Nuclear energy in Jordan: a Scientific,
economic, and environmental study
By: Eng. Zaid Sameeh Hamdan
2014
Objectives
1- Definition of the Jordanian nuclear program.
2- To assess the Jordanian nuclear program scientifically
3- Feasibility study of the program; Revision of the declared cost of the KWh and
estimating the economic opportunities for the resources.
4- To illustrate the environmental risks.
5- When it is completed, what will be the global directions in energy? What are
possible clean alternatives for Jordan?
Abstract
The energy dilemma of Jordan is the major question of the future in the light of the oil
and gas prices, in addition to the increases of refugees and wars around its borders, for a
decade, the nuclear energy was debated and then approaches the doors with the
earnest studies and laws agreed by government to establish the nuclear project. But the
question is still waiting a clear answer: is the nuclear project the only solution?
Introduction
The nuclear energy became significant for many countries in the world and even the
major source of electrical energy generation as in France (75 % of electricity comes from
nuclear sources), as the oil prices rises increasingly, the accelerated demand on oil and
also the fact that oil is not renewable. But in the late period, the world is alerted for its
environmental risks and leaks (e.g. Chernobyl crisis 1986), as a result, many countries
started disassembling their reactors and convert to cleaner and renewable alternatives.
In Jordan, we did not suffer the burdens of the energy cost in the past because of the oil
donation and preferential prices provided to us by the sister governments, but in the
late decade the fuel prices increased to levels that affect our economy. So the energy
issue and looking for cheap sources become a priority in the present and future, the
main topic was the idea of the Jordanian nuclear program in spite of the world speech
and warnings. So we are thinking too late and working in the lost time, this matter will
be my subject of this paper.
Definition of the Jordanian Nuclear Project
The Jordanian Nuclear Project is a project that is planned by the Jordanian government to
fulfill the increased demand on electrical power and for water desalination, as the Jordanian
economy suffers from the large energy expenses in addition to the fact that Jordan is one of
the poorest countries in water sources. This project consists of the following stages:
1- Research reactor of 5-10 MW for training and staff qualifying, also for
medical, agricultural, and industrial researches in the Jordanian university
for science and technology in Irbid with a cost of 130 Million USD.
2- Building a nuclear station of 2000 MW by 2020 with 10 Billion USD for
Electrical generation and for the Red Sea water desalination project.
3- For the long term plan, the project will include four reactors within two
decades to enable Jordan to export the electrical power to the surrounding
countries.
The situation is under study.
The Problem Of Energy in Jordan
Energy remains perhaps the biggest challenge for continued growth for Jordan’s economy.
Spurred by the surge in the price of oil to more than $145 a barrel at its peak, the Jordanian
government has responded with an ambitious plan for the sector. The country’s lack of
domestic resources is being addressed via a $14bn investment program in the sector. The
program aims to reduce reliance on imported products from the current level of 96%, with
renewables meeting 10% of energy demand by 2020 and nuclear energy meeting 60% of
energy needs by 2035. The government also announced in 2007 that it would scale back
subsidies in several areas, including energy, where there have historically been regressive
subsidies for fuel and electricity. In another new step, the government is opening up the
sector to competition, and intends to offer all the planned new energy projects to
international tender.
Unlike most of its neighbors, Jordan has no significant petroleum resources of its own and is
heavily dependent on oil imports to fulfill its domestic energy needs. In 2002 proved oil
reserves totaled only 445,000 barrels (70,700 m3). Jordan produced only 40 barrels per day
(6.4 m3/d) in 2004 but consumed an estimated 103,000 barrels per day (16,400 m3/d).
According to U.S. government figures, oil imports had reached about 100,000 barrels per day
(16,000 m3/d) in 2004. The Iraq invasion of 2003 disrupted Jordan’s primary oil supply route
from its eastern neighbor, which under Saddam Hussein had provided the kingdom with
highly discounted crude oil via overland truck routes. Since late 2003, an alternative supply
route by tanker through the Al Aqaba port has been established; Saudi Arabia is now
Jordan’s primary source of imported oil; Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) are
secondary sources. Although not so heavily discounted as Iraqi crude oil, supplies from Saudi
Arabia and the UAE are subsidized to some extent.
In the face of continued high oil costs, interest has increased in the possibility of exploiting
Jordan's vast oil shale resources, which are estimated to total approximately 40 billion tons,
4 billion tons of which are believed to be recoverable. Jordan's oil shale resources could
produce 28 billion barrels (4.5 km3) of oil, enabling production of about 100,000 barrels per
day (16,000 m3/d). The oil shale in Jordan has the fourth largest in the world which
currently, there are several companies who are negotiating with the Jordanian government
about exploiting the oil shale like Royal Dutch Shell, Petrobras and Eesti Energia.
Natural gas is increasingly being used to fulfill the country’s domestic energy needs,
especially with regard to electricity generation. Jordan was estimated to have only modest
natural gas reserves (about 6 billion cubic meters in 2002), but new estimates suggest a
much higher total. In 2003 the country produced and consumed an estimated 390 million
cubic meters of natural gas. The primary source is located in the eastern portion of the
country at the Risha gas field. The country imports the bulk of its natural gas via the recently
completed Arab Gas Pipeline that stretches from the Al Arish terminal in Egypt underwater
to Al Aqaba and then to northern Jordan, where it links to two major power plants. This
Egypt–Jordan pipeline supplies Jordan with approximately 1 billion cubic meters of natural
gas per year.
The state-owned National Electric Power Company (NEPCO) produces most of Jordan’s
electricity (94%). Since mid-2000, privatization efforts have been undertaken to increase
independent power generation facilities; a Belgian firm was set to begin operations at a new
power plant near Amman with an estimated capacity of 450 megawatts. Power plants at Az
Zarqa (400 megawatts) and Al Aqaba (650 MW) are Jordan's other primary electricity
providers. As a whole, the country consumed nearly 8 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity in
2003 while producing only 7.5 billion kWh of electricity. Electricity production in 2004 rose
to 8.7 billion kWh, but production must continue to increase in order to meet demand,
which the government estimates will continue to grow by about 5% per year. About 99
percent of the population is reported to have access to electricity
For all of the above, seeking for alternative sources become necessary, the ideas
concentrating on two directions
The first is represented by the Jordan Atomic Energy Commission (JAEC) which is later
supported by the government seeing the solution in the nuclear energy, and they mention
many advantages such as:
1- Utilizing Uranium resource (65000 Tons according to NRA) for the project and
exportation.
2- Reducing the burdens of oil and gas imports.
3- Providing electrical power in economic way.
4- Providing inexpensive energy for water desalination, for Jordan is one of the poorest
countries in water resources.
5- Supporting development and economy, providing work opportunities.
The second direction is represented by public and opposition blocks and parties, seeing the
solution in safe alternatives, like renewable energy and oil shale, and they are support their
view by these issues:
1- Nuclear plants need huge quantities of water, which is scarce in Jordan.
2- Unavailability of infrastructure.
3- Unavailability of needed protection.
4- The lack of independent institutions capable of monitoring the neutral project and
the granting of licenses.
5- The lack of an environmental impact assessment for the project.
6- The lack of feasibility study.
7- Lack of level cultural and civilizational community to deal with the project.
8- The availability of alternatives, 300 sunny days make Jordan one of the favorable
sites for solar energy, 5 billion metric tons of oil shale provide Jordan with 34 billion
barrel of oil.
Scientific issues
The nuclear project needs many arguments to be done:
The site selection
The site is evaluated for these factors
(a)Characteristics of reactor design and proposed operation including:
(1) Intended use of the reactor including the proposed maximum power level and the nature
and inventory of contained radioactive materials;
(2) The extent to which generally accepted engineering standards are applied to the design
of the reactor;
(3) The extent to which the reactor incorporates unique or unusual features having a
significant bearing on the probability or consequences of accidental release of radioactive
materials;
(4) The safety features that are to be engineered into the facility and those barriers that
must be breached as a result of an accident before a release of radioactive material to the
environment can occur.
(b) Population density and use characteristics of the site environs, including the exclusion
area, low population zone, and population center distance.
Exclusion area
Area surrounding the reactor, in which the reactor licensee has the authority to determine
all activities including exclusion or removal of personnel and property from the area
Low population zone
Area immediately surrounding the exclusion area which contains residents, the total number
and density of which are such that there is a reasonable probability that appropriate
protective measures could be taken in their behalf in the event of a serious accident.
Population center distance
The distance from the reactor to the nearest boundary of a densely populated center
( ≥25,000 residents).
(c) Physical characteristics for site; seismology, meteorology, geology & hydrology
(1)Seismic and Geologic Sitting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants," describes the nature of
investigations required to obtain the geologic and seismic data necessary to determine site
suitability and to provide reasonable assurance that a nuclear power plant can be
constructed and operated at a proposed site without undue risk to the health and safety of
the public.
It describes procedures for determining the quantitative vibratory ground motion design
basis at a site due to earthquakes and describes information needed to determine whether
and to what extent a nuclear power plant need be designed to withstand the effects of
surface faulting.
(2) Meteorological conditions at the site and in the surrounding area should be considered.
(3) Geological and hydrological characteristics of the proposed site may have a bearing on
the consequences of an escape of radioactive material from the facility.
Special precautions should be planned if a reactor is to be located at a site where a
significant quantity of radioactive effluent might accidentally flow into nearby streams or
rivers or might find ready.
(d) Where unfavorable physical characteristics of the site exist, the proposed site may
nevertheless be found to be acceptable if the design of the facility includes appropriate and
adequate compensating engineering safeguards.
For Jordan, as the site is not selected yet, I will apply the above points in general
1- Distance from populated area: for Jordan it is clear that the area of study is the
Jordanian desert since it is low populated.
2- The physical characteristics; seismology, meteorology, geology and hydrology:
Figure 1: Dimographic map for Jordan
Jordan lies at the interface between the Arabian and the African tectonic plates, which
means that this area is exposed to earthquakes, unless certain actions to be done or moving
east which increases cost.
For meteorology, Jordan is classified as semi-arid region, but in the recent years the area
witnessed extreme weather conditions and streams of heavy rain even in the deserts which
may increase the cost.
For geological and hydrological sides, the site should be far enough from any potential
ground water and the ecological systems and precautions should be taken as necessary
Figure 2 Seismographic map of Jordan
Also, the nuclear reactor needs to a sustainable water source for cooling, which is not
available in the desert, and this requires alternative solutions, one of the suggestion is to
reuse the treated wastewater from "alkhirbah assamrah" station, and that requires
advanced treatments for the water, but the nuclear will need more water in case of
accidents.
