Nuclear power debate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (April 2009)

This article may not meet the general notability guideline. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged or deleted. (April 2009)

The nuclear power debate concerns the desirability of using nuclear reactors to generate electricity from nuclear fuel for civilian purposes.

Proponents of nuclear energy assert that nuclear power is a compact, reliable sustainable energy source that reduces carbon emissions and increases energy security.^[1] Proponents highlight that nuclear energy's operational safety record is already very good when compared to other major power plant technologies. They claim that the risks of waste and other environmental impacts are small compared to other sources of electricity and can be further reduced by improved technology in new reactors.

Critics of nuclear energy assert that nuclear power is a potentially dangerous and declining^[2] energy source and dispute that the risks can be reduced through new technology. Critics also point to the problems of storing radioactive waste, the potential for severe radioactive contamination by accident or sabotage, the difficulty of remediating contaminated sites, the possibility of nuclear proliferation and the disadvantages of centralized electrical production.

Arguments of economics and safety are used by both sides of the debate.

Contents 1 Energy security 2 Reliability 2.1 Reduced operation during very hot weather 3 Economics 3.1 Cost of new plants 3.2 Cost of decommissioning nuclear plants 3.3 Subsidies 3.4 Costs of disposing of high-level waste 4 Environmental effects 4.1 Waste 5 Safety concerns 5.1 Health effects on population near nuclear power plants and workers 5.2 Environmental racism and exploitation of minority populations 6 Nuclear proliferation and terrorism concerns 6.1 Vulnerability of plants to attack 6.2 Use of waste byproduct as a weapon 7 Public confidence 8 Safety culture in host nations 9 Plants in adjacent nations 10 See also 11 Footnotes 12 External links 12.1 Critical 12.2 Supportive

[edit] Energy security

For some countries, nuclear power affords energy independence. Nuclear power has been relatively unaffected by embargoes, and uranium is mined in "reliable" countries, including Australia and Canada.^[3][4]

The neutron-poisoning element boron, necessary for the operation of pressurized water reactors, is found primarily in two countries (Turkey and the United States) (see Boron).

According to a Stanford study, fast breeder reactors have the potential to power humans on earth for billions of years, making it sustainable.^[5]

[edit] Reliability

Nuclear power plants are some of the more complex mechanical systems ever devised, although much of that complexity is due to redundancy of systems and the defense in depth strategy of the designs. New reactors, though, will incorporate passive safety features to reduce the need for redundancy.^[6]

In 2005, out of all nuclear power plants in the world, the average capacity factor was 86.8%, the number of SCRAMs per 7,000 hours critical was 0.6, and the unplanned capacity loss factor was 1.6%.^[7] Capacity factor is the net power produced divided by the maximum amount possible running at 100% all the time, thus this includes all scheduled maintenance/refueling outages as well as unplanned losses. The 7,000 hours is roughly representative 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.

The World Nuclear Association states that "Sun, wind, tides and waves cannot be controlled to provide directly either continuous base load power, or peak-load power when it is needed. In practical terms they are therefore limited to some 10–20% of the capacity of an electricity grid, and cannot directly be applied as economic substitutes for coal or nuclear power, however important they may become in particular areas with favourable conditions." "The fundamental problem, especially for electricity supply, is their variable and diffuse nature. This means either that there must be reliable duplicate sources of electricity, or some means of electricity storage on a large scale. Apart from pumped-storage hydro systems, no such means exist at present and nor are any in sight." "Relatively few places have scope for pumped storage dams close to where the power is needed, and overall efficiency is low. Means of storing large amounts of electricity as such in giant batteries or by other means have not been developed."^[8] See also energy storage.

