Nuclear power debate: Difference between revisions

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (April 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

The nuclear power debate is about the controversy^[1][2][3][4] which has surrounded the deployment and use of nuclear fission reactors to generate electricity from nuclear fuel for civilian purposes. The debate about nuclear power peaked during the 1970s and 1980s, when it "reached an intensity unprecedented in the history of technology controversies", in some countries.^[5][6]

Proponents of nuclear energy argue that nuclear power is a sustainable energy source which reduces carbon emissions and can increase energy security if its use supplants a dependence on imported fuels.^[7] Proponents advance the notion that nuclear power produces virtually no air pollution, in contrast to the chief viable alternative of fossil fuel. Proponents also believe that nuclear power is the only viable course to achieve energy independence for most Western countries. They emphasize that the risks of storing waste are small and can be further reduced by using the latest technology in newer reactors, and the operational safety record in the Western world is excellent when compared to the other major kinds of power plants.^[8]

Opponents say that nuclear power poses many threats to people and the environment. These threats include health risks and environmental damage from uranium mining, processing and transport, the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation or sabotage, and the unsolved problem of radioactive nuclear waste.^[9][10][11] They also contend that reactors themselves are enormously complex machines where many things can and do go wrong, and there have been many serious nuclear accidents.^[12][13] Critics do not believe that these risks can be reduced through new technology.^[14] They argue that when all the energy-intensive stages of the nuclear fuel chain are considered, from uranium mining to nuclear decommissioning, nuclear power is not a low-carbon electricity source.^[15][16][17]

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

In the 2010 Australian book Why vs. Why: Nuclear Power^[18] Barry Brook and Ian Lowe discuss and articulate the debate about nuclear power. Brook argues that there are seven reasons why people should say "yes" to nuclear power:^[18]

• Because renewable energy and energy efficiency won’t solve the energy and climate crises
• Because nuclear fuel is virtually unlimited and packs a huge energy punch
• Because new technology solves the "nuclear waste" problem
• Because nuclear power is the safest energy option
• Because advanced nuclear power will strengthen global security
• Because nuclear power's true costs are lower than either fossil fuels or renewables
• Because nuclear power can lead the "clean energy" revolution

Lowe argues that there are seven reasons why people should say "no" to nuclear power:^[18]

• Because it is not a fast enough response to climate change
• Because it is too expensive
• Because the need for baseload electricity is exaggerated
• Because the problem of waste remains unresolved
• Because it will increase the risk of nuclear war
• Because there are safety concerns
• Because there are better alternatives

For some countries, nuclear power affords energy independence. Nuclear power has been relatively unaffected by embargoes, and uranium is mined in countries willing to export, including Australia and Canada.^[19][20]

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

According to a Stanford study, fast breeder reactors have the potential to provide power for humans on earth for billions of years, making this source sustainable.^[21]

Nuclear power plants are some of the more complex mechanical systems ever devised, although much of that complexity is due to redundancy of systems and the defense in depth strategy of the designs. New reactors, though, will incorporate passive safety features to reduce the need for redundancy.^[22]

In 2005, out of all nuclear power plants in the world, the average capacity factor was 86.8%, the number of SCRAMs per 7,000 hours critical was 0.6, and the unplanned capacity loss factor was 1.6%.^[23] Capacity factor is the net power produced divided by the maximum amount possible running at 100% all the time, thus this includes all scheduled maintenance/refueling outages as well as unplanned losses. The 7,000 hours is roughly representative of how long any given reactor will remain critical in a year, meaning that the scram rates translates into a sudden and unplanned shutdown about 0.6 times per year for any given reactor in the world. The unplanned capacity loss factor represents amount of power not produced due to unplanned scrams and postponed restarts.

