Nuclear Power Yes Or No

12

4

3

14

CEMREC: CARBON ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT




NUCLEAR POWER: YES OR NO?




18002355





Contents
Abstract 3
List of Abbreviations 3
1.0) Introduction 4
2.0) Assessment of issues covered in the article 5
2.1) "A decade ago, nuclear power was widely seen as a failed technology" 5
2.2) "The peak of nuclear power installation happened more than 20 years ago. Since then, cancellations and deferments have outnumbered new constructions" 5
2.3) "We would have to put a huge effort into managing nuclear waste" 6
2.4) "Nuclear power is certainly not a fast enough response to climate change" 6
2.5) "Nuclear power is too expensive" 7
2.6) "We could reduce demand dramatically – not by turning out the lights, but by simply improving efficiency" 7
2.7) "Uranium supplies would run out in the coming decades and nuclear power plants would then have to shut down" 8
2.8) "Nuclear power is already hundreds of times safer than the coal, gas and oil we currently rely on" 8
2.9) "At present, mined uranium is cheap" 9
2.10) "Authoritative and independently verified whole-of life-cycle analyses in peer-reviewed journals have repeatedly shown that energy inputs to nuclear power are as low as, or lower than, wind, hydro and solar thermal, and less than half those of solar photovoltaic panels" 9
2.11) "Greenhouse gas emissions from the nuclear cycle would be zero" 10
2.12) "It is time that we embraced nuclear energy as a cornerstone of the carbon-free revolution we need in order to address climate change and long-term energy security in a world beyond fossil fuels" 10
2.13) "Issues avoided and addressed between writer" 11
2.14) Additional points to the argument 12
3.0) Concluding Remarks 13
References 14



Abstract
The work's aim was to "To investigate the two arguments for and against the use of nuclear power. From the analysis, see how factual these arguments are and how supportive the issues discussed are to either side of the argument. Furthermore, see what issues do arise between the two and what are not included in the article." The work focused on the issues associated with climate change as nuclear's future is discussed in industry circles. The work findings have found that both authors have been correct on most of their points although Barry Brook has been found to elaborate on some of the figures he uses to highlight the positives of nuclear power. Collating all the data and the severity and significance of the issues raised by either side of the argument, it can be assumed that both authors have presented a strong case. With specific focus on climate change and sustainability, the argument supporting nuclear is the more advisable option as it proves that nuclear is a clean, safe and relatively cheap option for a future where reducing GHG emissions is paramount. Moreover, without nuclear power current renewable energy technology would not be able to substantially take the power demand that nuclear currently supplies.
List of Abbreviations
$/lb Dollars per pound
CCS Carbon Capture Storage
CO2 Carbon dioxide
FF Fossil Fuels
gCO2eq Greenhouse gases
GEMIS Global Emissions Model for Integrated Systems
GHG Greenhouse Gases
HLW High Level Waste
IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency
kWh Kilowatt Hours
LLW Low Level Waste
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Mtoe Million tonnes of oil equivalent
MWh Megawatt Hour
R&D Research and Development
tU Tonnes of Uranium
WNA World Nuclear Association


1.0) Introduction

Currently nuclear power is having a renaissance since the decline in the 90's as China and multiple other countries are seeing nuclear as the future to energy security. Due to cheap fuel prices and advanced technology in construction and safety, it is seen to be a better option to renewable energy. On the other hand, since the Fukujima disaster public support has waned and previous concerns with safety and other issues have arisen. This report looks into the Physicsworld article "Nuclear power: yes or no?" and analysis the two arguments within the article made by Ian Lowe and Barry Brook.
Aim
To investigate the two arguments for and against the use of nuclear power. From the analysis, see how factual these arguments are and how supportive the issues discussed are to either side of the argument. Furthermore, see what issues do arise between the two and what are not included in the article.

Objectives
Examine if the issues discussed in the article are factual or a matter of opinion, with reference material to support such arguments. With particular focus on those issues that concern climate change and sustainability.
Assess if the points made by the authors are covered by the other writer and what points are avoided. Thus discussing in brief why these points are avoided in their argument.
Examine any other points that were not made by either writer but still have significant impact on either side of the argument.