Nuclear power has much different characteristics. As is the case for coal, its capital costs are higher than for gas-fired turbines but its operating costs are lower. Economics therefore favors running nuclear plants at full power as much as possible for baseload power.^[9] If nuclear energy is used only for the base load, utilities also need other energy sources most of the time, when power demand is above the minimum. Alternatively, advanced-design nuclear plants could be sized for peak demand and produce hydrogen thermochemically during off-peak hours as feedstock for synthetic liquid fuels.^[10] However, virtually no advocates of nuclear energy contend that it should provide 100% of the world's electricity.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Reduced operation during very hot weather

Since nuclear power plants are fundamentally heat engines, waste heat disposal becomes an issue at high ambient temperature. In such very hot weather a power reactor (just as a coal-fired or solar-thermal power plant will) may have to operate at a reduced power level or even shut down.^[11] In the 2006 European heat wave, a number of nuclear plants had to secure exemptions from regulations in order to discharge overheated water into the environment; several European nations were forced to reduce operations at some plants and take others offline and France, normally an electricity exporter, had to buy electricity on European spot market to meet demand.^[12] Overheated discharge water has resulted in significant fish kills in the past, impacting livelihood and raising public concern. Fish kills remain a problem for plants which use water for cooling, due to high volumes which pull fish into intake systems. Plants with cooling towers are more expensive, but allow for alleviating temperature effects.

[edit] Economics

Nuclear plants generally have very high capital costs with operating costs just under those of coal-fired generation,^[13] but very low fuel costs.

In 2008 World Nuclear Association gave a 2005 comparison table and said "Nuclear energy is, in many places, competitive with fossil fuel for electricity generation, despite relatively high capital costs and the need to internalise all waste disposal and decommissioning costs. If the social, health and environmental costs of fossil fuels are also taken into account (for example, if a carbon tax is implemented), nuclear is outstanding."^[14]

Opponents of nuclear energy charge that utilities contemplating the construction of reactors demand support from the government in the form of loan guarantees, arguing that this shows them to be risky investments. In a speech to U.S. Congressional members on April 24, 2007, Christopher Crane, Senior Vice President of Exelon, said that the loan guarantee must cover 100 percent of project debt, as otherwise financing of new power plants would be extremely difficult.^[15] Supporters of nuclear energy point out that the guarantees would only apply to the first few reactors as an assurance that the licensing requirements would not be changed during construction, as happened in the past. They further point out that the same sort of loan guarantees are being provided for renewable-energy and carbon-sequestration projects.^[16]

Anti-nuclear organisations consider that the economics of new nuclear power plants are unfavourable because of the initial costs of constructing a nuclear plant (see Darlington Nuclear Generating Station), the public subsidies and tax expenditures involved in research and security, the cost of decommissioning nuclear facilities, and the undetermined costs of storing nuclear waste.^[17][18]

In a study conducted for the SER, an economic advisory council of the Dutch government, the Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN) expressed concern that the expansion of nuclear energy might reduce investment in renewable energy technologies through lock-in effects.^[19]

[edit] Cost of new plants

Urgency in the face of possible fossil fuel shortages and climate change can be seen both as an advantage and a disadvantage of nuclear fission. If the present state of technology is used, then nuclear fission will in the long run be cheaper than other alternative energy sources.^{[citation needed]} However, most of the cost is in building the plants. If, for example, the goal is to cover 80% of the world's (present) energy demand with fission, then thousands of new plants would have to be built,^{[citation needed]} at a price of several billion US$ each,^[20] which would mean an investment of tens of trillions of US$, although this general scale of investment is required no matter which approach to carbon reduction is taken. Also, permitting and building a nuclear plant can take about 10 years.^[20] This allows speculation on where other alternatives would stand by then if that money were invested in making them cheaper and more efficient. It is possible that that route would in the long run be more economical, but that depends on how big the improvements would be. Solar energy, for example, which has received relatively little development investments, and is therefore still in early development stages, is still making progress on efficiency levels.

The claim of one new design (the European Pressurised Reactor, EPR) to provide enhanced economic competitiveness (ie. lower electricity costs) is now being questioned. Its promoter, EdF, has announced an increase of the production price of the Flamanville prototype plant.^[21] The cost of electricity is expected (Dec 2008) to be around 55 euros a megawatt hour, instead of the 46 euros announced when the project was launched in May 2006.

[edit] Cost of decommissioning nuclear plants

Shutting down a nuclear plant is cited as an extremely expensive process by nuclear power critics, although the costs are usually covered by a component of price charged for electricity during operation. In the UK the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority has increased the overall cost for decommissioning nuclear plants from £57 billion in 2005 to £73 billion in 2008, according to the BBC, although this is heavily influenced by cleaning up the weapons development at Sellafield. However, the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee was told in July 2008 that this cost could rise further and that it is almost impossible to come up with an accurate figure. Stabilising a plant and ensuring that it is safe is cited as an unknown cost by critics, claiming that decommissioning costs can massively increase the overall cost of nuclear energy.