Other point is that the reactor is preferred to be close to the ores, and as the uranium will be
enriched outside Jordan, it is required to make the delivery point close to the reactor which
requires additional installations like desert airports to be constructed.
Uranium ores in Jordan
There is some inconsistency in the declared quantities, as JAEC (Jordanian Atomic Energy
Corporation) talks about 65000 tones, other declaration was 20000 tones, AREVA talks
about 20000 tones, OECD Nuclear Energy Agency talks about 111000 tones which reflects a
confusion in the declarations, and this supports the doubts around the project.
According to the European nuclear society, 1 ton of uranium generates 45million kWh of
electricity.
Water requirements
The nuclear reactor needs a sustainable source of water, for a typical wet cooling plants uses
720 gal/ MWh (2.72 cubic meter/ MWh) of water according to Nuclear Energy Institute.
Technical issues
The plant is planned to provide 2000 MW of electricity, the typical load of Jordan is around
2000 MW, while the maximum load recorded was 2800 MW, the addition of 2000 MW to
the grid needs to update the grid, which is costly, and any switch off of this plant may cause
abruption to the grid.
Economic Issues
The JAEC announces many times that Jordan problems of energy and water is by nuclear
energy, speaks about low KWh tariff and glorifying the nuclear solution even before
feasibility studies are done, the declared capital cost for the two reactors is 10 billion USD.
The nuclear plant has a significant capital cost for building the plant, while the operational
cost of fuel is low, according to Areva, 70 percent of the KWh cost is the capital cost, this
cost needs long time to recoup, Daniel Indiviglio in The Atlantic magazine, wrote an article in
Feb 1, 2011 issue under the title "Why Are New US Nuclear Reactor Projects Fizzling?", a
paragraph there speaks about the capital cost:
"One of the big problems with nuclear power is the enormous upfront cost. These reactors are
extremely expensive to build. While the returns may be very great, they're also very slow. It
can sometimes take decades to recoup initial costs. Since many investors have a short
attention span, they don't like to wait that long for their investment to pay off.".
However, this cost will be covered by loans on the government, this loan is 10 billion USD
which is over 30% of the Jordanian GDP, and when we talk about 80% of GDP as public debt
in 2012 according to the World Bank, the burdens on the economy will be terrible; the credit
classification will be lowered and interest rate will increase, and this means more inflation,
more taxes and sharp rise in prices.
On the other hand, Construction delays can add significantly to the cost of a plant. Because a
power plant does not earn income and currencies can inflate during construction, longer
construction times translate directly into higher finance charges.
fuel costs account for about 28% of a nuclear plant's operating expenses.[3]Other recent
sources cite lower fuel costs, such as 16%.[4] Doubling the price of uranium would add only
7% to the cost of electricity produced.
For the waste disposal cost, to pay for the cost of storing, transporting and disposing these
wastes in a permanent location, in the United States a surcharge of a tenth of a cent per
kilowatt-hour is added to electricity bills.[5] Roughly one percent of electrical utility bills in
provinces using nuclear power are diverted to fund nuclear waste disposal in Canada.[6]
In 2009, the Obama administration announced that the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste
repository would no longer be considered the answer for U.S. civilian nuclear waste.
Currently, there is no plan for disposing of the waste and plants will be required to keep the
waste on the plant premises indefinitely.
The disposal of low level waste reportedly costs around £2,000/m³ in the UK. High level
waste costs somewhere between £67,000/m³ and £201,000/m³.[7] General division is
80%/20% of low level/high level waste,[8] and one reactor produces roughly 12 m³ of high
level waste annually.[9]
In Canada, the NWMO was created in 2002 to oversee long term disposal of nuclear waste,
and in 2007 adopted the Adapted Phased Management procedure. Long term management
is subject to change based on technology and public opinion, but currently largely follows
the recommendations for a centralized repository as first extensively outlined in by AECL in
1988. It was determined after extensive review that following these recommendations
would safely isolate the waste from the biosphere. The location has not yet been
determined, as is expected to cost between $9 and $13 billion CAD for construction and
operation for 60–90 years, employing roughly a thousand people for the duration. Funding is
available and has been collected since 1978 under the Canadian Nuclear Fuel Waste
Management Program. Very long term monitoring requires less staff since high-level waste
is less toxic than naturally occurring uranium ore deposits within a few centuries.[6]
Cost of Decommissioning: At the end of a nuclear plant's lifetime, the plant must be
decommissioned. This entails either dismantling, safe storage or entombment. In the United
States, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requires plants to finish the process within
60 years of closing. Since it may cost $500 million or more to shut down and decommission a
plant, the NRC requires plant owners to set aside money when the plant is still operating to
pay for the future shutdown costs.[10]
Decommissioning a reactor that has undergone a meltdown is inevitably more difficult and
expensive. Three Mile Island was decommissioned 14 years after its incident for $837
million.[11] The cost of the Fukushima disaster cleanup is not yet known, but has been
estimated to cost around $100 billion.[12] Chernobyl is not yet decommissioned, different
estimates put the end date between 2013[13] and 2020.[14]
Cost of proliferation and terrorism: A 2011 report for the Union of Concerned
Scientists stated that "the costs of preventing nuclear proliferation and terrorism should be
recognized as negative externalities of civilian nuclear power, thoroughly evaluated, and
integrated into economic assessments—just as global warming emissions are increasingly
identified as a cost in the economics of coal-fired electricity".[15]
Safety: Nuclear safety and security covers the actions taken to prevent nuclear and radiation
accidents or to limit their consequences. With the ageing of reactors built in the 1960 and
1970s, there are increased risks of major accidents. This is partly due to design faults but
also as a result of radiation causing embrittlement of pressure vessels.[16] New reactor
designs have been proposed but there is no guarantee that the reactors will be designed,
built and operated correctly.[17] Mistakes do occur and the designers of reactors
at Fukushima in Japan did not anticipate that a tsunami generated by an earthquake would
disable the backup systems that were supposed to stabilize the reactor after the
earthquake.[18][19] According to UBS AG, the Fukushima I nuclear accidents have cast doubt
on whether even an advanced economy like Japan can master nuclear
safety.[20] Catastrophic scenarios involving terrorist attacks are also conceivable.[17]
An interdisciplinary team from MIT have estimated that given the expected growth of
nuclear power from 2005 – 2055, at least four serious nuclear accidents would be expected
in that period.[21][22] To date, there have been five serious accidents (core damage) in the
world since 1970 (one at Three Mile Island in 1979; one at Chernobyl in 1986; and three
at Fukushima-Daiichi in 2011), corresponding to the beginning of the operation
of generation II reactors. This leads to on average one serious accident happening every
eight years worldwide.[19]
In terms of nuclear accidents, the Union of Concerned Scientists have stated that "reactor
owners ... have never been economically responsible for the full costs and risks of their
operations. Instead, the public faces the prospect of severe losses in the event of any
number of potential adverse scenarios, while private investors reap the rewards if nuclear
plants are economically successful. For all practical purposes, nuclear power's economic
gains are privatized, while its risks are socialized".[23]
Any effort to construct a new nuclear facility around the world, whether an existing design
or an experimental future design, must deal with NIMBY or NIABY objections. Because of the
high profiles of the Three Mile Island accident and Chernobyl disaster, relatively few
municipalities welcome a new nuclear reactor, processing plant, transportation route, or
nuclear burial ground within their borders, and some have issued local ordinances
prohibiting the locating of such facilities there.
Nancy Folbre, an economics professor at the University of Massachusetts, has questioned
the economic viability of nuclear power following the 2011 Japanese nuclear accidents:
The proven dangers of nuclear power amplify the economic risks of expanding reliance on it.
Indeed, the stronger regulation and improved safety features for nuclear reactors called for
in the wake of the Japanese disaster will almost certainly require costly provisions that may
price it out of the market.[24]
The cascade of problems at Fukushima, from one reactor to another, and from reactors to
fuel storage pools, will affect the design, layout and ultimately the cost of future nuclear
plants.[25]
Insurance: Insurance available to the operators of nuclear power plants varies by nation.
The worst case nuclear accident costs are so large that it would be difficult for the private
insurance industry to carry the size of the risk, and the premium cost of full insurance would
make nuclear energy uneconomic.[26]
However, the problem of insurance costs for worst case scenarios is not unique to nuclear
power: hydroelectric power plants are similarly not fully insured against a catastrophic event
such as the Banqiao Dam disaster, where 11 million people lost their homes and from
30,000 to 200,000 people died, or large dam failures in general.[27] Private insurers base dam
insurance premiums on worst case scenarios, so insurance for major disasters in this sector
is likewise provided by the state.[27]
In Canada, the Canadian Nuclear Liability Act requires nuclear power plant operators to
provide $75 million of liability insurance coverage. Claims beyond $75 million would be
assessed by a government appointed but independent tribunal, and paid by the federal
government.[28]
In the UK, the Nuclear Installations Act of 1965 governs liability for nuclear damage for
which a UK nuclear licensee is responsible. The limit for the operator is £140 million.[29]
In the United States, the Price-Anderson Act has governed the insurance of the nuclear
power industry since 1957. Owners of nuclear power plants pay a premium each year for
$375 million in private insurance for offsite liability coverage for each reactor unit. This
primary or "first tier" insurance is supplemented by a second tier. In the event a nuclear
accident, damages in excess of $375 million, each licensee would be assessed a prorated
share of the excess up to $111.9 million. With 104 reactors currently licensed to operate,
this secondary tier of funds contains about $11.6 billion. This results in a maximum coverage
amount of $11.975 billion. If 15 percent of these funds are expended, prioritization of the
remaining amount would be left to a federal district court. If the second tier is depleted,
Congress is committed to determine whether additional disaster relief is required.[30] In July
2005, Congress extended the Price-Anderson Act to newer facilities.
The Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage and the Paris Convention on
Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy put in place two similar international
frameworks for nuclear liability.[31] The limits for the conventions vary. The Vienna
convention was adapted in 2004 to increase the operator liability to €700 million per
incident, but this modification is not yet ratified.[32]
Cost Per KWh
The cost per unit of electricity produced (kW·h) will vary according to country, depending on
costs in the area, the regulatory regime and consequent financial and other risks, and the
availability and cost of finance. Costs will also depend on geographic factors such as
availability of cooling water, earthquake likelihood, and availability of suitable power grid
connections. So it is not possible to accurately estimate costs on a global basis.