2.0) Assessment of issues covered in the article
2.1) "A decade ago, nuclear power was widely seen as a failed technology"
This statement by Ian Lowe is based on the events of Chernobyl and the public response to nuclear that preceded these events. Following these events it was generated opinion that nuclear was expensive, dirty and dangerous. During the 1990's there was certain evidence of a growing lack of investment and interest in nuclear power as renewable energy started to develop. One of the main reasons for this was the costs of safer and higher regulated power plants in repose to the Chernobyl incident. Compared to the 1970s designated plants, during the early 1990's costs rose from 2000 $/KW to 13,000 $/KW, causing investors to look to alternatives (Madsen & Neumann, 2009).
In terms of opinion at the time, different groups of people had different concerns after the Chernobyl accident and throughout the 90's. Many countries accepted that the risks are unacceptable and ruled out a nuclear programme. Furthermore, industry representatives felt a concern for the risks of cancer and contamination from working in the highly radiated plants.
A more significant event that caused nuclear to lose funding was the drop in R&D by the government military budget (Von Hippel, 2010). After the cold war ended, there was little use for nuclear research that was not for power and thus the subsidies they received dropped significantly and costs rose.
2.2) "The peak of nuclear power installation happened more than 20 years ago. Since then, cancellations and deferments have outnumbered new constructions"
Ian Lowe's statement on how cancellations and deferments have outnumbered 'new construction' presents a question that statistically is very ambiguous. Comparing data by the World Nuclear Status Report (Schneider, 2012) and the IAEA (IAEA, 2012), the concept of "under construction" can hint towards significant delays as indicated by the IAEA. The IAEA recorded 62 reactors are completed/under construction in 2012, conversely, the world nuclear status recorded that 93 reactors have been in operation that have been constructed between the entirety of 1990 to 2012.

Figure 1.Number of Nuclear Reactors Listed as "Under Construction" (Schneider, 2012)

