tag:theconversation.com,2011:/africa/topics/nuclear-reactor-11569/articlesNuclear reactor – The Conversation2023-08-10T23:27:23Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2113442023-08-10T23:27:23Z2023-08-10T23:27:23ZThe Kimba nuclear waste plan bites the dust. Here’s what went wrong and how to do better next time<p>The federal government has scrapped plans to build the nation’s first <a href="https://www.arpansa.gov.au/regulation-and-licensing/safety-security-transport/radioactive-waste-disposal-and-storage/radioactive-waste">radioactive waste storage facility</a> on farmland near Kimba in South Australia. Frankly, it was never going to work. The plan was doomed from the start.</p>
<p>That’s because the “decide and defend” model, where a government decides to put radioactive waste somewhere and then attempts to defend it against the community, hasn’t worked anywhere. It hasn’t worked in the United Kingdom. It hasn’t worked in the United States. Those countries still don’t have any process for long-term management of radioactive waste. </p>
<p>The only country to successfully manage the process is Finland, where the community was engaged. Over a period of several years, the government worked with its people to find a place where the community as a whole was happy to have the radioactive waste, in return for compensation. They’re now building a <a href="https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230613-onkalo-has-finland-found-the-answer-to-spent-nuclear-fuel-waste-by-burying-it">deep underground repository</a> for permanently storing their radioactive waste. </p>
<p>But Australia’s national government has made the same mistake three times now: a proposal in the Woomera area 20 years ago, Muckaty station in the Northern Territory ten years ago and now Napandee near Kimba. Deciding on a site and then trying to defend it against the community doesn’t work. The government really needs to understand this. The only way to manage our radioactive waste is to engage the community from the start. That means the whole community, including the land’s traditional owners.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Fr7WP2IsB24?wmode=transparent&start=32" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">No nuclear waste dump for Kimba, South Australia as the federal government formally abandons the plan (ABC News, August 10, 2023)</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Stacking the deck</h2>
<p>The Federal Court last month <a href="https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2023/2023fca0809">ruled</a> against plans by the former Coalition government to build the Kimba facility, after a court challenge by the traditional owners, the Barngarla people.</p>
<p>The traditional owners had not been consulted – in fact they were specifically excluded from the consultation process. And that’s why the Federal Court overturned the decision. </p>
<p>On Thursday morning, Federal Resources Minister <a href="https://www.minister.industry.gov.au/ministers/king/media-releases/statement-national-radioactive-waste-management-facility">Madeleine King</a> told the House of Representatives she would not challenge the Federal Court decision. </p>
<p>She described Kimba as “a town divided” and emphasised broad community support would have included “the whole community, including the traditional owners of the land”. </p>
<p>But she also drew attention to flaws in the plan, saying: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The previous Government sought to temporarily store intermediate level radioactive waste on agricultural land and contemplated the double handling of the transport of this waste; first from Lucas Heights in NSW, to temporary storage in SA, then on to an undetermined permanent disposal site. </p>
<p>This approach has raised concerns regarding international best practice and safety standards. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>King noted the amount of radioactive waste will keep growing, and said her department has begun work on alternative proposals.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1689443472326152192"}"></div></p>
<h2>Consulting traditional owners is crucial</h2>
<p>The Barngarla people understandably objected to nuclear waste being imposed on their land without their prior informed consent.</p>
<p>It might have been possible for the federal government to persuade them to accept low-level waste, which is given that classification because it has relatively low levels of radiation. If buried under a few metres of earth, the radiation reaching the surface is not much above normal background levels.</p>
<p>But the decision to use the site for temporary storage of the intermediate level waste from the Lucas Heights reactor in New South Wales was unlikely to get their approval.</p>
<p>And that raises a quite fundamental issue. Anywhere we want to store radioactive waste in Australia is the traditional land of a group of Indigenous people. Given the history of the Menzies government allowing <a href="https://www.arpansa.gov.au/understanding-radiation/sources-radiation/more-radiation-sources/british-nuclear-weapons-testing">nuclear weapons to be tested</a> here and the impacts that had on Indigenous people, it’s going to be very difficult to persuade Indigenous people to allow the permanent storage of radioactive waste on their land. </p>
<p>If it’s going to happen, it will require a long process of engagement and communication with Indigenous people to find a group somewhere that’s happy to manage the radioactive waste the community is producing.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1681468184220815361"}"></div></p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/theres-a-long-and-devastating-history-behind-the-proposal-for-a-nuclear-waste-dump-in-south-australia-158615">There's a long and devastating history behind the proposal for a nuclear waste dump in South Australia</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>What should happen next?</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://www.industry.gov.au/publications/australias-national-inventory-radioactive-waste-2021">vast majority (97%)</a> of the nuclear waste produced in this country is coming from Australia’s Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), the research reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney. </p>
<p>The idea of shifting intermediate-level waste from Lucas Heights to another temporary store 1,700km away is particularly silly. The waste is quite nasty stuff that requires serious management. There’s no obvious reason it would have been better in a temporary store at Kimba than in the current temporary store of Lucas Heights. </p>
<p>People have accepted it at Lucas Heights. The sensible approach would be to leave it there until we find somewhere people are happy to have it permanently. </p>
<p>In the fine print of the AUKUS agreement, the Australian government has agreed to manage the radioactive waste from nuclear submarines sourced from the UK and the US. That raises a <a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-hasnt-figured-out-low-level-nuclear-waste-storage-yet-let-alone-high-level-waste-from-submarines-201781">much more difficult issue</a>. </p>
<p>The Virginia class submarines use highly enriched uranium, which is weapons-grade material. It produces a more complex and intractable set of waste products than what’s produced at Lucas Heights. I’m not sure how many people understand Australia has taken that task on. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-hasnt-figured-out-low-level-nuclear-waste-storage-yet-let-alone-high-level-waste-from-submarines-201781">Australia hasn't figured out low-level nuclear waste storage yet – let alone high-level waste from submarines</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Looking ahead</h2>
<p>Naturally, anti-nuclear campaigners welcomed this week’s announcement. But they also held out an olive branch to the federal government, recognising the waste problem hasn’t gone away. </p>
<p>The Australian Conservation Foundation campaigner Dave Sweeney said: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>ACF looks forward to constructive dialogue with the Albanese government to help develop a new and responsible approach to radioactive waste management in Australia.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Similarly, Conservation SA chief executive Craig Wilkins said: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Now that the Kimba plan is officially dumped, the real work can finally begin to find a more credible and respectful approach to identifying a long-term storage and disposal site for Australia’s nuclear waste that is consistent with international best practice.</p>
</blockquote>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nU94go_hKfY?wmode=transparent&start=224" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">How Finland plans to store uranium waste for 100,000 years (Science Magazine, 2022)</span></figcaption>
</figure><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/211344/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ian Lowe was for 12 years a member of the Radiation Health and Safety Advisory Council, which advises the regulator of nuclear issues. He was also a member of the Expert Advisory Committee for the South Australia Nuclear Royal Commission. </span></em></p>Now that plans for a national radioactive waste management facility near Kimba in South Australia have been abandoned, what next? Let’s learn from our mistakes.Ian Lowe, Emeritus Professor, School of Environment and Science, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2017812023-03-15T05:02:52Z2023-03-15T05:02:52ZAustralia hasn’t figured out low-level nuclear waste storage yet – let alone high-level waste from submarines<p>Within ten years, Australia could be in possession of three American-made Virginia-class nuclear submarines under the AUKUS agreement with the United States and United Kingdom. The following decade, we plan to build five next-generation nuclear submarines. </p>
<p>To date, criticism of the deal has largely <a href="https://theconversation.com/with-aukus-australia-has-wedded-itself-to-a-risky-us-policy-on-china-and-turned-a-deaf-ear-to-the-region-201757">focused on</a> whether our unstable geopolitical environment and China’s military investment means it’s worth spending up to A$368 billion on eight submarines as a deterrent. </p>
<p>But nuclear submarines mean nuclear waste. And for decades, Australia has failed to find a suitable place for the long-term storage of our small quantities of low and intermediate level nuclear waste from medical isotopes and the Lucas Heights research reactor. </p>
<p>With this deal, we have committed ourselves to managing highly radioactive reactor waste when these submarines are decommissioned – and guarding it, given the fuel for these submarines is weapons-grade uranium. </p>
<p>Where will it be stored? The government says it will be on defence land, making the most <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-15/will-nuclear-waste-from-aukus-subs-end-up-in-sa/102096174">likely site</a> Woomera in South Australia.</p>
<h2>What nuclear waste will we have to deal with?</h2>
<p>Under this deal, Australia <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/new-fleet-of-eight-nuclear-submarines-to-be-built-in-australia-in-368-billion-deal-20230314-p5crt9.html">will not manufacture</a> nuclear reactors. The US and later the UK will give Australia “complete, welded power units” which do not require refuelling over the lifetime of the submarine. </p>
<p>In this, we’re following the US model, where each submarine is powered by a reactor with fuel built in. When nuclear subs <a href="https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20150330-where-nuclear-subs-go-to-die">are decommissioned</a>, the reactor is pulled out as a complete unit and treated as waste.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/radioactive-waste-isnt-going-away-weve-found-a-new-way-to-trap-it-in-minerals-for-long-term-storage-200255">Radioactive waste isn't going away. We've found a new way to trap it in minerals for long-term storage</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>An official <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/03/13/fact-sheet-trilateral-australia-uk-us-partnership-on-nuclear-powered-submarines/">fact sheet</a> about this deal states Australia “has committed to managing all radioactive waste generated through its nuclear-powered submarine program, including spent nuclear fuel, in Australia”. </p>
<p>What does this waste look like? When Virginia-class submarines are decommissioned, you have to pull out the “small” reactor and dispose of it. Small, in this context, is relative. It’s small compared to nuclear power plants. But it weighs over 100 tonnes, and contains around 200 kilograms of highly enriched uranium, which is nuclear weapons-grade material. </p>
<p>So, when our first three subs are at the end of their lives – which, according to defence minister Richard Marles, will be in about <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-15/aukus-nuclear-submarines-reactor-disposal/102092146">30 years time</a> – we will have 600kg of so-called “spent fuel” and potentially tonnes of irradiated material from the reactor and its protective walls. Because the fuel is weapons-grade material, it will need military-scale security.</p>
<h2>Australia has no long-term storage facility</h2>
<p>There’s one line in the fact sheet which stands out. The UK and US “will assist Australia in developing this capability, leveraging Australia’s decades of safely and securely managing radioactive waste domestically”. </p>
<p>This statement glosses over the tense history of our efforts to manage our much less dangerous radioactive waste. </p>
<p>For decades, the Australian government has been trying to find a single site for disposal of low-level radioactive waste. These are the lightly contaminated items produced in nuclear medicine and laboratory research. The low levels of ionising radiation these items produce means burying them under a few metres of soil is enough to reduce the radiation until it’s little more than the <a href="https://www.ansto.gov.au/education/nuclear-facts/what-is-radiation#:%7E:text=Average%20exposures%20to%20background%20radiation,background%20level%20is%20not%20harmful.">background radiation</a> we all receive from the rocks under our feet, the buildings we live and work in and the technologies we use. </p>