[edit] Subsidies

Critics of nuclear power claim that it is the beneficiary of inappropriately large economic subsidies — mainly taking the forms of research and development, and financing support for new build — and that these subsidies are often overlooked when comparing the economics of nuclear against other forms of power generation.

Nuclear industry proponents argue that competing energy sources also receive subsidies. Fossil fuels receive large direct and indirect subsidies, such as tax benefits and not having to pay for the greenhouse gases they emit^{[citation needed]}. Renewables receive proportionately large direct production subsidies and tax breaks in many nations, although in absolute terms they are often less than subsidies received by other sources.^[22]

Energy research and development (R&D) for nuclear power continues to receive large state subsidies. In the United States, nuclear receives more Federal R&D support than the renewables industry^{[citation needed]}, however the impact of favorable tax incentives drives the total Federal support of the renewables industry to a level almost four times as high as that of the nuclear industry, despite all renewables (excluding hydroelectric, which receives no R&D funding) producing only 1/8th as much power as nuclear.^[23] In Europe, the FP7 research program has more subsidies for nuclear than for renewable and energy efficiency together, although over 70% of this is directed at the ITER fusion project.^[24][25] In the US, public research money for nuclear fission declined from 2,179 to 35 million dollars between 1980 and 2000.^[22] However, in order to restart the industry, the next few US reactors will receive subsidies equal to those of renewables and, in the event of cost overruns due to litigation or regulatory delays, at least partial compensation (see Nuclear Power 2010 Program).^{[citation needed]}

A May 12, 2008 editorial in the Wall St. Journal stated, "For electricity generation, the EIA concludes that solar energy is subsidized to the tune of $24.34 per megawatt hour, wind $23.37 and 'clean coal' $29.81. By contrast, normal coal receives 44 cents, natural gas a mere quarter, hydroelectric about 67 cents and nuclear power $1.59."^[26] The EIA report however goes on to say "The impacts of prior subsidies, some of which may no longer be in effect, are not measured in the current analysis."^[23]

[edit] Costs of disposing of high-level waste

This article is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. Please help recruit one or improve this article yourself. See the talk page for details. Please consider using {{Expert-subject}} to associate this request with a WikiProject. (October 2008)

The cost of disposing of high-level waste is poorly known due to uncertainties of the length of time the waste must be stored, the final method to be used, how payment will be structured, and other reasons.

Nuclear opponents claim that the costs of handling spent fuel will be expensive. Advocates of nuclear energy argue that spent fuel has a high enough value to offset all or nearly all of the processing cost. However by 2003, Sellafield's Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant had made losses of over £1bn in the first 9 years of operation.^[27]

Though it is not a viewpoint that figures prominently in the debate, some individuals suggest the value of spent fuel would be enhanced by using it as a heat source. According to a U.S. Department of Energy report,^[28] the initial heat produced by U.S. nuclear waste will be on the order of 30 to 50 times the heat flux in the Geysers geothermal reservoir in California. According to The California Energy Commission,^[29] Geothermal Energy in California website, in 2007 California produced 13,000 gigawatt-hours of geothermal energy. Assuming the conservative estimate of 30 times this amount of heat flux for U.S. nuclear waste, 390,000 gigawatt-hours of energy is produced annually by U.S. waste. This is close to half of the power output by America’s operational reactors (806.5 billion kilowatt-hours (bkWh in 2007).^[30]

390,000 gigawatt-hours is the equivalent of 219,956,237.507 barrels of fuel oil (US). The energy return on investment for SAGD is 5.2/1 ^[31] therefore the heat flux of America’s nuclear waste has the potential to produce over a billion barrels of synthetic oil annually.

The U.S. has approximately a quarter of the global inventory of spent nuclear fuel therefore the potential exists for the development of significantly more unconventional deposits with imported spent fuel. Essentially America’s total oil demand could be met from the output from the global spent fuel inventory. But that would require converting all energy use to electricity, for one thing. So this statement is rather hopeful, if not bizarre.

