nuclear power: irreplaceable before and after fukushima

8/10/2019 Nuclear Power: Irreplaceable before and after Fukushima

1/48

Nuclear Power: Irreplaceable before and after Fukushima

Palapan Kampan and Adam Richard Tanielian

Abstract: The Fukushim-Daiichi disaster marked a turning point in nuclear power. Following

the tragedy, public approal !or nuclear energy waned in spite o! its strong sa!ety record. This

article takes a critical iew o! opposition to nuclear power and outdated regulatory regimes.

Recommendations include reision o! nuclear insurance pool systems. A globali"ed

regulatory and !inancial protection enironment is proposed whereby public and priate

entities cooperate to ensure sa!ety and security. Reprocessing o! spent nuclear !uel is

recommended to mitigate waste storage problems. #oernment subsidies !or renewable

energy e$ploration and deelopment are !urther recommended, as the world is urged to adopt

a sustainable method o! proiding uniersal access to electricity.

Keywords:%uclear power, nonproli!eration, climate change, renewable energy

Introduction

The &'() *nited %ations Treaty on the %on-Proli!eration o! %uclear +eapons %PT

set out clear goals o! adancing technological and political cooperation in the deelopment o!

nuclear power. &' parties /oined the treaty, !orging a commitment to consider nuclear power

and weapons as being legally separate. Despite this clear, unmistakable distinction between

these two uses o! nuclear material, political actiist groups continue to associate the two as i!

they were not mutually e$clusie. #reenpeace 0&1 opined that, 2there is nothing 3peace!ul4

about all things nuclear5. Regardless o! such indictments, the *nited %ations has consistently

endorsed the use o! nuclear power as a replacement !or !ossil !uel electricity generation, or as

a mitigation technology 6P77, 0&8 0&1.

6t is true that 2concerns oer reactor sa!ety, radioactie waste transport, waste

disposal, and proli!eration5 6P77, 0& constrain growth and deelopment in nuclear

power. 9et, i! we approach the issue as positiists, embracing both the rule o! law and proen


2/48

science, we !ind threats hae long been taken care o!. 6n addition to the %PT and other

weapons bans, the 6nternational Atomic :nergy Agency 6A:A administers other treaties on

%uclear ;a!ety &''1, on the ;a!ety o! ;pent Fuel and Radioactie +aste


3/48

This article presents an eidence-based inuiry on nuclear power, its sa!ety record and

rating, its competitieness as a power source, and its place in the !uture global energy mi$.

The research includes reiew and analyses o! economic, scienti!ic, political, and regulatory

enironments in the energy sector. 7ompeting economic and enironmental interests are

!ound as the world tries to deal with climate change and reduction o! greenhouse gas #E#

emissions. Fossil !uels, and coal in particular, are critici"ed as outdated technologies !or

global scale power production due to enironmental impacts. 6nnoatie carbon-capture

systems proide no repriee !or coal power because they are not economically un!easible.

Theoretical super-power sources like !usion are likewise not !ound to be a realistic option !or

the middle to later 0&stcentury, when !ossil !uel reseres are e$pected to be in scarce

uantities. Despite the researchers4 iew that !ossil !uels are inappropriate sources o! energy,

renewables like wind, solar, and hydroelectric are not endorsed as e$clusie substitutes.

Rather, nuclear power is assessed as the most attractie alternatie to coal, yet e$pansie

renewable deployment is simultaneously !ound to be adantageous.

This article !inds our power grids should be transitioned to and sustained by atomic

energy the other clean energy. Although the longer-term !uture is unpredictable, nuclear

power is shown to o!!er ample, sustainable, and near carbon-neutral power !or more than &

years, into a time when energy is crucial and !uels somewhat threatened. 6ncreased

technological RD, sa!ety systems management, and international cooperation are

paramount to a success!ul rebirth o! nuclear as the remaining rational choice in power. Cased

upon !acts discoered, this article takes a critical iew o! opposition to nuclear power and

outdated regulatory regimes. Recommendations include reision o! nuclear insurance pool

systems. A globali"ed regulatory and !inancial protection enironment is proposed whereby

public and priate entities cooperate to ensure sa!ety and security. Reprocessing o! spent

nuclear !uel is recommended to mitigate waste storage problems. #oernment subsidies !or


4/48

renewable energy e$ploration and deelopment are !urther recommended, as the world is

urged to adopt a sustainable method o! proiding uniersal access to electricity.

A Staple Base Power Source

Goad oer any grid aries at di!!erent times o! day. 6n order to supply the changing

demand, generation is broken down into base load, intermediate, and peak segments. Case

load power is generated by plants that hae low operating costs and consistent !uel. 7apacity

!actor, or the percent o! time a plant operates at !ull output, also in!luences what part o! the

load cycle plants will sere. %uclear plants usually hae a capacity !actor o! around 'H,

compared to 11H !or hydro, 0-1H !or wind, and B-&'H !or solar Frank, 0&1, making

nuclear a per!ect base load source alongside coal. #eothermal has a good capacity !actor !or

base load power, but high costs hae hitherto kept it !rom acuiring signi!icant market shares.

7ombined cycle gas plants can ramp up and turn down production uickly, making them

staple intermediate sources, but higher operating costs hae kept gas !rom seriously

competing with coal as a base load source Kaplan, 0), although gas production is

growing as the world tries to cut emissions. +ind and solar are sub/ect to intermittent

shutdowns caused by weather8 that, and high capital costs make wind and solar good peak

demand sources, but nothing more consistent at utility scales. 6t should be noted that micro-

scale, o!!-grid wind and solar generators alongside adanced battery storage technologies

hae made sel!-su!!icient housing and !arming realistic options !or indiiduals and !amilies.

Trends in Production and Consumption

+orld electricity generation increased by about )(H between &'' and 0&&, when it

sat at 0& petawatt hours :6A, 0&1. Production should increase to >' petawatt hours by

01 :6A, 0&>a. 6A:A 0&& !orecasted 11-''H growth in nuclear power generating

capacity between 0& and 0>B, making it the second !astest-growing source behind

renewable energies :6A, 0&>a. 6n 0&1, only about &&H o! the world4s electricity came


5/48

!rom nuclear power. Fie countries *;A, France, Russia, ;outh Korea, and 7hina

generate about two-thirds o! the roughly 0.1 gigawatt hours produced among all reactors

worldwide ;chneider and Froggatt, 0&1. ;ince 0&, thirteen countries relied upon nuclear

to generate at least 0BH o! their total electricity, but nuclear power has not yet been deployed

widely. 6n 0&1, only > countries were home to the 1>B total !unctional reactors worldwide

%:6, 0&1.

%uclear power generation declined signi!icantly !ollowing Fukushima, both in net

terawatt hours and share o! electricity production ;chneider and Froggatt, 0&1. #ermany

closed all reactors that began in &') or earlier and owed to close all other reactors by 000

:uropean 7ommission, 0&1. 6n ;wit"erland, 1H o! power comes !rom nuclear, and

despite a public ote in !aor o! keeping it, the goernment decided to phase out reactors by

0>1 +orld %uclear Association, 0&1a. The :* as a whole set a goal to supply 0=H o! its

energy with renewables by 0> :uropean 7ommission, 0&1a, but renewables cannot

replace nuclear powerper se. 6! nuclear power generation or growth is decreased or stalled, it

is nearly certain that a !ossil !uel source will replace it, which makes it more di!!icult to

achiee aggressie targets !or reduction o! greenhouse gas emissions.

Renewable technologies are relatiely new compared to other sources, giing them a

natural adantage in growth markets, which attracts the attention o! economists. ?pportunity

cost may also in!luence inestment in renewables in the early 0&stcentury. #ien the

unpredictable !uture o! rare earth mineral prices, and their integral role in wind turbines,

recent inestors may be buying into renewables with !uture rare earth prices in mind. A

dierse energy mi$ is desirable, and in the longer-term nuclear power is not likely threatened

by e$pansie use o! renewables because renewables are not suitable !or base load power

generation. Realistically, though, neither is coal threatened by renewable generation at global

utility scales. Eigh capital costs and capacity !actors !urther constrain solar, wind, and


6/48

geothermal to supplemental producers, though their logistical growth trend has been and

should continue to be robust until it reaches its upper limit.