The World Nuclear Association argues that: "Obviously sun, wind, tides and waves cannot be controlled to provide directly either continuous base-load power, or peak-load power when it is needed,..." "In practical terms non-hydro renewables are therefore able to supply up to some 15–20% of the capacity of an electricity grid, though they cannot directly be applied as economic substitutes for most coal or nuclear power, however significant they become in particular areas with favourable conditions." "If the fundamental opportunity of these renewables is their abundance and relatively widespread occurrence, the fundamental challenge, especially for electricity supply, is applying them to meet demand given their variable and diffuse nature. This means either that there must be reliable duplicate sources of electricity beyond the normal system reserve, or some means of electricity storage." "Relatively few places have scope for pumped storage dams close to where the power is needed, and overall efficiency is less than 80%. Means of storing large amounts of electricity as such in giant batteries or by other means have not been developed."^[24]

Amory Lovins counters,

"All sources of electricity sometimes fail, differing only in how predictably, how often, how much, for how long, and why. Even the most reliable giant power plants are intermittent: "they fail unexpectedly in billion-watt chunks, often for long periods. In the United States, 132 nuclear plants were built, and 21% were permanently and prematurely closed due to reliability or cost problems, while another 27% have at least once completely failed for a year or more. The remaining U.S. nuclear plants produce approximately 90% of their full-time full-load potential, but even they are not fully dependable. Reliably operating nuclear plants must shut down, on average, for 39 days every 17 months for refueling and maintenance.

"To cope with such intermittence by both nuclear and centralized fossil-fuelled power plants, utilities must install a "reserve margin" of roughly 15% extra capacity, some of which must be continuously fuelled, spinning ready for instant use. Regions which depend heavily on nuclear power "are particularly at risk because drought, a serious safety problem, or a terrorist incident could close many plants simultaneously".^[25]

Lovins says that nuclear plants have an additional disadvantage: for safety, they must instantly shut down in a power failure, but for nuclear-physics reasons, they can’t be quickly restarted. For example, during the Northeast Blackout of 2003, nine perfectly operating U.S. nuclear units had to shut down. For the first three days after restart, when they were most needed, their output was below 3% of normal.^[25]

Since nuclear power plants are fundamentally heat engines, waste heat disposal becomes an issue at high ambient temperature. In such very hot weather a power reactor (just as a coal-fired or solar-thermal power plant will) may have to operate at a reduced power level or even shut down.^[26] In the 2006 European heat wave, a number of nuclear plants had to secure exemptions from regulations in order to discharge overheated water into the environment; several European nations were forced to reduce operations at some plants and take others offline and France, normally an electricity exporter, had to buy electricity on European spot market to meet demand.^[27] Overheated discharge water has resulted in significant fish kills in the past, impacting livelihood and raising public concern. Fish kills remain a problem for plants which use water for cooling, due to high volumes which pull fish into intake systems. Plants with cooling towers are more expensive, but allow for alleviating temperature effects.

Nuclear plants generally have very high capital costs, with operating costs just under those of coal-fired generation.^[28] Fuel costs, on the other hand, are very low. According to Christopher Crane, Senior Vice President of Exelon, representing the World Nuclear Association in an April 2007 speech to members of the U.S. Congress, "Nuclear energy is, in many places, competitive with fossil fuel for electricity generation, despite relatively high capital costs and the need to internalize all waste disposal and decommissioning costs. If the social, health and environmental costs of fossil fuels are also taken into account (for example, if a carbon tax is implemented), nuclear is outstanding."^[29]

Opponents of nuclear energy argue that utilities contemplating the construction of reactors demand support from the government in the form of loan guarantees, which implies that reactors are a high-risk investment. In his 2007 speech to members of congress, Cristopher Crane said that these loan guarantees must cover 100 percent of project debt, otherwise financing of new powerplants would be extremely difficult.^[30] Supporters of nuclear power point out that the guarantees would only apply to the first few reactors, as an assurance that the licensing requirements would not be changed during construction, as has happened in the past. Similar loan guarantees are provided for renewable-energy and carbon-sequestration projects.^[31]

