DOCSLIB.ORG

Nuclear Energy FINAL

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Nuclear Energy FINAL Terrorism Analysis Report 1 June 2011 Federation of Washington and Lee American Scientists University The Future of Nuclear Power in the United States By John F. Ahearne, Albert V. Carr, Jr, Harold A. Feiveson, Daniel Ingersoll, Andrew C. Klein, Stephen Maloney, Ivan Oelrich, Sharon Squassoni, and Richard Wolfson Edited by Charles D. Ferguson and FRANK A. SETTLE 1 Federation of American Scientists 2 The Future of Nuclear Power in the United States February 2012 FAS and WASHINGTON and LEE UNIVERSITY The Future of Nuclear Power in the United States By John F. Ahearne, Albert V. Carr, Jr, Harold A. Feiveson, Daniel Ingersoll, Andrew C. Klein, Stephen Maloney, Ivan Oelrich, Sharon Squassoni, and Richard Wolfson Edited by Charles D. Ferguson and Frank A. Settle 3 Federation of American Scientists www.FAS.org About FAS Founded in 1945 by many of the scientists who built the first atomic bombs, the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) is devoted to the belief that scientists, engineers, and other technically trained people have the ethical obligation to ensure that the technological fruits of their intellect and labor are applied to the benefit of humankind. e founding mission was to prevent nuclear war. While nuclear security remains a major objective of FAS today, the organization has expanded its critical work to issues at the intersection of science and security. FAS publications are produced to increase the understanding of policymakers, the public, and the press about urgent issues in science and security policy. Individual authors who may be FAS staff or acknowledged experts from outside the institution write these reports. us, these reports do not represent an FAS institutional position on policy issues. All statements of fact and expressions of opinion contained in this and other FAS Special Reports are the sole responsibility of the author or authors. About Washington and Lee University Washington and Lee University, the nation’s ninth oldest institution of higher educa- tion, is among the nation’s premier liberal arts colleges and universities. Washington and Lee University provides a liberal arts education that develops students’ capacity to think freely, critically, and humanely and to conduct themselves with honor, integrity, and civility. Graduates are prepared for life-long learning, personal achievement, responsible leadership, service to others, and engaged citizenship in a global and diverse society. For more information about FAS or publications and reports, please call 1-202-546-3300, email [email protected], or visit the website at www.FAS.org. Copyright © 2012 by the Federation of American Scientists and Washington and Lee University. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. ISBN 978-1-938187-00-1 Federation of American Scientists www.FAS.org 4 The Future of Nuclear Power in the United States February 2012 FOREWORD In early 2010, when we began producing this report, we could not have predicted that one year later there would be a major accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Japan in March 2011. Writing this foreword in February 2012, it is still too soon to know the full implications of this accident for the United States and the global nuclear industry. Instead of focusing on this issue, we, the principal investigators, will discuss the original motivations for this report. ese motivations are still relevant regardless of the accident. If anything, the accident further underscores that constant vigilance is needed to ensure nu- clear safety. e primary motivation is to educate policymakers and the public about where nuclear power in the United States appears to be headed in light of the economic hurdles confronting construction of nuclear power plants, the aging reactors (most of which were built more than 30 years ago), and the graying workforce (many of whom are nearing re- tirement age). A corollary motivation is to provide guidance to policymakers in their deci- sions about the complex subject of nuclear power. To acquire sage advice, we asked a distinguished group of experts to provide their insights about the safety, security, building, financing, licensing, regulating, and fueling of nuclear power plants. ese experts also addressed the issues of managing spent nuclear fuel and associated wastes, comparing nuclear energy to other energy sources, and assessing the potential commercialization of technologies such as small, modular reactors and Genera- tion IV reactors. Will nuclear power in the United States experience a revival in this and the follow- ing decade? It is too difficult to know at this time considering the complicated set of factors analyzed by this report’s group of experts. We did not ask the group to reach a consensus. Instead, each author focused his or her expertise on a particular aspect of nuclear power. Nonetheless, we believe that it is worth highlighting here some insights from the individual chapters. In the opening overview chapter, Sharon Squassoni assesses that “U.S. nuclear energy growth can only be achieved with a combination of aggressive government support and a complete revamping of the U.S. nuclear industry to stress standardization and modularization in construction. e best approach for the U.S. nuclear industry over the next five years will be to demonstrate that it can manage each stage of the licensing, construction, and operating processes of the first four [new] reactors competently and effi- ciently.” Concerning the challenges of financing the new reactors, Stephen Maloney under- scores the need for the United States to have a “viable bond market.” He advises that these “markets require Federal Reserve policies, low corporate tax and capital gains rates, a strong currency, and stable growth,” but the “deficit spending policies in place today do very little to create a viable bond market.” Even if the financing risk were more manageable, licensing and regulating are two additional requirements that can pose significant challenges. Albert V. Carr, Jr. provides a masterful explanation of the U.S. history of licensing and regulating nuclear plants and is cautiously optimistic that a nuclear revival is underway given the re- cent applications for new licenses. 