A Comparison of Plant Costs

%uclear plants are among the most e$pensie !acilities to build, but they are also able

to generate more power than other sources. :6A 0&>b !ound costs !or nuclear plants were

less than municipal solid waste, dual !lash geothermal, o!!shore wind, biomass, !uel cell

natural gas, and single unit coal gasi!ication with carbon capture. A dual unit nuclear reactor

pro/ect costs about the same as single unit puleri"ed coal with carbon capture, and pumped

storage hydroelectric generators. :6A !ound !i$ed costs !or nuclear are higher than all other

coal, gas, wind, solar, and hydroelectric sources, but less than combined cycle biomass,

municipal solid waste, and geothermal. %uclear power weighs-in as the cheapest in terms o!

ariable costs among gas, coal, biomass, and municipal solid waste. 7onstruction costs are

high !or nuclear plants, but !uel costs are lower than gas and coal. As a result, total cost per

kilowatt-hour !or nuclear are lower than those !or !ossil steam, gas turbine, and small scale

utilities :6A, 0&>c.

Gow !uel costs currently make nuclear a competitie source o! electricity, despite high

capital inestment costs. 7apital cost concerns tend to !aor combustion turbine or combined

cycle natural gas plants, which run about &0-&'H the price o! nuclear plants :6A, 0&>b.

Eence, opportunities !or utility serice proiders in the immediate !uture lie primarily in the

gas sector considering goernment emissions regulations !aor gas oer coal. The !uture,

howeer, may not be as simple. 7hanging goernment incenties, air emissions controls, and

!uel costs could threaten !ossil !uel production considerably, leaing nuclear power as the

remaining economically !easible source !or base load power. +ith some strategic

policymaking, goernments can also rein the costs o! geothermal plant construction, thereby

proiding !urther competition !or !ossil !uels as the wells and mines deplete.


7/48

6n 0(, in the *nited ;tates, publicly owned utilities generated only 00H o! all

power, while inestor-owned utilities and independent power producers supplied near eual

shares !or the remaining demand Kaplan, 0). Priati"ation and liberali"ation o! electricity

utilities, as seen in the *nited ;tates and :urope Eeddenhausen, 0= will only increase the

!ocus on pro!itability. Rising construction and !uel costs toward the middle o! the 0&stcentury

will likely pose challenges to e$ecuties and board members, whose primary duty is to

ma$imi"e shareholder wealth. %aturally, the !ocus among ma/or suppliers and operators will

likely be to turn to global markets. 7apital costs !or adanced nuclear technologies in 7hina

are lower than supercritical coal and onshore wind in the *;A and +estern :urope Rong

and Iictor, 0&0. Plant costs change !rom country to country depending on costs o! labor.

;ince the ma/ority o! new demand !or electricity through the 0&stcentury is e$pected to come

!rom the deeloping world, where labor costs are lower, nuclear power remains a !inancially

!easible option in global markets. Eoweer, the pre!erence !or cleaner energy may still come

at a cost to goernments.

Nuclear Development Subsidies

6n 0&, the *nited ;tates goernment gae more than J>= billion in energy

subsidies, 1H o! which went to renewables :6A, 0&&. The :nergy Policy Act 0B

authori"ed !ederal loan guarantees !or nuclear deelopment. Ta$ breaks !urther help promote

the industry. 6n 7anada, low population density and high per capita natural resource base

make it a less-than-suitable global model, though other countries can !ind some sense o!

direction by looking into 7anada4s energy plans. The 7anadian 7lean :nergy Fund helps

keep )H o! the country4s power coming !rom sources that do not emit greenhouse gases,

including nuclear %R7A%, 0&>. As o! 0&0, the :uropean *nion had proided a

cumulatie historical total o! 00 in direct support !or nuclear plants and nearly ( in RD

!unding !or !ission energy Clok, 0&1. ?biously, many o! those programs !ell back on their


8/48

heels !ollowing Fukushima, but :* energy deelopment could not hae occurred without

signi!icant goernment support.

7ritics o! nuclear energy may tout its subsidies as running contrary to !ree market

principles, or as an industry li!e support system whose alue is greater than that o! the energy

produced Koplow, 0&&. 6t is !act that the nuclear power industry is not iable without

subsidies, but neither is any other energy. Pundits who ili!y atomic energy generally do so in

support o! renewable energies, but taking aim at nuclear power merely rein!orces coal4s

supremacy worldwide. Fossil !uels reap more subsidies than nuclear and renewables

combined *%:P, 0&>8 6:A, 0&B. 7oal receies more than any other energy product, with

its post-ta$ subsidies amounting to nearly 1H o! global #DP according to an 6


9/48

A global agreement to phase out all !ossil !uel subsidies has been recommended

+hitley, 0&>. *n!ortunately, /ob loss and energy market decline would likely result i!

!unds were pulled out without being sunk back into another niche. ;o, rather than merely

eliminating !ossil !uel subsidies, another option is to take !rom one and gie to another

reduce subsidies !rom coal and increase those !or clean energy sources, like nuclear and other

renewables. ;uch an idea is undoubtedly unpopular among coal lobbyists, but it would

in!luence the market in a direction more supportie o! enironmental ob/ecties. 7onsidering

political conditions, the most pragmatic solution at this stage is probably to increase nuclear

and renewable industry subsidies to leels near those granted to !ossil !uels.

The ow!"arbon Future "ase

Due to negatie political attitudes toward nuclear power and still low-scale

inestment in renewables, !ossil !uels are e$pected to supply up to )H o! energy demands

by 0>. Theoretically, nuclear power could replace coal power, but it !aces serious

challenges with public opinion, which !ocuses on perceied dangers o! production and waste

storage @?:, 0&. %eertheless, climate change has already prompted indiiduals,

companies, and societies to make behaioral changes intended to reduce carbon emissions.

The !uture is yet unknown, but it is plausible that through the latter-hal! o! the 0&stcentury,

we could come to lie in a world where a combination o! carbon ta$es, resource scarcity, and

public resistance to emissions change the way we think about and use energy. Renewable

energy can help reduce the amount o! carbon sent into the atmosphere, but renewables are not

suitable !or base load production. Fuel prices !or gas could create pro!itability issues beyond

0B. 7lean coal is not currently an option due to high costs and &B-0H energy penalty *;

D?:, 0&>8 +orld %uclear Association, 0&1b. 7lean coal4s 7anadian debut came by way

o! the Coundary Dam Pro/ect, a billion dollar &


10/48

publicly traded companies ;askpower, 0&18 Kemp, 0&1. %uclear power stands out as

haing multiple bene!its as we enter a time o! unprecedented energy consciousness.

%uclear power should appeal to people concerned about both climate change and

global corporate ethics. Although nuclear waste disposal presents certain enironmental

challenges, there are reprocessing options, and the power generation process produces much

less carbon than !ossil !uels. Additionally, while uranium is a nonrenewable natural resource

reuired !or nuclear power, uranium mining and processing organi"ations are sub/ect to !ar

more e$tensie regulations than the aerage e$traction industry player. As a result o!

international controls oer uranium supplies, there is less room !or human rights abuses and

corruption when compared to oil, gas, and coal. Access to electricity is a human right Tully,

0(, and nuclear power increases our potential to satis!y this basic need. 6n an era o!

?ccupy moements and protests oer oligopolies, nuclear power o!!ers some clean

competition in a notoriously dirty industry.

%otwithstanding the merits o! nuclear power as a clean alternatie, public opinion

swayed against its use and e$pansion een in nuclear-!riendly countries. Cird et al 0&1

reported on changing public opinion in Australia, where the ma/ority o! surey respondents

supported nuclear power /ust be!ore Fukushima, and then did an about !ace shortly a!ter the

accident. This type o! !ear!ul reaction is not uniue to Australia, but it is perhaps more

signi!icant !or Australians, who battle some o! the highest 7? 0emissions per capita in the

world. :ssentially, what Australians and others are !acing is a dilemma oer whether they

want greater perceied sa!ety !rom nuclear incidents or actual cleaner energy.