Anti-nuclear organisations consider the economics of new nuclear power plants to be unfavourable because of the initial costs of constructing a nuclear plant (see Darlington Nuclear Generating Station), the public subsidies and tax expenditures involved in research and security, the cost of decommissioning nuclear facilities, and the undetermined costs of storing nuclear waste.^[32][33]

In a study conducted for the SER, an economic advisory council of the Dutch government, the Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN) expressed concern that the expansion of nuclear energy might reduce investment in renewable energy technologies through lock-in effects.^[34]

Urgency in the face of possible fossil fuel shortages and climate change can be seen both as an advantage and a disadvantage of nuclear fission. If, for example, the goal is to cover 80% of the world's (present) energy demand with fission, then thousands of new plants would have to be built,^[35] at a price of several billion US$ each,^[36] which would mean an investment of tens of trillions of US$, although this general scale of investment is required no matter which approach to carbon reduction is taken. Also, permitting and building a nuclear plant can take about 10 years.^[36] This allows speculation on where other alternatives would stand by then if that money were invested in making them cheaper and more efficient. It is possible that that route would in the long run be more economical, but that depends on how big the improvements would be. Solar energy, for example, which has received relatively little development investments, and is therefore still in early development stages, is still making progress on efficiency levels.^[37]

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

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

Nuclear industry proponents argue that competing energy sources also receive subsidies. Fossil fuels receive large direct and indirect subsidies, such as tax benefits and not having to pay for the greenhouse gases they emit. Renewables receive proportionately large direct production subsidies and tax breaks in many nations, although in absolute terms they are often less than subsidies received by other sources.^[38]

Energy research and development (R&D) for nuclear power continues to receive large state subsidies. In the United States, nuclear receives more Federal R&D support than the renewables industry^{[citation needed]}, however the impact of favorable tax incentives drives the total Federal support of the renewables industry to a level almost four times as high as that of the nuclear industry, despite all renewables (excluding hydroelectric, which receives no R&D funding) producing only 1/8 as much power as nuclear.^[39] In Europe, the FP7 research program has more subsidies for nuclear than for renewable and energy efficiency together, although over 70% of this is directed at the ITER fusion project.^[40][41] In the US, public research money for nuclear fission declined from 2,179 to 35 million dollars between 1980 and 2000.^[38] However, in order to restart the industry, the next few US reactors will receive subsidies equal to those of renewables and, in the event of cost overruns due to litigation or regulatory delays, at least partial compensation (see Nuclear Power 2010 Program).^{[citation needed]}

A May 12, 2008 editorial in the Wall St. Journal stated, "For electricity generation, the EIA concludes that solar energy is subsidized to the tune of $24.34 per megawatt hour, wind $23.37 and 'clean coal' $29.81. By contrast, normal coal receives 44 cents, natural gas a mere quarter, hydroelectric about 67 cents and nuclear power $1.59."^[42] The impacts of prior subsidies, some of which may no longer be in effect, are not measured in the previous analysis. However, the Renewable Energy Policy Project^[43] stated that from 1947 to 1999, nuclear power was subsidized $145.4 billion, wind power $1.2 billion and solar $4.4 billion.^[44] From a megawatt hour basis, this translates into $12.45 per MWh produced for nuclear power, $36.47 for wind power and $511.63 for solar (1999 dollars).^[44]