5 Federation of American Scientists www.FAS.org Nuclear power also has to meet high safety standards. John F. Ahearne examines the question of whether nuclear plants are safe enough and emphasizes that safety “remains a mix- ture of design, construction, maintenance, and what has been called a ‘safety culture’: the need for all involved personnel to stress safety in all their practices.” Moreover, after “the two major reactor accidents of TMI and Chernobyl, designs have been scrutinized and improved, operating practices improved, and personnel training stressed,” and that reviews of the Fukushima Daiichi accident “may spur further design changes and safety retrofits.” While safety relates to unintentional accidents, security depends on keeping nuclear plants protected against intentional attacks or sabotage. Harold Feiveson provides an in-depth analysis of the design-basis-threat (DBT), which is an assessment of the plausible threats that nuclear plants confront and must defend against, but he points out that despite improvements in the DBT after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, “questions remain whether the DBT is yet realistic enough to capture plausible threats by terrorist groups, and whether the DBT and associated reactor security operations have been adjusted to accommodate industry concerns with cost.” Furthermore, “there will always be the possibility of a beyond-DBT attack on a reactor,” and he consequently recommends that the industry pursue new reactor designs, reactor site locations, and operational procedures that would boost the inherent safety and security of the plants. If nuclear power is to have a viable future in the United States, the plants will adequate supplies of fuel. Presently, U.S. nuclear power plants are fueled with uranium-based fuels. But in the future, they could use recycled plutonium for fuel. Ivan Oelrich addresses the reliability of uranium supplies and the possibility of a plutonium fuel economy. He concludes that “allowing for robust growth in nuclear-electric power generation and using fairly conservative assumptions about current and future reserves, decisions about building nuclear reactors should not today be constrained by concerns about fuel availability. The long-term fuel situation will be constantly reevaluated but, for decades to come, uranium availability will most likely not be the factor limit- ing nuclear growth.” Concerning a plutonium economy, he determines that because of “the technical uncertainties, making an irreversible decision today is ill- advised and it is unnecessary. While there is universal agreement that some form of longterm waste repository will be re- quired, wastes may not need to be committed to a repository right away. … Pending resolution of questions regarding long-term geological storage or fuel for fast reactors, the plutonium can sit in the used fuel rods where it is safe from theft and cannot be used for weapons.” A robust supply chain and highly skilled personnel are needed to ensure the future of nuclear power in the United States. Andrew C. Klein points out the reality that the U.S. nu- clear industry is embedded in an international supply chain. He underscores that “U.S. utili- ties and consumers of electricity will benefit from a competitive market for the supply of nuclear reactor systems, parts, and components.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA)
    The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) August 5, 2020 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R46476 SUMMARY R46476 The Energy Employees Occupational Illness August 5, 2020 Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) Scott D. Szymendera During the Cold War, thousands of Americans worked in the development and testing of the Analyst in Disability Policy nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile. Some of these workers were exposed to radiation, beryllium, silica, and other toxic substances that may have contributed to various medical conditions, including different types of cancer. Enacted in 2000, the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA, Title XXXVI of P.L. 106-398) provides cash and medical benefits to former nuclear weapons arsenal workers with covered medical conditions and to their survivors. Part B of EEOICPA provides a fixed amount of compensation and medical coverage to Department of Energy (DOE) employees and contractors, atomic weapons employees, and uranium workers with specified medical conditions, including cancer. Workers with certain radiogenic cancers can access EEOICPA Part B through one of two pathways: dose reconstruction and the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC). Under dose reconstruction, the worker’s individual work history and radiation exposure is evaluated to determine the probability that the worker’s cancer was caused by his or her exposure to ionizing radiation. Under the SEC, workers from the same worksite can petition to be included in the SEC based on the site’s work and exposure history. All members of the SEC with covered cancers are eligible for Part B benefits. Approximately 70% of EEOICPA Part B cancer cases are awarded benefits via the SEC rather than dose reconstruction.