Commodity prices rose in 2008, and so all types of plants became more expensive than
previously calculated.[33] In June 2008 Moody's estimated that the cost of installing new
nuclear capacity in the U.S. might possibly exceed $7,000/kWe in final cost.[34] In
comparison, the reactor units already under construction in China have been reported with
substantially lower costs due to significantly lower labor rates.
A 2008 study based on historical outcomes in the U.S. said costs for nuclear power can be
expected to run $0.25-.30 per kW·h.[35]
A 2008 study concluded that if carbon capture and storage were required then nuclear
power would be the cheapest source of electricity even at $4,038/kW in overnight capital
cost.[36]
In 2009, MIT updated its 2003 study, concluding that inflation and rising construction costs
had increased the overnight cost of nuclear power plants to about $4,000/kWe, and thus
increased the power cost to $0.084/kW·h.[[37] The 2003 study had estimated the cost as
$0.067/kWh.[38]
According to Benjamin K. Sovacool, the marginal levelized cost for "a 1,000-MWe facility
built in 2009 would be 41.2 to 80.3 cents/kWh, presuming one actually takes into account
construction, operation and fuel, reprocessing, waste storage, and decommissioning".[39]
In 2013, the US Energy Information Administration estimated the levelized cost of electricity
from new nuclear power plants to be $0.108/kWh.[40] Analysts at the investment research
firm Morningstar, Inc. concluded that nuclear power was not a viable source of new power
in the West.[41]
Figure 3: 1Non-dispatchable (Hydro is dispatchable within a season, but nondispatchable overall-limited by site and season) (see ref.62)
Comparison to other power sources
Generally, a nuclear power plant is significantly more expensive to build than an equivalent
coal-fueled or gas-fueled plant. Most forms of electricity generation produce some form
of negative externality — costs imposed on third parties that are not directly paid by the
producer — such as pollution which negatively affects the health of those near and
downwind of the power plant, and generation costs often do not reflect these external
costs.
A comparison of the "real" cost of various energy sources is complicated by several
uncertainties:
The cost of climate change through emissions of greenhouse gases is hard to
estimate. Carbon taxes may be enacted, or carbon capture and storage may become
mandatory.
The cost of environmental damage caused by (fossil or renewable) energy sources, both
through land use (whether for mining fuels or for power generation) and through air
and water pollution and solid waste.
The cost and political feasibility of disposal of the waste from reprocessed spent nuclear
fuel is still not fully resolved. In the U.S., the ultimate disposal costs of spent nuclear fuel
are assumed by the U.S. government after producers pay a fixed surcharge.
Operating reserve requirements are different for different generation methods. When
nuclear units shut down unexpectedly they tend to do so independently, so the "hot
spinning reserve" must be at least the size of the largest unit (this partly makes nuclear
power more suitable for large grids). On the other hand, many renewables
are intermittent power sources and may shut down together if they depend on weather
conditions, so the grid will require either back-up generation capability or large-scale
storage if the portion of generation from these renewables is significant. (Some
renewables such as hydroelectricity have a storage reservoir and can be used as reliable
back-up power for other power sources.)
Governmental instabilities in the next plant lifetime. New nuclear power plants are
designed for a minimum of 60 years (50 for VVER-1200), and may be able to be
refurbished. Likewise, the waste from reprocessed fuel remains dangerous for about
this period.
Actual plant lifetime (to date, no plant has been shut down due to maximum licensed
lifetime being reached, or been refurbished).
Due to the dominant role of initial construction cost and the multi-year construction
time and planned lifetime, the interest rate for the capital required is of particularly high
importance for estimating the total cost.
Several recent comparisons of the costs of plants are available (see below); however,
commodity prices have shot up since they were completed, and so all types of plants will be
more expensive than shown
A UK Royal Academy of Engineering report in 2004 looked at electricity generation costs
from new plants in the UK. In particular it aimed to develop "a robust approach to compare
directly the costs of intermittent generation with more dependable sources of generation".
This meant adding the cost of standby capacity for wind, as well as carbon values up to £30
(€45.44) per ton CO2for coal and gas. Wind power was calculated to be more than twice as
expensive as nuclear power. Without a carbon tax, the cost of production through coal,
nuclear and gas ranged £0.022–0.026/kW·h and coal gasification was £0.032/kW·h. When
carbon tax was added (up to £0.025) coal came close to onshore wind (including back-up
power) at £0.054/kW·h — offshore wind is £0.072/kW·h — nuclear power remained at
£0.023/kW·h either way, as it produces negligible amounts of CO2. (Nuclear figures included
estimated decommissioning costs.) [42]
A May 2008 study by the Congressional Budget Office concludes that a carbon tax of $45 per
ton of carbon dioxide would probably make nuclear power cost competitive against
conventional fossil fuel for electricity generation.[43]
Estimates of total lifetime energy returned on energy invested vary greatly depending on the
study. An overview can be found here (Table 2):[44]
The effect of subsidies is difficult to gauge, as some are indirect (such as research and
development). A May 12, 2008 editorial in the Wall Street Journal stated, "For electricity
generation, the EIA(Energy Information Administration, an office of the Department of
Energy) 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."[45]
However, the most important subsidies to the nuclear industry do not involve cash
payments. Rather, they shift construction costs and operating risks from investors to
taxpayers and ratepayers, burdening them with an array of risks including cost overruns,
defaults to accidents, and nuclear waste management. This approach has remained
remarkably consistent throughout the nuclear industry's history, and distorts market choices
that would otherwise favor less risky energy investments.[46]
In 2011, Benjamin K. Sovacool said that: "When the full nuclear fuel cycle is considered - not
only reactors but also uranium mines and mills, enrichment facilities, spent fuel repositories,
and decommissioning sites - nuclear power proves to be one of the costliest sources of
energy".[47]
An EU-funded research study known as ExternE, or Externalities of Energy, undertaken from
1995 to 2005, found that the cost of producing electricity from coal or oil would double, and
the cost of electricity production from gas would increase by 30% if external costs such as
damage to the environment and to human health, from the particulate matter, nitrogen
oxides, chromium VI, river water alkalinity, mercury poisoning and arsenic emissions
produced by these sources, were taken into account. It was estimated in the study that
these external, downstream, fossil fuel costs amount up to 1-2% of the EU's Gross Domestic
Product, and this was before the external cost of global warming from these sources was
included.[48] The study also found that the environmental and health costs of nuclear power,
per unit of energy delivered, was lower than many renewable sources, including that caused
by biomass and photovoltaic solar panels, but was higher than the external costs associated
with wind power and alpine hydropower.[49]
Other economic issues
Ethicist Kristin Shrader-Frechette analyzed 30 papers on the economics of nuclear power for
possible conflicts of interest. She found of the 30, 18 had been funded either by the nuclear
industry or pro-nuclear governments and were pro-nuclear, 11 were funded by universities
or non-profit non-government organisations and were anti-nuclear, the remaining 1 had
unknown sponsors and took the pro-nuclear stance. The pro-nuclear studies were accused
of using cost-trimming methods such as ignoring government subsidies and using industry
projections above empirical evidence where ever possible. The situation was compared to
medical research where 98% of industry sponsored studies return positive results.[50]
Nuclear Power plants tend to be very competitive in areas where other fuel resources are
not readily available— France, most notably, has almost no native supplies of fossil
fuels.[51] France's nuclear power experience has also been one of paradoxically increasing
rather than decreasing costs over time.[52]
Making a massive investment of capital in a project with long-term recovery might impact a
company's credit rating.[53]
A Council on Foreign Relations report on nuclear energy argues that a rapid expansion of
nuclear power may create shortages in building materials such as reactor-quality concrete
and steel, skilled workers and engineers, and safety controls by skilled inspectors. This would
drive up current prices.[54] It may be easier to rapidly expand, for example, the number of
coal power plants, without this having a large effect on current prices.
Some existing LWR type plants have limited ability to significantly vary their output to match
changing demand[55] (called load-following). Other PWRs, as well as CANDU, BWR have load-
following capability, which will allow them to fill more than baseline generation needs. Some
newer reactors also offer some form of enhanced load-following capability.[56] For example,
the Areva EPR can slew its electrical output power between 990 and 1,650 MW at 82.5 MW
per minute.[57] The number of companies that manufacture certain parts for nuclear reactors
is limited, particularly the large forgings used for reactor vessels and steam systems. Only
four companies (Japan Steel Works, China First Heavy Industries, Russia's OMZ Izhora and
Korea's Doosan Heavy Industries) currently manufacture pressure vessels for reactors of
1100 MWe or larger.[58][59] Some have suggested that this poses a bottleneck that could
hamper expansion of nuclear power internationally,[60] however, some Western reactor
designs require no steel pressure vessel such as CANDU derived reactors which rely on
individual pressurized fuel channels. The large forgings for steam generators — although still
very heavy — can be produced by a far larger number of suppliers.
Nuclear plants require 20–83 percent more cooling water than other power stations.[61]
during times of abnormally high seasonal temperatures or drought it may be necessary for
reactors drawing from small bodies of water to reduce power or shut down. Nuclear plants
situated on large lakes, seas or oceans are not affected by seasonal temperature variations
due to the thermal stability of large bodies of water.
Environmental issues
The environmental impact of nuclear power results from the nuclear fuel cycle, operation,
and the effects of nuclear accidents.
The routine health risks and greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear fission power are small
relative to those associated with coal, oil and gas. However, there is a "catastrophic risk"
potential if containment fails,[63] which in nuclear reactors can be brought about by over-
heated fuels melting and releasing large quantities of fission products into the environment.
The public is sensitive to these risks and there has been considerable public opposition to
nuclear power.
Figure 4: Nuclear power activities involving the environment; mining, enrichment, generation and geological disposal.
The 1979 Three Mile Island accident and 1986 Chernobyl disaster, along with high
construction costs, ended the rapid growth of global nuclear power capacity.[63] A further
disastrous release of radioactive materials followed the 2011 Japanese tsunami which
damaged the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant, resulting in hydrogen gas explosions and
partial meltdowns classified as a Level 7 event. The large-scale release of radioactivity
resulted in people being evacuated from a 20 km exclusion zone set up around the power
plant, similar to the 30 km radius Chernobyl Exclusion Zone still in effect.