<p>Even though these wastes are comparatively benign, every single proposal has run into strong local opposition. The most recent plans to locate a dump at Kimba, on South Australia’s Eyre Peninsula is still <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-05/barngarla-women-protest-against-nuclear-waste-at-kimba/102053982">bogged down</a> in the legal system due to opposition by local communities and First Nations groups</p>
<p>And we’re still dithering about what to do with the intermediate level waste produced by the <a href="https://www.ansto.gov.au/facilities/opal-multi-purpose-reactor">OPAL research reactor</a> at Lucas Heights in Sydney. At present, spent fuel is sent to France for reprocessing while nuclear waste is now being returned to Australia, where it is held in a temporary store near the reactor. </p>
<p>This waste needs to be <a href="https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/radwaste.html">permanently isolated</a> from ecosystems and human society, given it will take tens of thousands of years for the radiation to decay to safe levels. </p>
<h2>Our allies have not figured out long-term waste storage either</h2>
<p>But while Sweden and Finland <a href="https://www.government.se/articles/2022/01/final-disposal-of-spent-nuclear-fuel/#:%7E:text=The%20final%20repository%20in%20Forsmark,leading%20nuclear%20waste%20management%20technology.">are building</a> secure storage systems in stable rock layers 500 metres underground, neither the UK nor the US have moved beyond temporary storage. </p>
<p>UK efforts to manage waste from decommissioned nuclear submarines is still at the community consultation stage. At present, high-level waste from sub reactors is removed and taken to Sellafield, a long-established nuclear site near the border with Scotland. But each submarine still holds around one tonne of intermediate level waste, which, <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/375698/Factsheet_11_Managing_Radioactive_Waste_20141113_V1_0.pdf">according to</a> the UK government, has to be temporarily stored until a long-term underground storage facility is built some time after 2040. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/aukus-submarine-plan-will-be-the-biggest-defence-scheme-in-australian-history-so-how-will-it-work-199492">AUKUS submarine plan will be the biggest defence scheme in Australian history. So how will it work?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In the US, spent fuel and intermediate waste from nuclear submarines is still in temporary storage. After the Obama administration scrapped the long-debated plan to store waste underneath <a href="https://ag.nv.gov/Hot_Topics/Issue/Yucca">Yucca Mountain</a> in Nevada, no other option has emerged. As a result, nuclear waste from their military and civilian reactors is just piling up with no long-term solution in sight. Successive administrations have kicked the can down the road, assuring the public a permanent geological disposal site will be developed some time in the future.</p>
<p>This should be concerning. To manage the waste from our proposed nuclear submarines properly, we’ll have to develop systems and sites which do not currently exist in Australia. </p>
<p>In 2016, South Australia’s Royal Commission on nuclear fuel <a href="https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-281452879/view">suggested</a> Australia’s geological stability and large areas of unpopulated land would position us well to act as a permanent place to store the world’s nuclear waste. </p>
<p>This hasn’t come to pass in any form. An almost intractable problem is that any proposed site will be on the traditional land of a First Nations group. Every site suggested to date has been opposed by its Traditional Owners.</p>
<p>What if we send the high-level waste overseas for processing and bring it back as less dangerous intermediate waste? It’s possible, given it’s what we already do with waste from the OPAL reactor. But that still leaves us with the same problem: where do you permanently store this waste. That’s one we haven’t solved in the 70 years since Australia first entered the nuclear age with our original HIFAR reactor at Lucas Heights. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-future-of-nuclear-waste-whats-the-plan-and-can-it-be-safe-181884">The future of nuclear waste: what’s the plan and can it be safe?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/201781/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ian Lowe was a member of the Radiation Health and Safety Advisory council for twelve years and was a member of the Expert Advisory Committee for the South Australia Royal Commission on the Nuclear Industry</span></em></p>Nuclear submarines may offer protection – but they will leave us with a high-level nuclear waste headacheIan Lowe, Emeritus Professor, School of Science, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1981732023-01-23T06:06:21Z2023-01-23T06:06:21ZFukushima to release wastewater – an expert explains why this could be the best option<p>Over ten years ago, a tsunami <a href="https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-daiichi-accident.aspx">triggered a disaster</a> at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant on Japan’s east coast. After the accident, large amounts of radioactivity contaminated the ocean leading to the imposition of a <a href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-13-3218-0_18">marine exclusion zone and huge reputational damage</a> to the regional fishing industry. </p>
<p>Huge volumes of contaminated water have accumulated on the site since. Water was needed to cool the damaged reactors and groundwater that became contaminated as it infiltrated the site had to be pumped out and stored. Over 1,000 tanks have been built on site to store <a href="https://www.tepco.co.jp/en/decommission/progress/watertreatment/alps01/index-e.html#amount">over a million tonnes</a> of radioactive water.</p>
<p>But the site is running out of storage space and the tanks could leak, particularly in the event of an earthquake or a typhoon. So the Japanese authorities have given the site permission to release the stored radioactive water through a pipeline to the Pacific Ocean.</p>
<p>As an environmental scientist, I have worked on the impacts of radioactive pollutants in the environment for more than 30 years. I think that releasing the wastewater is the best option.</p>
<h2>Contaminated water</h2>
<p>Before it is stored, the wastewater produced at Fukushima is treated to remove almost all of the radioactive elements. These include <a href="https://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclide-basics-cobalt-60">cobalt 60</a>, <a href="https://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclide-basics-strontium-90">strontium 90</a> and <a href="https://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclide-basics-cesium-137">caesium 137</a>. But <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/tritium">tritium</a> – a radioactive form of hydrogen – is left behind.</p>
<p>When one of the hydrogen atoms in water is replaced by tritium, it forms radioactive tritiated water. Tritiated water is chemically identical to normal water, which makes separating it from wastewater expensive, energy intensive and time consuming. A <a href="https://www.meti.go.jp/english/earthquake/nuclear/decommissioning/pdf/20200210_alps.pdf">review</a> of tritium separation technologies in 2020 found that they are unable to process the huge volumes of water required.</p>
<p>But as radioactive elements go, tritium is relatively benign and its existence as tritiated water reduces its environmental impact. Chemically identical to normal water, tritiated water passes through organisms like water does and so does not strongly accumulate in the bodies of living things.</p>
<p>Tritiated water has a <a href="https://hal-normandie-univ.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02433412/file/Fi%C3%A9vet_2013_Transfer%20of%20tritium%20released%20into%20the%20marine%20environment%20by%20French%20nuclear%20facilities%20bordering%20the%20English%20Channel.pdf">bioaccumulation factor of about one</a>. This means exposed animals would have roughly the same concentration of tritium in their bodies as the surrounding water.</p>
<p>By comparison, radioactive caesium 137, released in large quantities after Fukushima and from the UK’s Sellafield nuclear site in the 1960s and 70s, has a bioaccumulation factor in marine environments of <a href="https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/TRS422_web.pdf">roughly 100</a>. Animals tend to have around 100 times more radiocaesium than in the surrounding water because caesium magnifies up the food chain. </p>
<h2>Low radiation dose</h2>
<p>When tritium decays, it gives off a beta particle (a fast-moving electron that can damage DNA if ingested). But tritium’s beta particle is not very energetic. A person would need to ingest a lot of it to be given a significant radiation dose.</p>
<p>The World Health Organization’s <a href="https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/wash-documents/water-safety-and-quality/dwq-guidelines-4/gdwq4-with-add1-chap9.pdf?sfvrsn=6fc78cae_3">drinking water standard</a> for tritium is 10,000 Becquerels (Bq) per litre. This is several times higher than the planned concentration of the discharge water at Fukushima.</p>
<p>The difficulty of separating tritium from wastewater and its limited environmental impact is the reason nuclear facilities around the world have been releasing it into the sea for decades. The Fukushima Daiichi site is planning to release about 1 Petabecquerel (PBq – 1 with 15 zeros after it) of tritium at a rate of <a href="https://www.tepco.co.jp/en/hd/newsroom/press/archives/2021/pdf/211117e0102.pdf">0.022 PBq per year</a>.</p>
<p>This sounds like a huge number but globally, <a href="https://www.irsn.fr/EN/Research/publications-documentation/radionuclides-sheets/environment/Pages/Tritium-environment.aspx">50-70 PBq of tritium</a> is produced naturally in our atmosphere by cosmic rays each year. While annually, the Cap de la Hague nuclear fuel reprocessing site in northern France releases roughly <a href="https://hal-normandie-univ.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02433412/file/Fi%C3%A9vet_2013_Transfer%20of%20tritium%20released%20into%20the%20marine%20environment%20by%20French%20nuclear%20facilities%20bordering%20the%20English%20Channel.pdf">10 PBq</a> of tritium into the English Channel.</p>
<p>Significantly higher rates of release from Cap de la Hague than planned at Fukushima have <a href="https://www.irsn.fr/EN/publications/technical-publications/Documents/IRSN_BR%202015-2017_V1_EN_web.pdf">shown no evidence</a> of significant environmental impacts and doses to people are low. </p>
<h2>Safe release</h2>
<p>But the release of radioactive water must be done properly.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.tepco.co.jp/en/hd/newsroom/press/archives/2021/pdf/211117e0102.pdf">Japanese studies</a> estimate that the wastewater will be diluted from hundreds of thousands of Bq per litre of tritium in the storage tanks to 1,500 Bq per litre in discharge water. <a href="https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/report_1_review_mission_to_tepco_and_meti.pdf">Diluting the wastewater</a> before it is released will reduce the radiation dose to people. </p>
<p>The radiation dose to people is measured in sieverts, or millionths of sieverts (microsieverts), where a dose of 1,000 microsieverts represents a one in 25,000 chance of dying early from cancer. The <a href="https://www.tepco.co.jp/en/hd/newsroom/press/archives/2021/pdf/211117e0102.pdf">maximum estimated dose</a> from Fukushima’s discharged water will be 3.9 microsieverts per year. This is much lower than the 2,400 microsieverts people receive from natural radiation on average each year. </p>
<p>The Japanese authorities must also ensure that there are not significant amounts of “organically bound tritium” in the released water. This is where a tritium atom replaces ordinary hydrogen in an organic molecule. The organic molecules containing tritium can then be absorbed in to sediments and ingested by marine organisms</p>
<p>In the mid-1990s, organic molecules containing tritium were released from the Nycomed-Amersham pharmaceuticals plant in Cardiff Bay, Wales. The release led to bioaccumulation factors as <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0025326X0100039X?casa_token=rU1zVGEdYYMAAAAA:rO5YwPfC1BWdCjRSA2hjh38Vm0LPcBd79Gg42kaVhE76hroYTnj7zEaLPRyiXmn32TGX4yqK">high as 10,000</a>.</p>
<p>Treatment for other more dangerous radioactive elements also tends to <a href="https://www.meti.go.jp/earthquake/nuclear/pdf/140424/140424_02_008.pdf">leave small amounts</a> of these elements in the wastewater. The wastewater stored at Fukushima will be <a href="https://www.tepco.co.jp/en/decommission/progress/watertreatment/oceanrelease/index-e.html">re-treated</a> to make sure levels of these elements are low enough to be safe for discharge.</p>
<p>On the grand scale of the environmental problems we face, the release of wastewater from Fukushima is a relatively minor one. But it is likely to do more reputational damage to Fukushima’s beleaguered fishing industry. This will not be helped by the political and media furore that’s likely to surround new releases of radioactive water to the Pacific Ocean.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/198173/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>In 2008-2013, The University of Portsmouth was paid a total of about £25k for Jim Smith's consultancy for a range of clients including Horizon Nuclear Power and the Japan Atomic Energy Agency for risk assessment work. In 2012-17 he was awarded a grant from the UK Natural Environment Research Council, partly funded by Radioactive Waste Management, for research at Chernobyl. He currently has no relevant external funding and does not do paid external consultancy.</span></em></p>Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant is set to release radioactive wastewater into the Pacific Ocean – but the cause for concern is minimal.Jim Smith, Professor of Environmental Science, University of PortsmouthLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1905162022-09-13T12:32:23Z2022-09-13T12:32:23ZCold shutdown reduces risk of disaster at Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant – but combat around spent fuel still poses a threat<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/484145/original/file-20220912-1734-jinnwv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C8%2C5808%2C3103&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The last operating reactor at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, reactor No. 6, has been safely shut down.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/photo-taken-on-aug-4-2022-shows-the-zaporizhzhia-nuclear-news-photo/1242418488">Xinhua News Agency via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>An updated version of this article was published on June 6, 2023. <a href="https://theconversation.com/kakhovka-dam-breach-raises-risk-for-zaporizhzhia-nuclear-plant-receding-waters-narrow-options-for-cooling-207192">Read it here</a>.</em></p>