;till, reliance on gas and coal oer nuclear does not necessarily guarantee sa!ety.

Rather, !or most countries, !ossil !uels present other serious security and sa!ety threats.

7ompetition !or oil and gas is ery !reuently a contributory cause o! military con!lict @?:,


11/48

0&. Dependence on !oreign oil and gas likewise presents serious economic threats in the

eent o! shortage, supply channel blockade, embargo, and e$port uotas.

Political Volatility and European Energy Security

Cy 0>, the :* is e$pected to depend on imports !or =H o! its energy needs F1:,

0&1. France and 6taly are e$pected to completely run out o! !ossil !uels by 0&B, with the

*K !ollowing by 00 Iincent, 0&1. About >H o! :urope4s gas in 0&1 came !rom

Russia Pirani et al, 0&1, which is perceied as a potential threat considering political

tensions oer *kraine %elsen, 0&1. 6n a dual e!!ort to cut emissions and increase energy

security, the :* plans to generate 1-11H o! its power !rom renewables by 0>B, using gas

!or 0)->>H o! electricity, and nuclear !or &=-0&H :urogas, 0&>. ;hale-gas basins are

!ound across :urope, but e$traction is banned is 1 countries and e$tremely limited in others

The :conomist, 0&1.

+e cannot conclude at this stage that :uropean energy security is threatened to a

speci!ic uantitatie degree, but military sources suggest increased competition !or shares o!

a limited supply o! resources could spark con!lict @?:, 0&. 7onsidering the new

integrated global economic model, we e$pect any serious olatility or depreciation in one

mega-market i.e. *;A, :*, 7hina to negatiely impact global economic conditions, as was

the case in early 0&stcentury !inancial crises. 6n!ectious !inancial crisis will likely continue to

e$ist during times o! military con!lict, both between states and between non-state actors and

states. ;uch conditions threaten healthy business actiity, driing up costs !or consumers and

restricting access among lower classes, !urther contributing to stri!e.

Rare Earth ineral Shortages

+ind !arms are a brilliant idea, but high-per!ormance turbines reuire about two tons

o! rare earth minerals @ones, 0&>. 7hina holds a near-monopoly on rare earths production,

with more than 'BH o! global output coming !rom the mainland 6es, 0&>. 6n 0&, 7hina


12/48

cut e$port uotas on rare earths, which led to soaring prices on global markets and a

complaint by the *;A at the +orld Trade ?rgani"ation&. Cei/ing cited 3enironmental

concerns4 as reason !or e$port restrictions, but the +T? panel decided 7hina had iolated

international trade law to 2achiee industrial policy goals5 rather than to protect the

enironment @olly, 0&1.

%onetheless, enironmental concerns are legitimate when it comes to producing rare

earths. 7hina may manu!acture 'BH o! the world4s supply, but the country only holds about

>(H o! global reseres. The *nited ;tates actually holds about &>H o! global reseres

*%:P, 0&&, but produces ne$t to nothing, like Australia, which holds BH o! world

reseres. The primary reason R::s hae not been mined pro!itably in the *;A !or the past

couple decades is that pollution is a nearly unaoidable aspect o! e$traction and production

:PA, 0&0. R::s are recyclable, but recent estimates show recycled products account !or

only about &H o! supply.


13/48

upstream !rom the plant into a reseroir, displacing people and damaging ecosystems Gedec

and Luintero, 0>. Recent research has shown that the !ormerly terrestrial organic material,

such as trees and bushes lying beneath manmade reseroirs, emit signi!icant amounts o!

#E#s about 1H o! global emissions !rom inland waters Carros et al, 0&&. +hile #E#

emissions are not a deal-breaker !or hydroelectric deelopment, human rights concerns are

gaining increasing attention as indigenous people are o!ten threatened by such in!rastructure

pro/ects.

The +orld +ildli!e Fund ++F, 0> reported that between 1 and ) million

people had been displaced by one or more o! the 1), dams in operation in the year 0>.

Eoshour and Kala!ut 0& !ound that between &') and 0, more than & million people

annually were displaced by dam and urban transport deelopment. 6ndigenous people,

women, the elderly, poor, and handicapped people are disproportionately a!!ected by

inoluntary resettlement when compared to more a!!luent groups +orld Cank, 018 ibid.

Although dams o!!er cheap, clean power, we !ound human rights concerns preclude

recommendation o! e$panded dam systems. 6nstead, we suggest renewable e$pansion should

be built upon solar, wind, tidal, and geothermal energy pro/ects with goernment support.

No "usion

%uclear !usion, the same energy created by the sun, is the dark horse o! the energy

race. A !ew hope!ul engineers beliee a !usion-powered electric plant could be built !or lower

cost than a coal plant, but nobody knows i! !usion is possible outside o! computer-generated

models Coyle, 0&1. A!ter B years o! research and deelopment, no !usion reactor has

produced more energy than it consumes 7owley, 0&. The record !or energy release in a

!usion eent is held by the @oint :uropean Torus, which generated =H o! input power

6T:R, 0&B. Although !usion per!ormance parameters hae increased by a !actor o! &,

oer B years o! research, the science still needs to improe by a !actor o! almost & in order


14/48

to produce the core o! a plant ibid a target that could be a limit that can only be

approached but neer reached. :en i! !usion energy does proe itsel! possible in the real

world, the !irst commercial reactors are not e$pected until mid-0&st century at best Thomson,

008 7hameides, 0&0. They would not be scalable !or decades therea!ter, leaing e$awatts

o! new demand to be met by e$isting sources.

Price Elasticity

:lectricity is a necessity o! modern li!e and, as such, demand is relatiely inelastic

Cernstein and #ri!!in, 0(. That is, when price increases, demand stays the same or

decreases insigni!icantly. Eoweer, consumers are likely to modi!y behaior in response to

long-term price increases. Residential consumers !aced with consistent annual increases in

electricity costs will take measures such as turning down air conditioning units, turning o!!

lights and appliances when not in use, replacing incandescent bulbs with high-e!!iciency

!luorescent ones, etc. 7ommercial and industrial consumers will seek to cut oerhead by

inesting in higher-e!!iciency euipment, and designing new !acilities to ma$imi"e usage o!

natural light and cooling. A more aggressie approach entails !itting homes, businesses, and

industrial estates with renewable energy generators like solar or wind. A result o! energy-

conscious behaior changes is long-term reduction in per capita electricity consumption, or

delayed elastic responses ;iddiui, 0>8 Corenstein, 0'.

The :PA 0B !orecasts demand elasticity to rise oer time. Due to methodological

issues in predicting consumer responses to price increases ;iddiui, 0>, the precise

change in !uture demand per unit price increase is incalculable. 7ommonsense analysis tells

us that there is a static non-"ero demand !loor, which will be approached as price increases

in!initely oer time, but it is not a simple mathematical !unction to construct. As consumers

!ace increasing energy costs across sectors petroleum, gas, and electricity demand !or one

will likely be in!luenced by prices o! others. :nhanced and interrelated demand elasticities


15/48

through mid-0&stcentury will undoubtedly a!!ect pre!erences in electricity production

methods. The +orld 7oal Association 0&1 estimated oil and gas supplies will be e$hausted

by the year 0=, with coal !ollowing around the year 0&0B. As we enter an era o!

unprecedented global resource scarcity, the low !uel costs associated with nuclear power will

presumably increase consumer demand.

on# Term and $ery on# Term Future

:$$on e$pects passenger car ownership to more than double between 0& and

0>B, pushing oil demand upward o! &)mbNd. Prices rise to J&(Nbbl in ?P:74s year 0>B

re!erence case. Eigh estimates o! !uture prices remain oer J0Nbbl !or the year 0>

%atural Resources 7anada, 0&. :6A 0&> predicts gas prices will rise by 'H between

0&> and 01, at which time gas will be the largest source o! American electricity and

second largest energy source behind petroleum. These outlooks are not contradicted by

!orecasts !rom the *K Department o! :nergy 7limate 7hange 0&>, which has coal

prices set to increase by about >H by 0>. ;uch price changes re!lect not only in!lationary

economics, but also potential shortages o! gradually diminishing natural resources.