This shows that the statistics contain a whole host of un- nished projects. Additionally, while in the past 5 years there has been a gradual increase in new construction these too have and will face similar delays and cancellations in light of the Fukujima disaster and "exorbitant cost overruns which scarcely any bank would nance — unless the nancial risk is assumed by a government" (Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, 2011). Furthermore, as the delays continue nuclear energy are "facing shortages of experienced personnel" (IAEA, 2012) that will retire and cause more delays due to a loss of knowledge. A fact that is clear from the IAEA data is that the peak of nuclear energy was 20 years ago when the total under construction was 234. (IAEA, 2012)
2.3) "We would have to put a huge effort into managing nuclear waste"
While admitting that the problem with waste management will eventually be solved, what can be questioned is how it will be solved. Currently one of the main issues in nuclear waste is the cost of waste management and decommissioning (£20 per MWh, (Wilkinson, 2006) ) which has lead to a need for more cost and safety effective measures.
The method currently preferred for high level waste is to dispose of it in deep geological formations. With LLW from uranium milling, an issue has arisen that it is being dumped in the mine sites and projects developed to store the waste such as, Yucca Mountain (Beyond Nuclear, 2012)(for HLW) have been cancelled. This leaves a gap in solutions to solve the waste management issues as even if deep formations are advised it is not currently being implemented effectively. Proving Ian Lowe's statement that a huge effort will be needed to manage nuclear waste.
On the other hand, the waste management issue does have a positive outlook prospectively. The current waste management issues concern the 1st generation nuclear power stations that have now been replaced by new power stations that are easier to manage. (Wilkinson, 2006)
Speculative methods can also improve future nuclear waste management. Thorium has 100 times greater energy mass than U-235 driven nuclear reaction (Lior, 2010), which while would significantly reduce waste amounts would not solve the disposal problems.
2.4) "Nuclear power is certainly not a fast enough response to climate change"
Looking into the speed of response that nuclear has to climate change; two issues must be analysed: the current and prospective impact that nuclear would have on climate change, and the time it would take for nuclear to realistically make an impact. A nuclear power station takes 10 years to build (wind farm taking >1) (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, 2012) and with the UK needing an 80% cut in emission from 1990 to 2050 (Friends of the Earth, 2007), a nuclear power programme would have to develop rapidly to have a significant impact. Furthermore, with nuclear power generating "less than 4% of UK energy consumption and globally only 3.1%" (Friends of the Earth, 2007), it is very unlikely that nuclear power will be able to provide a fast enough response. If nuclear were to be established globally as the main energy response to climate change, further issues would also have to be taken into account that will influence construction time and cost. Infrastructure, bottlenecks in supply, waste and credit management all will affect its development, let alone the security and health risks. Moreover, the current fleet of nuclear power stations will need to be replaced by 2030 when they retire. (Ling, 2009)
Taking into account nuclear power's life cycle affect on GHG emissions, MIT calculated that "1,500 new nuclear reactors would have to be constructed worldwide by mid-century for nuclear power to have a modest impact on the reduction of greenhouse gasses." (Slater, 2008) In opposition these points, Luke Weston believes that the 10 year figure for the construction of a nuclear power plant is majorly influenced by political and environmental red tape, which would strongly influence nuclear's speed of response to climate change (Weston, 2008). Furthermore, comparing the life cycle impacts of nuclear to wind energy, to generate the same amount of MWhs of one nuclear power station, it would take 2077 wind generators, all with individual life cycle impacts all creating GHG emissions. (Correia, 2012)
2.5) "Nuclear power is too expensive"
Ian Lowe states that he believes that nuclear power is too expensive, from factual data on comparing energy resources this is found to be incorrect when concerning producing electricity but correct in capital costs. Based on world nuclear energy data, within OECD Europe production cost of nuclear power is 8.3-13.7 US cents/kWh at a 10% discount rate, compared to onshore wind at 12.2-23.0 US cents/kWh and Black coal with CCS at 11.0 US cents/kWh (World Nuclear Association, 2012). This data is based on fuel costs and operational costs, highlighting that financially nuclear electricity production is the best option. Further supporting this data is Jason Morgan (Morgan, 2010) which also takes into account the construction and decommissioning costs yet produces the same trends in nuclear's cost per kWh superiority over other leading energy sources. One of the downfalls with this data is the original capital costs data and added subsidies. Currently nuclear power receives substantial subsidies across the entire nuclear cycle in the UK and US and takes the form of "tax breaks, accident liability caps, direct payments, and loan guarantees" (Koplow, 2011). Within the case of an overrun project, the nuclear power lobby will expect further subsidies and when they are received will give them little incentive to adjust their individually failing model.
An example of the overrun costs and delays of the original capital cost is the plant being built in Olkiluoto, Finland. Originally set to open in 2009, commercial operation will not start till August 2013 with construction cost increasing from 3.2billion to 6 billion. (Mez, 2012)
