.org/db/nistraff/1999/19990670.htm |title=Neutron Weapon from Underground |accessdate=2006-11-10 |publisher=Nuclear Threat Initiative|year=1999 |author=Vadim Nesvizhskiy |work=Research Library}}</ref> and an incident in 1993 where Russian workers were caught attempting to sell 4.5 kilograms of enriched uranium.<ref name="aa-ionsi">{{Cite web |url= http://www.atomicarchive.com/Almanac/Smuggling_details.shtml#4 |title=Information on Nuclear Smuggling Incidents |accessdate=2006-11-10 |publisher=Nuclear Threat Initiative|work=Nuclear Almanac}}</ref><ref name="gu-wgus">{{Cite web|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,526856,00.html|title=Weapons-grade Uranium Seized|accessdate=2006-11-10|publisher=Guardian Unlimited|year=2001|author=Amelia Gentleman and Ewen MacAskill}}</ref><ref name="ag-trutiosftt">{{Cite web |url= http://www.axisglobe.com/article.asp?article=328 |title=The Russian Uranium That is on Sale for the Terrorists |accessdate=2006-11-10 |publisher=Axis |year=2005 |author=Pavel Simonov |work=Global Challenges Research}}</ref>), and there are additional concerns that the transportation of nuclear waste along roadways or railways opens it up for potential theft. The [[UN]] has since called upon world leaders to improve security in order to prevent radioactive material falling into the hands of terrorists,<ref name="bbc-acodbt">{{Cite web |url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2838743.stm |title=Action Call Over Dirty Bomb Threat |accessdate=2006-11-10 |publisher=BBC News |year=2003}}</ref> and such fears have been used as justifications for centralized, permanent, and secure waste repositories and increased security along transportation routes.<ref>For an example of the former, see the quotes in Erin Neff, Cy Ryan, and Benjamin Grove, [http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/special/2002/feb/15/513046106.html "Bush OKs Yucca Mountain waste site"], ''Las Vegas Sun'' (2002 [[February 15]]). For an example of the latter, see [http://www.senate.gov/~schumer/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/press_releases/PR01033.html ""DIRTY BOMB" PLOT SPURS SCHUMER TO CALL FOR US MARSHALS TO GUARD NUCLEAR WASTE THAT WOULD GO THROUGH NEW YORK"], press release of Senator Charles E. Shumer ([[13 June]] [[2002]]).</ref> == See also == {{portal|Nuclear technology}} {{EnergyPortal}} * [[Anti-nuclear]] * [[:Category:Nuclear power by country]] * [[Electricity generation]] * [[Energy development]] * [[German nuclear energy project]] * [[List of nuclear reactors]] * [[Nuclear contamination]] * [[Nuclear fission]] * [[Nuclear fuel cycle]] * [[Nuclear fusion]] * [[Nuclear Liabilities Fund]] * [[Nuclear physics]] * [[Nuclear power in the United States]] * [[Nuclear terrorism]] * [[Spent nuclear fuel shipping cask]] * [[Toshiba 4S]] * [[World energy resources and consumption]] == Footnotes == {{reflist|2}} ==References== * [http://www.chemcases.com/2003version/nuclear/nc-10.htm An entry to nuclear power through an educational discussion of reactors] * [http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/BOOK.html The Nuclear Energy Option], online book by Bernard L. Cohen. * Steve Thomas (2005), {{PDFlink|[http://www.psiru.org/reports/2005-09-E-Nuclear.pdf "The Economics of Nuclear Power: analysis of recent studies"]|305&nbsp;KB}}, PSIRU, [[University of Greenwich]], UK * [http://alsos.wlu.edu/adv_rst.aspx?query=nuclear+power&selection=keyword&source=all&results=10 Nuclear power information archives from ALSOS, the National Digital Science Library at Washington & Lee University.] * [http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19473 Texas Will Host First New U.S. Nuclear Plants since 1970s] *''Power to Save the World: the Truth about Nuclear Energy'' / [[Gwyneth Cravens]] (2007) ISBN 0307266567 == External links == {{Sisterlinks|Nuclear power}} <!-- Please add new links sparingly and remove any links to websites that are dead, unreliable or not very useful for readers. You should usually link to the home page or an index page rather than having multiple links to the same site. If the site covers very similar material as one that is already linked to, only link to the best one. The links are alphabetized to avoid jockeying for position. --> * [http://www.epa.gov/cleanrgy/nuc.htm Environmental impacts of nuclear power] at [[EPA]].gov * [http://www.acme-nuclear.com Boiling Water Reactor Plant, BWR Simulator Program] * [http://www.iaea.org/ IAEA Website]—The [[International Atomic Energy Agency]] ** [http://www.iaea.org/programmes/a2/ IAEA's Power Reactor Information System (PRIS)] ** [http://www.iaea.org/cgi-bin/db.page.pl/pris.charts.htm Information about all NPP in the world] ** [http://www.iaea.org/inis/ws/ IAEA's Web directory of nuclear related resources on the Internet] * [http://eia.doe.gov Energy Information Administration] provides lots of statistics and information * [http://www.insc.anl.gov/pwrmaps/ Argonne