    [Show full text]
  • D:\Governmental Organizations\State\Oregon\LEG\2021\Nuclear\Small Modular Reactors\SB 360\21-03-23
    The Oregon Conservancy Foundation 19140 SE Bakers Ferry Rd., Boring Oregon 97009-9158 P. O. Box 982, Clackamas, Oregon 97015 Email: [email protected] Phone: (503) 637- 6130 Before the Senate Committee on Energy and Environment Testimony of Lloyd K. Marbet Oregon Conservancy Foundation March 23, 2021 Mr. Chair, members of the Committee, and the public, my name is Lloyd K, Marbet and I am the Executive Director of the Oregon Conservancy Foundation (OCF). I am testifying in opposition to SB 360. In 2017 we gave testimony in opposition to SB 990, an early version of Senator Boquist’s reoccurring legislation. What is striking is how relevant this attached testimony still is four years later. (Attachment 1) I also attach a recent Deutsche Welle article that shows how nuclear power worsens the climate crisis, (Attachment 2) along with an Executive Summary of a RethinkX study showing how inaccurate cost estimates for conventional energy generating facilities, including nuclear, are being turned into overpriced stranded assets by the rapidly decreasing costs of solar, wind and battery storage. (Attachment 3) In its testimony, NuScale/Fluor, has given all the bells and whistles of its modular reactor design. Yet these reactor modules will produce the same kind of high level radioactive waste temporarily stored outdoors at the Trojan Nuclear Plant site, in Rainier, Oregon, at a storage facility licensed in 1999, and recently given a license extension to March 31, 2059. When will this waste be taken away, no one knows? Nuclear radiation is not restricted to boundaries of cities or counties. Even with the public relations of NuScale/Fluor representatives, the promises of safety and the so called imperviousness to a multitude of disasters – high level nuclear waste will reside at each NuScale reactor facility with the need for transport and permanent disposal.
    [Show full text]
  • Joonhong Ahn · Cathryn Carson Mikael Jensen · Kohta Juraku Shinya Nagasaki · Satoru Tanaka Editors
    Joonhong Ahn · Cathryn Carson Mikael Jensen · Kohta Juraku Shinya Nagasaki · Satoru Tanaka Editors Reflections on the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident Toward Social-Scientific Literacy and Engineering Resilience Reflections on the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident Joonhong Ahn · Cathryn Carson · Mikael Jensen Kohta Juraku · Shinya Nagasaki · Satoru Tanaka Editors Reflections on the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident Toward Social-Scientific Literacy and Engineering Resilience Editors Joonhong Ahn Shinya Nagasaki Department of Nuclear Engineering McMaster University University of California Hamilton, ON Berkeley, CA Canada USA Satoru Tanaka Cathryn Carson Department of Nuclear Engineering Department of History and Management University of California University of Tokyo Berkeley, CA Bunkyo-ku USA Japan Mikael Jensen Sundbyberg Sweden Kohta Juraku Department of Humanities and Social Sciences Tokyo Denki University Adachi-ku, Tokyo Japan ISBN 978-3-319-12089-8 ISBN 978-3-319-12090-4 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-12090-4 Library of Congress Control Number: 2014956647 Springer Cham Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2015. The book is published with open access at SpringerLink.com. Open Access This book is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License, which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited. All commercial rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
    [Show full text]
  • The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2009 with Particular Emphasis on Economic Issues
    The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2009 With Particular Emphasis on Economic Issues By Mycle Schneider Independent Consultant, Mycle Schneider Consulting, Paris (France) Project Coordinator Steve Thomas Professor for Energy Policy, Greenwich University (UK) Antony Froggatt Independent Consultant, London (UK) Doug Koplow Director of Earth Track, Cambridge (USA) Modeling and Additional Graphic Design Julie Hazemann Director of EnerWebWatch, Paris (France) Paris, August 2009 Commissioned by German Federal Ministry of Environment, Nature Conservation and Reactor Safety (Contract n° UM0901290) About the Authors Mycle Schneider is an independent international consultant on energy and nuclear policy based in Paris. He founded the Energy Information Agency WISE-Paris in 1983 and directed it until 2003. Since 1997 he has provided information and consulting services to the Belgian Energy Minister, the French and German Environment Ministries, the International Atomic Energy Agency, Greenpeace, the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, the Worldwide Fund for Nature, the European Commission, the European Parliament's Scientific and Technological Option Assessment Panel and its General Directorate for Research, the Oxford Research Group, and the French Institute for Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety. Since 2004 he has been in charge of the Environment and Energy Strategies lecture series for the International MSc in Project Management for Environmental and Energy Engineering Program at the French Ecole des Mines in Nantes. In 1997, along with Japan's Jinzaburo Takagi, he received the Right Livelihood Award, also known as the ―Alternative Nobel Prize‖. Antony Froggatt works as independent European energy consultant based in London. Since 1997 Antony has worked as a freelance researcher and writer on energy and nuclear policy issues in the EU and neighboring states.