<p><em>Energoatom, operator of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant in the Ukrainian city of Enerhodar, <a href="https://www.energoatom.com.ua/app-eng/eng-1109221.html">announced</a> on Sept. 11, 2022, that it was <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/engineers-shut-down-last-reactor-at-ukraines-zaporizhzhia-nuclear-plant">shutting down the last operating reactor</a> of the plant’s six reactors, reactor No. 6. The operators <a href="https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/update-101-iaea-director-general-statement-on-situation-in-ukraine">have put the reactor in cold shutdown</a> to minimize the risk of a radiation leak from combat in the area around the nuclear power plant.</em></p>
<p><em>The Conversation asked <a href="https://sites.usc.edu/meshkati/">Najmedin Meshkati</a>, a professor and <a href="https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/thirty-three-years-catastrophe-chernobyl-universal-lesson-global-nuclear-power-industry">nuclear safety expert</a> at the University of Southern California, to explain cold shutdown, what it means for the safety of the nuclear power plant, and the ongoing risks to the plant’s spent fuel, which is uranium that has been largely but not completely depleted by the fission reaction that drives nuclear power plants.</em> </p>
<h2>What does it mean to have a nuclear reactor in cold shutdown?</h2>
<p>The fission reaction that generates heat in a nuclear power plant is produced by positioning a number of uranium fuel rods in close proximity. Shutting down a nuclear reactor involves inserting control rods between the fuel rods to stop the fission reaction. </p>
<p>The reactor is then in cooldown mode as the temperature decreases. <a href="https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary/full-text.html">According to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission</a>, once the temperature is below 200 degrees Fahrenheit (93 Celsius) and the reactor coolant system is at atmospheric pressure, the reactor is in cold shutdown.</p>
<p>When the reactor is operating, it requires cooling to absorb the heat and keep the fuel rods from melting together, which would set off a catastrophic chain reaction. When a reactor is in cold shutdown, it no longer needs the same level of circulation.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Qthg5xE196w?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant uses pressurized water reactors.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>How does being in cold shutdown improve the plant’s safety?</h2>
<p>The shutdown has removed a huge element of risk. The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant is a <a href="https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/pwrs.html">pressurized water reactor</a>. These reactors need constant cooling, and the cooling pumps are gigantic, powerful, electricity-guzzling machines. </p>
<p>Cold shutdown is the state in which you do not need to constantly run the primary cooling pumps at the same level to circulate the cooling water in the primary cooling loop. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) <a href="https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/update-101-iaea-director-general-statement-on-situation-in-ukraine">has reported</a> that reactor No. 6 is now in a cold shutdown state like the facility’s five other reactors, and will require less power for cooling. Now, at least if the plant loses offsite power, the operators won’t have to worry about cooling an operating reactor with cranky diesel generators.</p>
<p>And by shutting down reactor No. 6, the plant operators can be relieved of a considerable amount of their workload monitoring the reactors amid the ongoing uncertainties around the site. This substantially reduced the potential for human error.</p>
<p>The operators’ jobs are likely to be much less demanding and stressful now than before. However, they still need to constantly monitor the status of the shutdown reactors and the spent fuel pools.</p>
<h2>What are the risks from the spent fuel at the plant?</h2>
<p>The plant still needs a reliable source of electricity to cool the six huge spent fuel pools that are inside the containment structures and to remove residual heat from the shutdown reactors. The cooling pumps for the spent fuel pools need much less electricity than the cooling pumps on the reactor’s primary and secondary loops, and the spent fuel cooling system could tolerate a brief electricity outage.</p>
<p>One more important factor is that the spent fuel storage racks in the spent fuel pools at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant were compacted to increase capacity, according to a <a href="https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/national_report_of_ukraine_for_the_6th_review_meeting_-_english.pdf">2017 Ukrainian government report to the IAEA</a>. The greater number and more compacted the stored spent fuel rods, the more heat they generate and so more power is needed to cool them.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/484151/original/file-20220912-6373-iank1f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Four large concrete cylinders on a concrete slab" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/484151/original/file-20220912-6373-iank1f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/484151/original/file-20220912-6373-iank1f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=429&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/484151/original/file-20220912-6373-iank1f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=429&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/484151/original/file-20220912-6373-iank1f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=429&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/484151/original/file-20220912-6373-iank1f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=539&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/484151/original/file-20220912-6373-iank1f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=539&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/484151/original/file-20220912-6373-iank1f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=539&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">These massive concrete cylinders store spent nuclear fuel rods. The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant stores much of its spent fuel outdoors in casks like these.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/nrcgov/6946374745">U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There is also a dry spent fuel storage facility at the plant. <a href="https://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/dry-cask-storage.html">Dry spent fuel storage</a> involves packing spent fuel rods into massive cylinders, or casks, which require no water or other coolants. The casks are designed to keep the fuel rods contained for at least 50 years. However, the casks are not under the containment structures at the plant, and, though they were designed to withstand being crashed into by an airliner, it’s not clear whether artillery shelling and aerial bombardment, particularly repeated attacks, could crack open the casks and release radiation into the grounds of the plant. </p>
<p>The closest analogy to this scenario could be a <a href="https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/11263/safety-and-security-of-commercial-spent-nuclear-fuel-storage-public">terrorist attack</a> that, according to a seminal study by the National Research Council, could breach a dry cask and potentially result in the release of radioactive material from the spent fuel. This could happen through the dispersion of fuel particles or fragments or the dispersion of radioactive aerosols. This would be similar to the detonation of a “dirty bomb,” which, depending on wind direction and dispersion radius, could result in radioactive contamination. This in turn could cause serious problems for access to and work in the plant.</p>
<h2>Next steps from the IAEA and UN</h2>
<p>The IAEA has called on Russia and Ukraine to <a href="https://theconversation.com/un-nuclear-agency-calls-for-protection-zone-around-imperiled-ukrainian-power-plant-a-safety-expert-explains-why-that-could-be-crucial-189429">set up a “safety and security protection zone” around the plant</a>. However, the IAEA is a science and engineering inspectorate and technical assistance agency. Negotiating and establishing a protection zone at a nuclear power plant in a war zone is entirely unprecedented and totally different from all past IAEA efforts.</p>
<p>Establishing a protection zone requires negotiations and approvals at the highest political and military levels in Kyiv and Moscow. It could be accomplished through backchannel, <a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2011/06/20/track-ii-diplomacy-a-short-history/">Track II-type diplomacy</a>, specifically nuclear safety-focused <a href="https://www.sciencediplomacy.org/sites/default/files/engineering_diplomacy_science__diplomacy.pdf">engineering diplomacy</a>. In the meantime, the IAEA needs strong support from the United Nations Security Council in the form of a resolution, mandate or the creation of a special commission.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/190516/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Najmedin Meshkati received research funding from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the mid-1990s.</span></em></p>The power plant’s sixth reactor has been shut down, all but eliminating the risk of a nuclear meltdown. But fighting at the site could still release radioactive material.Najmedin Meshkati, Professor of Engineering and International Relations, University of Southern CaliforniaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1219662019-08-16T19:41:17Z2019-08-16T19:41:17Z‘Nuclear-powered’ missile accident in Russia – what really happened?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/288376/original/file-20190816-192246-ccuvjf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Severodvinsk, Russia.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Kuleshov Oleg / shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>A missile engine exploded at a naval test range, west of the city of Severodvinsk on Russia’s northern coast at 9am on August 8. At least <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49301438">five people were killed</a> and several others injured. As it is associated with Russia’s defence programme, the incident is shrouded in mystery. But shortly after the explosion the state weather monitoring agency, Roshydromet, reported a <a href="http://www.meteorf.ru/product/infomaterials/91/19630/?referer=%2Fproduct%2Finfomaterials%2F91%2F">spike in radiation</a> 40 km away. </p>
<p>At first, the Russian authorities <a href="https://www.polygraph.info/a/russian-defense-ministry-initially-denied-radiation-leak-after-rocket-engine-explosion/30106227.html">denied the radiation leak</a>, then later confirmed it. There were conflicting reports of the source of the explosion and a <a href="https://29.ru/text/incidents/66196021/">planned, then later cancelled evacuation of a nearby village</a>. Unsurprisingly, tabloid media speculation followed that the Russian authorities may be <a href="https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9715988/chernobyl-radiation-russia-blast-evacuation/">hiding a Chernobyl-like accident</a>.</p>
<p>Missile tests don’t usually involve radioactive materials, unless the missile in question is carrying a nuclear warhead (which is prohibited under the UN’s <a href="https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/npt/">Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons</a>). So what is going on? No one outside of the Russian government and military can yet be entirely certain but, as an <a href="https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/materials/about/staff/academic/corkhillc">academic researcher in nuclear materials</a>, I can do my best to piece together the available evidence. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/288346/original/file-20190816-192250-1jhlfuy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/288346/original/file-20190816-192250-1jhlfuy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/288346/original/file-20190816-192250-1jhlfuy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=306&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/288346/original/file-20190816-192250-1jhlfuy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=306&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/288346/original/file-20190816-192250-1jhlfuy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=306&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/288346/original/file-20190816-192250-1jhlfuy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=384&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/288346/original/file-20190816-192250-1jhlfuy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=384&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/288346/original/file-20190816-192250-1jhlfuy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=384&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Severodvinsk (red dot) is on the coast of the White Sea, just below the Arctic Circle.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rs-map.png">CIA/wiki</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Russian authorities have confirmed that the explosion involved “<a href="http://rosatom.ru/journalist/news/zayavlenie-departamenta-kommunikatsiy-goskorporatsii-rosatom/">an isotope power source in a liquid propulsion system</a>”. There’s nothing particularly new about the propulsion system – early ballistic missiles used a pressurised stream of liquid fuel and oxygen which, when ignited, expanded and rushed out of the bottom of the missile, propelling it in the opposite direction. </p>
<p>The “isotope power source” part is new though. Radioactive isotopes are unstable atoms that release excess energy by emitting radiation. So if the missile is powered by isotopes this indicates the Russians have developed a mini-nuclear reactor – able to fit inside a missile – that is capable of using radiation to heat the liquid fuel for propulsion. This has never been achieved before. </p>