16/48

*ranium is another !inite resource, though more abundant than gas and oil, and

possibly more than coal. Gow estimates !or longeity o! current supplies are oer & years

6A:A, 0&0, and higher estimates e$tend more than 0 years +orld %uclear Association,

0&1. Reprocessing o! spent !uel, breeder reactors, and theoretical processes like seawater-

uranium e$tract could e$tend the li!e o! the resource inde!initely Fetter, 0'. ?ne o! the

adantages uranium has when compared to other !uels is the location o! its supplies. +ith

1&H o! known recoerable global resources in Australia, 7anada, and the *nited ;tates

+orld %uclear Association, 0&1, ma/or nuclear power producers in %orth America and

+estern :urope will hae more stable access to supplies than i! the resources were stationed

in lesser-deeloped countries. Prices will undoubtedly rise and !ace olatility as oil and gas

run low, which will likely drie innoation and growth in renewables, but toward the end o!

the 0&stcentury, uranium should be a pre!erred resource as climate change concerns continue

to plague the coal industry.

The No$Substitute %tility Sources Case

;ince the late &)s, humans hae witnessed technological and scienti!ic change

unparalleled in prior history. ;ince ++66, people made e$ponential adancements in all

areas o! natural sciences, including addition o! entirely new !ields. Aside !rom basic physical

and biological processes, we lie completely di!!erent lies than people only a hand!ul o!

generations be!ore us. Despite optimistic !orecasts !rom inestment bankers and researchers,

such radical change is unlikely to continue at the breakneck speeds obsered oer the past

century. +hile we are likely to see incremental improements in technological e!!iciencies

and decreases in si"e in the coming decades, humans may not e$perience another scienti!ic

reolution !or millennia.

A !usion reaction may neer be sustained. Asteroid mining may neer be an

economically !easible option !or haresting minerals. ;hould the continent thaw, we may !ind


17/48

Antarctica does not hae enough !ossil !uels to sustain so much as another & years o!

consumption. ;olar cells may neer be e!!icient and a!!ordable enough to acuire so much as

&H o! a commercial utility market. Cio!uels may neer produce an :R?6 high enough to

make them commercially scalable. 7onsidering the trend o! increasing global population and

energy demand, i! one were to lie into the 00 ndcentury absent near-miraculous scienti!ic

breakthroughs, it seems one may be le!t with little choice but to learn to loe nuclear !ission

power because it would be the only a!!ordable, scalable, high-uality source o! electricity

aailable. To abandon its use or to curtail its deelopment at any stage would be e$tremely

shortsighted.

That being established, reliance upon nuclear !ission !or power production in the ery

long term is likewise unwise. *ranium is a nonrenewable resource, and while its supply is

e$pected to outlast that o! other nonrenewable resources, eentually the world will be without

this essential !ission material. 7ontemporary economic thought tends to limit !orecasting and

planning to within a !ew decades, and optimism regarding technological adancement tends

to takeoer when considering the ery long term !uture, but hitherto there has been no hard

eidence that a new power source will arise, and it is not unlikely that reolutionary scienti!ic

change will not come again !or seeral centuries. Thus, sa!eguarding the !uture entails

prolonging the li!espan o! nonrenewable resources ia diersi!ication o! energy production8

and reducing, reusing, and recycling to the e$tent possible.

Subsidi&ing and 'ncentivi&ing Rene#able Energies

Despite their reliance upon rare earth minerals, renewable technologies are an integral

part o! the !uture energy mi$. #eothermal, wind, and solar hae no !uel costs, but up!ront

costs in the absence o! subsidies usually make utility-scale renewable !acilities less

economically attractie !or publicly traded companies, whose !iduciary duty maintains the

highest priority. As a result, indiiduals may play the biggest role in growth o! solar and wind


18/48

power. :specially important to the !uture o! the common enironment is o!!-grid solar and

wind installations. As uniersal access to electricity becomes a reality, locali"ed green

production is !undamental to maintenance o! both human rights and enironmental goals.

Recogni"ing these !acts, the *nited %ations 0&B awarded its !irst J& million *%-D:;A

:nergy #rant to !inance o!!-grid solar power production !or medical clinics in the deeloping

world.

Gong term, incremental growth in use o! sustainable technologies at the consumer and

!amily business leel can only occur with subsidies, ta$ rebates, and incenties. Gikewise,

utility scale solar and wind power can only become economically competitie with other

technologies gien goernment subsidies !or deelopment . ;ince geothermal pro/ect costs can skyrocket i!

e$ploration yields une$pected results, goernments should also proide capital and personnel

support !or e$ploration pro/ects, including on goernment owned land. Public-priate /oint

e$ploration entures can supplement loan guarantees and subsidies in e!!orts to bring

geothermal to a competitor position in the base load power matri$.

Nuclear %isk and iability

;a!ety has been an oerriding !ocus in nuclear power since inception. Despite public

!ears surrounding meltdown and disaster, which were prooked by the Fukushima incident,

nuclear energy is actually uite sa!e. *nion o! 7oncerned ;cientists 0&1 !ound 2serious

nuclear accidents hae been !ew and !ar between5, citing seen since &'B= Fukushima,

7hernobyl, Three


19/48

?! those seen serious accidents, three were o! particular concern Fukushima, 7hernobyl,

and Three


20/48

large early release !reuency at & in &, reactor years 7ochran and


21/48

+ithout Fukushima, our most recent nuclear disaster would hae been 7hernobyl an

incident we can in!er resulted at least in part !rom ine!!iciencies and corruption o! the ;oiet

empire in its !inal stages. Technological and regulatory improements irtually guarantee

disaster-!ree power production throughout the li!e o! reactors. ;uch !acts are why @apan did

not abandon nuclear power a!ter the horri!ic accident on the %ortheast side o! Eonshu 6sland.

6t is implicit to say that i! Fukushima had not happened, there would not hae been such a

sharp increase in anti-nuclear thought in the mainstream media and political conersation.

;till, little attention has been paid to the underlying cause o! the disaster poor planning.

@apan4s decision to authori"e Fukushima plant construction on the :ast side o! the

island, where seere earthuakes and tsunamis hae been documented throughout history,

was an incomprehensible oersight that ultimately endangered the lies o! millions o! people

!or generations to come. @apan4s entire :astern border sits nearly on top o! a massie !ault

system where the Paci!ic, :urasian, %orth American, and Philippine plates meet. This system

poses an especially high threat !or tsunamis because they are all conergent plates

Annenberg Gearner, 0&18 Damen, n.d..

6! earthuake ha"ards are the main concern, considering how well-made and managed

nuclear reactors are today, nuclear power plants may be built anywhere aside !rom the

+estern edge o! the Americas, the


22/48

Actie nuclear power generation !acilities hae ery low incident rates when

compared to other base load power supplies. The eolution o! technologies and standards

make nuclear accidents e$tremely rare. 6t is sa!e to say that had it not been !or the earthuake,

the Fukushima incident would not hae occurred. ?utside o! regions prone to earthuake,

there is irtually no chance o! such a disaster occurring. :en in areas o! mild seismic

actiity, reactors and plants are sa!e, haing been designed to handle earthuakes.


23/48

6nNuclear Energy Institute v. EPA01, the !ederal court o! appeals remarked that,

2Ohaing the capacity to outlast human ciili"ation as we know it and the potential to

deastate public health and the enironment, nuclear waste has e$ed scientists, 7ongress,

and regulatory agencies !or the last hal!-century.5 +aste disposal concerns led eight

American states to promulgate statutory restrictions on construction o! new nuclear power

plants absent deelopment o! new waste management options. Fie more states reuire oter

andNor ma/ority legislature approal !or new construction, and two states hae completely

banned nuclear power, presumably due in part to concern oer waste disposal %7;G, 0&B.


24/48

Thus, tightly regulated reprocessing is !undamental to energy and public security.

Reprocessing reduces the olume o! nuclear waste and e$tends the li!espan o! the world4s

supply o! nuclear material nearly inde!initely. Roughly ''.)=H o! uranium and ''.>(

''.B&H o! plutonium can be recoered through recycling %uclear :nergy Agency, 0&0.