One of the bonuses however of nuclear financially, is that it is not affected by carbon tax. Therefore if nuclear is to be an economically viable option, this tax will have to be significant.
2.6) "We could reduce demand dramatically – not by turning out the lights, but by simply improving efficiency"
By improving the efficiency of energy conversion and services it is general opinion that this would reduce demand. However, there is a strong movement in opinion that increasing the efficiency will create a bounce in demand. Jevon's paradox states "economic theory suggests that this decrease in demand and subsequent decrease in cost of using the resource could cause a rebound in demand." (Gottron, 2001) In response to this issue, there have been multiple solutions to increase efficiency and reduce demand without the rebound effect. The Congressional Research Service (Gottron, 2001) believe that if you increase efficiency but control the price to lower expectations of the benefits, then the bounce will not occur as the cost has not decreased.
Another method by The Environmental Change Institute (Eyre, 2009) believe that changing the market through new demand side technology would control the market but Horace Herring stresses that legislation and taxation are required to stabilize this market in this case (Herring, 2007). With such measures to support energy efficiency, it has been speculated by Greenpeace that "a 20% increase in energy saving across the EU. If fully implemented, this would result in energy consumption in the EU being 1,500 Mtoe by 2020, instead of the 1,890 Mtoe in the 'business-as-usual' scenario." (Thomas, et al., 2007)
2.7) "Uranium supplies would run out in the coming decades and nuclear power plants would then have to shut down"
Barry Brook states that the idea that Uranium supplies are running out in the next decades is false, however based on current data and predictions, the finite resource's supplies will last for longer than predicted. UN statistics show that even with the annual uranium requirements increasing to 100,000 tonnes the current resources will be able to meet demand as there is currently 4.7 million tonnes (United Nations, 2006). Alongside this demand increase is the investment in the mining and exploration by 40%, this will lead to further discoveries of uranium resources, efficient mining and increased production.
However, recently with the recent rise in nuclear power, the demand for uranium has rapidly increased. In fact, World nuclear data suspects a uranium shortage as current production is "not sufficient to meet the demand requirements in WNA's upper scenario to 2030 (2030 demand 137,000 tU; 2030 primary production 97,000 tU)." (World Nuclear Association, 2012) Besides this complication, the technology and development of uranium exploration and production has had some significant breakthroughs, as in contrast the NEA (World Nuclear News, 2012) speculate that the un -registered figure of yet to be extracted uranium stands at 10,400,500 tU, a substantial amount to meet future demand. Even with it being a finite resource, developments in thorium and using plutonium (from Russian/US nuclear weapon stockpiles) in a mixed oxide fuel can create a year's worth of uranium. (World Nuclear Association, 2012) Overall, while Uranium has a positive future with a growing supply one of the greater issues it faces is the future shortages of fossil fuels needed in mine, milling, enriching and fabrication that pose the greatest problems.
2.8) "Nuclear power is already hundreds of times safer than the coal, gas and oil we currently rely on"
Compared to other energy sources, nuclear energy is seen to be statistically a safer technology. Based on IAEA statistics (McKenna, 2011), nuclear is seen to have 1.2 deaths (including Chernobyl) per 10 billion kWh. Comparatively, hydro is 1.6 and coal is 32.7 deaths per 10 billion kWh across the entire life cycle. While his premise is correct, his figure on the scale of difference was exaggerated. A further point to make is reason of their deaths, as a death in a nuclear plant can occur in the non-nuclear area and not by the power source/more published area of the plant which can be the same case for other energy sources.
A large development in nuclear since the Chernobyl disaster and a main reason for its safety credentials is the increase in the regulations and standards in construction as the risks of a new plant are a "1600 times lower than it was when the first reactors were built." (World Nuclear News, 2010) In addition, the large scale disasters in nuclear can also occur in Hydro and coal as a dam failure in China 1975 caused 230,000 deaths (McKenna, 2011). A point that is regularly debated on the safety of nuclear is the radiation damage it can cause. Outdoor air particulates have caused approx 960,000 premature deaths in 2000 alone, with 30% of that coming from fossil fuel energy sources, whilst, other than in Chernobyl, all nuclear power plant disaster have restricted radiation damage to the plant only. (Gordelier, 2010)
2.9) "At present, mined uranium is cheap"
Based on current market statistics this statement is correct. Investment mine statistics show that Uranium oxide currently costs 41.25$/lb a 93.75$/lb drop since the 2007 peak of 135$/lb (InfoMine, 2012). This price however can rapidly change. With the 2007 uranium bubble as an example (Australian Uranium News, 2011), any mining disasters (Cigar Lake Mine flooding) or a drop in production can cause significant price fluctuations. Lately, with increased technology and production efficiency, large reserves of Uranium oxide are increasing infrastructure and thus production (such as in Kazakstan (Central Asia Newswire, 2010)). Conversely, a large opposing opinion is that the price may increase as the number of new uranium sites will decrease, which ultimately could "reduce the credibility and profitability of nuclear energy." (McKillop, 2010)

