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.