The potential liability from a nuclear accident/terrorist attack/natural disaster is so great that is perceived that no nuclear power plant could be built if the owner had to pay for the full cost of liability insurance. Currently in the U.S. the liability is limited on liability for nuclear power plants under the Price-Anderson Act (PAA). As former U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney made clear when he was asked in 2001 whether the PAA should be renewed; he responded that without the PAA “nobody's going to invest in nuclear power plants”.^[45] The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) concluded the liability limits provided by nuclear insurance were significant as to constitute a subsidy, but a quantification of the amount was not attempted at that time.^[46] Shortly after this in 1990, Dubin and Rothwell were the first to estimate the value to the U.S. nuclear industry of the limitation on liability for nuclear power plants under the Price Anderson Act. Their underlying method was to extrapolate the premiums operators currently pay versus the full liability they would have to pay for full insurance in the absence of the PAA limits. The size of the estimated subsidy per reactor per year was $60 million prior to the 1982 amendments, and up to $22 million following the 1988 amendments.^[47] In a separate article in 2003, Anthony Heyes updates the 1988 estimate of $22 million per year to $33 million (2001 dollars).^[48]

In case of a nuclear accident, should claims exceed this primary liability, the PAA requires all licensees to additionally provide a maximum of $95.8 million into the accident pool - totaling roughly $10 billion if all reactors were required to pay the maximum. This is still not sufficient in the case of a serious accident, as the cost of damages could exceed the $10 billion.^[49][50][51] According to the PAA, should the costs of accident damages exceed the $10 billion pool, the remainder of the costs would be fully covered by the U.S. Government. In 1982, a Sandia National Laboratories study concluded that depending on the reactor size and 'unfavorable conditions' a serious nuclear accident could lead to property damages as high as $314 billion while fatalities could reach 50,000.^[52] A recent study found that if only this one relatively ignored indirect subsidy for nuclear power was converted to a direct subsidy and diverted to photovoltaic manufacturing, it would result in more installed power and more energy produced by mid-century compared to the nuclear case.^[53] This would, of course, require direct spending, rather than potential spending in the case of an accident, significantly increasing the federal budget. This report indicates that the nuclear insurance subsidy is substantial, but there have been no recent studies to re-evaluate the value of the subsidy in light of the recent events in Japan, which may require an expensive clean-up.

This section needs attention from an expert in Energy. Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the section. WikiProject Energy may be able to help recruit an expert. (October 2008)

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

Nuclear opponents claim that the costs of handling spent fuel will be expensive. Advocates of nuclear energy argue that spent fuel has a high enough value to offset all or nearly all of the processing cost. However by 2003, Sellafield's Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant had made losses of over £1bn in the first 9 years of operation.^[54]

Though it is not a viewpoint that figures prominently in the debate, some individuals suggest the value of spent fuel would be enhanced by using it as a heat source. According to a U.S. Department of Energy report,^[55] the initial heat produced by U.S. nuclear waste will be on the order of 30 to 50 times the heat flux in the Geysers geothermal reservoir in California. According to The California Energy Commission,^[56] Geothermal Energy in California website, in 2007 California produced 13,000 gigawatt-hours of geothermal energy. Assuming the conservative estimate of 30 times this amount of heat flux for U.S. nuclear waste, 390,000 gigawatt-hours of energy is produced annually by U.S. waste. This is close to half of the power output by America's operational reactors (806.5 billion kilowatt-hours (bkWh in 2007).^[57]

390,000 gigawatt-hours is the equivalent of 219,956,237.507 barrels of fuel oil (US). The energy return on investment for SAGD is 5.2/1.^[58] Therefore, the heat flux of America's nuclear waste has the potential to produce over a billion barrels of synthetic oil annually.

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

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

The Nuclear Assisted Hydrocarbon Production Method,^[59] Canadian patent application 2,638,179, is a method for the temporary or permanent storage of nuclear waste materials comprising the placing of waste materials into one or more repositories or boreholes constructed into an unconventional oil formation. The thermal flux of the waste materials fracture the formation, alters the chemical and/or physical properties of hydrocarbon material within the subterranean formation to allow removal of the altered material. A mixture of hydrocarbons, hydrogen, and/or other formation fluids are produced from the formation. The radioactivity of high-level radioactive waste affords proliferation resistance to plutonium placed in the periphery of the repository or the deepest portion of a borehole.