Figure 2.Uranium oxide price (InfoMine, 2012)
2.10) "Authoritative and independently verified whole-of life-cycle analyses in peer-reviewed journals have repeatedly shown that energy inputs to nuclear power are as low as, or lower than, wind, hydro and solar thermal, and less than half those of solar photovoltaic panels"
Based on life cycle energy analysis by Daniel Weisser, it can be seen that nuclear does not have the lowest overall GHG emissions for indicated power plants (Weisser, 2007). The life cycle analysis shows all the energy used at every stage from mining to decommission of an energy source and shows this through GHG emission per kWh. From the data it shows that hydro has a lower mean energy input and life cycle energy (8 gCO2eq / kWh compared to 10 gCO2eq / kWh), however the other statements are true as solar PV has the mean GHG emission per kWh of 56 gCO2eq / kWh which is more than double nuclear and wind is 14 gCO2eq / kWh . This is because to generate the same annual power as one Nuclear power plant 2077 wind turbines are needed (Correia, 2012). Overall in this case these combined turbines will have a greater energy input and life cycle emissions than nuclear.

Figure 3.Summary of life-cycle GHG emissions for selected power plants (Weisser, 2007)
2.11) "Greenhouse gas emissions from the nuclear cycle would be zero"
While in a possible all-electric future greenhouse emissions from nuclear would be zero. The construction of the nuclear power plant would still emit emissions. Even with the transport emissions cut there are multiple other sources of GHG emission in the nuclear life cycle before the electricity society begins. "Mining, enriching...plus construction, operation, and decommissioning of the power plant, as well as waste handling and disposal" (Climate Central, 2010), are all stages that consume fossil fuels which even before the plant is constructed are causing GHG emissions. Supporting this concept was the GEMIS project. Taking data on the life cycle of a nuclear plant, taking into account upstream fuel-cycle, and the materials needed to build it "the GEMIS model calculates some 31 grams of CO2 per kWh of electricity generated in nuclear power plants" (Fritsche, 2006). More significantly, even in an all electricity society, Krypton 85, a gas from nuclear power plants, still produces emissions similar to GHGs. (Mez, 2012)
2.12) "It is time that we embraced nuclear energy as a cornerstone of the carbon-free revolution we need in order to address climate change and long-term energy security in a world beyond fossil fuels"
This opinion is based on the views of multiple sources on nuclear power and general industry outlooks. The first point to be made is to establish that nuclear is not carbon-free, as it has significant life-cycle emissions. One of the benefits of nuclear power and why it can be seen as a cornerstone of carbon free revolution is the base-load energy that it provides whilst having a low carbon emission total. Compared to renewable energy sources, sources such as wind and solar do not provide a base load of energy as they fluctuate based on energy source conditions.
In contradiction to this opinion, a strong movement lately has been to look toward s a mixture of the two with renewables and nuclear both providing for the energy demand. Bruno Comby believes that in combining the two with "renewable energies for local low-intensity applications, and nuclear energy for base-load electricity production, is the only viable way for the future." (Comby, 2009)
Nuclear must remain as a main cornerstone of long term energy security as if shut down, we would initially have to compensate the loss of energy with coal. As well as this, decommissioning costs would have to be taken into account and the GHG emissions from both coal and decommissioning would be significantly higher than the zero carbon operating emissions of nuclear power. While renewable energy could possibly replace the energy deficit caused by nuclear power, it would have to have rapid infrastructure constructed whilst coal would act as temporary base-load.
2.13) "Issues avoided and addressed between writer"
Issues Addressed
Both Barry Brook and Ian Lowe (Brook & Lowe, 2010) have addressed certain issues between one another. The first issue that Ian Lowe introduces between the two authors is the problems associated with nuclear waste management. While not going into detail on the current and future problems associated with waste management, he highlights how the costs and size of the task to solve this will be great. Conversely, Barry Brook comments on this issue, and agrees with the notion of possible future management issues but presents a solution based on the recycling of uranium. Another issue discussed by both authors was the risks of accidents with nuclear power. Ian Lowe believes that while the accidents have decreased in frequency, there will forever be a possibility of a major accident occurring. In response to this, Barry Brook stresses that the accident risk has dropped significantly with improvements to nuclear technology and regulations. The possibility of nuclear armament also came up between both authors. Ian Lowe stressed that those countries able to divert fissile material to improper purposes are a risk in unstable areas of the world. On the contrary, Barry Brooks says that the "metal fuel products of modern dry fuel recycling...cannot be used for bombs."