<p>This admission prompted <a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/08/12/russia-mysterious-explosion-arctic-putin-chernobyl/">American</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/12/russia-indicates-rocket-engine-exploded-in-test-of-mini-nuclear-reactor">UK</a> experts to conclude the source of the radiation leak must be a type of long-range missile that Russia has previously claimed would be nuclear powered. It is known by the Russians as 9M730 Burevestnik, and by NATO as the SCC-X-9 Skyfall.</p>
<p>The exact details of the mini-nuclear reactor that may have been developed to power a Russian missile are not known, but there are a few potential types that may be used. The key difference between a nuclear reactor used to generate energy and one that might be used to power a missile is the quantity of material required. The RBMK reactor that blew up at Chernobyl contained 200 tonnes of uranium dioxide fuel. A significantly smaller amount of fuel would be required — perhaps a few kilos at most — to lift a missile.</p>
<p>One possibility is what’s known as a <a href="https://rps.nasa.gov/power-and-thermal-systems/power-systems/current/">radioisotope thermoelectric generator</a> (RTG). This converts heat from radioactive decay into electricity. Potential candidates for the fuel are plutonium-238, <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/604332main_APP%20MSL%20Launch%20Nuclear%20Safety%20FS%203-2-11.pdf">4.8kg of which powered the Curiosity Rover on Mars</a>, americium-241 – widely used to power smoke detectors – and polonium-210, infamously used in the poisoning of Russian spy <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/493860/The-Litvinenko-Inquiry-H-C-695-web.pdf">Alexander Litvinenko</a>. Strontium-90, which emits both beta and gamma radiation in its radioactive decay, has been used in both <a href="http://www.wmsym.org/archives/2009/pdfs/9415.pdf">American</a> and Russian applications of RTGs in the past, including inside <a href="https://englishrussia.com/2009/01/06/abandoned-russian-polar-nuclear-lighthouses/">Russian lighthouses</a>. Given the measured increase in gamma activity at nearby Severodvinsk, the latter is certainly plausible.</p>
<p>The second possibility is that the missile was powered by a nuclear thermal reactor. This is perhaps more likely given the authorities’ description of the accident. These reactors could use the heat generated from radioactive decay to heat liquid hydrogen fuel. Such a system could theoretically use a solid uranium core, a liquid radioisotope core, or even gaseous uranium to power a missile in flight for long distances. However, none of these technologies have been proven, at least with regard to missiles, and it is not possible to guess the fuel type with any certainty, making the radiation in Severodvinsk difficult to explain.</p>
<p>Whatever the source of radiation, the release seems to be relatively small. To the layperson, 16 times above background rate may sound like a lot, but that background rate is tiny and relatively harmless – for instance the English county of <a href="https://www.phe-protectionservices.org.uk/radiationandyou/">Cornwall has three times the background rate</a> thanks to naturally-occuring uranium-bearing rocks in the earth there. Compare this with the Chernobyl accident, which released radioactivity 7,000 times above background. </p>
<p>Norwegian and Finnish authorities are <a href="https://www.dsa.no/en/news/94877/radioactive-incident-in-arkhangelsk-in-the-federation-of-russia">monitoring the air</a> but have not yet reported anything abnormal. Western scientists are even asking residents of Severodvinsk <a href="https://twitter.com/MKaltofen/status/1161071642023538691">to donate their car air filters</a>, so that, at some point, we may understand more about what was released and how harmful it might be. That should give some indication as to the threat posed by the testing of such weapons.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/121966/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Claire Corkhill receives funding from the UK Engineering and Physical Science Research Council, The European Union, Radioactive Waste Management Limited, Sellafield Limited, the National Nuclear Laboratory and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, for research on the safe disposal of legacy nuclear waste. </span></em></p>Russia appears to have developed a revolutionary mini-reactor able to power a missile.Claire Corkhill, Research Fellow in nuclear waste disposal, University of SheffieldLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1122762019-02-22T23:12:26Z2019-02-22T23:12:26ZWhy proposals to sell nuclear reactors to Saudi Arabia raise red flags<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/260460/original/file-20190222-195861-1fyoxnd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Saudi Arabia has many possible motives for pursuing nuclear power.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/nuclear-power-plant-by-night-190788197?src=nq1h28czRqWpBfF9AMU-GQ-1-76">TTstudio/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>According to a congressional report, a <a href="http://ip3international.com/">group that includes former senior U.S. government officials</a> is lobbying to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/top-trump-appointees-promoted-selling-nuclear-power-plants-to-saudi-arabia-over-objections-from-national-security-officials-house-democratic-report-says/2019/02/19/6a719762-3456-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html?utm_term=.d3c35345c906">sell nuclear power plants to Saudi Arabia</a>. As an expert focusing on the Middle East and the <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=UaJkFIoAAAAJ&hl=en">spread of nuclear weapons</a>, I believe these efforts raise important legal, economic and strategic concerns.</p>
<p>It is understandable that the Trump administration might want to support the U.S. nuclear industry, which is <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-demise-of-us-nuclear-power-in-4-charts-98817">shrinking at home</a>. However, the <a href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5743865/House-Oversight-Whistleblowers-Saudi-Nuclear.pdf">congressional report</a> raised concerns that the group seeking to make the sale may have have sought to carry it out without going through the process required under U.S. law. Doing so could give Saudi Arabia U.S. nuclear technology without appropriate guarantees that it would not be used for nuclear weapons in the future.</p>
<h2>A competitive global market</h2>
<p>Exporting nuclear technology is lucrative, and many U.S. policymakers have long <a href="https://www.thirdway.org/report/getting-back-in-the-game-a-strategy-to-boost-american-nuclear-exports">believed</a> that it promotes U.S. foreign policy interests. However, the international market is <a href="https://www.worldfinance.com/markets/nuclear-power-continues-its-decline-as-renewable-alternatives-steam-ahead">shrinking</a>, and competition between suppliers is stiff. </p>
<p>Private U.S. nuclear companies have trouble competing against state-supported international suppliers in Russia and China. These companies offer complete construction and operation packages with attractive financing options. Russia, for example, is willing to accept spent fuel from the reactor it supplies, relieving host countries of the need to manage nuclear waste. And China can offer lower construction costs. </p>
<p>Saudi Arabia declared in 2011 that it planned to spend over US$80 billion to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/saudi-nuclear-idAFLDE75004Q20110601">construct 16 reactors</a>, and U.S. companies want to provide them. Many U.S. officials see the decadeslong relationships involved in a nuclear sale as an opportunity to influence Riyadh’s nuclear future and preserve U.S. influence in the Saudi kingdom.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/260463/original/file-20190222-195876-ilvh5l.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/260463/original/file-20190222-195876-ilvh5l.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/260463/original/file-20190222-195876-ilvh5l.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/260463/original/file-20190222-195876-ilvh5l.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/260463/original/file-20190222-195876-ilvh5l.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/260463/original/file-20190222-195876-ilvh5l.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/260463/original/file-20190222-195876-ilvh5l.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/260463/original/file-20190222-195876-ilvh5l.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Of the 56 new reactors under construction worldwide, 39 are in Asia.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/iaea-releases-country-nuclear-power-profiles-2017">IAEA</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Why does Saudi Arabia want nuclear power?</h2>
<p>With the world’s second-largest known petroleum reserves, abundant untapped supplies of natural gas and high potential for solar energy, why is Saudi Arabia shopping for nuclear power? Some of its motives are benign, but others are worrisome. </p>
<p>First, nuclear energy would allow the Saudis to increase their fossil fuel exports. About one-third of the kingdom’s daily oil production is consumed domestically at subsidized prices; substituting nuclear energy domestically would free up this petroleum for export at market prices. </p>
<p>Saudi Arabia is also the <a href="https://www.albawaba.com/business/saudi-arabia-desalination-plants-red-sea-coast-1077706">largest producer of desalinated water</a> in the world. Ninety percent of its drinking water is desalinated, a process that burns approximately 15 percent of the 9.8 million barrels of oil it produces daily. Nuclear power could meet some of this demand.</p>
<p>Saudi leaders have also expressed clear interest in establishing parity with Iran’s nuclear program. In a March 2018 interview, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/saudi-crown-prince-talks-to-60-minutes/">warned</a>, “Without a doubt, if Iran developed a nuclear bomb, we will follow suit as soon as possible.” </p>
<p>As a member in good standing of the <a href="https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/npt/text">Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons</a>, Saudi Arabia has pledged not to develop or acquire nuclear weapons, and is entitled to engage in peaceful nuclear trade. Such commerce could include acquiring technology to <a href="https://tutorials.nti.org/nuclear-101/uranium-enrichment/">enrich uranium</a> or separate plutonium from spent nuclear fuel. These systems can be used both to produce fuel for civilian nuclear reactors and to make key materials for nuclear weapons.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7F545WlUO9Y?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Adel Al-Jubeir, Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the U.S., discusses his government’s concern about Iran’s nuclear program.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>US nuclear trade regulations</h2>
<p>Under the <a href="https://legcounsel.house.gov/Comps/Atomic%20Energy%20Act%20Of%201954.pdf">U.S. Atomic Energy Act</a>, before American companies can compete to export nuclear reactors to Saudi Arabia, Washington and Riyadh must conclude a nuclear cooperation agreement, and the U.S. government must submit it to Congress. Unless Congress adopts a joint resolution within 90 days disapproving the agreement, it is approved. The United States currently has <a href="https://www.state.gov/t/isn/rls/fs/2017/266975.htm">23 nuclear cooperation agreements</a> in force, including Middle Eastern countries such as Egypt (approved in 1981), Turkey (2008) and the United Arab Emirates (2009). </p>
<p>The Atomic Energy Act requires countries seeking to purchase U.S. nuclear technology to make legally binding commitments that they will not use those materials and equipment for nuclear weapons, and to place them under International Atomic Energy Agency <a href="https://www.iaea.org/topics/basics-of-iaea-safeguards">safeguards</a>. It also mandates that the United States must approve any uranium enrichment or plutonium separation activities involving U.S. technologies and materials, in order to prevent countries from diverting them to weapons use. </p>
<p>American nuclear suppliers claim that these strict conditions and time-consuming legal requirements <a href="https://www.pillsburylaw.com/images/content/3/3/v2/332/NuclearExportControls.pdf">put them at a competitive disadvantage</a>. But those conditions exist to prevent countries from misusing U.S. technology for nuclear weapons. I find it alarming that according to the House report, White House officials may have attempted to bypass or sidestep these conditions – potentially enriching themselves in the process.</p>
<p>According to the congressional report, within days of President Trump’s inauguration, senior U.S. officials were promoting an initiative to transfer nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia, without either concluding a nuclear cooperation agreement and submitting it to Congress or involving key government agencies, such as the Department of Energy or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. One key advocate for this so-called “<a href="http://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/rngs/TEST-TEST/010051ZP4H5/pdf-redacted.pdf">Marshall Plan” for nuclear reactors in the Middle East</a> was then-national security adviser Michael Flynn, who reportedly <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/flynn-backed-plan-transfer-nuclear-tech-saudis-may-have-broken-n973021">served as an adviser</a> to a subsidiary of IP3, the firm that devised this plan, while he was advising Trump’s presidential campaign.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/260461/original/file-20190222-195876-7vowa1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/260461/original/file-20190222-195876-7vowa1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/260461/original/file-20190222-195876-7vowa1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=437&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/260461/original/file-20190222-195876-7vowa1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=437&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/260461/original/file-20190222-195876-7vowa1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=437&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/260461/original/file-20190222-195876-7vowa1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=549&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/260461/original/file-20190222-195876-7vowa1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=549&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/260461/original/file-20190222-195876-7vowa1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=549&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">President Donald Trump, accompanied by national security adviser Michael Flynn and senior adviser Jared Kushner, speaks on the phone with King of Saudi Arabia Salman bin Abd al-Aziz Al Saud shortly after taking office, Jan. 29, 2017.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Trump-Saudi-Arabia/03aa15ac350c4078a87c62dffd753cbf/4/0">AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The promoters of the plan also reportedly proposed to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-flynn-nuclear-exclusive/exclusive-mideast-nuclear-plan-backers-bragged-of-support-of-top-trump-aide-flynn-idUSKBN1DV5Z6">sidestep U.S. sanctions against Russia</a> by partnering with Russian companies – which impose less stringent restrictions on nuclear exports – to sell reactors to Saudi Arabia. </p>