The Henry Hub pricing point for natural gas futures contracts traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange for the week ended July 30, 2008 was $9.01 per MMBtu. 390,000 gigawatt-hours is the equivalent 1,330,735,236.9199 MMBtu so the waste heat of America’s spent nuclear fuel has the annual potential of $12 billion worth of Natural Gas. Burning a clean fuel [natural gas] to make a dirty fuel [from oil sands] has been characterized as a form of reverse alchemy. A far better use for natural gas is making electricity, home heating or as Boone Pickens advocates, transportation.

The Nuclear Assisted Hydrocarbon Production Method,^[32] Canadian patent application 2,638,179, is a method for the temporary or permanent storage of nuclear waste materials comprising the placing of waste materials into one or more repositories or boreholes constructed into an unconventional oil formation. The thermal flux of the waste materials fracture the formation, alters the chemical and/or physical properties of hydrocarbon material within the subterranean formation to allow removal of the altered material. A mixture of hydrocarbons, hydrogen, and/or other formation fluids are produced from the formation. The radioactivity of high-level radioactive waste affords proliferation resistance to plutonium placed in the periphery of the repository or the deepest portion of a borehole.

[edit] Environmental effects

The primary environmental impacts of nuclear power come from uranium mining, radioactive effluent emissions, and waste heat, as under normal generating conditions nuclear power does not produce greenhouse gas emissions [CO₂, NO₂] directly (although the nuclear fuel cycle produces them indirectly, though at much smaller rates than fossil fuels).^[33] Nuclear generation does not directly produce sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury or other pollutants associated with the combustion of fossil fuels. In 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."^[34] Many experts, some of whom consider themselves environmentalists, now believe that expanded nuclear generation is the only way to reduce green house gas emissions while providing for current and future electricity needs.^[35] However, this is disputed by some on the basis of thermodynamic limits to nuclear energy deployment. ^[36]

For the same amount of electricity, the life cycle emissions of nuclear is about 4% of coal-fired power. Depending on the report, hydro, wind, and geothermal are sometimes ranked lower, while wind and hydro are sometimes ranked higher (by life cycle emissions).^[37][38]

Nuclear plants require more, but not significantly more, cooling water than fossil-fuel power plants due to their slightly lower generation efficiencies. Uranium mining can use large amounts of water - for example, the Roxby Downs mine in South Australia uses 35 million litres of water each day and plans to increase this to 150 million litres per day.^[39]

[edit] Waste

Spent nuclear fuel is considered high level waste (HLW). It contains the fission products and transuranic elements generated in the reactor core. HLW accounts for over 95% of the total radioactivity produced in the process of nuclear electricity generation. The fact that it is a very concentrated biological hazard and remains so for a long period of time presents a difficult challenge for containing it. Questions surrounding High-level radioactive waste management remain central to the debate of nuclear power.

Most countries with nuclear power agree that storing spent fuel in Deep geological repositories is the best option for waste disposal, but no such long-term waste repositories yet exist.^[40][41]

Solid low-level waste is disposed of by placing it in low-level waste disposal sites where it will not be disturbed for a few years. Three of these sites exist in the USA. The waste comes from plant operations and the chemical processing system.^[42]

Claims exist that the problems of nuclear waste do not come anywhere close to approaching the problems of fossil fuel waste.^[43][44] 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."^[45] In the U.S. alone, fossil fuel waste kills 20,000 people each year.^[46] A coal power plant releases 100 times as much radiation as a nuclear power plant of the same wattage.^[47] It is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times as much radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island incident.^[48] In addition, fossil fuel waste causes global warming, which leads to increased deaths from hurricanes, flooding, and other weather events. 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.^[49]

[edit] Safety concerns

Safety of nuclear power centers around two issues; risk to workers and public due to low-level radiation from the plant, and health risk to the public when and if an accident happens at various stages of the fuel and maintenance cycle. While there have been some disastrous accidents in the past, the reactor design was typically at fault, and modern reactors are significantly less prone to such accidents.^[50] Actually, human error was the significant factor in the Chernobyl accident, as well as most others. Regardless, the catastrophic aftermath of past accidents presents a strong justification for such safety concerns. In addition, the effects of the everyday activity is also a prominent concern. A recent example was unsecured interstate transport of contaminated cleaning equipment from the Prairie Island plant in Minnesota.