Waste streams
Nuclear power has at least four waste streams that may harm the environment:[64]
1. spent nuclear fuel at the reactor site (including fission
products and plutonium waste)
2. tailings and waste rock at uranium mines and mills
3. releases of small amounts of radioactive isotopes during reactor operation
4. releases of large quantities of dangerous radioactive materials during accidents
The nuclear fuel cycle involves some of the most dangerous elements and isotopes known to
humankind, including more than 100 dangerous radionuclides and carcinogens such
as strontium-90,iodine 131 and cesium -137, which are the same toxins found in the fall out
of nuclear weapons".[65]
Figure 5: Technicians emplacing transuranic waste at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, near Carlsbad, New Mexico
Radioactive wastes
High level wastes
The most long-lived radioactive wastes, including spent nuclear fuel, must be contained and
isolated from humans and the environment for a very long time. Disposal of these wastes in
engineered facilities, or repositories, located deep underground in suitable geologic
formations is seen as the reference solution.[66] The International Panel on Fissile
Materials has said:
It is widely accepted that spent nuclear fuel and high-level reprocessing and plutonium
wastes require well-designed storage for periods ranging from tens of thousands to a million
years, to minimize releases of the contained radioactivity into the environment. Safeguards
are also required to ensure that neither plutonium nor highly enriched uranium is diverted
to weapon use. There is general agreement that placing spent nuclear fuel in repositories
hundreds of meters below the surface would be safer than indefinite storage of spent fuel
on the surface.[67]
Common elements of repositories include the radioactive waste, the containers enclosing
the waste, other engineered barriers or seals around the containers, the tunnels housing the
containers, and the geologic makeup of the surrounding area.[68]
The ability of natural geologic barriers to isolate radioactive waste is demonstrated by
the natural nuclear fission reactors at Oklo, Africa. During their long reaction period about
5.4 tons of fission products as well as 1.5 tons of plutonium together with other transuranic
elements were generated in the uranium ore body. This plutonium and the other
transuranics remained immobile until the present day, a span of almost 2 billion
years.[69] This is quite remarkable in view of the fact that ground water had ready access to
the deposits and they were not in a chemically inert form, such as glass.
Despite a long-standing agreement among many experts that geological disposal can be
safe, technologically feasible and environmentally sound, a large part of the general public in
many countries remains skeptical.[70] One of the challenges facing the supporters of these
efforts is to demonstrate confidently that a repository will contain wastes for so long that
any releases that might take place in the future will pose no significant health
or environmental risk.
Nuclear reprocessing does not eliminate the need for a repository, but reduces the volume,
reduces the long term radiation hazard, and long term heat dissipation capacity needed.
Reprocessing does not eliminate the political and community challenges to repository
siting.[67]
Other wastes
Moderate amounts of low-level waste are produced through chemical and volume control
system (CVCS). This includes gas, liquid, and solid waste produced through the process of
purifying the water through evaporation. Liquid waste is reprocessed continuously, and gas
waste is filtered, compressed, stored to allow decay, diluted, and then discharged. The rate
at which this is allowed is regulated and studies must prove that such discharge does not
violate dose limits to a member of the public (see radioactive effluent emissions).
Solid waste can be disposed of simply by placing it where it will not be disturbed for a few
years. There are three low-level waste disposal sites in the United States in South Carolina,
Utah, and Washington.[71] Solid waste from the CVCS is combined with solid rad waste that
comes from handling materials before it is buried off-site.[72]
In the United States environmental groups have alleged that uranium mining companies are
attempting to avoid cleanup costs at disused uranium mine sites. Environmental
remediation is required by many states after a mine becomes inactive. Environmental
groups have filed legal objections to prevent mining companies from avoiding compulsory
cleanups. Uranium mining companies have skirted the cleanup laws by reactivating their
mine sites briefly from time-to-time. Letting the mines sites stay contaminated over decades
increases the potential risk of radioactive contamination leeching into the ground according
to one environmental group, the Information Network for Responsible Mining, which started
legal proceedings about March 2013. Among the corporations holding mining companies
with such rarely used mines is General Atomics.[73]
Power plant emissions
Radioactive gases and effluents
Most commercial nuclear power plants release gaseous and liquid radiological effluents into
the environment as a byproduct of the Chemical Volume Control System, which are
monitored in the US by the EPA and the NRC. Civilians living within 50 miles (80 km) of a
nuclear power plant typically receive about 0.1 μSv per year.[12] For comparison, the average
person living at or above sea level receives at least 260 μSv from cosmic radiation.[74]
The total amount of radioactivity released through this method depends on the power plant,
the regulatory requirements, and the plant's performance. Atmospheric dispersion models
combined with pathway models are employed to accurately approximate the dose to a
member of the public from the effluents emitted. Effluent monitoring is conducted
continuously at the plant.
Figure 6: The Grafenrheinfeld Nuclear Power Plant. The tallest structure is the chimney that releases effluent gases.
Tritium: A leak of radioactive water at Vermont Yankee in 2010, along with similar incidents
at more than 20 other US nuclear plants in recent years, has kindled doubts about the
reliability, durability, and maintenance of aging nuclear installations in the United States.[75]
Tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen that emits a low-energy beta particle and is
usually measured in Becquerels (i.e. atoms decaying per second) per liter (Bq/L). Tritium can
be contained in water released from a nuclear plant. The primary concern for tritium release
is the presence in drinking water, in addition to biological magnification leading to tritium in
crops and animals consumed for food.[76]
Legal concentration limits have differed greatly to place to place (see table right). For
example, in June 2009 the Ontario Drinking Water Advisory Council recommended lowering
the limit from 7,000 Bq/L to 20 Bq/L.[77] According to the NRC, tritium is the least dangerous
radionuclide because it emits very weak radiation and leaves the body relatively quickly. The
typical human body contains roughly 3,700 Bq of potassium-40. The amount released by any
given nuclear plant also varies greatly; the total release for nuclear plants in the United
States in 2003 was from non-detected up to 2,080 curies (77 TBq).
Uranium mining: Uranium mining is the process of extraction of uranium ore from the
ground. The worldwide production of uranium in 2009 amounted to
50,572 tons. Kazakhstan, Canada, and Australia are the top three producers and together
account for 63% of world uranium production.[78] A prominent use of uranium from mining is
as fuel for nuclear power plants. The mining and milling of uranium and the operation of
nuclear reactors present significant dangers to the environment.[79]
After mining uranium ores, they are normally processed by grinding the ore materials to a
uniform particle size and then treating the ore to extract the uranium by chemical leaching.
The milling process commonly yields dry powder-form material consisting of natural
uranium, "yellowcake," which is sold on the uranium market as U3O8. Uranium mining can
use large amounts of water — for example, the Roxby Downs mine in South Australia uses
35,000 m³ of water each day and plans to increase this to 150,000 m³ per day.[80]
The Church Rock uranium mill spill occurred in New Mexico on July 16, 1979 when United
Nuclear Corporation's Church Rock uranium mill tailings disposal pond breached its
dam.[81][82] Over 1,000 tons of solid radioactive mill waste and 93 millions of gallons of acidic,
radioactive tailings solution flowed into the Puerco River, and contaminants traveled 80
miles (130 km) downstream to Navajo County, Arizona and onto the Navajo Nation.[82] The
accident released more radiation than the Three Mile Island accident that occurred four
months earlier and was the largest release of radioactive material in U.S.
history.[82][83][84][85] Groundwater near the spill was contaminated and the Puerco rendered
unusable by local residents, who were not immediately aware of the toxic danger.[86]
Abandoned mines can pose radioactive risks for as long as 250,000 years after closure.
Despite efforts made in cleaning up uranium sites, significant problems stemming from the
legacy of uranium development still exist today on the Navajo Nation and in the states of
Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona. Hundreds of abandoned mines have not been
cleaned up and present environmental and health risks in many communities.[87] The
Environmental Protection Agency estimates that there are 4000 mines with documented
uranium production, and another 15,000 locations with uranium occurrences in 14 western
states,[88] most found in the Four Corners area and Wyoming.[89] The Uranium Mill Tailings
Radiation Control Act is a United States environmental law that amended the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954 and gave the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to establish health
and environmental standards for the stabilization, restoration, and disposal of uranium mill
waste.[90]
Risk of cancer
Nuclear plants release toxic pollutants and gases, such as carbon-14, iodine-131, krypton,
and xenon. They also produce large amounts of radioactive waste which remains radioactive
for more than 100,000 years.[91] There have been several epidemiological studies that say
there is an increased risk of various diseases, especially cancers, among people who live near
nuclear facilities. A widely cited 2007 meta-analysis by Baker et al. of 17 research papers was
published in the European Journal of Cancer Care.[92] It offered evidence of elevated
leukemia rates among children living near 136 nuclear facilities in the United Kingdom,
Canada, France, United States, Germany, Japan, and Spain.[93] However this study has been
criticized on several grounds - such as combining heterogeneous data (different age groups,
sites that were not nuclear power plants, different zone definitions), arbitrary selection of 17
out of 37 individual studies, exclusion of sites with zero observed cases or deaths,
etc.[94][95] Elevated leukemia rates among children were also found in a 2008 German study
by Kaatsch et al. that examined residents living near 16 major nuclear power plants in
Germany.[92] This study has also been criticised on several grounds.[95][96] These 2007 and
2008 results are not consistent with many other studies that have tended not to show such
associations.[93][97][98][99][100] The British Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the
Environment issued a study in 2011 of children under five living near 13 nuclear power
plants in the UK during the period 1969–2004. The committee found that children living near
power plants in Britain are no more likely to develop leukemia than those living elsewhere[95]
Comparison to coal fired generation
In terms of net radioactive release, the National Council on Radiation Protection and
Measurements (NCRP) estimated the average radioactivity per short ton of coal is 17,100
millicuries/4,000,000 tons. With 154 coal plants in the United States, this amounts to
emissions of 0.6319 TBq per year for a single plant.
In terms of dose to a human living nearby, it is sometimes cited that coal plants release 100
times the radioactivity of nuclear plants. This comes from NCRP Reports No. 92 and No. 95
which estimated the dose to the population from 1000 MWe coal and nuclear plants at
4.9 man-Sv/year and 0.048 man-Sv/year respectively (a typical Chest x-ray gives a dose of
about 0.06 mSv for comparison).[101] The Environmental Protection Agency estimates an
added dose of 0.3 µSv per year for living within 50 miles (80 km) of a coal plant and 0.009
milli-rem for a nuclear plant for yearly radiation dose estimation.[102] Nuclear power plants in
normal operation emit less radioactivity than coal power plants.[101][102]
Unlike coal-fired or oil-fired generation, nuclear power generation does not directly produce
any sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, or mercury (pollution from fossil fuels is blamed for
24,000 early deaths each year in the U.S. alone[103]). However, as with all energy sources,
there is some pollution associated with support activities such as mining, manufacturing and
transportation.