    [Show full text]
  • Neural Network Based Microgrid Voltage Control Chun-Ju Huang University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
    University of Wisconsin Milwaukee UWM Digital Commons Theses and Dissertations May 2013 Neural Network Based Microgrid Voltage Control Chun-Ju Huang University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Follow this and additional works at: https://dc.uwm.edu/etd Part of the Electrical and Electronics Commons Recommended Citation Huang, Chun-Ju, "Neural Network Based Microgrid Voltage Control" (2013). Theses and Dissertations. 118. https://dc.uwm.edu/etd/118 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by UWM Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of UWM Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NEURAL NETWORK BASED MICROGRID VOLTAGE CONTROL by Chun-Ju Huang A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Engineering at The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee May 2013 ABSTRACT NEURAL NETWORK BASED MICROGRID VOLTAGE CONTROL by Chun-Ju Huang The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, 2013 Under the Supervision of Professor David Yu The primary purpose of this study is to improve the voltage profile of Microgrid using the neural network algorithm. Neural networks have been successfully used for character recognition, image compression, and stock market prediction, but there is no directly application related to controlling distributed generations of Microgrid. For this reason the author decided to investigate further applications, with the aim of controlling diesel generator outputs. Firstly, this thesis examines the neural network algorithm that can be utilized for alleviating voltage issues of Microgrid and presents the results. MATLAT and PSCAD are used for training neural network and simulating the Microgrid model respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Security Operational Skills 2 (Tracing).P65
    Unit - 4 K Operating Skill for handling Natural Disasters Structure 4.1 Objectives 4.2 Introduction 4.3 Operating Skill for natural and nuclear disasters 4.4 Accident Categories 4.5 Nuclear and radiation accidents and incidents 4.6 Geological disasters 4.7 Operating Skills for handling Mines and other Explosive Devices 4.8 Operating Skills for handing hijacking situation (other than an airline hijacking 4.9 Operating skills for antivehicle theft operations 4.10 Operating skills for facing a kidnapping or hostage situation 4.11 Operating Skill for handling coal mines and other explosive devices 4.12 Hostage Rights : Law and Practice in Throes of Evolution 4.12.1 Terminology 4.13 Relative Value of Rights 4.14 Conflict of Rights and Obligations 4.15 Hong Kong mourns victims of bus hijacking in the Philoppines 4.16 Rules for Successful Threat Intelligence Teams 4.16.1 Tailor Your Talent 4.16.2 Architect Your Infrastructure 4.16.3 Enable Business Profitability 4.16.4 Communicate Continuously 4.17 Construction Safety Practices 4.17.1 Excavation 4.17.2 Drilling and Blasting 4.17.3 Piling and deep foundations 234 4.18 Planning 4.18.1 Steps in Planning Function 4.18.2 Characteristics of planning 4.18.3 Advantages of planning 4.18.4 Disadvantages of planning 4.1 Objectives The following is a list of general objectives departments should consider when creating an Information Disaster Prevention and Recovery Plan: O Ensure the safety of all employees and visitors at the site/facility O Protect vital information and records O Secure business sites
    [Show full text]
  • Monitoring and Diagnosis Systems to Improve Nuclear Power Plant Reliability and Safety. Proceedings of the Specialists` Meeting
    J — v ft INIS-mf—15B1 7 INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY NUCLEAR ELECTRIC Ltd. Monitoring and Diagnosis Systems to Improve Nuclear Power Plant Reliability and Safety PROCEEDINGS OF THE SPECIALISTS’ MEETING JOINTLY ORGANISED BY THE IAEA AND NUCLEAR ELECTRIC Ltd. AND HELD IN GLOUCESTER, UK 14-17 MAY 1996 NUCLEAR ELECTRIC Ltd. 1996 VOL INTRODUCTION The Specialists ’ Meeting on Monitoring and Diagnosis Systems to Improve Nuclear Power Plant Reliability and Safety, held in Gloucester, UK, 14 - 17 May 1996, was organised by the International Atomic Energy Agency in the framework of the International Working Group on Nuclear Power Plant Control and Instrumentation (IWG-NPPCI) and the International Task Force on NPP Diagnostics in co-operation with Nuclear Electric Ltd. The 50 participants, representing 21 Member States (Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, UK and USA), reviewed the current approaches in Member States in