[edit] Health effects on population near nuclear power plants and workers

A major concern in the nuclear debate is the long-term effects of living near or working in a nuclear power station. These concerns typically center around the potential for increased risks of cancer. However, studies conducted by non-profit, neutral agencies have found no compelling evidence of correlation between nuclear power and risk of cancer.^[51]

There has been considerable research done on the effect of low-level radiation on humans. Debate on the applicability of Linear no-threshold model versus Radiation hormesis and other competing models continues, however, the predicted low rate of cancer with low dose means that large sample sizes are required in order to make meaningful conclusions. A study conducted by the National Academy of Science found that carcinogenic effects of radiation does increase with dose. ^[52] The largest study on nuclear industry workers in history involved nearly a half-million individuals and concluded that a 1–2% of cancer deaths were likely due to occupational dose. This was on the high range of what theory predicted by LNT, but was "statistically compatible".^[53]

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has a factsheet that outlines 6 different studies. In 1990 the United States Congress requested the National Cancer Institute to conduct a study of cancer mortality rates around nuclear plants and other facilities covering 1950 to 1984 focusing on the change after operation started of the respective facilities. They concluded in no link. In 2000 the University of Pittsburgh found no link to heightened cancer deaths in people living within 5 miles of plant at the time of the Three Mile Island accident. The same year, the Illinois Public Health Department found no statistical abnormality of childhood cancers in counties with nuclear plants. In 2001 the Connecticut Academy of Sciences and Engineering confirmed that radiation emissions were negligibly low at the Connecticut Yankee Nuclear Power Plant. Also that year, the American Cancer Society investigated cancer clusters around nuclear plants and concluded no link to radiation noting that cancer clusters occur regularly due to unrelated reasons. Again in 2001, the Florida Bureau of Environmental Epidemiology reviewed claims of increased cancer rates in counties with nuclear plants, however, using the same data as the claimants, they observed no abnormalities.^[54]

Scientists learned about exposure to high level radiation from studies of the effects of bombing populations at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, it is difficult to trace the relationship of low level radiation exposure to resulting cancers and mutations. This is because the latency period between exposure and effect can be 25 years or more for cancer and a generation or more for genetic damage. Since nuclear generating plants have a brief history, it is early to judge the effects.

Most human exposure to radiation comes from natural background radiation. Natural sources of radiation amount to an average annual radiation dose of 295 mrem. The average person receives about 53 mrem from medical procedures and 10 mrem from consumer products.^[55] According to the National Safety Council, people living within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant receive an additional 0.01 mrem per year. Living within 50 miles of a coal plant adds 0.03 mrem per year.^[56] These numbers are negligible compared with the average annual dose of 358 mrem per year.

The industry has consistently been lax in developing safety plans, rehearsing with the public, and ensuring a response to protect the public in case of accidents, leakage of radiation, or developing situations which could put them at risk. The Three Mile incident brought this to light with the utility downplaying the situation, civil authorities giving other messages, and the media giving still others. The U.S. President also visited the site. This left the public confused and panicked, some evacuating and others not. However, as reported by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Three Mile incident resulted in no deaths, no worker being exposed beyond government limits for radiation workers, and the public receiving at max about 1 mrem.^[57]

The 1999 accident in Tokaimura Japan irradiated the public, including nearby schoolchildren. The public was asked to stay indoors with windows shut and wash off any rain which fell on them. Some were evacuated from the area. Japan asked for help from the U.S. but the U.S. said its forces were not equipped to deal with such a situation. Tokaimura was the site of Japan's worst nuclear accident in 1997.