A major European Union funded research study known as ExternE, or Externalities of Energy,
undertaken over the period of 1995 to 2005 found that the environmental and health costs
of nuclear power, per unit of energy delivered, was €0.0019/kWh. This is lower than that of
many renewable sources including the environmental impact caused by biomass use and the
manufacture of photovoltaic solar panels, and was over thirty times lower than coals impact
of €0.06/kWh, or 6 cents/kWh. However the energy source of the lowest external costs
associated with it was found to be wind power at €0.0009/kWh, which is an environmental
and health impact just under half the price of Nuclear power.[104]
Contrast of radioactive accident emissions with industrial emissions
Proponents argue that the problems of nuclear waste "do not come anywhere close" to
approaching the problems of fossil fuel waste.[105][106] 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."[107] In the U.S. alone, fossil fuel waste kills 20,000 people each
year.[108] A coal power plant releases 100 times as much radiation as a nuclear power plant
of the same wattage.[109] It is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times
as much radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island accident.[110] The World
Nuclear Association provides a comparison of deaths due to accidents among different
forms of energy production. In their life-cycle 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.[111] The figures include uranium mining, which can be a hazardous
industry, with many accidents and fatalities.[112]
Waste heat
As with some thermal power stations, nuclear plants exchange 60 to 70% of their thermal
energy by cycling with a body of water or by evaporating water through a cooling tower. This
thermal efficiency is somewhat lower than that of coal-fired power plants,[113][114] thus
creating more waste heat.
The cooling options are typically once-through cooling with river or sea water, pond cooling,
or cooling towers. Many plants have an artificial lake like the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power
Plant or the South Texas Nuclear Generating Station. Shearon Harris uses a cooling tower
but South Texas does not and discharges back into the lake. The North Anna Nuclear
Generating Station uses a cooling pond or artificial lake, which at the plant discharge canal is
often about 30°F warmer than in the other parts of the lake or in normal lakes (this is cited
as an attraction of the area by some residents).[115] The environmental effects on the
artificial lakes are often weighted in arguments against construction of new plants, and
during droughts have drawn media attention.[116]
The Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station is credited with helping the conservation status
of the American Crocodile, largely an effect of the waste heat produced.[117]
The Indian Point nuclear power plant in New York is in a hearing process to determine if a
cooling system other than river water will be necessary (conditional upon the plants
extending their operating licenses).[118]
It is possible to use waste heat in cogeneration applications such as district heating. The
principles of cogeneration and district heating with nuclear power are the same as any other
form of thermal power production. One use of nuclear heat generation was with the Ågesta
Nuclear Power Plant in Sweden. In Switzerland, the Beznau Nuclear Power Plant provides
heat to about 20,000 people.[119] However, district heating with nuclear power plants is less
common than with other modes of waste heat generation: because of either siting
regulations and/or the NIMBY effect, nuclear stations are generally not built in densely
populated areas. Waste heat is more commonly used in industrial applications.[120]
During Europe's 2003 and 2006 heat waves, French, Spanish and German utilities had to
secure exemptions from regulations in order to discharge overheated water into the
environment. Some nuclear reactors shut down.[121][122]
Figure 7: The North Anna plant uses direct exchange cooling into an artificial lake.
Environmental effect of accidents
The worst accidents at nuclear power plants have resulted in severe environmental
contamination. However, the extent of the actual damage is still being debated.
Fukushima disaster
In March 2011 an earthquake and tsunami caused damage that led to explosions and partial
meltdowns at the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant in Japan.
Radiation levels at the stricken Fukushima I power plant have varied spiking up to
1,000 mSv/h (millisievert per hour),[125] which is a level that can cause radiation sickness to
occur at a later time following a one-hour exposure.[126] Significant release in emissions of
radioactive particles took place following hydrogen explosions at three reactors, as
technicians tried to pump in seawater to keep the uranium fuel rods cool, and bled
radioactive gas from the reactors in order to make room for the seawater.[127]
Figure 8: Following the 2011 Japanese Fukushima nuclear disaster, authorities shut down the nation's 54 nuclear power plants. As of 2013, the Fukushima site remains highly radioactive, with some 160,000 evacuees still living in temporary housing, and some land w
Concerns about the possibility of a large-scale release of radioactivity resulted in 20 km
exclusion zone being set up around the power plant and people within the 20–30 km zone
being advised to stay indoors. Later, the UK, France and some other countries told their
nationals to consider leaving Tokyo, in response to fears of spreading nuclear
contamination.[128] New Scientist has reported that emissions of radioactive iodine and
cesium from the crippled Fukushima I nuclear plant have approached levels evident after
the Chernobyl disaster in 1986.[129] On March 24, 2011, Japanese officials announced that
"radioactive iodine-131 exceeding safety limits for infants had been detected at 18 water-
purification plants in Tokyo and five other prefectures". Officials said also that the fallout
from the Dai-ichi plant is "hindering search efforts for victims from the March 11 earthquake
and tsunami".[130]
Figure 9: Japan towns, villages, and cities around the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. The 20km and 30km areas had evacuation and sheltering orders, and additional administrative districts that had an evacuation order are highlighted.
According to the Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan, "by April 27
approximately 55 percent of the fuel in reactor unit 1 had melted, along with 35 percent of
the fuel in unit 2, and 30 percent of the fuel in unit 3; and overheated spent fuels in the
storage pools of units 3 and 4 probably were also damaged".[131] As of April 2011, water is
still being poured into the damaged reactors to cool melting fuel rods.[132] The accident has
surpassed the 1979 Three Mile Island accident in seriousness, and is comparable to the
1986 Chernobyl disaster.[131] The Economist reports that the Fukushima disaster is "a bit like
three Three Mile Islands in a row, with added damage in the spent-fuel stores",[133] and that
there will be ongoing impacts:
Years of clean-up will drag into decades. A permanent exclusion zone could end up
stretching beyond the plant’s perimeter. Seriously exposed workers may be at increased risk
of cancers for the rest of their lives...[133]
John Price, a former member of the Safety Policy Unit at the UK's National Nuclear
Corporation, has said that it "might be 100 years before melting fuel rods can be safely
removed from Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant".[132]
In the second half of August 2011, Japanese lawmakers announced that Prime Minister
Naoto Kan would likely visit the Fukushima Prefecture to announce that the large
contaminated area around the destroyed reactors would be declared uninhabitable, perhaps
for decades. Some of the areas in the temporary 12 miles (19 km) radius evacuation zone
around Fukushima were found to be heavily contaminated with radionuclides according to a
new survey released by the Japanese Ministry of Science and Education. The town of Okuma
was reported as being over 25 times above the safe limit of 20millesievers per year.[134]
Chernobyl disaster
As of 2013 the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in the Ukraine was and remains the world's worst
nuclear power plant disaster. Estimates of its death toll are controversial and range from 62
to 25,000, with the high projections including deaths that have yet to happen. Peer reviewed
publications have generally supported a projected total figure in the low tens of thousands;
for example an estimate of 16,000 excess cancer deaths are predicted to occur due to the
Chernobyl accident out to the year 2065 made by the International Agency for Research on
Cancer and published in the International Journal of Cancer in 2006.[135] The IARC also
released a press release stating "To put it in perspective, tobacco smoking will cause several
thousand times more cancers in the same population", but also, referring to the numbers of
different types of cancers, "The exception is thyroid cancer, which, over ten years ago, was
already shown to be increased in the most contaminated regions around the site of the
accident".[136] The full version of the World Health Organization health effects report
adopted by the United Nations, also published in 2006, included the prediction of, in total,
4,000–9,000 deaths from cancer among the 6.9 million most-exposed former-Soviet
citizens.[137] A paper which the Union of concerned scientists took issue with the report, and
they have instead estimated, for the broader population, that the legacy of Chernobyl would
be a total of 25,000 excess cancer deaths worldwide.[138] That places the total Chernobyl
death toll below that of the worst dam failure accident in history, the Banqiao Dam disaster
of 1975 in China.
Figure 10: Map showing Caesium-137 contamination in the Chernobyl area as of 1996
Large amounts of radioactive contamination were spread across Europe due to the
Chernobyl disaster, and cesium and strontium contaminated many agricultural products,
livestock and soil. The accident necessitated the evacuation of the entire city of Pripyat and
of 300,000 people from Kiev, rendering an area of land unusable to humans for an
indeterminate period.[139]
As radioactive materials decay, they release particles that can damage the body and lead to
cancer, particularly cesium-137 and iodine-131. In the Chernobyl disaster, releases of
cesium-137 contaminated land. Some communities, including the entire city of Pripyat, were
abandoned permanently. Thousands of people who drank milk contaminated with
radioactive iodine developed thyroid cancer.[140] The exclusion zone (approx. 30 km radius
around Chernobyl) will have significantly elevated levels of radiation, which is now
predominately due to the decay of cesium-137, for around 10 half-lives of that isotope,
which is approximately for 300 years.[141]
Due to the bioaccumulation of cesium-137, some mushrooms as well as wild animals which
eat them, e.g. wild boars hunted in Germany and deer in Austria, may have levels which are
not considered safe for human consumption.[142]Mandatory radiation testing of sheep in
parts of the UK that graze on lands with contaminated peat was lifted in 2012.[143]
In 2007 The Ukrainian government declared much of the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone, almost
50,000 hectares, a zoological animal reserve.[144] With many species of animals experiencing
a population increase since human influence has largely left the region, including an increase
in moose, bison and wolf numbers.[145] However other species such as barn swallows and
many invertebrates, e.g. spider numbers are below what is suspected.[146] With much
controversy amongst biologists over the question of, if in fact Chernobyl is now a wildlife
reserve.[147]
SL-1 meltdown
Figure 11: This image of the SL-1 core served as a sober reminder of the damage that a nuclear meltdown can cause.