The primary environmental impacts of nuclear power come from uranium mining, radioactive effluent emissions, and waste heat, as under normal generating conditions nuclear power does not produce greenhouse gas emissions [CO
₂, NO
₂] directly (although the nuclear fuel cycle produces them indirectly, though at much smaller rates than fossil fuels).^[60] Nuclear generation does not directly produce sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury or other pollutants associated with the combustion of fossil fuels. In 2008, The Economist stated that "nuclear reactors are the one proven way to make carbon-dioxide-free electricity in large and reliable quantities that does not depend (as hydroelectric and geothermal energy do) on the luck of the geographical draw."^[61] Many experts, some of whom consider themselves environmentalists, now believe that expanded nuclear generation is the only way to reduce green house gas emissions while providing for current and future electricity needs.^{[citation needed]} However, this is disputed in the literature because of the basic thermodynamic limits to nuclear energy deployment.^[62]

While nuclear power does not directly emit greenhouse gasses, over a facility's life cycle, emissions occur through plant construction, operation, uranium mining and milling, and plant decommissioning. A longtime opponent of nuclear energy collected 103 life cycle studies of greenhouse gas-equivalent emissions for nuclear power plants^[63] from various sources, most of them other anti-nuclear activists. The calculated emissions over the lifetime of a nuclear power plant ranged from 1.4 to 288 g/kWh and averaged out to 66 g/kWh. This figure is 50 percent greater than that of biomass (41 g/kWh), more than five times that of solar (13 g/kWh), and more than seven times as much as wind and hydroelectric (9-10 g/kWh); these other emission rates come from a single reference and aren't averaged from multiple references. The article never figured importantly in the nuclear power debate. A study done at the University of Wisconsin has had influence on the debate; it showed all non-fossil sources are roughly equal in reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.^[64]

Nuclear plants require more, but not significantly more, cooling water than fossil-fuel power plants due to their slightly lower generation efficiencies. Uranium mining can use large amounts of water — for example, the Roxby Downs mine in South Australia uses 35 million litres of water each day and plans to increase this to 150 million litres per day.^[65]

There are a number of different kinds of nuclear waste: low-level waste (LLW), intermediate-level waste and high-level waste (HLW). LLW is defined as any radioactive waste that isn't categorized as HLW or ILW. It accounts for the majority of nuclear waste produced from power and weapons generation.^[66] LLW includes materials that have been exposed or contaminated with potentially dangerous levels of radiation, like protective clothing (such as radiation shoe coverings and clothing), wiping rags, mops, syringes, lab animal carcasses and reactor residue.

Intermediate-level waste consists primarily of materials from plants that have been decommissioned. ILW contains lower levels of radioactivity than high-level waste but is still radioactive enough not to be incorporated into the exclusionary category or LLW.

High-level waste is the most dangerous type of radioactive waste. Spent nuclear fuel and transuranic waste are considered HLW. HLW contains the fission products and transuranic elements generated in the reactor core. Although over 90% of radioactive waste is LLW, HLW still accounts for over 90% of the radioactivity produced from power plants.^[66] HLW consists of waste products that can be considered concentrated biological hazards. HLW can, depending on type, remain radioactive for millions of years. The reason the waste stays dangerous for so long is that, when, for example, plutonium-239 decays, it becomes uranium-235. The former remains dangerous for approximately 250,000 years, but the latter can remain dangerous for much longer. Therefore, HLW must be stored in a facility that can quarantine the waste from the ecosystem essentially forever if we do not consider any other solution than geological repositery. Indeed, the long-term radioactivity of nuclear waste (HLW) can be reduced, from ~10 million years to 200 or 300 years,^[67][68] with nuclear transmutation, although this technology have yet to be proven.^[67]