A typical scenario was encountered by the mayor of Lake City, Minnesota when the nearby Prairie Island plant of NSP (now Excel) included his emergency services in their emergency plan, but had not contacted him to consult or plan any actions.^{[citation needed]}

It would seem the least expectation would be for citizens, at least near the area of a plant, to be provided regular information through various media outlets, if not specific training, in emergency plans. But this is not done. The U.S. gave extensive information, planning, and regular "duck and cover" drills for readiness in the case of nuclear attack in the 1950s, although this never occurred. Considering that there have been regular nuclear accidents and "near miss" situations of potential disasters at nuclear generating plants, there is a higher probability for these events. Yet the industry has provided little to no leadership on this issue and governments have been left to try to pick up the slack (which would require more costs for the public and in effect another subsidy for the industry).^{[citation needed]}

In contrast with the previous paragraph, current guidelines established by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), require extensive emergency planning, between nuclear power plants, FEMA, and the local governments. Plans call for different zones, defined by distance from the plant and prevailing weather conditions and protective actions. In the reference cited, the plans detail different categories of emergencies and the protective actions including possible evacuation.^[58]

[edit] Environmental racism and exploitation of minority populations

Due to the inherent dangers of radioactive materials at various stages of the nuclear cycle, activities have been placed farther from concentrated human populations holding power. The American western states hosted much of the mining, enrichment development, and testing of nuclear weapons and energy applications. This area also has a history of hosting other federally sponsored hazardous undertakings such as nerve gas production. Industry proponents argue such activities have brought economic activity to sponsor communities.

The Trinity test site of the first atomic bomb was near the Mescalero Apaches. Uranium was enriched at Hanford on lands ceded by the Yakima Indian Nation, and adjacent to the Nez Perce and Umatilla tribal areas. Residents of the Bikini Atoll were removed from their lands during testing and can not yet return to these toxic areas. Mining on Navajo land resulted in increased cancer and lung disease among workers. Mining has affected the Spokane tribe and reservations such as Pine Ridge, who have unreclaimed mines, exploratory digs, and tailings waste to clean up. An example of this issue is Xcel energy's Prairie Island generating plant, located on tribal land on the Mississippi river in a rural area near Red Wing, Minnesota. Waste material is "temporarily" stored in above ground casks at this plant and the utility seeks to increase storage. The plant is not located in the metropolitan area of Minneapolis/ St. Paul, the major population using the electricity, some 60 miles away. Proponents in the industry, as well as within the tribe and Red Wing hold that the plant brings economic activity. However, even that community support has eroded since Xcel reduced tax payments to the city.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Nuclear proliferation and terrorism concerns

Nuclear proliferation is the spread of nuclear weapons and related technology to nations not recognized as "Nuclear Weapon States" by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NNPT). 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.^{[59][unreliable source?]} Part of the radioactive material produced in some types of nuclear reactors has the potential to be used to make nuclear weapons by countries equipped with the capability of chemical and isotope separation.^{[60][unreliable source?]} For that reason, the United Nation's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) closely monitors all reactors of nations who have joined.

[edit] Vulnerability of plants to attack

"The human, environmental, and economic costs from a successful attack on a nuclear power plant that results in the release of substantial quantities of radioactive material to the environment could be great."^[61]

However, each nuclear power plant's reactor (except those in Russia) is surrounded by a thick containment building. In the U.S. the plants are also surrounded by a double row of tall fences which are electronically monitored, and the plant grounds are patrolled by a sizeable force of armed guards.^[62] 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 any goal to release radioactivity.

[edit] Use of waste byproduct as a weapon

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 left unprotected it could be stolen and used as a radiological weapon, colloquially known as a "dirty bomb". There were incidents in post-Soviet Russia 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,^[63] and an incident in 1993 where Russian workers were caught attempting to sell 4.5 kilograms of enriched uranium.^[64][65][66]), and there are additional concerns that the transportation of nuclear waste along roadways or railways opens it up for potential theft. The United Nations has since called upon world leaders to improve security in order to prevent radioactive material falling into the hands of terrorists,^[67] and such fears have been used as justifications for centralized, permanent, and secure waste repositories and increased security along transportation routes.^[68]

[edit] Public confidence

Polls consistently show that populations continue to oppose nuclear energy, but desire the energy security.^{[citation needed]} A comprehensive public opinion survey, performed in May and June 2006 in the European Union member countries, concluded that EU citizens perceive great future promise in the use of renewable energies, but despite majority opposition, believe nuclear energy will have its place in the future energy mix.^[69]

[edit] Safety culture in host nations

Nuclear's safety also depends strongly on building, maintaining and operating the reactors as designed. The Chernobyl disaster was directly caused by a poor safety culture in the former Soviet Union. The US nuclear industry on the other hand has an excellent safety culture, one derived from that established by Adm. Hyman G. Rickover for the U.S. Navy's Nuclear Propulsion Program, and from which many of the commercial industry's personnel are drawn.