The SL-1, or Stationary Low-Power Reactor Number One, was a United States
Army experimental nuclear power reactor which underwent a steam
explosion and meltdown on January 3, 1961, killing its three operators. The direct cause was
the improper withdrawal of the central control rod, responsible for absorbing neutrons in
the reactor core. The event is the only known fatal reactor accident in the United
States.[148][149] The accident released about 80 curies (3.0 TBq) of iodine-131,[150] which was
not considered significant due to its location in a remote desert of Idaho. About 1,100 curies
(41 TBq) of fission products were released into the atmosphere.[151]
Radiation exposure limits prior to the accident were 100 röntgens to save a life and 25 to
save valuable property. During the response to the accident, 22 people received doses of 3
to 27 Röntgens full-body exposure.[152] Removal of radioactive waste and disposal of the
three bodies eventually exposed 790 people to harmful levels of radiation.[153]
Greenhouse gas emissions
Nuclear power plant operation emits no or negligible amounts of carbon dioxide. However,
all other stages of the nuclear fuel chain — mining, milling, transport, fuel fabrication,
enrichment, reactor construction, decommissioning and waste management — use fossil
fuels and hence emit carbon dioxide.[154][155][156] There was a debate on the quantity
of greenhouse gas emissions from the complete nuclear fuel chain.[93]
Many commentators have argued that an expansion of nuclear power would help
combat climate change. Others have pointed out that it is one way to reduce emissions, but
it comes with its own problems, such as risks related to severe nuclear accidents the
challenges of more radioactive waste disposal. Other commentators have argued that there
are better ways of dealing with climate change than investing in nuclear power, including
the improved energy efficiency and greater reliance on decentralized and renewable
energy sources.[93]
According to an analysis by Stanford University professor Mark Z. Jacobson, nuclear power
results in 9 to 25 times more carbon emissions than wind power, "in part due to emissions
from uranium refining and transport and reactor construction, in part due to the longer time
required to site, permit, and construct a nuclear plant compared with a wind farm (resulting
in greater emissions from the fossil-fuel electricity sector during this period), and in part due
to the greater loss of soil carbon due to the greater loss in vegetation resulting from
covering the ground with nuclear facilities relative to wind turbine towers, which cover little
ground."[157]
Various life cycle analysis (LCA) studies have led to a large range of estimates. Some
comparisons of carbon dioxide emissions show nuclear power as comparable to renewable
energy sources.[158][159] On another hand, a 2008 meta analysis of 103 studies, published
by Benjamin Sovacool, determined that renewable electricity technologies are "two to seven
times more effective than nuclear power plants on a per kWh basis at fighting climate
change".[160]
A 2012 Yale University review published in the Journal of Industrial Ecology analyzing
CO2 life cycle assessment emissions from nuclear power determined that "the collective LCA
literature indicates that life cycle GHG emissions from nuclear power are only a fraction of
traditional fossil sources and comparable to renewable technologies".[161] It also said that for
the most common category of reactors, the Light water reactor: "Harmonization decreased
the median estimate for all LWR technology categories so that the medians of BWRs, PWRs,
and all LWRs are similar, at approximately 12 g CO2-eq/kWh".
Contesting the Future of Nuclear Power also "reviews the little-known research which shows
that the life-cycle CO2 emissions of nuclear power may become comparable with those of
fossil power as high-grade uranium ore is used up over the next several decades and low-
grade uranium is mined and milled using fossil fuels".[162]
Decommissioning
Nuclear decommissioning is the process by which a nuclear power plant site is dismantled so
that it will no longer require measures for radiation protection. The presence
of radioactive material necessitates processes that are occupationally dangerous, and
hazardous to the natural environment, expensive, and time-intensive.[163]
Most nuclear plants currently operating in the US were originally designed for a life of about
30–40 years[164] and are licensed to operate for 40 years by the US Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.[165] The average age of these reactors is 32 years.[165] Therefore, many reactors
are coming to the end of their licensing period. If their licenses are not renewed, the plants
must go through a decontamination and decommissioning process.[164][166] Many experts and
engineers have noted there is no danger in these aged facilities, and current plans are to
allow nuclear reactors to run for much longer lifespans.
Decommissioning is an administrative and technical process. It includes clean-up of
radioactivity and progressive demolition of the plant. Once a facility is fully decommissioned,
no danger of a radiologic nature should persist. The costs of decommissioning are to be
spread over the lifetime of a facility and saved in a decommissioning fund. After a facility has
been completely decommissioned, it is released from regulatory control, and the licensee of
the plant will no longer be responsible for its nuclear safety. With some plants the intent is
to eventually return to "greenfield" status.
Figure 12: Example of decommissioning work underway.
Figure 13: The reactor pressure vessel being transported away from the site for burial. Images courtesy of the NRC.
The above cases of Fukushima and Chernobyl are disasters even for countries like japan and
USSR and with stable regions, what if such accidents happen to Jordan, how can a tiny
country with a weak economy coup this disaster, also Jordan lies in an unstable region and
surrounded by troubles and wars, the threats are close to the plants and this increases the
risks.
The prospective global vision of the nuclear energy
The terrible accidents of the nuclear plants make the nuclear countries thinking carefully of
this energy's future and planned to reduce the number of their plants and apply firm laws
for permitting construction.
Austria was the first country to begin a phase-out (in 1978) and has been followed
by Sweden (1980), Italy (1987), Belgium (1999), and Germany(2000). Austria and Spain have
gone as far as to enact laws not to build new nuclear power stations. Several other European
countries have debated phase-outs.
Following the March 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, Germany has permanently shut down
eight of its reactors and pledged to close the rest by 2022.[168] The Italians have voted
overwhelmingly to keep their country non-nuclear.[169] Switzerland and Spain have banned
the construction of new reactors.[170] Japan’s prime minister has called for a dramatic
reduction in Japan’s reliance on nuclear power.[171]Taiwan’s president did the same. Mexico
has sidelined construction of 10 reactors in favor of developing natural-gas-fired
plants.[172]Belgium is considering phasing out its nuclear plants, perhaps as early as 2015.[170]
As of November 2011, countries such as Australia, Austria, Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Italy,
Latvia, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Israel, Malaysia, New Zealand,
and Norway have no nuclear power reactors and remain opposed to nuclear power.[173][174]
Possible solution for Jordan
Jordan possesses one of the world's richest stockpiles of oil shale where there are huge
quantities that could be commercially exploited in the central and northern regions west of
the country. This shale oil sits under 60% of Jordan’s surface.[175] The moisture content and
ash within is relatively low. And the total thermal value is 7.5 megajoules/kg, and the
content of ointments reach 9% of the weight of the organic content.[176]A switch to power
plants operated by oil shale has the potential to reduce Jordan's energy bill by at least 40–50
per cent, according to the National Electric Power Company.[177]
This huge reserve can be used also to desalinate the water without the need to nuclear
power, and the speech about carbon dioxide emissions is not wise as Jordan's share of the
GHGs is negligible compared to USA for example which uses coal majorly for electricity.
Uranium can be exported as ore, and with the declared reserves in addition to the large
reserves of oil shale, it can fund the economy and finance the energy plans and water
desalination.
Conclusion
The solution for Jordan will never be nuclear, it will be achieved by intensive and reliable
searches and studies on Jordanian resources, and with a clear look to the future possibilities
and bearing in mind the past, recognition at a glance and in-depth understand of energy
problems not only for Jordan, but also for all the world.
References
1- "Country Profile: Jordan". Library of Congress Federal Research Division(September
2006). This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
2- http://www.oxfordbusinessgroup.com/publication.asp?country=19
3- What's behind the red-hot uranium boom, 2007-04-19, CNNMoney, Retrieved 2008-07-2 4- ^ "The Economics of Nuclear Power". World Nuclear Association. May 2008. Retrieved 2008-
05-08.
5- ^ Safe Transportation of Spent Nuclear Fuel, January 2003, The Center for Reactor
Information, Retrieved 1 June 2007
6- b "Waste Management". Retrieved 2011-01-05.
7- Nuclear Engineering International
8- "Management of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste". Europa. SCADPlus. 2007-11-22.
Retrieved 2008-08-05.
9- Nuclear Energy Data 2008, OECD, p. 48 (the Netherlands, Borssele nuclear power plant)
10- ^ Decommissioning a Nuclear Power Plant , 2007-4-20, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ,
Retrieved 2007-6-12
11- http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/power-reactor/three-mile-island-unit-2.html
12- Justin McCurry (6 March 2013). "Fukushima two years on: the largest nuclear
decommissioning finally begins" . The Guardian. Retrieved 23 April 2013.
13- http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/chernobyl-nuclear-plant-to-be-decommissioned-
compl-65096.html
14- http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/newsarticle.aspx?id=13304&LangType=2057
15- ^ Koplow, Doug (February 2011). "Nuclear Power:Still Not Viable without Subsidies" . Union of
Concerned Scientists. p. 10.
16- ^ Odette, G; Lucas (2001). "Embrittlement of Nuclear Reactor Pressure Vessels" . JOM 53 (7):
18–22. Retrieved 2 January 2014.
17- b Jacobson, Mark Z. and Delucchi, Mark A. (2010). "Providing all Global Energy with Wind,
Water, and Solar Power, Part I: Technologies, Energy Resources, Quantities and Areas of
Infrastructure, and Materials" . Energy Policy. p. 6.[dead link]
18- Hugh Gusterson (16 March 2011). "The lessons of Fukushima" . Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists.
19- b Diaz Maurin, François (26 March 2011). "Fukushima: Consequences of Systemic Problems
in Nuclear Plant Design" . Economic & Political Weekly 46 (13): 10–12.
20- James Paton (April 4, 2011). "Fukushima Crisis Worse for Atomic Power Than Chernobyl,
UBS Says" . Bloomberg Businessweek.
21- Benjamin K. Sovacool (January 2011). "Second Thoughts About Nuclear Power" . National
University of Singapore. p. 8.
22- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2003). "The Future of Nuclear Power" . p. 48.
23- Koplow, Doug (February 2011). "Nuclear Power:Still Not Viable without Subsidies" . Union of
Concerned Scientists. p. 2.
24- Nancy Folbre (March 28, 2011). "Renewing Support for Renewables" . New York Times.
25- Antony Froggatt (4 April 2011). "Viewpoint: Fukushima makes case for renewable
energy" . BBC News.
26- Juergen Baetz (21 April 2011). "Nuclear Dilemma: Adequate Insurance Too
Expensive" . Associated Press. Retrieved 21 April 2011.
27- b http://www.damsafety.org/media/Documents/FEMA/AvailabilityOfDamInsurance.pdf
28- http://www.cna.ca/english/pdf/nuclearfacts/19-NuclearFacts-insurance.pdf
29- Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage: WNA
30- http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/funds-fs.html
31- Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage, IAEA, 12/11/1977
32- Press Communiqué 6 June 2003 - Revised Nuclear Third Party Liability Conventions Improve
Victims' Rights to Compensation
33- Nuclear Costs Explode .