On the subject of what is to be the future of global energy issues, both Brook and Lowe have addressed this issue. Lowe's idea of future energy plans is to scrap nuclear all together and to both improve service efficiency and replace electricity production with renewable energy technology. His reasoning being that renewables is "quicker, less expensive and less dangerous." Conversely on this point Brook has a different plan, whereby renewables is not the only option and to make nuclear the "cornerstone of carbon-free revolution."
Issues Avoided
Many issues have also been avoided by both writer based on arguments by each. Ian Lowe seems to stress the risk in nuclear power based on the Chernobyl incident and the possibility of that situation repeating. What he seems to not acknowledge, that Brook has, is the changes in regulation and safety features of current nuclear power plants.
A point that has been avoided by both authors is the issues of costs. Both highlight the positive and negative aspects of the costs of a power plant. Ian Lowe concentrated on the large initial costs and the subsidies that it receives to afford them. On the other hand, Brook highlights the cheap cost of mining uranium. Compared to one another, neither comments on the financial issue the other made as both acknowledge the accuracy of their points. While Brook does mention the arguments on the initial costs and delays of nuclear power, he does not give a solution to this problem or prove the inaccuracy of this statement. This just clearly shows the avoidance of an argument by Brook as he cannot verify disproof of the costs and delays issue. Taking into account the climate change credentials of nuclear, Barry stresses the low energy inputs of nuclear and its possible zero GHG future. Conversely, Barry does not mention the speed of reaction that nuclear will have to GHG emissions and its total impact. Noted by Ian Lowe, while having a small impact on GHG emissions, nuclear does take years to be built and thus the time before any impacts are apparent is substantial time.
While uranium will run out eventually, Barry Brook does state that this will not occur till way beyond the 10 year prediction and that both Uranium and Thorium have abundant supplies. This point is not mentioned by Ian Lowe as this point is a valid advantage of nuclear power over fossil fuels, however even the nuclear fuel is not a 'renewable energy.'
2.14) Additional points to the argument
There are multiple points to be made for either side of the argument that were not covered in the article. One point in favour of nuclear is the disproval of the possible health risks associated with living near a nuclear power plant, and in particular cancer risks. Currently the main source of data on this subject is the Cancer Risks in Populations near Nuclear Facilities Report (Jablon, Hrubec & Boice Jr, 1991). This report states that there has been no general increase in risk of death by cancer for the case study of the people living near the 62 reactors in the 107 countries covered. Furthermore, it is more likely radiation exposure from previous occupations or smoking that has increased the risk of cancer to the people and prior to conception of their children. Further studies in France (Hattchouel, 1996) and Germany (Spix, 2008) however provided faults in the analysis system as with most studies being undertaken in a 5-22 year period, the long term effects cannot be gauged and the possible increase in Leukaemia could be pure chance. Even in the cases of possible outbreak of radiation through routine plant operation/accidents and waste management, the cancer risk would only reduce life expectancy by >1 hour, compared to risks of dust particles from fossil fuels reducing life expectancy by 3 to 40 days. (Cohen, 2009)
Since the Fukujima disaster, a major argument against nuclear power not discussed by either writer is the level of public disapproval to nuclear and the pressure they put on the governments of the world. In 2011 US public disapproval to nuclear power increased to 55% (U.S. News, 2011) and 200,000 people protested in Japan to the plans to reboot nuclear power (The Economist, 2012). Since the Fukujima disaster however, there has been a slight increase in approval such as in the UK where it has risen by 6% to 52% approval (Bennett, 2012), as they face a similar problem to Germany whereby renewable energy replacement does not currently have enough infrastructure to support the grid and electricity demand to fill the deficit in energy if nuclear is closed down.
A new development in nuclear that is to revolutionise nuclear power is the use of thorium as the fuel. "Thorium is a radioactive chemical element that could in theory be used to generate large quantities of low-carbon electricity in future decades (Clark, 2011)", and this element is said to be the more abundant than the currently used Uranium and has an estimated 4.4 million tonnes of the resource (Pentland, 2011). The cost is said to be lower potentially due to the abundance of the element and the amount of energy stored on the element. Further advantages are thorium's safety and the possibility "to burn up the dangerous plutonium stored in existing nuclear waste stockpiles" (Clark, 2011) in thorium reactors instead of costly waste management.