Low-level waste is disposed of in two ways. Under the first method, the waste is stored in a secure facility on the generator until it is no longer dangerously radioactive. When radiation levels have dropped to those found normally in nature, the waste is disposed of as regular trash. The second method of disposing of LLW is to transport it in secure containers approved by the U.S. Department of Transportation to a facility that is equipped to safely contain it. Three of these sites exist in the USA. The waste at these sites comes from plant operations and the chemical processing system.^[69]

The disposal of high-level waste is more difficult and has been the source of political debates every since waste disposal became an issue in the 1970s. HLW is first stored in on-site tanks of cooling liquid. Immersed in this liquid, the HLW (such as spent fuel rods) cools in temperature and becomes less radioactive over time. In the 1970s, however, these on-site cooling facilities began to run out of room for new waste. Therefore, an alternative means of storage was devised and is currently used today. Waste that has been cooled for at least one year in tanks are moved to dry cask storage containers, which are large, silo-shaped receptacles with numerous protective layers that shield workers and the public from radiation. The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has determined that these containers are a form of "leak-tight containment" due to the numerous redundant measures to keep the radiation inside the receptacles.^[70] The rods themselves are surrounded by inert gas which is within a steel cylinders that are welded or bolted closed. Each cylinder is further surrounded by additional steel and/or concrete that provides further radiation shielding.

Most countries with nuclear power agree that storing spent fuel in deep geological repositories is the best option for waste disposal, but no such long-term waste repositories have yet been constructed.^[71][72] In nature, sixteen repositories were discovered at the Oklo mine in Gabon where natural nuclear fission reactions took place 1.7 billion years ago.^[73] The fission products in these natural formations were found to have moved less than 10 ft over this time period,^[73] thus since its discovery in 1972 this site has provided an important part of the basis for evaluating the geology and design of potential man-made repositories, including the proposed US repository at Yucca Mountain.^[74]

The argument has been made that the problems of nuclear waste do not come anywhere close to approaching the problems of fossil fuel waste.^[75][76] 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."^[77] In the U.S. alone, fossil fuel waste kills 20,000 people each year.^[78]

However, nuclear power isn't just less problematic with regards to emissions. It also releases less radiation into the surrounding environment than other forms of energy generation. For instance, a coal power plant releases 100 times as much radiation as a nuclear power plant of the same wattage.^[79] It is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times as much radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island incident.^[80]

Nuclear power has also caused less death from accidents than other forms of energy production. The World Nuclear Association provides a comparison of deaths from accidents in course of different forms of energy production. In their comparison, deaths per TW-yr of electricity produced from 1970 to 1992 are quoted as 885 for hydropower, 342 for coal, 85 for natural gas, and 8 for nuclear.^[81]

Safety of nuclear power centers around two issues; risk to workers and public due to low-level radiation from the plant, and health risk to the public when and if an accident happens at various stages of the fuel and maintenance cycle or due to damage to the plant caused by natural phenomena such as flood or earthquake.

While there have been some disastrous accidents in the past, the reactor design was typically at fault, and modern reactors are significantly less prone to such accidents.^[82] Actually, human error was the significant factor in the Chernobyl accident, as well as most others. Regardless, the catastrophic aftermath of past accidents presents a strong justification for such safety concerns. In addition, the effects of the everyday activity is also a prominent concern. A recent example was unsecured interstate transport of contaminated cleaning equipment from the Prairie Island plant in Minnesota.

While plant design has attempted to incorporate measures to mitigate against the effect of natural phenomena, incidents such as the 1999 Blayais Nuclear Power Plant flood and the 2011 Fukushima I nuclear accidents have illustrated failings in risk evaluation and design, and highlighted the potential danger of a domino-effect genpatsu-shinsai disaster.^[83]

A major concern in the nuclear debate is what the long-term effects of living near or working in a nuclear power station are. These concerns typically center around the potential for increased risks of cancer. However, studies conducted by non-profit, neutral agencies have found no compelling evidence of correlation between nuclear power and risk of cancer.^[84]