34- Platts: A utility's credit quality could be negatively impacted by building a new nuclear power
plant , 2 June 2008, Moody's Investors Service
35- Severance, C. (2009) "Business Risks and Costs of New Nuclear Power" ; for critiques and
replies from the study's author, see http://climateprogress.org/2009/01/05/study-cost-risks-new-
nuclear-power-plants/
36- "The Economics of Nuclear Power" . Information and Issue Briefs. World Nuclear Association.
2009. Retrieved 2009-04-01.
37- John M. Deutch et al. (2009). Update of the MIT 2003 Future of Nuclear Power
Study (PDF). Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Retrieved 2009-05-18.
38- The Future of Nuclear Power . Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 2003. ISBN 0-615-
12420-8. Retrieved 2006-11-10
39- ^ Benjamin K. Sovacool (2011). Contesting the Future of Nuclear Power: A Critical Global
Assessment of Atomic Energy, World Scientific, p. 126.
40- US Energy Information Administration, Levelized costs of new generation resources , Jan.
2013.
41- Jeff Mcmahon (10 November 2013). "New-Build Nuclear Is Dead: Morningstar" . Forbes.
Retrieved 12 November 2013.
42- ^ "The Costs of Generating Electricity" (PDF). The Royal Academy of Engineering. 2004.
Retrieved 2006-11-10.
43- <Please add first missing authors to populate metadata.> (May 2008). Nuclear Power's Role in
Generating Electricity. Congressional Budget Office. Retrieved 2009-08-03
44- "Energy Analysis of Power Systems". Information and Issue Briefs. World Nuclear Association.
2006. Retrieved 2006-11-10.
45- Wind ($23.37) v. Gas (25 Cents), Wall Street Journal, May 12, 2008
46- Koplow, Doug (February 2011). "Nuclear Power:Still Not Viable without Subsidies". Union of
Concerned Scientists. p. 1.
47- Benjamin K. Sovacool (January 2011). "Second Thoughts About Nuclear Power". National
University of Singapore. p. 4.
48- http://www.ier.uni-stuttgart.de/forschung/projektwebsites/newext/externen.pdf
49- http://www.externe.info/externe_2006/exterpols.html ExternE-Pol, External costs of current and
advanced electricity systems, associated with emissions from the operation of power plants
and with the rest of the energy chain, final technical report. See figure 9, 9b and figure 11
50- http://www.springerlink.com/content/k246p062836210m0/fulltext.pdf
51- Jon Palfreman. "Why the French Like Nuclear Power". Frontline. Public Broadcasting Service.
Retrieved 2006-11-10.
52- http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421510003526#bfn8
53- http://www.climatesceptics.org/company/costs-for-nuclear-increase
54- Charles D. Ferguson (April 2007). "Nuclear Energy: Balancing Benefits and
Risks" (PDF). Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved 2008-05-08.
55- http://www.claverton-energy.com/nuclear-power-stations-cant-load-follow-that-much-
official.html
56- http://www.cessa.eu.com/sd_papers/wp/wp2/0203_Pouret_Nuttall.pdf
57- http://areva.com/EN/global-offer-419/mediashare-1070/video/page.html?xtor=AD-71
58- Steve Kidd (3 March 2009). "New nuclear build – sufficient supply capability?". Nuclear
Engineering International. Retrieved 2009-03-09.
59- http://www.doosanheavy.com/eng/2/sub2_01_21.htm
60- Steve Kidd (22 August 2008). "Escalating costs of new build: what does it mean?". Nuclear
Engineering International. Retrieved 2008-08-30.
61- Nuclear power and water scarcity, ScienceAlert, 28 October 2007, Retrieved 2008-08-08
62- [2] Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2013].
Released January, 2013. Report of the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE).
63- International Panel on Fissile Materials (September 2010). "The Uncertain Future of Nuclear
Energy" . Research Report 9. p. 1.
64- Benjamin K. Sovacool. A Critical Evaluation of Nuclear Power and Renewable Electricity in
Asia, Journal of Contemporary Asia, Vol. 40, No. 3, August 2010, pp. 376.
65- Benjamin K. Sovacool (January 2011). "Second Thoughts About Nuclear Power" . National
University of Singapore. p. 7.
66- NEA - Moving forward with geological disposal
67- Harold Feiveson, Zia Mian, M.V. Ramana, and Frank von Hippel (27 June 2011). "Managing
nuclear spent fuel: Policy lessons from a 10-country study" . Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
68- US DOE - Radioactive waste: an international concern
69- R. Naudet. 1976. The Oklos nuclear reactors: 1800 millions years ago. Interdisciplinary
Science Reviews, 1(1) p.72-84.
70- Vandenbosch, Robert, and Susanne E. Vandenbosch. 2007. Nuclear waste stalemate. Salt
Lake City: University of Utah Press.
71- NRC. Radioactive Waste: Production, Storage, Disposal (NUREG/BR-0216, Rev. 2)
72- NRC. Radioactive Waste Management
73- Frosch, Dan. A Fight in Colorado Over Uranium Mines , The New York Times, April 16, 2013,
p. A15 in the New York edition. Published online April 16, 2013.
74- ANS dosechart [American Nuclear Society]
75- Beth Daley. Leaks imperil nuclear industry: Vermont Yankee among troubled Boston Globe,
January 31, 2010.
76- Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Groundwater Contamination (Tritium) at Nuclear Plants .
77- Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Information Updates: Tritium in drinking water
78- "World Uranium Mining" . World Nuclear Association. Retrieved 2010-06-11.
79- "Uranium resources sufficient to meet projected nuclear energy requirements long into the
future" . Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA). 3 June 2008. Retrieved 2008-06-16.
80- Nuclear power and water scarcity , ScienceAlert, 28 October 2007, Retrieved 2008-08-08
81- "Navajos mark 20th anniversary of Church Rock spill", The Daily Courier (Prescott, Arizona),
July 18, 1999
82- Pasternak, Judy (2010). Yellow Dirt: A Poisoned Land and a People Betrayed. Free Press.
p. 149. ISBN 1416594825.
83- US Congress, House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Subcommittee on Energy and
the Environment. Mill Tailings Dam Break at Church Rock, New Mexico, 96th Cong, 1st Sess
(October 22, 1979):19–24.
84- Brugge, D.; DeLemos, J.L.; Bui, C. (2007), "The Sequoyah Corporation Fuels Release and the
Church Rock Spill: Unpublicized Nuclear Releases in American Indian
Communities" ,American Journal of Public Health 97 (9): 1595–600
85- Quinones, Manuel (December 13, 2011), "As Cold War abuses linger, Navajo Nation faces
new mining push" , E&E News, retrieved December 28, 2012
86- Pasternak 2010, p. 150.
87- Pasternak, Judy (2006-11-19). "A peril that dwelt among the Navajos" . Los Angeles Times.
88- U.S. EPA, Radiation Protection, “Uranium Mining Waste” 30 August 2012 Web.4 December
2012 http://www.epa.gov/radiation/tenorm/uranium.html
89- Uranium Mining and Extraction Processes in the United States Figure 2.1. Mines and Other
Locations with Uranium in the Western U.S. http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/tenorm/402-r-
08-005-voli/402-r-08-005-v1-ch2.pdf
90- Laws We Use (Summaries):1978 - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act(42 USC 2022
et seq.) , EPA, retrieved December 16, 2012
91- B.K. Sovacool (April 6, 2010). "Think again: Nuclear energy" . Foreign Policy.
92- Baker, P. J.; Hoel, D. G. (2007). "Meta-analysis of standardized incidence and mortality rates
of childhood leukaemia in proximity to nuclear facilities". European Journal of Cancer
Care 16 (4): 355–363. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2354.2007.00679.x . PMID 17587361. edit
93- M.V. Ramana. Nuclear Power: Economic, Safety, Health, and Environmental Issues of Near-
Term Technologies, Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 2009. 34, p.142.
94- Spix, C.; Blettner, M. (2009). "Re: BAKER P.J. & HOEL D.G. (2007)European Journal of
Cancer Care16, 355-363. Meta-analysis of standardized incidence and mortality rates of
childhood leukaemia in proximity to nuclear facilities". European Journal of Cancer Care 18 (4):
429–430.doi:10.1111/j.1365-2354.2008.01027.x . PMID 19594613. edit
95- Elliott, A, Editor (2011) COMARE 14th Report: Further consideration of the incidence of
childhood leukaemia around nuclear power plants in Great Britain 6 May 2011, Retrieved 6
May 2011
96- Little, J.; McLaughlin, J.; Miller, A. (2008). "Leukaemia in young children living in the vicinity of
nuclear power plants". International Journal of Cancer 122 (4): xi–
xi. doi:10.1002/ijc.23347 .PMID 18072253. edit
97- Laurier, D.; Hémon, D.; Clavel, J. (2008). "Childhood leukaemia incidence below the age of 5
years near French nuclear power plants". Journal of Radiological Protection 28 (3): 401–
403.doi:10.1088/0952-4746/28/3/N01 . PMC 2738848. PMID 18714138. edit
98- Lopez-Abente, Gonzalo et al, (2009)Leukemia, Lymphomas, and Myeloma Mortality in the
Vicinity of Nuclear Power Plants and Nuclear Fuel Facilities in Spain Cancer Epidemiology,
Biomarkers & Prevention, Vol. 8, 925–934, October 1999
99- Jablon, S.; Hrubec, Z.; Boice Jr, J. (1991). "Cancer in populations living near nuclear facilities.
A survey of mortality nationwide and incidence in two states". JAMA: the Journal of the
American Medical Association 265 (11): 1403–
1408. doi:10.1001/jama.265.11.1403 .PMID 1999880. edit
100- Yoshimoto, Y.; Yoshinaga, S.; Yamamoto, K.; Fijimoto, K.; Nishizawa, K.; Sasaki, Y.
(2004). "Research on potential radiation risks in areas with nuclear power plants in Japan:
Leukaemia and malignant lymphoma mortality between 1972 and 1997 in 100 selected
municipalities".Journal of radiological protection : official journal of the Society for Radiological
Protection 24(4): 343–368. PMID 15682904. edit
101- Coal Combustion - ORNL Review Vol. 26, No. 3&4, 1993
102- The EPA. Calculate Your Radiation Dose
103- "Dirty Air, Dirty Power: Mortality and Health Damage Due to Air Pollution from Power
Plants" . Clean Air Task Force. 2004. Retrieved 2006-11-10.