3.0) Concluding Remarks
1. Nuclear power was seen as a failed technology, and from the findings, it was found that during the 1990s this was factual due to reduced investment and an increase in plant construction costs. This data shows that nuclear has gone through substantial changes to become a safer, better technology option. The data on nuclear power plants show that since the proved peak 20 years ago, new constructions cannot be officially calculated as multiple projects are delayed but seen as "under construction." This is significant as this cannot be fully proved although recently new constructions have increased, although delays are still present. Nuclear waste has been found to need substantial managing as although solutions have been found, they have not been financially backed or have been cancelled. This is significant as even with development in thorium and new nuclear power stations, the current basic issues of management has not been well controlled or planned. It has been found that in response to climate change, nuclear power is not fast enough to have a significant effect. This is due to the time it takes to construct a nuclear power plants and how current plants will have to be replaced within the next few decades. This is significant as it shows that nuclear has large delays and cannot react fast enough to meet global requirements. Nuclear power has been proven to be expensive in terms of capital costs to construct, however it does have substantial subsidies to electricity production to stay competitive, which is a major reason why it is economically viable. By improving efficiency it has been found that there is a risk of demand increasing based on a demand bounce. Conversely, by controlling the price while increasing the efficiency the Jevon's paradox problem can be managed and be beneficial. It has been found that with investments in mining, exploration and technology further discoveries and advanced methods of efficiency can be achieved to meet the demand for uranium over the coming decades. This is significant as it shows uranium to be an abundant source that will last longer than FF. From looking at data on the safety of nuclear power to other sources it has been found that nuclear is a safer option, however not to the scale that Barry Brook states. This shows that the regulations are having an impact and other issues such as air pollution are more dangerous in FF etc. Taking into account current statistics, Uranium is proven to be a cheap commodity and has decreased in price since the 2007 bubble. This bubble is significant as it shows that the low prices can easily fluctuate from changes in reserves or mining disasters. Life cycle GHG emission and energy inputs in nuclear power have been shown to be less than wind, solar thermal and less than half solar PV. On the other hand, hydro had a smaller life cycle GHG emissions proving to disagree with Brook's argument. It has been proven that in a fully electric society that nuclear would have zero GHG emissions. On the other hand, in a realistic situation life cycle emission would be taken into account with nuclear power. More significantly Krypton 85 would still be emitted. The opinion that nuclear should become a cornerstone of future energy plans has been proven to be correct. While it is significant to mention that a combination of nuclear and renewables is advised, nuclear cannot be removed as initially it would be replaced with GHG emitting fossil fuel sources.
2. I have found that the issues covered by both include: waste management, nuclear accident risks, nuclear armament and future of global energy use. More importantly, the issues avoided were: initial costs, mining costs, speed of reaction to global warming and the size of uranium reserves. These show that both authors were unable to respond to some issues that are supportive of the others argument as they did not have sufficient data to respond.
3. The issues not covered by either argument were the cancer risks of nuclear, the public perception of nuclear and the possibility of harnessing Thorium. These points show that there are constant developments in nuclear power and new arguments for and against will develop with the energy type itself.
References
Australian Uranium News, 2011. The Great Uranium Bubble of 2007. [Online]
Available at: http://australianuraniumquicksearch.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/great-uranium-bubble-of-2007.html
[Accessed 24 November 2012].
Bennett, P., 2012. Poll: British public's faith in nuclear returning after Fukushima. [Online]
Available at: http://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/news/poll_british_publics_faith_in_nuclear_returning_after_fukushima_2356
[Accessed 24 November 2012].
Beyond Nuclear, 2012. http://www.beyondnuclear.org/yucca-mountain/. [Online]
Available at: http://www.beyondnuclear.org/yucca-mountain/
[Accessed 24 November 2012].
Brook, B. & Lowe, I., 2010. Nuclear power: yes or no?. [Online]
Available at: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/2010/oct/01/nuclear-power-yes-or-no
[Accessed 24 November 2012].
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, 2012. No to Nuclear Power. [Online]
Available at: http://www.cnduk.org/campaigns/nuclear-power
[Accessed 24 November 2012].
Central Asia Newswire, 2010. Kazakh mining growth keeps uranium prices low. [Online]
Available at: http://www.universalnewswires.com/centralasia/viewstory.aspx?id=1012
[Accessed 24 November 2012].
Clark, D., 2011. What is thorium and how does it generate power?. [Online]
Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/01/what-is-thorium-nuclear-power
[Accessed 24 November 2012].
Climate Central, 2010. Greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear electricity: low, but not zero. [Online]
Available at: http://www.climatecentral.org/library/climopedia/libraryclimopediagreenhouse_gas_emissions_from_nuclear_electricity
[Accessed 24 November 2012].
Cohen, B., 2009. Risks of Nuclear Power. [Online]
Available at: http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/np-risk.htm
[Accessed 24 November 2012].
Comby, B., 2009. The benefits of nuclear energy. [Online]
Available at: http://www.ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/BENEFITS-of-NUCLEAR.pdf
[Accessed 24 November 2012].
Correia, J., 2012. Wind power to nuclear power infographic comparison. [Online]
Available at: http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2012/02/09/wind-nuclear-infographic/