There has been considerable research done on the effect of low-level radiation on humans. Debate on the applicability of Linear no-threshold model versus Radiation hormesis and other competing models continues, however, the predicted low rate of cancer with low dose means that large sample sizes are required in order to make meaningful conclusions. A study conducted by the National Academy of Science found that carcinogenic effects of radiation does increase with dose.^[85] The largest study on nuclear industry workers in history involved nearly a half-million individuals and concluded that a 1–2% of cancer deaths were likely due to occupational dose. This was on the high range of what theory predicted by LNT, but was "statistically compatible".^[86]

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has a factsheet that outlines 6 different studies. In 1990 the United States Congress requested the National Cancer Institute to conduct a study of cancer mortality rates around nuclear plants and other facilities covering 1950 to 1984 focusing on the change after operation started of the respective facilities. They concluded in no link. In 2000 the University of Pittsburgh found no link to heightened cancer deaths in people living within 5 miles of plant at the time of the Three Mile Island accident. The same year, the Illinois Public Health Department found no statistical abnormality of childhood cancers in counties with nuclear plants. In 2001 the Connecticut Academy of Sciences and Engineering confirmed that radiation emissions were negligibly low at the Connecticut Yankee Nuclear Power Plant. Also that year, the American Cancer Society investigated cancer clusters around nuclear plants and concluded no link to radiation noting that cancer clusters occur regularly due to unrelated reasons. Again in 2001, the Florida Bureau of Environmental Epidemiology reviewed claims of increased cancer rates in counties with nuclear plants, however, using the same data as the claimants, they observed no abnormalities.^[87]

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

Most human exposure to radiation comes from natural background radiation. Natural sources of radiation amount to an average annual radiation dose of 295 mrem. The average person receives about 53 mrem from medical procedures and 10 mrem from consumer products.^[88] According to the National Safety Council, people living within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant receive an additional 0.01 mrem per year. Living within 50 miles of a coal plant adds 0.03 mrem per year.^[89] These numbers are negligible compared with the average annual dose of 358 mrem per year.

Current guidelines established by the NRC, require extensive emergency planning, between nuclear power plants, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the local governments. Plans call for different zones, defined by distance from the plant and prevailing weather conditions and protective actions. In the reference cited, the plans detail different categories of emergencies and the protective actions including possible evacuation.^[90]

According to Mark Z. Jacobson, the growth of nuclear power has "historically increased the ability of nations to obtain or enrich uranium for nuclear weapons, and a large-scale worldwide increase in nuclear energy facilities would exacerbate this problem, putting the world at greater risk of a nuclear war or terrorism catastrophe".^[91] The historic link between energy facilities and weapons is evidenced by the secret development or attempted development of weapons capabilities in nuclear power facilities in Pakistan, India, Iraq (prior to 1981), Iran, and to some extent in North Korea.^[91] It is unclear, however, whether the United States can greatly influence other nations to choose or reject nuclear power, as US companies are no longer involved in the design and construction of nuclear power plants. Indeed, the nuclear power plants which have been proposed for construction in the US are all Japanese, Chinese or French designs.

According to a 2004 report by the U.S. Congressional Budget Office, "The human, environmental, and economic costs from a successful attack on a nuclear power plant that results in the release of substantial quantities of radioactive material to the environment could be great."^[92] Such an attack would, however, be difficult to mount. U.S. reactors are surrounded by a double row of electronically monitored tall fences, and patrolled by a sizable force of armed guards. Modern nuclear reactor containment buildings are designed to be impervious to a September 11-style attack.^[93][94] If terrorists were able to gain access to a nuclear reactor, they could do little more than vandalize the equipment. The National Reconnaissance Office's "Design Basis Threat" criteria for nuclear plant security is classified; what size attacking force the plants are able to protect against is unclear. Scramming a plant takes less than 5 seconds, while unimpeded restart takes several hours, severely hampering any efforts to release radioactivity into the atmosphere. Attacks on chemical industry or petroleum industry plants, which are much more vulnerable to terrorism, would result in similarly dangerous outcomes, sometimes more lethal than an attack on the nuclear power industry.^[95]