the area of monitoring and diagnosis systems. The Meeting attempted to identify advanced techniques in the field of diagnostics of electrical and mechanical components for safety and operation improvements, reviewed actual practices and experiences related to the application of those systems with special emphasis on real occurrences, exchanged current experiences with diagnostics as a means for predictive maintenance. Monitoring of the electrical and mechanical components of systems is directly associated with the performance and safety of nuclear power plants. On-line monitoring and diagnostic systems have been applied to reactor vessel internals, pumps, safety and relief valves and turbine generators. The monitoring techniques include nose analysis, vibration analysis, and loose parts detection.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Critiques of Nuclear Energy William Hummel Pomona College
    Claremont Colleges Scholarship @ Claremont Pomona Senior Theses Pomona Student Scholarship 2012 Environmental Critiques of Nuclear Energy William Hummel Pomona College Recommended Citation Hummel, William, "Environmental Critiques of Nuclear Energy" (2012). Pomona Senior Theses. Paper 58. http://scholarship.claremont.edu/pomona_theses/58 This Open Access Senior Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Pomona Student Scholarship at Scholarship @ Claremont. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pomona Senior Theses by an authorized administrator of Scholarship @ Claremont. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Environmental Critiques of Nuclear Energy William Yoshida Hummel In partial fulfillment of a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Environmental Analysis, 2011-12 academic year, Pomona College, Claremont, California Readers: Professor David Menefee-Libey Professor Rick Hazlett Professor Susan McWilliams 1 Table of Contents Acknowledgements 3 Chapter 1: A New Energy Paradigm 4 Chapter 2: History of Nuclear Energy 10 Pre-1940: The foundations of nuclear energy 10 1940-1945: World War II and the Manhattan Project 13 1950-1957: Nuclear technology and the beginning of the arms race 17 1957-1979: The golden age of nuclear construction 19 1979-1986: Nuclear accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl 22 1986-2011: The modern nuclear era 27 2011: Fukushima and the future of nuclear energy 30 Chapter 3: The Environmentalist’s Perspective 38 Concern #1: Uranium mining 43 Concern #2: Radiation and meltdowns 56 Concern #3: Waste disposal 73 Concern #4: National security 83 Chapter 4: Emerging Nuclear Technology 95 Chapter 5: Moving Forward 106 2 Acknowledgments To David Menefee-Libey, who tried to warn me, but was still willing to help even after I ignored him.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparison of Advanced Nuclear Technologies
    A COMPARISON OF ADVANCED NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGIES Andrew C. Kadak, Ph.D MARCH 2017 B | CHAPTER NAME ABOUT THE CENTER ON GLOBAL ENERGY POLICY The Center on Global Energy Policy provides independent, balanced, data-driven analysis to help policymakers navigate the complex world of energy. We approach energy as an economic, security, and environmental concern. And we draw on the resources of a world-class institution, faculty with real-world experience, and a location in the world’s finance and media capital. Visit us at energypolicy.columbia.edu facebook.com/ColumbiaUEnergy twitter.com/ColumbiaUEnergy ABOUT THE SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS SIPA’s mission is to empower people to serve the global public interest. Our goal is to foster economic growth, sustainable development, social progress, and democratic governance by educating public policy professionals, producing policy-related research, and conveying the results to the world. Based in New York City, with a student body that is 50 percent international and educational partners in cities around the world, SIPA is the most global of public policy schools. For more information, please visit www.sipa.columbia.edu A COMPARISON OF ADVANCED NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGIES Andrew C. Kadak, Ph.D* MARCH 2017 *Andrew C. Kadak is the former president of Yankee Atomic Electric Company and professor of the practice at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He continues to consult on nuclear operations, advanced nuclear power plants, and policy and regulatory matters in the United States. He also serves on senior nuclear safety oversight boards in China. He is a graduate of MIT from the Nuclear Science and Engineering Department.