National Laboratory — Maps of Nuclear Power Reactors] * [http://www.greens-efa.org/cms/topics/dokbin/206/206749.the_world_nuclear_industry_status_report@en.pdf The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2007]. * [http://alsos.wlu.edu/default.aspx Alsos Digital Library for Nuclear Issues — Annotated Bibliography on Nuclear Power] * [http://www.british-energy.com/pagetemplate.php?pid=312 British Energy — Understanding Nuclear Energy / Nuclear Power] * {{PDFlink|[http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/tech/energy/nuclear.pdf Congressional Research Service report on Nuclear Energy Policy]|94.0&nbsp;KB}} * [http://www.newscientist.com/channel/mech-tech/nuclear New Scientist — nuclear power articles] * [http://www.nucleartourist.com/ Nuclear Tourist.com], nuclear power information * [http://nuclearinfo.net Nuclear Power Education] * [http://pepei.pennnet.com/resource/nuclear%20waste%20disposal Nuclear Waste Disposal Resources] * [http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=wq.essay&essay_id=203041 Wilson Quarterly — Nuclear Power: Both Sides] * [http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger?] * [http://www.thewatt.com/modules.php?name=News&new_topic=13 Nuclear Power Related News] * [http://www.chemcases.com/2003version/nuclear/nc-10.htm An entry to nuclear power through an educational discussion of reactors] * [http://energyscience.org.au/ Briefing Papers from the Australian EnergyScience Coaltion] * [http://science.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-power.htm How Nuclear Power Works] === Nuclear news websites === * [http://www.ans.org/links/vc-video ANS Nuclear Clips] * [http://www.ans.org/pubs/magazines/nn/ Nuclear News] * [http://www.world-nuclear-news.com World Nuclear News] === Critical === * [http://www.beyondnuclear.org/ Beyond Nuclear at Nuclear Policy Research Institute advocacy organization] * [http://www.greenpeace.org/~nuclear/ Greenpeace Nuclear Campaign] * [http://www.intreview.com/article.php?id=123 Critical assessment of the US-India nuclear energy accord published by the [[Internationalist Review]]] * [http://www.antenna.nl/wise/index.html World Information Service on Energy (WISE)] * [http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/nukes/chernob/rep02.html Greenpeace — Calendar of Nuclear Accidents] * [http://www.million-against-nuclear.net/ 1 million europeans against nuclear power] * [http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-energy/basics/introduction.htm Nuclear Files] * {{PDFlink|[http://www.boell.de/downloads/oeko/NIP6%20MatthesEndf.pdf Climate Change and Nuclear Energy]|265&nbsp;KB}} * {{PDFlink|[http://www.earthhealing.info/CH.pdf Critical Hour: Three Mile Island, The Nuclear Legacy, And National Security]|929&nbsp;KB}} Online book * {{PDFlink|[http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/plants/plants.pdf Natural Resources Defense Council]|158&nbsp;KB}} * [http://www.sierraclub.org/energysummer/4nuclear/becker_op_ed.asp Sierra Club] === Supportive === * [http://www.ans.org/ American Nuclear Society (ANS)] * [http://www.world-nuclear.org/ Representing the People and Organisations of the Global Nuclear Profession] * [http://www.ecolo.org/ Environmentalists for Nuclear Power] * [http://www.sckcen.be/ SCK.CEN Belgian Nuclear Research Centre] * [http://www.nei.org/ Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)] * [http://www.atomicinsights.com/ Atomic Insights] * [http://www.freedomforfission.org.uk/ Freedom for Fission] * [http://www.niof.org/ Nuclear is Our Future] * [http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/BOOK.html The Nuclear Energy Option], online book by Bernard L. Cohen. Emphasis on risk estimates of nuclear. * [http://www.world-nuclear.org/index.html World Nuclear Association] {{Nuclear Technology}} [[Category:Energy conversion]] [[Category:Nuclear power]] [[Category:Nuclear accidents]] [[Category:Power station technology]] [[Category:Nuclear technology]] [[als:Kernenergie]] [[ar:طاقة نووية]] [[az:Nüvə enerjisi]] [[bg:Атомна енергия]] [[ca:Energia nuclear]] [[cs:Jaderná energie]] [[cy:Ynni niwclear]] [[da:Kernekraft]] [[de:Kernenergie]] [[et:Tuumaenergia]] [[es:Energía nuclear]] [[eo:Nuklea energio]] [[eu:Energia nuklear]] [[fa:انرژی هسته‌ای]] [[fr:Énergie nucléaire]] [[fy:Kearnenerzjy]] [[gl:Enerxía nuclear]] [[ko:원자력]] [[hr:Nuklearna energija]] [[id:Daya nuklir]] [[is:Kjarnorka]] [[it:Energia nucleare]] [[he:אנרגיה גרעינית]] [[la:Energia nuclearis]] [[lb:Atomenergie]] [[lt:Branduolinė energija]] [[hu:Atomenergia]] [[ml:അണുശക്തി]] [[nl:Kernenergie]] [[ja:原子力]] [[no:Kjernekraft]] [[nn:Atomkraft]] [[pl:Energia jądrowa]] [[pt:Energia nuclear]] [[ro:Energie nucleară]] [[ru:Ядерная энергия]] [[simple:Nuclear power]] [[sl:Jedrska energija]] [[sh:Nuklearna energija]] [[fi:Ydinvoima]] [[sv:Kärnkraft]] [[th:พลังงานนิวเคลียร์]] [[tr:Nükleer enerji]] [[uk:Атомна енергія]] [[wa:Enerdjeye nawearinne]] [[zh-yue:核能]] [[zh:核動力]]