<p>Flynn resigned soon afterward and now is cooperating with the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 campaign. But IP3 access to the White House persists: According to press reports, President Trump met with representatives of U.S. industry, a meeting organized by IP3 to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/top-trump-appointees-promoted-selling-nuclear-power-plants-to-saudi-arabia-over-objections-from-national-security-officials-house-democratic-report-says/2019/02/19/6a719762-3456-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html?utm_term=.b90ee7dfbc6d">discuss nuclear exports to Saudi Arabia</a> as recently as mid-February 2019. </p>
<h2>Rules for a Saudi nuclear deal</h2>
<p>Saudi leaders have <a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-o-s/saudi-arabia.aspx">scaled back</a> their planned purchases and now only expect to build two reactors. If the Trump administration continues to pursue nuclear exports to Riyadh, I believe it should negotiate a nuclear cooperation agreement with the Kingdom as required by U.S. law, and also take extra steps to reduce nuclear proliferation risks. </p>
<p>This should include requiring the Saudis to adopt the International Atomic Energy Agency’s <a href="https://www.iaea.org/topics/additional-protocol">Additional Protocol</a>, a safeguards agreement that give the agency additional tools to verify that all nuclear materials in the kingdom are being used peacefully. The agreement should also require Saudi Arabia to acquire nuclear fuel from foreign suppliers, and export the reactor spent fuel for storage abroad. These conditions would diminish justification for uranium enrichment or opportunities for plutonium reprocessing for weapons. </p>
<p>The United States has played a leadership role in preventing nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, one of the world’s most volatile regions. There is much more at stake here than profit, and legal tools exist to ensure that nuclear exports do not add fuel to the Middle East fire.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/112276/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Chen Kane receives funding from the US Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration.</span></em></p>Exporting nuclear technology is lucrative, but without strict safeguards, buyers could divert it into bomb programs. Why is Saudi Arabia shopping for nuclear power, and should the US provide it?Chen Kane, Director, Middle East Nonproliferation Program, Middlebury Institute, MiddleburyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1031462018-09-14T10:35:07Z2018-09-14T10:35:07ZNuclear reactors in hurricanes: 5 questions answered<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/236277/original/file-20180913-177959-phwhx6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Florida's Turkey Point Nuclear Plant shut down 12 hours before Hurricane Andrew made landfall in 1992.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Watchf-AP-A-FL-USA-APHS436799-Hurricane-Andrew/a7d7961c5dea42c5811c9b30fdd8b0f8/4/0">AP Photo/Phil Sandlin</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Editor’s note: Hurricane Florence may affect the operations of several of the <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-storm-florence-nuclear/us-nuclear-power-plants-prepare-for-hurricane-florence-idUSKCN1LR2C8">16 nuclear reactors</a> located in the Carolinas and Virginia, raising concerns about safety and power outages. <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=yxN_35oAAAAJ">Ted Kury</a>, director of energy studies at the University of Florida’s Public Utility Research Center, explains why nuclear power stations must take precautions during big storms.</em></p>
<h2>1. Keeping cores cool is the top priority.</h2>
<p>The top safety concern at nuclear power stations is protecting the <a href="https://nrl.mit.edu/reactor/core-description">nuclear cores</a> of their reactors.</p>
<p>Reactors <a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/nuclear-power-reactors.aspx">operate at temperatures exceeding 350 degrees Centigrade</a>, relying on cooling systems to dissipate the heat. When cooling systems malfunction, portions of the reactor core may begin to melt. <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/mechanics-of-a-meltdown-explained">Meltdowns</a> can lead to explosions and the potential release of radioactive material.</p>
<p>When a reactor’s power supply is interrupted, it may affect the system’s ability to cool the plant.</p>
<p>To prevent accidents, the outer wall of reactor containment systems are made out of reinforced concrete and steel. Since they are designed to withstand the <a href="https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part050/part050-0150.html">impact of a large commercial airliner</a>, flying debris – even if it’s propelled by 200 miles-per-hour winds – is unlikely to pose much of a threat. </p>
<p>Therefore, utilities <a href="https://nuclear.duke-energy.com/2017/09/28/how-nuclear-plants-weather-storms">prepare for storms</a> by inspecting power stations, securing equipment, testing backup pumps and generators and stocking critical supplies in case workers have to stay on site.</p>
<h2>2. Why do utilities sometimes shut down reactors before hurricanes?</h2>
<p>The first time that a hurricane significantly affected a commercial nuclear power plant was in 1992, when the eye of <a href="https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/1992andrew.html">Hurricane Andrew</a> passed directly over Florida Power and Light’s <a href="https://www.fpl.com/clean-energy/nuclear/turkey-point-plant.html">Turkey Point Nuclear Station</a>.</p>
<p>The plant, located 25 miles south of Miami, was <a href="https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/gen-comm/info-notices/1993/in93053.html">subjected to</a> sustained winds of 145 miles-per-hour with gusts up to 175 miles-per-hour.</p>
<p>While the reactors themselves were not damaged, the plant site sustained US$90 million worth of damage. It lacked external power for five days, relying on backup generators to run critical equipment and keep the reactor cores cool.</p>
<p>A Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s <a href="https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/gen-comm/info-notices/1993/in93053.html">report on the incident</a> noted that the plant had begun to shut down 12 hours before the storm arrived, earlier than required at the time.</p>
<p>Had the plant operators strictly adhered to the requirements, the plant may not have been ready to take the necessary precautions once the storm hit. As a result, plant operators today begin their shutdown procedures and status reports to the NRC 12 hours ahead of the storm’s impact.</p>
<h2>3. Why do utilities sometimes wait before turning reactors back on?</h2>
<p>At any given moment, the amount of power electricity grids generate must equal the amount customers consume plus what gets lost on its way to them. When there is no way to consume the power, or to transmit it, utilities halt generation.</p>
<p>And even when utilities take steps to protect the grid, such as by laying <a href="https://theconversation.com/should-the-us-put-power-lines-underground-83771">power lines underground</a> to reduce the risks posed by downed trees and flying debris, it makes them more susceptible to storm surges and flooding.</p>
<p>Therefore, when large numbers of power lines and substations are disrupted, reactors once turned off may not be able come back on line until after all that infrastructure has been repaired.</p>
<p>Before <a href="https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=32992">Hurricane Irma</a> made landfall in South Florida in September of 2017, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-storm-irma-fpl-nuclear/fpl-shut-one-reactor-at-florida-turkey-point-ahead-of-irma-idUSKCN1BL0MD">Florida Power and Light</a> originally planned to shut down the Turkey Point reactors 24 hours in advance of landfall, but ultimately made the decision to leave one of them online as Irma’s path changed.</p>
<h2>4. What about the Fukushima disaster?</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/iaea-releases-director-generals-report-on-fukushima-daiichi-accident">There was a major disaster at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant</a> in 2011. Few of the more than <a href="https://theconversation.com/six-years-after-fukushima-much-of-japan-has-lost-faith-in-nuclear-power-73042">100,000 people who were evacuated</a> from the surrounding area have returned home, although the government has announced that it is safe to return to at least part of that region.</p>
<p>The disaster began when a tsunami caused by the <a href="https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/Education-and-Careers/Plate-Tectonic-Stories/Outer-Isles-Pseudotachylytes/Tohoku-Earthquake">Tohoku earthquake</a> disabled emergency generators used to cool nuclear reactors, causing multiple meltdowns, followed by explosions and the release of radioactive material.</p>
<p>It changed how utilities prepare for major storms, including in <a href="https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/japan-dashboard.html">the U.S.</a>, where the Nuclear Regulatory Commission strengthened <a href="https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/japan-dashboard/priorities.html">safety standards</a> across the board and <a href="https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/japan-dashboard/japan-plants.html">instituted customized requirements at some power stations</a>. </p>
<h2>5. What might happen in the Carolinas and Virginia?</h2>
<p>The U.S. gets about one-fifth of its electricity from nuclear energy but the region where Hurricane Florence will have the biggest impact relies on it more heavily.</p>
<p>About 57 percent of <a href="https://www.eia.gov/state/index.php?sid=SC">South Carolina’s grid</a> is nuclear-powered while <a href="https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=NC">North Carolina</a> and <a href="https://www.eia.gov/state/index.php?sid=VA">Virginia</a> both get roughly a third of their electricity from nuclear power stations.</p>
<p>Duke Energy, which owns <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/storm-florence-nuclear/us-nuclear-power-plants-prepare-for-hurricane-florence-idUSL2N1VX1FW">nearly all of the nuclear power stations in the Carolinas</a>, reportedly planned in advance to shut down some of these reactors <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/hurricane-florence-north-carolina-nuclear-power-plants-preparations-2018-9">12 hours before the hurricane’s landfall</a>.</p>
<p>The company also predicted before the hurricane that as many as <a href="https://apnews.com/7e9cac25a28d4781a184c913f6ec5c9a/The-Latest:-Duke-Energy-says-millions-could-lose-power">three-quarters of its 4 million customers</a> in the Carolinas could lose power in outages that could last for weeks – depending on the storm’s severity and trajectory.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/103146/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Theodore Kury is the Director of Energy Studies at the University of Florida’s Public Utility Research Center, which is sponsored in part by the Florida electric and gas utilities and the Florida Public Service Commission, none of which has editorial control of any of the content the Center produces.</span></em></p>Lessons learned from Hurricane Andrew in 1992 and the Fukushima disaster in 2011 have changed how utilities brace for big storms.Theodore J. Kury, Director of Energy Studies, University of FloridaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/947952018-06-08T10:52:24Z2018-06-08T10:52:24ZThe nuclear industry is making a big bet on small power plants<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/222045/original/file-20180606-137322-1jdd1qw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">NuScale Power aims to build the nation's first advanced small modular reactor.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.energy.gov/ne/nuclear-reactor-technologies/small-modular-nuclear-reactors">U.S. Department of Energy</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Until now, generating nuclear power has required massive facilities surrounded by acres of buildings, electrical infrastructure, roads, parking lots and more. The nuclear industry is trying to change that picture – by going small.</p>
<p>Efforts to build the nation’s first “advanced small modular reactor,” or SMR, <a href="https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/04/nuscale-small-modular-nuclear-reactor-first-ever-to-complete-nrc-phase-1-review.html">in Idaho</a>, are on track for it to become operational by the mid-2020s. The project took a crucial step forward when the company behind it, NuScale, secured an <a href="http://newsroom.nuscalepower.com/press-release/company/nuscale-powers-small-modular-nuclear-reactor-becomes-first-ever-complete-nucle">important security certification</a> from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. </p>
<p>But the first ones could be generating power <a href="https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/iaea-expands-international-cooperation-on-small-medium-sized-or-modular-nuclear-reactors">by 2020 in China, Argentina and Russia</a>, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. </p>
<p>The debate continues over whether this technology is worth pursuing, but the <a href="http://smrstart.org/">nuclear industry</a> isn’t waiting for a verdict. Nor, as an <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=dCRySjIAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">energy scholar</a>, do I think it should. This new generation of smaller and more technologically advanced reactors offer many advantages, including an assembly-line approach to production, vastly reduced meltdown risks and greater flexibility in terms of where they can be located, among others. </p>