    [Show full text]
  • Learning from Fukushima: Nuclear Power in East Asia
    LEARNING FROM FUKUSHIMA NUCLEAR POWER IN EAST ASIA LEARNING FROM FUKUSHIMA NUCLEAR POWER IN EAST ASIA EDITED BY PETER VAN NESS AND MEL GURTOV WITH CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ANDREW BLAKERS, MELY CABALLERO-ANTHONY, GLORIA KUANG-JUNG HSU, AMY KING, DOUG KOPLOW, ANDERS P. MØLLER, TIMOTHY A. MOUSSEAU, M. V. RAMANA, LAUREN RICHARDSON, KALMAN A. ROBERTSON, TILMAN A. RUFF, CHRISTINA STUART, TATSUJIRO SUZUKI, AND JULIUS CESAR I. TRAJANO Published by ANU Press The Australian National University Acton ACT 2601, Australia Email: [email protected] This title is also available online at press.anu.edu.au National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry Title: Learning from Fukushima : nuclear power in East Asia / Peter Van Ness, Mel Gurtov, editors. ISBN: 9781760461393 (paperback) 9781760461409 (ebook) Subjects: Nuclear power plants--East Asia. Nuclear power plants--Risk assessment--East Asia. Nuclear power plants--Health aspects--East Asia. Nuclear power plants--East Asia--Evaluation. Other Creators/Contributors: Van Ness, Peter, editor. Gurtov, Melvin, editor. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. Cover design and layout by ANU Press. Cover image: ‘Fukushima apple tree’ by Kristian Laemmle-Ruff. Near Fukushima City, 60 km from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, February 2014. The number in the artwork is the radioactivity level measured in the orchard—2.166 microsieverts per hour, around 20 times normal background radiation. This edition © 2017 ANU Press Contents Figures . vii Tables . ix Acronyms and abbreviations .
    [Show full text]
  • Advanced Nuclear Power and Fuel Cycle Technologies: Outlook and Policy Options
    Order Code RL34579 Advanced Nuclear Power and Fuel Cycle Technologies: Outlook and Policy Options July 11, 2008 Mark Holt Specialist in Energy Policy Resources, Science, and Industry Division Advanced Nuclear Power and Fuel Cycle Technologies: Outlook and Policy Options Summary Current U.S. nuclear energy policy focuses on the near-term construction of improved versions of existing nuclear power plants. All of today’s U.S. nuclear plants are light water reactors (LWRs), which are cooled by ordinary water. Under current policy, the highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel from LWRs is to be permanently disposed of in a deep underground repository. The Bush Administration is also promoting an aggressive U.S. effort to move beyond LWR technology into advanced reactors and fuel cycles. Specifically, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), under the Department of Energy (DOE) is developing advanced reprocessing (or recycling) technologies to extract plutonium and uranium from spent nuclear fuel, as well as an advanced reactor that could fully destroy long-lived radioactive isotopes. DOE’s Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative is developing other advanced reactor technologies that could be safer than LWRs and produce high-temperature heat to make hydrogen. DOE’s advanced nuclear technology programs date back to the early years of the Atomic Energy Commission in the 1940s and 1950s. In particular, it was widely believed that breeder reactors — designed to produce maximum amounts of plutonium from natural uranium — would be necessary for providing sufficient fuel for a large commercial nuclear power industry. Early research was also conducted on a wide variety of other power reactor concepts, some of which are still under active consideration.
    [Show full text]
  • Community Energy White Paper April 2014 Contents
    Community Energy White Paper April 2014 Contents Letter from the CEO .............................................................................. 3 Executive Summary ............................................................................. 4 Redefining energy ............................................................................... 5 Today’s challenges .............................................................................. 8 The future of energy .......................................................................... 11 A solution: Decentralisation ............................................................... 14 Why focus on communities? .............................................................. 15 What can we learn from other countries? ........................................ 20 A platform for success ...................................................................... 24 How will it work? ............................................................................... 25 Government support ......................................................................... 26 Appendix: The UK Government’s community energy strategy ....... 27 Bibliography ....................................................................................... 29 2 Letter from the CEO All industries evolve. If they don’t, they die out or are supplanted by something different. Evolution can take many forms - value for money, customer service, product innovation, operational efficiency. But one way or another, change means survival and growth.
    [Show full text]