Some developing countries which plan to go nuclear have very poor industrial safety records and problems with political corruption.^[70]

The improper operation of a badly-designed nuclear reactor with no containment building located near large populations can be catastrophic in the event of an uncontrolled power increase in the reactor, as shown by the Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine (former USSR), where large areas of Europe were affected by moderate radioactive contamination and the parts of Ukraine and one fifth of Belarus continue today to be affected by radioactive fallout as of 2008.^[71]

[edit] Plants in adjacent nations

The limited liability for the owner of a nuclear power plant in case of a nuclear accident differs per nation while nuclear installations are sometimes built close to national borders.^[72] The Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage is intended to address this concern.

[edit] See also

• Anti-nuclear movement
• Atomic Age
• Energy development
• Leuren Moret
• Linear no-threshold model
• List of anti-nuclear protests in the United States
• List of books about nuclear issues
• List of nuclear whistleblowers
• Loss of coolant accident
• Nuclear contamination
• Nuclear fuel cycle
• Nuclear Liabilities Fund
• Nuclear terrorism
• Passive nuclear safety
• Uranium mining

[edit] Footnotes

[edit] External links

[edit] Critical

• Beyond Nuclear at Nuclear Policy Research Institute advocacy organization
• Greenpeace Nuclear Campaign
• Critical assessment of the US-India nuclear energy accord published by the Internationalist Review
• World Information Service on Energy (WISE)
• Greenpeace — Calendar of Nuclear Accidents
• 1 million europeans against nuclear power
• Nuclear Files
• Climate Change and Nuclear EnergyPDF (265 KB)

• Critical Hour: Three Mile Island, The Nuclear Legacy, And National SecurityPDF (929 KB) Online book
• Natural Resources Defense CouncilPDF (158 KB)
• Sierra Club

[edit] Supportive

• American Nuclear Society (ANS)
• Representing the People and Organisations of the Global Nuclear Profession
• Environmentalists for Nuclear Power
• SCK.CEN Belgian Nuclear Research Centre
• Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)
• Atomic Insights
• Freedom for Fission
• Nuclear is Our Future
• The Nuclear Energy Option, online book by Bernard L. Cohen. Emphasis on risk estimates of nuclear.
• World Nuclear Association

v • d • e Nuclear technology Science Physics · Fission · Fusion · Radiation (ionizing) · Nucleus · Safety · Chemistry · Engineering Fuels Fissile · Fertile · Thorium · Uranium (enriched • depleted) · Plutonium · Deuterium · Tritium · Isotope separation Power Reactor technology · Economics · Propulsion (rocket) · Fusion · Isotope thermoelectric (RTG) Fission reactors by moderator Water Pressurized (PWR) · Boiling (BWR) · Supercritical (SCWR) · Heavy (PHWR · CANDU) Carbon Pebble bed (PBMR) · Very high temperature (VHTR) · UHTREX · RBMK · Magnox · AGR Li / Be Molten salt (MSR) None (Fast) Breeder (FBR) · Liquid-metal-cooled (LMFR) · Integral (IFR) · SSTAR Generation IV by coolant: (Gas (GFR) · Lead (LFR) · Sodium (SFR)) Medical Imaging Positron emission (PET) · Single photon emission (SPECT) · Gamma camera · X-ray Therapy Radiation therapy · Tomotherapy · Proton · Brachytherapy · Boron neutron capture (BNCT) Weapon Topics History · Design · War · Race · Explosion (effects) · Testing (underground) · Delivery · Proliferation · Yield (TNTe) Lists States · Tests · Weapons · Pop culture Waste Disposal Fuel cycle · Spent fuel (pool • cask) · Repository · Reprocessing · Transmutation Types Reprocessed uranium  • Isotopes of plutonium · Minor actinide · Fission product (LLFP) · Activation product