Eoweer, reprocessing costs are likely to remain higher than direct storage costs unless the

market price o! uranium is oer J>( & times current leels Cunn et al., 0>.

%otwithstanding these added costs, France supplies &=H o! its electricity using recycled

nuclear !uel, and roughly 0H o! spent !uel worldwide is reprocessed 6A:A, 0)8 +orld

%uclear Association, 0&B.

6n the long term, the most economical and enironmentally responsible option appears

to be recycling o! spent !uel. %onetheless, whether initial spent !uel is recycled and reused or

stored directly, waste is ineitable. Guckily, transport, storage, and reprocessing technologies

are incredibly trustworthy in the modern age, leaing terrorism and maleolent acts the main

concerns Feieson et al, 0&&.


25/48

maintain !inancial protection by purchasing nuclear liability insurance !rom American

%uclear 6nsurers. ;uppliers in the *nited ;tates may be held legally liable, but the Act

channels economic liability to site owners and operators. The Department o! :nergy and

%uclear Regulatory 7ommission are !urther authori"ed under the Act to indemni!y nuclear

!acilities !or claims in e$cess o! reuired insurance coerage A%6, 0&>a.

6n :urope, the &'( Paris 7onention on Third Party Giability in the Field o! %uclear

:nergy holds site operator companies e$clusiely liable !or most incidents. ;imilarly, the

&'(> Iienna 7onention on 7iil Giability !or %uclear Damage holds operators liable, and

not suppliers. Following 7hernobyl, a /oint protocol was implemented between the two

treaties to handle claims resulting !rom transboundary contamination.


26/48

+hile statutory mandate o! !inancial protection is an essential element o! a reasonable

nuclear power system, it is simultaneously important that insurance premiums and threat o!

!riolous or runaway claims not be allowed to preent research and deelopment in nuclear

energy. 6n the *nited ;tates, the aerage annual premium !or a single-unit reactor site in the

year 0&1 was J&.& million !or J>=B million in !irst tier coerage *;%R7, 0&1. 6n

addition, each policyholder may be held liable !or oer J&0 million per reactor as part o! the

second tier o! protection, regardless o! whether or not any claim was made against the

policyholder. The second tier !und is alued at oer J&0 billion between the &1 reactors in

the insurance pool. The !ederal goernment assumes control o! the secondary tier !und i! &BH

o! it is spent, and in the eent o! its e$haustion, 7ongress may proide additional support.

6nsurance companies, like any business, stay alie by generating more reenues than

e$penses, but the nuclear insurance sector is e$traordinarily lucratie. A%6 0&>c sets aside

=BH o! premiums in a resere !und intended to pay !or claims. A!ter ten years, a portion o!

premiums is returned to policyholders. Cetween &'B=, when Price-Anderson was enacted,

and 0&1, insurance pools paid out a total o! J&B& million, with an additional J(B million

paid by the Department o! :nergy %A67, 0&1. That is less than two current years o!

premiums paid out in nearly ( years, leaing A%6 well within the black. As the operator o!

the Fukushima Daiichi plant, T:P7? was reuired to compensate people a!!ected by the

meltdown cost estimates ranged !rom JBB billion to oer J& billion 6na/ima and ;ong,

0&08 Gong, 0&>. ;o, not only are nuclear insurance pools creating high costs !or utility

companies by way o! policy premiums in an generally accident-!ree operating enironment,

but in the eent o! a ma/or accident such as Fukushima, the collectie insurance !und would

swi!tly become insolent, leaing the ma/ority o! the !inancial responsibility to the

goernment.


27/48

%uclear insurance pools emerged during the &'Bs in response to goernment,

industry, and public pressure. At that time, technologies and methods were new, and there

was no statistical data with which to deelop predictie algorithms that could help uanti!y

risks %uclear Risk 6nsurers Gtd., 0&1. A!ter ( years o! operation and deelopment,

probability o! catastrophe is known to be remarkably low. Towards 0>, non-?:7D

countries, especially in Asia, are e$pected to grow energy demand, and as a result build the

lion4s share o! new nuclear reactors 6A:A, 0&1. ;tate o! the art technologies !urther the

cause o! public sa!ety when it comes to new plants in deeloping countries like 7hina, where

0) new units are under construction and scheduled to be online be!ore 00 ;cheider and

Froggatt, 0&1. Eoweer, as the scale o! risk is magni!ied with dispersion o! these

technologies, it is especially important that goernment agencies responsible !or oerseeing

nuclear power recogni"e and en!orce globally accepted regulations. As nuclear power spreads

across legal, economic, linguistic, and political boundaries, protectie mechanisms must also

adapt to the changing operations enironment.

Shared Responsibility and utual Support for Development

6n the ma/ority o! the world, neither are current insurance pool nor goernment !unds

robust enough to handle a disaster the magnitude o! Fukushima. Risk insurance alone limits

the scalability o! nuclear power, which contributes to lack o! access to electricity !or roughly

&=H o! the world4s population, nearly )H o! people in low income countries, and almost

=H o! people in sub-;aharan A!rica +orld Cank, 0&B. Access to electricity is integral to

achieement o! human rights Cradbrook and #ardam, 0(. #lobal-scale deployment o!

nuclear power as a substitute !or coal and supplement to renewable energy is in line with

seeral *nited %ations 0&B ;ustainable Deelopment #oals. 7onsidering the magnitude o!

potential bene!its to the international community that uniersal access to electricity


28/48

represents, a !ramework o! e$tensie cooperation and shared accountability is most likely to

help nations accomplish goals gien social, political, and economic circumstances.

%ational and regional insurance proiders hae been insu!!iciently prepared to handle

catastrophic claims !or decades, and calls !or diersi!ication o! protectie methods hae been

consistent at high leels o! goernment ?:7D, &'''8 Eariharan, 0&&8 Rimsaite, 0&>. 6n

the :uropean *nion, competition laws hae preented broader pooling o! insurance !unds

across international borders. :lsewhere, capital markets are too small to proide inestment

opportunities !or insurance !unds, leaing nuclear sa!ety nets oerly e$posed to !oreign

market risks. 7urrent !inancial and business regulations around the world are incompatible

with the ob/ecties o! nuclear liability insurance, considering that any serious accident will

result in de!ault reliance upon public !unds.

Following Fukushima, thousands o! indiiduals in Tokyo !iled a class action lawsuit

against #eneral :lectric, Toshiba, and Eitachi !or !ailure to implement sa!ety improements

to ageing euipment in the power plant Tauintic-


29/48

+hateer the priate capital arrangement may be, it is clear that a tragedy such as

Fukushima though we shall likely neer witness such a thing again reuires immediate,

complete, and e$haustie public !unding. As such, the protectie !inancial measures set out in

the 7;7 are an appropriate addition to the current operating enironment. 6n a world o!

increasing population, urbani"ation, and international trade, it is !undamental to the global

mission that goernments respond swi!tly, resolutely, and collectiely to the e$tent needed to

& proide medical treatment and relocation serices to a!!ected persons, 0 achiee

containment and cleanup o! ha"ardous materials, > compensate ictims as uickly as

possible, and 1 manage disaster sites inde!initely. ?biously, priate businesses must be

inoled in the process, but the serious managerial disruptions and possible insolencies site

operators may !ace must not negatiely impact the uality o! response.

Gegislatie branches should permit global insurance pools to emerge, organi"ations

that deal e$clusiely with nuclear power utility companies and their suppliers. :ery nuclear

utility in the world should purchase standardi"ed insurance !rom a common set o!

internationally regulated proiders, which collectiely manage a !und that may be drawn

upon as a !irst tier.


30/48

%ations desiring to deelop and maintain atomic energy must adhere to strict sa!ety

and uality standards, !rom construction to maintenance, and !inally decommissioning o!

reactor sites. The 6A:A in cooperation with national energy authorities and an independent

international panel o! adisors should conduct routine scheduled and unscheduled spot

inspections o! nuclear power !acilities. ;uch a supranational regulator authority must hae the

power to ley penalties !or noncompliance including mandating repairs, modi!ications to

sa!ety regimes, and temporary plant shutdowns. 7learly, there is no such multilateral

arrangement currently aailable, but the deelopment o! a comprehensie international

system would only !urther ensure the sa!ety o! the public and integrity o! our electrical power

systems.