<h2>How small is small?</h2>
<p>Most small modular reactors <a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/small-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx">now in the works</a> range between 50 megawatts – roughly enough power for 60,000 <a href="http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/average-household-electricity-consumption">modern U.S. homes</a> – and 200 megawatts. And there are designs for even smaller “mini” or “micro-reactors” that generate <a href="https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/03/4-megawatt-modular-micro-nuclear.html">as few as 4 megawatts</a>.</p>
<p>In contrast, full-sized nuclear reactors built today will generate about 1,000-1,600 megawatts of electricity, although many built before 1990, including over half the <a href="https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=104&t=3">99 reactors now operating in the U.S.</a>, are smaller than this. </p>
<p>But small nuclear reactors aren’t actually new. India has the most, with 18 <a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-g-n/india.aspx">reactors with capacity ranging between 90 and 220 megawatts</a>, which were built between 1981 and 2011.</p>
<p>The U.S., Russia, China, India, France and the U.K. operate <a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-nuclear-applications/transport/nuclear-powered-ships.aspx">hundreds of nuclear submarines</a> and aircraft carriers. Russia has dozens of nuclear-powered icebreakers cruising around the Arctic, and its first <a href="https://gizmodo.com/russias-floating-nuclear-power-plant-has-hit-the-sea-1825650002%22%22">floating nuclear power plant</a> has been completed and will be deployed in 2019 near the town of Pevek in East Siberia. </p>
<p>The Siberian plant will replace <a href="https://insp.pnnl.gov/-profiles-bilibino-bi.htm">four 12-megawatt reactors the Soviets built in the 1970s</a> to power a remote town and administrative center, as well as mining and oil drilling operations.</p>
<p>Even though the reactors will be small, they may operate at much bigger power plants with multiple reactors. NuScale, for example, wants to install 12 reactors at its initial Idaho site. Based on the company’s latest projections, it will have a <a href="http://newsroom.nuscalepower.com/press-release/company/breakthrough-nuscale-power-increase-its-smr-output-delivers-customers-20-perce">total capacity of 720 megawatts</a>.</p>
<h2>A global trend</h2>
<p>Private and state-owned companies are seeking to build these small power plants in about <a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/small-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx">a dozen countries</a> so far, including the U.S. and <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-nuclear-smr/nuclear-developers-have-big-plans-for-pint-sized-power-plants-in-uk-idUSKCN10X1FC">the U.K.</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/france-nuclearpower-smr/france-considers-developing-mini-nuclear-reactors-eyes-cost-idUSL8N1QX6WS">France</a>, which gets three-quarters of its electricity from <a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx">nuclear energy</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/small-nuclear-power-reactors-future-or-folly-81252">Canada</a> may soon join the fray.</p>
<p>This global interest in small modular reactors comes as <a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/decommissioning-nuclear-facilities.aspx">more standard nuclear reactors are being decommissioned</a> than <a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx">are under construction</a>. </p>
<h2>Some advantages</h2>
<p>Proponents of these advanced small modular reactors say they will be <a href="http://www.nuscalepower.com/why-smr">easier to build and more flexible in terms of where they can be located</a> than the larger kind. The word “modular” refers to how they will be built in factory-like settings, ready for hauling either fully assembled or in easily connected parts by truck, rail or sea. </p>
<p>These reactors can potentially power rural towns, industrial plants, mountainous areas and military bases, as well as urban districts and ports. Small modular reactors may also prove handy for industrial uses.</p>
<p>Small modular reactors will differ from the smaller reactors already deployed because of their new technologies. These advances are intended to make it less likely or even <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2018/01/24/can-we-make-a-nuclear-reactor-that-wont-melt-down/#3a5ccf195b7e">impossible for them to melt down or explode</a>, as happened during <a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-accident.aspx">Japan’s Fukushima disaster</a>.</p>
<p>The power plants where these small reactors will be located will have added protections against sabotage and the theft of radioactive material. For example, they may be equipped with <a href="http://www.nuscalepower.com/smr-benefits/safe">cooling systems that continue working</a> even if no operators are present and all electric power is lost. In many cases, the entire reactor and steam-generating equipment will be below ground to safeguard these facilities during natural disasters like the earthquake and tsunamis that led three Fukushima Daiichi reactors to melt down. </p>
<p>Like renewable energy, nuclear power emits no carbon. And compared to wind and solar power, which are intermittent sources, or hydropower, which is affected by seasonal changes and droughts, it operates all the time and has a much smaller footprint.</p>
<p>As a result, small modular reactors could be <a href="https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:43012344">paired with renewable sources</a> as a substitute for coal-fired or natural gas plants. Yet they will probably have to compete with advanced <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-energy-storage-is-starting-to-rewire-the-electricity-industry-93259">energy storage systems</a> for that market. </p>
<h2>Concerns and costs</h2>
<p>Whether these advantages materialize, obviously, remains to be seen once these reactors are deployed. <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/got-science-podcast/ed-lyman#.Wxk8-kgvxPY">Some experts are skeptical</a> of the industry’s promises and expectations.</p>
<p>Although small modular reactors are designed to produce <a href="https://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/201701/reactors.cfm">less radioactive waste</a> than standard, bigger reactors for the same amount of power, the issue of where to <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-federal-government-has-long-treated-nevada-as-a-dumping-ground-and-its-not-just-yucca-mountain-96700">safely dispose of nuclear waste</a> remains unresolved. </p>
<p>Small modular reactors face other challenges, some of their own making.</p>
<p>Strong interest in the potential global market has led many companies to propose their own individual reactor designs. In my opinion, there are already too many versions out there. Before long, a shakeout will occur.</p>
<p>And, especially in the U.S., there is currently no clarity regarding the length of time required for licensing new reactor designs lacking any commercial track record – creating a lot of <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/rodadams/2017/01/09/nrc-vision-and-strategy-for-licensing-advanced-reactors-needs-improvement/#793becf81bcb">regulatory uncertainty</a>.</p>
<p>It’s also unclear what small modular reactor-generated power will cost. That will probably remain the case for at least the next 10 to 15 years, until a few designs are actually built and operating.</p>
<p>Some experts foresee small modular reactors penciling out at levels that could be <a href="https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/interest-in-small-modular-nuclear-grows#gs.3ln6s0E">higher than for full-sized reactors</a> which generally <a href="https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf">cost more to build</a> and <a href="https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_04.html">operate</a> than other options, like natural gas, for the same amount of power. NuScale, however, predicts that its SMRs will be <a href="http://www.powermag.com/nuscale-boosts-smr-capacity-making-it-cost-competitive-with-other-technologies/">more competitive</a> than that in terms of their cost.</p>
<p>And some observers fear that reactor owners might <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/nuclear_power/small-isnt-always-beautiful.pdf">cut corners</a> to reduce costs, compromising safety or security.</p>
<p>Although their costs are unclear and their advantages relative to other energy choices remain unproven, I believe these small reactors, as non-carbon sources, are needed to help resolve the energy challenges of our time. And the rest of the world seems ready to give them a try with or without the U.S.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/94795/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Scott L. Montgomery does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Advanced small modular reactors, known as SMRs, will probably have many advantages over older technology. But it’s not yet known how they will stack up against other sources of electricity.Scott L. Montgomery, Lecturer, Jackson School of International Studies, University of WashingtonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/967002018-05-29T10:41:14Z2018-05-29T10:41:14ZThe federal government has long treated Nevada as a dumping ground, and it’s not just Yucca Mountain<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/220671/original/file-20180528-80653-cnqrmw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A 2015 tour of an entryway into the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Yucca-Mountain/fb26da9be78c4d2c854f991aa053ff45/3/0">AP Photo/John Locher</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Nevadans can be forgiven for thinking they are in an endless loop of “The Walking Dead” TV series. Their least favorite zombie federal project refuses to die.</p>
<p>In 2010, Congress had abandoned plans to turn <a href="https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125740818">Yucca Mountain</a>, about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, into the nation’s only federal dump for <a href="https://www.oecd-nea.org/brief/brief-03.html">nuclear waste so radioactive</a> it requires permanent isolation. And the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/3053/all-actions?overview=closed&q=%7B%22roll-call-vote%22%3A%22all%22%7D">House recently voted by a wide margin</a> to resume these efforts.</p>
<p>Nevada’s U.S. Senators <a href="https://www.heller.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ID=526CDC21-D0DB-40ED-AF19-7A3A737E9B98">Dean Heller</a>, a Republican, and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPlEUm7WeXI">Catherine Cortez Masto</a>, a Democrat, have made <a href="https://www.heller.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2017/3/heller-and-cortez-masto-administration-s-yucca-request-is-dead-on-arrival">their determination to block the latest Yucca proposal</a> clear since <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/yucca-mountain-trump/519972/">the Trump administration</a> first proposed resurrecting the project in early 2017.</p>
<p>While teaching and <a href="http://www.unevadapress.com/books/?view=series&seriesid=5956">writing about the state’s history</a> for more than 30 years, I have followed the Yucca Mountain fight from the beginning – as well as how Nevadans’ views have evolved on all things nuclear. The project could well go forward, but I believe that it probably won’t as long as there are political benefits to stopping it.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VPlEUm7WeXI?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto expresses her concerns about the storing nuclear waste at Nevada’s Yucca Mountain to Energy Secretary Rick Perry.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The roots of statewide resentment</h2>
<p><a href="https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/independent-poll-yucca-stadium-taxes-unpopular-voters">Two-thirds of Nevadans oppose this plan</a>, according to a 2017 poll. The state’s experience with federal actions, including nuclear weapons and waste, may help explain the proposed repository’s <a href="https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/nevada/nevadas-congressional-group-unites-against-yucca-mountain-bill/">long-standing unpopularity</a>.</p>
<p>When Nevada became a state in 1864, it had to <a href="http://www.onlinenevada.org/articles/nevada-statehood">cede all claims to federal land within its boundaries</a>. This left the federal government owning more than 85 percent of the state, reducing its potential tax base, and angering ranchers who have <a href="https://networks.h-net.org/node/19397/reviews/121467/garone-carr-childers-size-risk-histories-multiple-use-great-basin">chafed at federal controls and fees for grazing their livestock</a> ever since.</p>
<p>In 1873, the U.S. adopted the gold standard, reducing the value of silver – large amounts of which came from Nevada, known as the “The Silver State.” After the “Crime of ’73,” Nevadan state leaders dedicated themselves to restoring silver as <a href="https://www.usmint.gov/news/inside-the-mint/mint-history-crime-of-1873">an anchor of monetary policy</a>, to no avail.</p>
<p>A series of boom-and-bust cycles ensued. Nevadans sought other means of prosperity, including some that other states shunned. In 1897, for example, <a href="http://unevadapress.com/books/?isbn=9780874179286">Nevada hosted a world heavyweight boxing championship</a> when other states refused.</p>
<p>That decision and the state’s declining population prompted the <a href="https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1897/05/22/101105383.html">Chicago Tribune to suggest revoking Nevada’s statehood</a>. Similar calls cropped up over Nevada’s <a href="https://www.reviewjournal.com/business/casinos-gaming/legalizing-casino-gambling-helped-revive-nevada-80-years-ago/">permissive divorce and gambling</a> laws.</p>
<h2>A magnet for federal projects</h2>
<p>Tourism, however, became central to Nevada’s economy. So did federal projects, like <a href="https://www.snwa.com/where-southern-nevada-gets-its-water/the-colorado-river/index.html">Hoover Dam</a>, which enabled southern Nevada to obtain most of the water it needs to survive. </p>