[Accessed 24 November 2012].
Eyre, N., 2009. Demand Reduction - UK Energy Research Centre. [Online]
Available at: http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/energy/demandreduction.php
[Accessed 24 November 2012].
Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, 2011. The end of nuclear energy? , Berlin: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.
Friends of the Earth, 2007. Nuclear power is not a solution to climate change. [Online]
Available at: http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefing_notes/nuclear_not_a_solution.pdf
[Accessed 24 November 2012].
Fritsche, U., 2006. Comparison of Greenhouse-Gas Emissions and Abatement Cost of Nuclear and Alternative Energy Options from a Life Cycle Perspective, Darmstadt: Öko-Institut.
Gordelier, S., 2010. Comparing nuclear accident risks with those from other energy sources, Paris: OECD.
Gottron, F., 2001. Energy Efficiency and the Rebound Effect: Does Increasing Efficiency Decrease Demand?, Washington DC: Resources, Science, and Industry Division of CSR.
Hattchouel, J.-M., 1996. Cancer mortality around French nuclear sites. Annals of Epidemiology, 6(2), p. 126–129.
Herring, H., 2007. Technological innovation, energy efficient design and the rebound effect. Technovation, 27(4), p. 194–203.
IAEA, 2012. International Status and Prospects of Nuclear Power, Vienna: IAEA.
InfoMine, 2012. 5 Year Uranium Prices and Price Chart. [Online]
Available at: http://www.infomine.com/investment/metal-prices/uranium-oxide/5-year/
[Accessed 24 November 2012].
Jablon, S., Hrubec, Z. & Boice Jr, J., 1991. Cancer Risks in Populations near Nuclear Facilities, New York: IAEA.
Koplow, D., 2011. Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable without Subsidies. [Online]
Available at: http://www.ucasusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_and_global_warming/nuclear-power-subsidies-report.html
[Accessed 24 November 2012].
Ling, K., 2009. Nuclear Power Cannot Solve Climate Change. [Online]
Available at: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=nuclear-cannot-solve-climate-change
[Accessed 24 November 2012].
Lior, N., 2010. Sustainable energy development: The present (2009) situation and possible paths to the future. Energy, 1(35), pp. 3976-3994.
Madsen, T. & Neumann, J., 2009. The High Cost of Nuclear Power, Maryland: Maryland PIRG Foundation.
McKenna, P., 2011. Fossil fuels are far deadlier than nuclear power. [Online]
Available at: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20928053.600-fossil-fuels-are-far-deadlier-than-nuclear-power.html
[Accessed 24 November 2012].
McKillop, A., 2010. Why Uranium Prices Will Rise. [Online]
Available at: http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article21157.html
[Accessed 24 November 2012].
Mez, L., 2012. Nuclear energy–Any solution for sustainability and climate protection?$. Energy Policy, 48(1), p. 56–63.
Morgan, J., 2010. Comparing Energy Costs of Nuclear, Coal, Gas, Wind and Solar. [Online]
Available at: http://nuclearfissionary.com/2010/04/02/comparing-energy-costs-of-nuclear-coal-gas-wind-and-solar/
[Accessed 1 November 2012].
Pentland, W., 2011. Is Thorium the Biggest Energy Breakthrough Since Fire? Possibly. [Online]
Available at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2011/09/11/is-thorium-the-biggest-energy-breakthrough-since-fire-possibly/
[Accessed 24 November 2012].
Schneider, M., 2012. The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2012. [Online]
Available at: http://www.worldnuclearreport.org/spip.php?article54#ctcrcuchttps://www.google.co.uk/search?q= +http%3A%2F%2Fwww.worldnuclearreport.org%2Fspip.php%3Farticle54%23ctcrcuc&oq= +http%3A%2F%2Fwww.worldnuclearreport.org%2Fspip.php%3Farticle54%23ctcrcuc&aqs=chro
[Accessed 24 Novemeber 2012].
Slater, A., 2008. nuclear power no solution to global warming. Pacific Ecologist, Winter 2008(16), pp. 40-42.
Spix, C., 2008. Case–control study on childhood cancer in the vicinity of nuclear power plants in Germany 1980–2003. European Journal of Cancer, 44(2), p. 275–284.
The Economist, 2012. The heat rises. [Online]
Available at: http://www.economist.com/node/21559364
[Accessed 24 November 2012].
Thomas, S., Bradford, P., Froggatt, A. & Milborrow, D., 2007. The economics of nuclear power, Amsterdam: Greenpeace International.
U.S. News, 2011. More Americans Disapprove of Nuclear Power After Japan Disaster. [Online]
Available at: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/03/29/more-americans-disapprove-of-nuclear-power-after-japan-disaster
[Accessed 24 November 2012].
United Nations, 2006. World uranium resources ample for projected nuclear energy needs – UN study. [Online]
Available at: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=18741&Cr=uranium#.ULQcA6ztSSq
[Accessed 24 November 2012].
Von Hippel, F., 2010. The Uncertain Future of Nuclear Energy, New Jersey: International Panel on Fissile Materials.
Weisser, D., 2007. A guide to life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from electric supply. [Online]
Available at: http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/Pess/assets/GHG_manuscript_pre-print_versionDanielWeisser.pdf
[Accessed 24 November 2012].
Weston, L., 2008. The real costs of wind (and solar) power (and nuclear, too). [Online]
Available at: http://enochthered.wordpress.com/category/construction-time-for-nuclear-energy/
[Accessed 24 November 2012].
Wilkinson, W., 2006. Challenges to Nuclear Power in the UK, Knutsford: ICheme.
World Nuclear Association, 2012. Military Warheads as a Source of Nuclear Fuel. [Online]
Available at: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf13.html
[Accessed 24 November 2012].
World Nuclear Association, 2012. The Economics of Nuclear Power. [Online]
Available at: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.htmla
[Accessed 24 November 2012].
World Nuclear Association, 2012. World Uranium Mining. [Online]
Available at: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf23.html
[Accessed 24 November 2012].
World Nuclear News, 2010. Risk statistics on energy. [Online]
Available at: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/newsarticle.aspx?id=28325
[Accessed 24 November 2012].
World Nuclear News, 2012. Uranium supplies good for the long haul. [Online]
Available at: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/ENF-Uranium_supplies_looking_good_for_the_long_haul-2607127.html
[Accessed 2 November 2012].






2

CEMREC 18002355



CEMREC 18002355