"onclusions

For seeral decades in the *nited ;tates, there has been an e!!ectie moratorium on

building new nuclear power plants due to public !ears o! accidents, comple$ regulations, and

insurance costs ?47onnell, 0&1. +orldwide, !aith in nuclear power has similarly !aded,

and the !uture o! the industry is less certain than it was be!ore the Fukushima Daiichi disaster

a tragic anomaly in the global nuclear sa!ety record. This article presented clear eidence

that the likelihood o! nuclear accident is ery low, and much lower than those in !ossil !uel

industries. ;imilar to !ear o! !lying in an airplane the sa!est mode o! transportation the

general public4s !ear response toward nuclear is not based upon probabilities or !acts. 6t is our

argument that irrational !ears not take priority oer sound science in the matter o! energy

policy.

%uclear !ission is a remarkably important source o! power in our increasingly energy-

intensie world. *nlike coal, gas, and oil, nuclear energy is irtually carbon-!ree. 6! the

world4s people are to achiee their lo!ty international enironmental goals in an epic e!!ort to

aoid disastrous conseuences o! climate change, cleaner sources o! electricity are needed.


31/48

;olar and wind technologies are remarkably important in the energy mi$, but it is neither

sunny nor windy all the time. Eydroelectric dams can proide consistent electricity, but this

option is inadisable due to human rights abuses in the inoluntary resettlement o! people

near dam pro/ects. #eothermal and tidal energies should continue to be e$plored, ideally with

public !inancial support. Eoweer, until costs come down and e!!iciencies improe, still more

robust alternaties are reuired. Presently, nuclear power is the most iable replacement !or

coal power, which generates more than a uarter o! global #E#s double transportation

sector emissions


32/48

There are no simple solutions !or the bundle o! problems that come with simultaneous

shortages in nonrenewable resources and increasing greenhouse gas emissions, which are

belieed to cause climate change 6P77, 0&8 0&1. %uclear power is a ital source o!

electricity in the 0&stcentury. Discontinuation o! nuclear power in :urope is neither

scienti!ically nor economically rational @ohnson, 0&&. ;cienti!ic sources show that nuclear

is actually sa!er than other sources, that nuclear has lower operating costs, and that its !uel

has the greatest longeity, especially i! spent !uel is reprocessed.

This paper makes seeral recommendations, including either trans!er o! !ossil !uel

subsidies to renewables and nuclear, or growth o! nuclear and renewable subsidies to match

those granted to !ossil !uel industries. Gegislatie approal !or highly regulated reprocessing

o! spent nuclear !uel is recommended. A supranational regulating body is recommended, one

with the authority to ley penalties !or noncompliance with sa!ety and security standards.

Further recommended is a global liability insurance system, whereby all plant operators and

ma/or suppliers purchase policies !rom a uniersal collectie under guarantee that their policy

premium is the ma$imum !inancial liability they may su!!er i! there is no incident at their

!acility. A second tier o! !inancial protection is recommended through a !und similar to that

outlined in the 7;7. These suggestions are intended to increase nuclear power deelopment

around the world, as a substitute !or coal energy and a supplement to renewable energy.

As the !uture is reealed, nuclear energy is bound to be a mainstay utility because o!

its pragmatic alue. 6nternational nuclear cooperation, !rom cradle to grae, is essential to

ensure sa!ety and security. ;tandards, procedures, methods, protocols and systems should be

shared between nuclear nations and those with ambitions to achiee nuclear energy security.

Iia improed cooperation on ciil use o! nuclear materials !or electricity, nations may also

step closer to their stated goals o! nonproli!eration. At ery least, they can proide a relatie

guarantee against another Fukushima-scale disaster. 7ontinuance and adancement o! atomic


33/48

energy naturally entails eoling technological and sa!ety systems. ;uch is the nature o!

physical sciences in our age continuously improing.

%eferences

Ali, ;. 0&1. ;ocial and :nironmental 6mpact o! the Rare :arth 6ndustries.#esources, >,

$%&'$%(. Retrieed !rom httpMNNwww.mdpi.comN0='-'0=(N>N&N&0>Npd!

Andrews, A. 0). %uclear Fuel ReprocessingM *.;. Policy Deelopment. C#S #eport )or

Congress, R;00B10.

A%6 0&>a.Need for Nuclear *ia+ility Insurance in t,e United States. #lastonbury, 7T,

*;AM American %uclear 6nsurers.

A%6 0&>b.Need for Nuclear *ia+ility Insurance outside of t,e United States. #lastonbury,

7T, *;AM American %uclear 6nsurers.

A%6 0&>c.Insuring t,e future of nuclear power worldwide. #lastonbury, 7T, *;AM

American %uclear 6nsurers.

Annenberg Gearner 0&1.Plates " -oundaries. Retrieed !rom

httpMNNwww.learner.orgNinteractiesNdynamicearthNplate.html

Carros, %., 7ole, @., Tranik, G., Prairie, 9., Castiken, D., Eus"ar, I., del #iorgio, P., and

Roland, F. 0&&. 7arbon emission !rom hydroelectric reseroirs linked to reseroir

age and latitude.Nature !eoscience, 1, /&'/0. Retrieed !rom

httpMNNwww.nature.comNngeoN/ournalN1Nn'N!ullNngeo&0&&.html

Cernstein, 'B&0.pd!

Cird, D., Eaynes, K., an den Eonert, R.,


34/48

change and the Fukushima disaster.Energy Policy(B, (11-(B>. Retrieed !rom

httpMNNwww.sciencedirect.comNscienceNarticleNpiiN;>&10&B&>'=&>

Clok, K. ed.0&1. Su+sidies and costs of EU energy. Crussels, CelgiumM :uropean

7ommission.

Corenstein, ;. 0'. o 2,at Electricity Price 1o Consumers #espond3 #esidential

1emand Elasticity Under Increasing'-lock Pricing. *niersity o! 7ali!ornia,

Cerkeley. Retrieed !rom

httpMNN!aculty.haas.berkeley.eduNborensteNdownloadN%C:R;60'.pd!

Coyle, A. ?ct. &&, 0&1. 7heaper Than 7oalS Fusion 7oncept Aims to Cridge :nergy #ap.

N-C News. Retrieed !rom httpMNNwww.nbcnews.comNscienceNscience-newsNcheaper-

coal-!usion-concept-aims-bridge-energy-gap-n00>0((

CP 0&1.Energy 4utlook %5&. Retrieed !rom

httpMNNwww.bp.comNenNglobalNcorporateNabout-bpNenergy-economicsNenergy-

outlook.html

Cradbrook, A., and #ardam, @. 0(. Placing the access to energy serices within a human

rights !ramework.6uman #ig,ts 7uarterly, 0)0, >)'-1&B.

Cunn, . ,e Economics of

#eprocessing vs. 1irect 1isposal of Spent Nuclear )uel. 7ambridge, .html

7oady, D., Parry, 6., ;ears, G., and ;hang, C. 0&B. Eow large are global energy subsidiesS

International 8onetary )und 2orking Paper9 +PN&BN&B.


35/48

7ochran, T., and


36/48

:conomist, The 0&1. Conscious Uncoupling. Retrieed !rom

httpMNNwww.economist.comNnewsNbrie!ingN0&(&&&-reducing-europes-dependence-

russian-gas-possiblebut-it-will-take-time-money-and-sustained

:6A 0&&.1irect )ederal )inancial Interventions and Su+sidies in Energy in )iscal Year

%5$5. Retrieed !rom httpMNNwww.eia.goNanalysisNreuestsNsubsidyN

:6A 0&>.AE4%5$( Early #elease 4verview. Retrieed !rom

httpMNNwww.eia.goN!orecastsNaeoNerNearlyprices.c!m

:6A 0&>a.International Energy 4utlook %5$&. +ashington, D7, *;AM :nergy

6n!ormation Administration. Retrieed !rom

httpMNNwww.eia.goN!orecastsNieoNpd!N1)10&>.pd!

:6A 0&>b. Updated Capital Costs for Utility Scale Electricity !enerating Plants.