104- ExternE-Pol, External costs of current and advanced electricity systems, associated
with emissions from the operation of power plants and with the rest of the energy chain, final
technical report. See figure 9, 9b and figure 11
105- David Bodansky. "The Environmental Paradox of Nuclear Power" . American
Physical Society. Retrieved 2008-01-31. "(reprinted from Environmental Practice, vol. 3, no. 2
(June 2001), pp.86–88 (Oxford University Press))"
106- "Some Amazing Facts about Nuclear Power" . August 2002. Retrieved 2008-01-31.
107- Alex Kirby (13 December 2004). "Pollution: A life and death issue" . BBC News.
Retrieved 2008-01-31.
108- Don Hopey (June 29, 2005). "State sues utility for U.S. pollution
violations" . Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved 2008-01-31.
109- Alex Gabbard. "Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger" . Oak Ridge
National Laboratory. Retrieved 2008-01-31.
110- Nuclear proliferation through coal burning — Gordon J. Aubrecht, II, Ohio State
University
111- "Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors" .
112- Doug Brugge, Jamie L. deLemos, and Cat Bui (September 2007). "The Sequoyah
Corporation Fuels Release and the Church Rock Spill: Unpublicized Nuclear Releases in
American Indian Communities" . Am J Public Health; 97(9): 1595–1600.
113- Avedore Multi-Fuel Power Plant, Denmark Power Technology. Accessed: 27
November 2010. "The efficiency of the fossil fuel steam cycle is rated at 48.2%."
114- Cooling power plants World Nuclear Association
115- Washington Post. Happy in Their Haven Beside the Nuclear Plant .
116- NBC. Dropping Lake Levels Affect Shearon Harris
117- "About Turkey Point" . FPL.com. Florida Power & Light. Retrieved 2007-07-25.
118- The New York Times: State Proposal Would Reduce Fish Deaths At Indian Point
119- SUGIYAMA KEN'ICHIRO (Hokkaido Univ.) et al. Nuclear District Heating: The Swiss
Experience
120- IAEA, 1997: Nuclear power applications: Supplying heat for homes and industries
121- The Observer. Heatwave shuts down nuclear power plants .
122- Susan Sachs (2006-08-10). "Nuclear power's green promise dulled by rising
temps" . The Christian Science Monitor.
123- Richard Schiffman (12 March 2013). "Two years on, America hasn't learned lessons
of Fukushima nuclear disaster" . The Guardian.
124- Martin Fackler (June 1, 2011). "Report Finds Japan Underestimated Tsunami
Danger" .New York Times.
125- Font size Print E-mail Share 13 Comments (2011-03-15). "Radiation spike hinders
work at Japan nuke plant" . CBS News. Retrieved 18 March 2011.
126- Turner, James Edward (2007). Atoms, Radiation, and Radiation Protection. Wiley-
VCH. p. 421. ISBN 978-3-527-40606-7.
127- Keith Bradsher et al. (April 12, 2011). "Japanese Officials on Defensive as Nuclear
Alert Level Rises" . New York Times.
128- Cresswell, Adam (March 16, 2011), "Stealthy, silent destroyer of DNA", The
Australian
129- Winter, Michael (March 24, 2011). "Report: Emissions from Japan plant approach
Chernobyl levels" . USA Today.
130- Michael Winter (March 24, 2011). "Report: Emissions from Japan plant approach
Chernobyl levels" . USA Today.
131- Jungmin Kang (4 May 2011). "Five steps to prevent another Fukushima" . Bulletin of
the Atomic Scientists.
132- David Mark, Mark Willacy (April 1, 2011). "Crews 'facing 100-year battle' at
Fukushima" .ABC News.
133- "Nuclear power: When the steam clears" . The Economist. March 24, 2011.
134- Fackler, Martin. Large Zone Near Japanese Reactors to Be Off Limits , The New York
Times website on August 21, 2011, print edition on August 22, 2011, pg.A6.
135- Cardis, Elisabeth, et al., International Journal of Cancer, Vol. 119, Iss. 6, pp. 1224–
1235, September 15, 2006. Published online: April 20, 2006, doi:10.1002/ijc.22037
136- Press Release N° 168: The Cancer Burden from Chernobyl in Europe , Lyon Cedex,
France: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, April 20,
2006.
137- Peplow, Mark. Special Report: Counting The Dead , Nature, 440, pp. 982-983, April
20, 2006, DOI:10.1038/440982a; Published online April 19, 2006; corrected April 21, 2006.
138- Chernobyl Cancer Death Toll Estimate More Than Six Times Higher Than the 4,000
Frequently Cited, According to a New UCS Analysis , Union of Concerned Scientists, April 22,
2011. Retrieved from UCSUSA.org website.
139- Benjamin K. Sovacool. "The costs of failure: A preliminary assessment of major
energy accidents, 1907–2007", Energy Policy 36 (2008), p. 1806.
140- Renee Schoof (April 12, 2011). "Japan's nuclear crisis comes home as fuel risks get
fresh look" . McClatchy.
141- Health Impact of the Chernobyl Accident , NuclearInfo.net website, August 31, 2005.
142- Juergen Baetz (1 April 2011). "Radioactive boars and mushrooms in Europe remain a
grim reminder 25 years after Chornobyl" . The Associated Press. Retrieved 7 June 2012.
143- "Post-Chernobyl disaster sheep controls lifted on last UK farms" . BBC. 1 June 2012.
Retrieved 7 June 2012.
144- Ukrainian President Turns Chernobyl Exclusion Zone, 48,870 Hectares, Into Game
Reserve , League of Ukrainian Canadian Women, August 21, 2007; which in turn cites:
a. Interfax-Ukraine news agency, Kiev, (in Russian), August 13, 2007
b. BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, August 13, 2007.
145- Stephen Mulvey. Wildlife Defies Chernobyl Radiation , BBC News, April 20, 2006.
146- Potter, Ned. Chernobyl: Nuclear Wasteland? Or Nature Reserve? , ABC News, May
1, 2009.
147- Higginbotham, Adam. Half-life: 25 years after the Chernobyl meltdown, a scientific
debate rages on , Wired, May 5, 2011.
148- Stacy, Susan M. (2000). Proving the Principle (PDF). U.S. Department of Energy,
Idaho Operations Office. ISBN 0-16-059185-6. Unknown parameter |subtitle= ignored
(help)Chapter 16.
149- "The SL-1 Reactor Accident" .
150- The Nuclear Power Deception Table 7: Some Reactor Accidents
151- Horan, J. R., and J. B. Braun, 1993, Occupational Radiation Exposure History of
Idaho Field Office Operations at the INEL, EGG-CS-11143, EG&G Idaho, Inc., October, Idaho
Falls, Idaho.
152- Johnston, Wm. Robert. "SL-1 reactor excursion, 1961" . Johnston's Archive.
Retrieved 30 July 2010.
153- Maslin, Janet (March 21, 1984). "Sl-1 (1983): Looking at Perils of Toxicity" . The New
York Times. Retrieved July 30, 2010.
154- Kurt Kleiner. Nuclear energy: assessing the emissions Nature Reports, Vol. 2,
October 2008, pp. 130-131.
155- Mark Diesendorf (2007). Greenhouse Solutions with Sustainable Energy, University
of New South Wales Press, p. 252.
156- Mark Diesendorf. Is nuclear energy a possible solution to global warming? pdf
157- Jacobson, Mark Z. and Delucchi, Mark A. (2010). "Providing all Global Energy with
Wind, Water, and Solar Power, Part I: Technologies, Energy Resources, Quantities and Areas
of Infrastructure, and Materials" . Energy Policy.
158- "Hydropower-Internalised Costs and Externalised Benefits"; Frans H.
Koch; International Energy Agency (IEA)-Implementing Agreement for Hydropower
Technologies and Programmes; 2000.
159- AEA Technology environment (May 2005). "Environmental Product Declaration of
Electricity from Torness Nuclear Power Station" . Retrieved 31 January 2010.
160- Benjamin K. Sovacool. A Critical Evaluation of Nuclear Power and Renewable
Electricity in Asia, Journal of Contemporary Asia, Vol. 40, No. 3, August 2010, p. 386.
161- Ethan S. Warner, Garvin A. Heath. Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Nuclear
Electricity Generation], Journal of Industrial Ecology, Vol. 16, Issue Supplement S1, pp. S73–
S92, April 2012. Article first published online: April 17, 2012, doi:10.1111/j.1530-
9290.2012.00472.x
162- Mark Diesendorf (2013). "Book review: Contesting the future of nuclear
power" . Energy Policy.
163- Benjamin K. Sovacool. "A Critical Evaluation of Nuclear Power and Renewable
Electricity in Asia", Journal of Contemporary Asia, Vol. 40, No. 3, August 2010, p. 373.
164- http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Nuclear-
Wastes/Decommissioning-Nuclear-Facilities/
165- http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=228&t=21
166- http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/decommissioning.html
167- IAEA (2011 Highlights). "Power Reactor Information System".
168- Annika Breidthardt (May 30, 2011). "German government wants nuclear exit by 2022
at latest". Reuters.
169- "Italy Nuclear Referendum Results". June 13, 2011.
170- Henry Sokolski (November 28, 2011). "Nuclear Power Goes Rogue". Newsweek.
171- Tsuyoshi Inajima and Yuji Okada (October 28, 2011). "Nuclear Promotion Dropped in
Japan Energy Policy After Fukushima". Bloomberg.
172- Carlos Manuel Rodriguez (November 4, 2011). "Mexico Scraps Plans to Build 10
Nuclear Power Plants in Favor of Using Gas". Bloomberg Businessweek.
173- Duroyan Fertl (June 5, 2011). "Germany: Nuclear power to be phased out by
2022". Green Left.
174- "Nuclear power: When the steam clears". The Economist. March 24, 2011.
175- "The economy: The haves and the have-nots". Economist.com. 2013-07-13.
Retrieved 2013-09-15.
176- Arab Petroleum Research Center, 2003, Jordan, in Arab oil & gas directory 2003:
Paris, France, Arab Petroleum Research Center, pp. 191–206.
177- "Oil shale ventures to create thousands of jobs". The Jordan Times. 30 August 2009.
Archived from the originalon 2012-03-26. Retrieved 15 June 2010.