<p>World War II and the Cold War prompted numerous federal projects that benefited southern Nevada. A wartime gunnery school evolved into <a href="http://www.nellis.af.mil/">Nellis Air Force Base</a>, and a magnesium plant led to the founding of the <a href="http://www.cityofhenderson.com/news/city-history">city of Henderson</a>.</p>
<p>In 1951, seeking a cheaper domestic location for nuclear tests and research, the Atomic Energy Commission chose part of Nellis. Until 1963, the Nevada Test Site was the scene of about 100 aboveground atomic tests, with more than 800 additional underground tests to follow until <a href="http://digital.library.unlv.edu/ntsohp/">nuclear testing ceased in 1992</a>.</p>
<p>When aboveground testing began, Nevada cashed in. The governor welcomed the chance to see the desert “<a href="http://www.travelandleisure.com/articles/blasts-from-the-past">blooming with atoms</a>.” Las Vegas marketed the mushroom cloud as a tourist attraction, as well as <a href="https://lasvegassun.com/news/2004/jun/23/titus-discusses-nuclear-symbolism/">an atomic hairdo and cocktail</a>. Atomic Energy Commission pamphlets and videos declared the tests to be harmless to those living nearby. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pGJcwaUWNZg?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">An official atomic testing video cautioned Nevadans to keep their homes tidy as a precaution.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Distrusting government</h2>
<p>After learning more about the <a href="https://www.ctbto.org/specials/testing-times/18-december-1970-the-baneberry-incident/">health dangers associated with nuclear fallout</a>, Nevadans began to trust the government less. Repeated leaks and safety issues at the nation’s first <a href="https://www.nrc.gov/waste.html">low-level</a> nuclear waste dump, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/25/radioactive-waste-dump-fire-reveals-nevada-troubled-past">opened in 1962 in Beatty, Nevada</a>, eventually led to its closure in 1992.</p>
<p>Distant nuclear incidents also stoked concerns. The nation’s <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/05/30/530708793/three-mile-island-nuclear-power-plant-to-shut-down-in-2019">worst nuclear accident</a> to date at the <a href="https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html">Three Mile Island</a> plant in Pennsylvania, as well as <a href="http://chernobylgallery.com/chernobyl-disaster/what-is-chernobyl/">the Soviet Union’s Chernobyl meltdown</a>, rang alarm bells.</p>
<p>Separately, some rural Nevadans came to resent federal regulations overall, especially after the federal government increased the Bureau of Land Management’s regulatory powers in the mid-1970s. Their <a href="https://www.hcn.org/articles/a-look-back-at-the-first-sagebrush-rebellion">Sagebrush Rebellion</a> sought state control over almost all federal lands within Nevada’s borders and spread throughout the rural West.</p>
<h2>The ‘Screw Nevada’ bill</h2>
<p>As nuclear testing waned, the federal government scrambled to find somewhere to stow the <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-moves-to-revive-the-mothballed-nuclear-waste-dump-at-yucca-mountain/">spent fuel from nuclear power plants that had piled up in 39 states</a>. In 1982, Congress approved a plan for the consideration of sites in <a href="https://www.energy.gov/downloads/nuclear-waste-policy-act">Washington, Texas and Nevada</a>.</p>
<p>But five years later, without getting conclusive findings based on those studies, lawmakers voted to consider only one site – <a href="https://www.reviewjournal.com/business/energy/twenty-five-years-later-screw-nevada-bill-elicits-strong-feelings/">Yucca Mountain</a>, about 20 miles west of the dump for less- radioactive nuclear waste in Beatty. The state’s leaders and pundits protested this “Screw Nevada” bill, which they ascribed to the state’s lack of political clout.</p>
<p>Around that time, Nevada created <a href="http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/about.htm">a new state agency to deal with nuclear issues</a> and a state commission charged with warding off nuclear waste. A bevy of new state laws made it harder for federal officials and private contractors to obtain and pay for licenses needed for work on Yucca Mountain, and the state filed numerous lawsuits.</p>
<p>Senator Harry Reid, a Democrat first elected in 1986, crusaded against the measure. So did his Nevada colleagues in Congress.</p>
<p>To make their case, Nevadans pointed out the safety risks in moving nuclear waste along highways and railroads to their state, and how terrorists might take advantage of that opportunity. They cheered when a <a href="http://www.westwingepguide.com/S3/Episodes/62_STIRRED.html">“West Wing” episode zeroed in on these dangers</a>. </p>
<p>Reid eventually moved up through Senate ranks as one of the nation’s most powerful lawmakers, serving as the majority and minority leader. When former President Barack Obama took office and had to depend on Reid’s help, he <a href="https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101689489">ended funding for Yucca Mountain</a>.</p>
<h2>What to expect this time</h2>
<p>Obama and Reid are no longer calling any shots, and Nevada’s congressional delegation is more junior than it’s been in decades. The overwhelming bipartisan vote in the House suggests that Democrats may be less interested in protecting Nevada than they were when Reid had so much power in the Senate.</p>
<p>But Heller is up for re-election this year, and his is one of the few Republican Senate seats that Democrats feel confident that they can win in the <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/5/2/17303554/senate-elections-2018-midterms-democrats-beto-orourke-kyrsten-sinema-dean-heller-jacky-rosen">2018 mid-terms</a>.</p>
<p>If Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell decides that enabling Heller to claim that he saved Nevada from hosting the nation’s nuclear waste will help re-elect him, protecting the GOP’s slim majority, I think Yucca Mountain will be dead again. At least for the moment.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/96700/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Green is affiliated with the Institute for a Progressive Nevada.</span></em></p>If recent history repeats itself, the proposed repository for extremely dangerous nuclear waste will stay dead.Michael Green, Associate Professor of History, University of Nevada, Las VegasLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/871542017-11-30T18:07:28Z2017-11-30T18:07:28ZAtomic age began 75 years ago with the first controlled nuclear chain reaction<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/197029/original/file-20171129-12027-8o9l1v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=67%2C323%2C2806%2C1980&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">For the first time, human beings harnessed the power of atomic fission.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Atomic_Man_-_panoramio.jpg">Keith Ruffles</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Over Christmas vacation in 1938, physicists <a href="https://www.atomicheritage.org/profile/lise-meitner">Lise Meitner</a> and <a href="https://www.atomicheritage.org/profile/otto-frisch">Otto Frisch</a> received puzzling scientific news in a private letter from nuclear chemist <a href="https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1944/">Otto Hahn</a>. When bombarding uranium with neutrons, Hahn had made some surprising observations that went against everything known at the time about the dense cores of atoms – their nuclei. </p>
<p>Meitner and Frisch were able to provide an explanation for what he saw that would revolutionize the field of nuclear physics: A uranium nucleus could split in half – or fission, as they called it – producing two new nuclei, called fission fragments. More importantly, this fission process releases huge amounts of energy. This finding at the dawn of World War II was the start of a scientific and military race to understand and use this new atomic source of power.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/197022/original/file-20171129-12040-1t8vjvu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/197022/original/file-20171129-12040-1t8vjvu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/197022/original/file-20171129-12040-1t8vjvu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=458&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/197022/original/file-20171129-12040-1t8vjvu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=458&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/197022/original/file-20171129-12040-1t8vjvu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=458&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/197022/original/file-20171129-12040-1t8vjvu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=576&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/197022/original/file-20171129-12040-1t8vjvu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=576&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/197022/original/file-20171129-12040-1t8vjvu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=576&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Leo Szilard lectures on the fission process.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/argonne/9623642054">Argonne National Laboratory</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/143239a0">release of these findings</a> to the academic community immediately inspired many nuclear scientists to investigate the nuclear fission process further. Physicist <a href="https://www.atomicheritage.org/profile/leo-szilard">Leo Szilard</a> made an important realization: if fission emits neutrons, and neutrons can induce fission, then neutrons from the fission of one nucleus could cause the fission of another nucleus. It could all cascade in a self-sustained “chain” process.</p>
<p>Thus began the quest to experimentally prove that a nuclear chain reaction was possible – and 75 years ago, researchers at the University of Chicago succeeded, opening the door to what would become the nuclear era.</p>
<h2>Harnessing fission</h2>
<p>As part of the <a href="https://www.energy.gov/management/office-management/operational-management/history/manhattan-project">Manhattan Project</a> effort to build an atomic bomb during World War II, Szilard worked together with <a href="https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1938/">physicist Enrico Fermi</a> and other colleagues at the University of Chicago to create the world’s first experimental nuclear reactor.</p>
<p>For a sustained, controlled chain reaction, each fission must induce just one additional fission. Any more, and there’d be an explosion. Any fewer and the reaction would peter out.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/197023/original/file-20171129-12032-3odmpf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/197023/original/file-20171129-12032-3odmpf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/197023/original/file-20171129-12032-3odmpf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=776&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/197023/original/file-20171129-12032-3odmpf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=776&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/197023/original/file-20171129-12032-3odmpf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=776&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/197023/original/file-20171129-12032-3odmpf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=976&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/197023/original/file-20171129-12032-3odmpf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=976&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/197023/original/file-20171129-12032-3odmpf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=976&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Nobel Prize winner Enrico Fermi led the project.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/argonne/5039457612">Argonne National Laboratory</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In earlier studies, Fermi had found that uranium nuclei would absorb neutrons more easily if the neutrons were moving relatively slowly. But neutrons emitted from the fission of uranium are fast. So for the Chicago experiment, the physicists used graphite to slow down the emitted neutrons, via multiple scattering processes. The idea was to increase the neutrons’ chances of being absorbed by another uranium nucleus.</p>