+ashington, D7, *;AM *; Department o! :nergy. Retrieed !rom

httpMNNwww.eia.goN!orecastsNcapitalcostNpd!Nupdatedcapcost.pd!

:6A 0&>c. Aerage Power Plant ?perating :$penses !or


37/48

:PA 0&0.#are Eart, Elements< A #eview of Production9 Processing9 #ecycling9 and

Associated Environmental Issues. +ashington, D7, *;AM :PA. Retrieed !rom

httpMNNnepis.epa.goNAdobeNPDFNP&:*C7.pd!

:urogas 0&>.*ong'term outlook for gas to %5&. Crussels, CelgiumM :urogas. Retrieed

!rom httpMNNwww.eurogas.orgNuploadsNmediaN:urogasCrochureGong-

Term?utlook!orgasto0>B.pd!

:uropean 7ommission 0&1.Post')ukus,ima Policy. Retrieed !rom

httpMNNehron./rc.ec.europa.euNpost-!ukushima-policy

:uropean 7ommission 0&1a. %5&5 framework for climate and energy policies. Retrieed

!rom httpMNNec.europa.euNclimaNpoliciesN0>Ninde$en.htm

:$$on


38/48

httpMNNwww.strategyand.pwc.comNglobalNhomeNwhat-we-thinkNreports-white-

papersNarticle-displayNa!ter-!ukushima-nuclear-power-world

Frank, 7. 0&1. ,e Net +enefits of *ow and No'Car+on Electricity ec,nologies .

+ashington, D7, *;AM Crookings. Retrieed !rom

httpMNNwww.brookings.eduNWNmediaNresearchN!ilesNpapersN0&1NBN&'H0low

H0carbonH0!utureH0windH0solarH0powerH0!rankNnetH0bene!its

H0!inal.pd!

#A? 0&0. Spent Nuclear )uel< Accumulating >uantities at commercial reactors present

storage and ot,er c,allenges. #A?-&0-='=. +ashington, D7, *;AM *nited ;tates

#oernment Accountability ?!!ice.

#reenpeace 0&1.End t,e nuclear age. Retrieed !rom

httpMNNwww.greenpeace.orgNinternationalNenNcampaignsNnuclearN

Eariharan, A. 0&&. 6ndiaVs %uclear 7iil Giability Cill and ;upplierVs GiabilityM ?ne ;tep

Towards


39/48

httpMNNwww.ncsl.orgNresearchNenironment-and-natural-resourcesNstates-restrictions-

on-new-nuclear-power-!acility.asp$

Eoshour, K., and Kala!ut, @. 0&.A !rowing !lo+al Crisis< 1evelopment'Induced

1isplacement " #esettlement. ;an Francisco, 7A, *;AM 6nternational Accountability

Pro/ect.

Eunter, P., and Fewtrell, G. 0&. +ater LualityM #uidelines, ;tandards and Eealth 7hapter

&. +orld Eealth ?rgani"ation. Gondon, *KM 6+A Publishing. Retrieed !rom

httpMNNwww.who.intNwatersanitationhealthNdwNiwachap&.pd!

Eydro-Luebec 0&1. ,e Advantages of 6ydropower. Retrieed !rom

httpMNNwww.hydrouebec.comNlearningNhydroelectriciteN

6A:A 0). Spent )uel #eprocessing 4ptions. Iienna, AustriaM 6A:A.

6A:A 0&&. !lo+al Uranium Supply Ensured for *ong erm9 New #eport S,ows. Retrieed

!rom httpMNNwww.iaea.orgNnewscenterNpressreleasesN0&0Nprn0&0&'.html

6A:A 0&>.Nuclear Power #eactors in t,e 2orld. Re!erence Data ;eries %o. 0. Iienna,

AustriaM 6A:A. Retrieed !rom httpMNNwww-

pub.iaea.orgN>web.pd!

6A:A 0&1.International Status and Prospects for Nuclear Power %5$(.

#?IN6%FN0&1N&>-#7B)N6%FN(. Retrieed !rom

httpMNNwww.iaea.orgNAboutNPolicyN#7N#7B)N#7B)6n!DocumentsN:nglishNgcB)in!-

(en.pd!

6:A 0&B.Energy Su+sidies. Retrieed !rom

httpMNNwww.worldenergyoutlook.orgNresourcesNenergysubsidiesN


40/48

6na/ima, T., and ;ong, 9. 0&0.)ukus,ima $&B -illion Cost 6as epco Seeking 8ore Aid.

Retrieed !rom httpMNNwww.bloomberg.comNnewsNarticlesN0&0-&&-=N!ukushima-&>=-

billion-cost-has-tepco-seeking-more-aid

6ndia 7iil Giability !or %uclear Damage Act, %o. >) 0&.

6P77 0&. 2orking !roup III< 8itigation. Retrieed !rom

httpMNNwww.ipcc.chNipccreportsNtarNwg>Ninde$.phpSidp&01

6P77 0&1. Climate C,ange Synt,esis #eport. Retrieed !rom

httpsMNNwww.ipcc.chNpd!Nassessment-reportNarBNsyrN;9RARB;P


41/48

@olly, D. 0&1, . A ;carcity o! Rare (.yale.eduN!eatureNascarcityo!raremetalsishinderinggreentechnolog

iesN0=&&NS

bcsiscandb'0c)a1!&a(=b!11wbA(%6Ka"hy/nFTF"pKU&DUkLEAAAAy0


42/48

Gaw, R. n.d.. Analysis o! Relatie Risks and Geels o! Risk in 7anada. EnereD. Retrieed

!rom httpMNNwww.enere$.caNenNarticlesNanalysis-o!-relatie-risks-and-leels-o!-risk-in-

canada

Gedec, #., and Luintero, @. 0>. !ood and -ad 1ams. 6ndependent unaccountabilityM the 6A:A4s 2step backward5 in regulating

international nuclear reactor sa!ety in the way o! the Fukushima Daiichi disaster.

Suffolk ransnational *aw #eview, >(&, &BB-&)).

Kemp, @. 0&1. Ceyond Coundary Dam, carbon capture costs must come down.#euters.

Retrieed !rom httpMNNwww.reuters.comNarticleN0&1N&N0Ncarboncapture-canada-

kemp-id*;G(%RU1. Coal and !as are )ar 8ore 6armful t,an Nuclear

Power. %A;A. Retrieed !rom httpMNNwww.giss.nasa.goNresearchNbrie!sNkharecha0N

B.

C6llion Tons o! Future 7?0. Scientific

American. Retrieed !rom httpMNNwww.scienti!icamerican.comNarticleNcoal-plants-will-

emit->-billion-tons-o!-!uture-co0N

=, pp.'='-''. Retrieed !rom

httpMNNwww.bigthunderwindpower.caN!ilesNresourcesN:lectricitygenerationandhealt

hTheGancet0=.pd!


43/48

%A67 0&1.Nuclear *ia+ility Insurance Price'Anderson ActF. Retrieed !rom

httpMNNwww.naic.orgNciprtopicsNtopicnuclearliabilityinsurance.htm

%atural Resources 7anada 0&.*ong erm 4utlook< Crude 4il Prices to %5&5. Retrieed

!rom httpMNNwww.nrcan.gc.caNenergyNpublicationsNmarketsN(B&&

%:6 0&1. 2orld Statistics. Retrieed !rom httpMNNwww.nei.orgNKnowledge-7enterN%uclear-

;tatisticsN+orld-;tatistics

%elsen, A. 0&1. :uropeVs dependency on Russian gas may be cut amid energy e!!iciency

!ocus. ,e !uardian. Retrieed !rom

httpMNNwww.theguardian.comNworldN0&1NsepN'Neurope-dependency-russian-gas-

energy-e!!iciency-eu

New York v. United States et al., BB *.;. &11 *nited ;tates ;upreme 7ourt, &''0.

%R7A% 0&>. Canada G A !lo+al *eader in #enewa+le Energy. :nergy and F.>d &0B& *nited

;tates 7ourt o! Appeals, District o! 7olumbia 7ircuit, 01.