An additional concern with nuclear power plants is that if the by-products of nuclear fission (the nuclear waste generated by the plant) were to be left unprotected it could be stolen and used as a radiological weapon, colloquially known as a "dirty bomb". There were incidents in post-Soviet Russia of nuclear plant workers attempting to sell nuclear materials for this purpose (for example, there was such an incident in Russia in 1999 where plant workers attempted to sell 5 grams of radioactive material on the open market,^[96] and an incident in 1993 where Russian workers were caught attempting to sell 4.5 kilograms of enriched uranium.^[97][98][99]), and there are additional concerns that the transportation of nuclear waste along roadways or railways opens it up for potential theft. The United Nations has since called upon world leaders to improve security in order to prevent radioactive material falling into the hands of terrorists,^[100] and such fears have been used as justifications for centralized, permanent, and secure waste repositories and increased security along transportation routes.^[101]

However, scientists agree that the spent fissile fuel is not radioactive enough to create any sort of effective nuclear weapon, in a traditional sense where the radioactive material is the means of explosion.

For many years, polls consistently have shown that populations opposed nuclear energy, but desire the energy security.^{[citation needed]} A comprehensive public opinion survey, performed in May and June 2006 in the European Union member countries, concluded that EU citizens perceive great future promise in the use of renewable energies, but despite majority opposition, believe nuclear energy will have its place in the future energy mix.^[102]

More recently, a poll taken in the US shows that more than sixty percent of Americans support the expansion of nuclear power. In 2010, polls reached a record high, with 62% supporting nuclear power and 28% who strongly support it.^[103]

Some developing countries which plan to go nuclear have very poor industrial safety records and problems with political corruption.^[104] The Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine, during the time of the former Soviet Union, occurred due to the poor soviet safety culture^{[citation needed]}. Large areas of Europe were affected by moderate radioactive contamination, and parts of Ukraine and one fifth of Belarus continue to be affected by radioactive fallout as of 2008.^[105]

The limited liability for the owner of a nuclear power plant in case of a nuclear accident differs per nation while nuclear installations are sometimes built close to national borders.^[106] The Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage is intended to address this concern.

The numbers of new operative reactors, final shutdowns and new initiated constructions according to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in recent years are as follows: ^[107]

In April 2009, experts attending the nuclear power session at Fortune's Brainstorm: Green conference said that three new nuclear power plants could be expected in the USA in the next ten years.^[108]

In May 2009, New York Times journalist James Kanter reported that nuclear power may be making a resurgence, but long-standing problems with the technology still could lead to canceled orders and renewed anti-nuclear opposition. One problem is what to do with the radioactive waste produced by nuclear power stations. Another recurring problem is the high capital cost of nuclear power technology compared with other energy sources.^[109][110]

Stephanie Cooke has argued that the cost of building new reactors is extremely high, as are the risks involved. Most utilities have said that they won't build new plants without government loan guarantees. There are also bottlenecks at factories that produce reactor pressure vessels and other equipment, and there is a shortage of qualified personnel to build and operate the reactors.^[111]

• Ferguson, Charles D. (June 2007). Nuclear energy: balancing benefits and risks. Council on Foreign Relations. ISBN 9780876094006.
• Ferguson, Charles D.; Marburger, Lindsey E.; Farmer, J. Doyne; Makhijani, Arjun (23 September 2010). "Comment: A US nuclear future?" (PDF). Nature. 467 (7314): 391–3. doi:10.1038/467391a.

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

• Template:PDFlink Online book
• Template:PDFlink
• Sierra Club
• The New York Times Finally Reports the Economic Disaster of New Nukes
• Down To Earth - How vulnerable are India's nuclear power plants to disaster

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

Template:Anti-nuclear