%uclear Risk 6nsurers, Gtd. 0&1.Nuclear Pools. Retrieed !rom

httpMNNwww.nuclearpools.comNabout-us

%uclear +aste Policy Act, 10 *.;.7. XX &&& et se. &')0.

?47onnell, +. 0&1. 7ausation4s nuclear !utureM applying proportional liability to the Price-

Anderson Act.1uke *aw ?ournal, (1, >>>->=(.


44/48

?:7D &'''.#eform of Civil Nuclear *ia+ility. Cudapest, EungaryM ?:7D %uclear :nergy

Agency, 6A:A, :uropean 7ommission, and Eungarian Atomic :nergy Authority.

?P:7 0&>. 2orld 4il 4utlook. Iienna, AustriaM ?P:7.

?saka, :. 0&0. 7orporate Giability, #oernment Giability, and the Fukushima %uclear

Disaster.Pacific #im *aw and Policy ?ournal, 0&>, 1>>-1B'.

Pacific !as " Electric Company9 et al. v. State Energy #esources Conservation and

1evelopment Commission9 et al., 1(& *.;. &' ;upreme 7ourt &')>.

Perlman, E. 0&1. Eydroelectric power water use. US 1ept. of Interior !eological Survey.

Retrieed @une &1, 0&1 !rom httpMNNwater.usgs.goNeduNwuhy.html

Pirani, ;., Eenderson, @., Eonore, A., Rogers, E., and 9a!imaa, K. 0&1. 2,at t,e Ukraine

crisis means for gas markets. ?$!ord 6nstitute !or :nergy ;tudies. Retrieed

!rom httpMNNwww.o$!ordenergy.orgNwpcmsNwp-contentNuploadsN0&1N>N+hat-

the-*kraine-crisis-means-!or-gas-markets-#P7->.pd!

Price-Anderson Act, s.&= o! the Atomic :nergy Act o! &'B1, as amended in &'(=, &'==,

&')=, and 0B.

Rimsaite, G. 0&>. %uclear 6nsurance PoolsM Does the Eori"ontal 7ooperation leads to the

))>.pd!

Rosner, R., and #oldberg, ;. 0&&, -

0'PanelPDFPresentation.pd!S


45/48

bcsiscan&>a&!>1'1&b10>>dbcsiscan!ilename>-

0'PanelPDFPresentation.pd!

;askpower 0&1.-oundary 1am Car+on Capture ProHect. Retrieed !rom

httpMNNsaskpowerccs.comNccs-pro/ectsNboundary-dam-carbon-capture-pro/ectN

;chneider,


46/48

*%:P 0&&. #reen :conomy Iulnerable to Rare :arth . !lo+al trends in renewa+le energy investment %5$&. Frank!urt, #ermanyM

Frank!urt ;chool *%:P 7ollaborating 7entre.

*nion o! 7oncerned ;cientists 0&1.A -rief 6istory of Nuclear Accidents 2orldwide.

Retrieed !rom httpMNNwww.ucsusa.orgNnuclearpowerNmaking-nuclear-power-

sa!erNpreenting-nuclear-accidentsNnuclear-accidents-a-brie!-

history.htmlY.I#Ea+Pm*e;o

*nited Kingdom Department o! :nergy 7limate 7hange 0&>.1ECC )ossil )uel Price

ProHections. Gondon, :nglandM *KD:77. Retrieed !rom

httpsMNNwww.go.ukNgoernmentNuploadsNsystemNuploadsNattachmentdataN!ileN0&0B0&

N&>=&)decc-!ossil-!uel-price-pro/ections.pd!

*nited %ations Treaty on the %on-Proli!eration o! %uclear +eapons &'().

*nited ;tates Department o! :nergy 0&>. Car+on Capture ec,nology Program.

+ashington D7, *;AM D?: %ational :nergy Technology Gaboratory. Retrieed !rom

httpMNNwww.netl.doe.goNFileH0GibraryNResearchN7oalNcarbonH0captureNProgram-

Plan-7arbon-7apture-0&>.pd!S

bcsiscandb'0c)a1!&a(=b!1N)hAE+;t

ALM&

*nited %ations 0&B. 2e Care Solar is awarded US$ million United Nations Energy

!rant to eDpand t,e use of life'saving Solar Suitcase. Retrieed !rom

httpsMNNpoweringthe!uture.un.orgNnewsNawardceremony0&B

*nited %ations ;ustainable Deelopment #oals 0&B. Retrieed !rom

httpsMNNsustainabledeelopment.un.orgNtopics


47/48

*;#; 0&1.Europe Eart,>uake Information. Retrieed !rom

httpMNNearthuake.usgs.goNearthuakesNworldNinde$.phpSregion:urope

*;%R7 0&1. %uclear 6nsurance and Disaster Relie!.-ackgrounder. +ashington, D7,

*;AM %uclear Regulatory 7ommission ?!!ice o! Public A!!airs.

*;%R7 0&Ba. Spent fuel storage in pools and dry casks. Retrieed !rom

httpMNNwww.nrc.goNwasteNspent-!uel-storageN!as.html

*;%R7 0&Bb.-ackgrounder on #adioactive 2aste. Retrieed !rom

httpMNNwww.nrc.goNreading-rmNdoc-collectionsN!act-sheetsNradwaste.html

Iienna 7onention on 7iil Giability !or %uclear Damage &''=.

Iincent, @. 0&1. Fossil !uelsM *K to Vrun out o! oil, gas and coalV in !ie years. ,e

Independent. Retrieed !rom httpMNNwww.independent.co.ukNnewsNukNuk-to-run-out-

o!-!ossil-!uels-in-!ie-years-'>)B1&B.html

+hite Eouse 0&&.Promoting Clean9 #enewa+le Energy< Investments in 2ind and Solar.

Retrieed !rom httpsMNNwww.whitehouse.goNrecoeryNinnoationsNclean-renewable-

energy

+hitley, ;. 0&>. ime to c,ange t,e game< fossil fuel su+sidies and climate. Gondon, *KM

?erseas Deelopment 6nstitute.

+orld Cank 01.Involuntary #esettlement Source+ook. +ashington D7M The +orld Cank.

+orld Cank 0&B. 2orld 1evelopment Indicators< Electricity production9 sources9 and

access.Retrieed !rom httpMNNwdi.worldbank.orgNtableN>.=

+orld 7oal Association 0&1. 2,ere is Coal )ound3Retrieed !rom

httpMNNwww.worldcoal.orgNcoalNwhere-is-coal-!oundN

+orld %uclear Association 0&1. Supply of Uranium. Retrieed !rom httpMNNwww.world-

nuclear.orgNin!oN%uclear-Fuel-7ycleN*ranium-ResourcesN;upply-o!-*raniumN


48/48

+orld %uclear Association 0&1a.Nuclear Power in Swit@erland. Retrieed !rom

httpMNNwww.world-nuclear.orgNin!oN7ountry-Pro!ilesN7ountries-?-;N;wit"erlandN

+orld %uclear Association 0&1b. JClean CoalJ ec,nologies9 Car+on Capture "

Se>uestration. Retrieed !rom httpMNNwww.world-nuclear.orgNin!oN:nergy-and-

:nironmentN-7lean-7oal--TechnologiesN

+orld %uclear Association 0&1c. Safety of Nuclear Power #eactors. Retrieed !rom

httpMNNwww.world-nuclear.orgNin!oN;a!ety-and-;ecurityN;a!ety-o!-PlantsN;a!ety-o!-

%uclear-Power-ReactorsN

+orld %uclear Association 0&1d.)ukus,ima Accident. Retrieed !rom httpMNNwww.world-

nuclear.orgNin!oN;a!ety-and-;ecurityN;a!ety-o!-PlantsNFukushima-AccidentN

+orld %uclear Association 0&1e.#adioactive 2aste 8anagement. Retrieed !orm

httpMNNworld-nuclear.orgNin!oN%uclear-Fuel-7ycleN%uclear-+astesNRadioactie-+aste-

& 0&0, .

Qhang, ;. 0&B. ,e plan for storing US nuclear waste Hust ,it a road+lock. Retrieed !rom

httpMNNwww.wired.comN0&BN=Nplan-storing-us-nuclear-waste-/ust-hit-roadblockN