<p>To make sure they could safely control the chain reaction, the team rigged together what they called “control rods.” These were simply sheets of the element cadmium, an excellent neutron absorber. The physicists interspersed control rods through the uranium-graphite pile. At every step of the process Fermi calculated the expected neutron emission, and slowly removed a control rod to confirm his expectations. As a safety mechanism, the cadmium control rods could quickly be inserted if something started going wrong, to shut down the chain reaction.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/197026/original/file-20171129-12059-orq2um.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/197026/original/file-20171129-12059-orq2um.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/197026/original/file-20171129-12059-orq2um.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=297&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/197026/original/file-20171129-12059-orq2um.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=297&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/197026/original/file-20171129-12059-orq2um.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=297&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/197026/original/file-20171129-12059-orq2um.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=373&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/197026/original/file-20171129-12059-orq2um.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=373&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/197026/original/file-20171129-12059-orq2um.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=373&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Chicago Pile 1, erected in 1942 in the stands of an athletic field at the University of Chicago.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/argonne/12371772445">Argonne National Laboratory</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>They called this <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Pile-1">20x6x25-foot setup</a> <a href="https://www.uchicago.edu/features/how_the_first_chain_reaction_changed_science/">Chicago Pile Number One</a>, or CP-1 for short – and it was here they obtained world’s the first controlled nuclear chain reaction on December 2, 1942. A single random neutron was enough to start the chain reaction process once the physicists assembled CP-1. The first neutron would induce fission on a uranium nucleus, emitting a set of new neutrons. These secondary neutrons hit carbon nuclei in the graphite and slowed down. Then they’d run into other uranium nuclei and induce a second round of fission reactions, emit even more neutrons, and on and on. The cadmium control rods made sure the process wouldn’t continue indefinitely, because Fermi and his team could choose exactly how and where to insert them to control the chain reaction.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/197021/original/file-20171129-12035-4shqnh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/197021/original/file-20171129-12035-4shqnh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/197021/original/file-20171129-12035-4shqnh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=534&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/197021/original/file-20171129-12035-4shqnh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=534&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/197021/original/file-20171129-12035-4shqnh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=534&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/197021/original/file-20171129-12035-4shqnh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=671&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/197021/original/file-20171129-12035-4shqnh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=671&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/197021/original/file-20171129-12035-4shqnh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=671&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A nuclear chain reaction. Green arrows show the split of a uranium nucleus in two fission fragments, emitting new neutrons. Some of these neutrons can induce new fission reactions (black arrows). Some of the neutrons may be lost in other processes (blue arrows). Red arrows show the delayed neutrons that come later from the radioactive fission fragments and that can induce new fission reactions.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nuclear_fission_chain_reaction.svg">MikeRun modified by Erin O’Donnell, MSU</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Controlling the chain reaction was extremely important: If the balance between produced and absorbed neutrons was not exactly right, then the chain reactions either would not proceed at all, or in the other much more dangerous extreme, the chain reactions would multiply rapidly with the release of enormous amounts of energy.</p>
<p>Sometimes, a few seconds after the fission occurs in a nuclear chain reaction, additional neutrons are released. Fission fragments are typically radioactive, and can emit different types of radiation, among them neutrons. Right away, Enrico Fermi, Leo Szilard, <a href="https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1963/wigner-facts.html">Eugene Wigner</a> and others recognized the importance of these so-called “delayed neutrons” in controlling the chain reaction.</p>
<p>If they weren’t taken into account, these additional neutrons would induce more fission reactions than anticipated. As a result, the nuclear chain reaction in their Chicago experiment could have spiraled out of control, with potentially devastating results. More importantly, however, this time delay between the fission and the release of more neutrons allows some time for human beings to react and make adjustments, controlling the power of the chain reaction so it doesn’t proceed too fast.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/197198/original/file-20171130-30931-1ebeuxu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/197198/original/file-20171130-30931-1ebeuxu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/197198/original/file-20171130-30931-1ebeuxu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=614&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/197198/original/file-20171130-30931-1ebeuxu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=614&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/197198/original/file-20171130-30931-1ebeuxu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=614&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/197198/original/file-20171130-30931-1ebeuxu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=771&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/197198/original/file-20171130-30931-1ebeuxu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=771&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/197198/original/file-20171130-30931-1ebeuxu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=771&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Nuclear power plants operate in 30 countries today.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Plant-Vogtle/05d857a8e2c640adacf01d8e0dcf77ca/1/0">AP Photo/John Bazemore</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The events of December 2, 1942 marked a huge milestone. Figuring out how to create and control the nuclear chain reaction was the foundation for the 448 nuclear reactors producing energy worldwide today. At present, 30 countries include nuclear reactors in their power portfolio. Within these countries, <a href="https://www.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/CountryDetails.aspx?current=US">nuclear energy contributes on average 24 percent</a> of their total electrical power, ranging as high as <a href="https://www.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/CountryDetails.aspx?current=FR">72 percent in France</a>.</p>
<p>CP-1’s success was also essential for the continuation of the Manhattan Project and the creation of the <a href="https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/bombings-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-1945">two atomic bombs used during World War II</a>.</p>
<h2>Physicists’ remaining questions</h2>
<p>The quest to understand delayed neutron emission and nuclear fission continues in modern nuclear physics laboratories. The race today is not for building atomic bombs or even nuclear reactors; it’s for understanding of basic properties of nuclei through close collaboration between experiment and theory. </p>
<p>Researchers have observed fission experimentally only for a small number of <a href="http://edtech2.boisestate.edu/lindabennett1/502/atoms_isotopes.html">isotopes</a> – the various versions of an element based on how many neutrons each has – and the details of this complex process are not yet well-understood. State-of-the-art theoretical models try to explain the observed fission properties, like how much energy is released, the number of neutrons emitted and the masses of the fission fragments.</p>
<p>Delayed neutron emission happens only for nuclei that are not naturally occurring, and these nuclei live for only a short amount of time. While experiments have revealed some of the nuclei that emit delayed neutrons, we are not yet able to reliably predict which isotopes should have this property. We also don’t know exact probabilities for delayed neutron emission or the amount of energy released – properties that are very important for understanding the details of energy production in nuclear reactors.</p>
<p>In addition, researchers are trying to <a href="https://science.energy.gov/ascr/highlights/2015/ascr-2015-08-a/">predict new nuclei where nuclear fission might be possible</a>. They’re building new experiments and powerful new facilities which will provide access to nuclei that have never before been studied, in an attempt to measure all these properties directly. Together, the new experimental and theoretical studies will give us a much better understanding of nuclear fission, which can help improve the performance and safety of nuclear reactors.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/197077/original/file-20171130-12069-1jxmxhk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/197077/original/file-20171130-12069-1jxmxhk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/197077/original/file-20171130-12069-1jxmxhk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/197077/original/file-20171130-12069-1jxmxhk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/197077/original/file-20171130-12069-1jxmxhk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/197077/original/file-20171130-12069-1jxmxhk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/197077/original/file-20171130-12069-1jxmxhk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/197077/original/file-20171130-12069-1jxmxhk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Artist’s rendition of two merging neutron stars, another situation where fission occurs.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/12740">NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center/CI Lab</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Both fission and delayed neutron emission are processes that also happen within stars. The <a href="https://theconversation.com/cosmic-alchemy-colliding-neutron-stars-show-us-how-the-universe-creates-gold-86104">creation of heavy elements, like silver and gold</a>, in particular can depend on the fission and delayed neutron emission properties of exotic nuclei. Fission breaks the heaviest elements and replaces them with lighter ones (fission fragments), completely changing the element composition of a star. Delayed neutron emission adds more neutrons to the stellar environment, that can then induce new nuclear reactions. For example, nuclear properties played a vital role in the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-astrophysicists-are-over-the-moon-about-observing-merging-neutron-stars-84957">neutron-star merger event</a> that was recently discovered by <a href="https://theconversation.com/ligo-announcement-vaults-astronomy-out-of-its-silent-movie-era-into-the-talkies-85727">gravitational-wave and electromagnetic observatories around the world</a>.</p>
<p>The science has come a long way since Szilard’s vision and Fermi’s proof of a controlled nuclear chain reaction. At the same time, new questions have emerged, and there’s still a lot to learn about the basic nuclear properties that drive the chain reaction and its impact on energy production here on Earth and elsewhere in our universe.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/GDUncuEErzQ?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">How the Atomic Age began at UChicago.</span></figcaption>
</figure><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/87154/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Artemis Spyrou receives funding from the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Wolfgang Mittig receives funding from NSF.</span></em></p>By figuring out fission, physicists were able to split uranium atoms and release massive amounts of energy. This Manhattan Project work paved the way both for atomic bombs and nuclear power reactors.Artemis Spyrou, Associate Professor of Nuclear Astrophysics, Michigan State UniversityWolfgang Mittig, Professor of Physics, Michigan State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/830242017-08-24T23:00:13Z2017-08-24T23:00:13ZWorth reading in the Trump era: Nuclear nightmares, authoritarianism and climate change<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/183380/original/file-20170824-18715-1200hm2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=544%2C241%2C2436%2C1519&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Assumptions, authoritarianism and errors are just a few of the ways in which the world could be confronted by a nuclear disaster, physicist and disarmament expert MV Ramana suggests in his book reviews.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/explosion-nuclear-bomb-over-city-410259007">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Editor’s note: The Conversation Canada asked our academic authors to share some recommended reading. In this instalment, MV Ramana, a nuclear physicist and disarmament expert who wrote about <a href="https://theconversation.com/small-nuclear-power-reactors-future-or-folly-81252">small nuclear reactors</a>, looks at a mix of new and recent books on nuclear disaster, weapons, authoritarianism and climate change.</em> </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/183367/original/file-20170824-18715-id9cba.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/183367/original/file-20170824-18715-id9cba.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/183367/original/file-20170824-18715-id9cba.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=882&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183367/original/file-20170824-18715-id9cba.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=882&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183367/original/file-20170824-18715-id9cba.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=882&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183367/original/file-20170824-18715-id9cba.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1109&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183367/original/file-20170824-18715-id9cba.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1109&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183367/original/file-20170824-18715-id9cba.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1109&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"><em>My Nuclear Nightmare</em> by Naoto Kan.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/Resources/titles/80140100930800/Images/80140100930800L.jpg">Handout</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30455027-my-%20nuclear-nightmare"><em>My Nuclear Nightmare</em></a></h2>
<p><em>Leading Japan Through the Fukushima Disaster to a Nuclear-Free Future</em></p>
<p>By Naoto Kan. Translated from Japanese by Jeffrey S. Irish. (Non-fiction. Hardcover, 2017. Cornell University Press.) </p>
<p>On March 11, 2011, following a massive earthquake and tsunami, nuclear reactors at Fukushima, Japan, lost electrical power and all cooling systems stopped functioning. The malfunction led to meltdowns of three reactor cores, and multiple explosions involving hydrogen gas that were seen live around the world.</p>
<p>The resulting radioactive contamination spread over a large area, and forced the evacuation of about 160,000 people from their homes, many of whom still cannot return because their neighbourhoods continue to have unacceptably high levels of radiation. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people are expected to develop fatal cancers as a result of exposure to radiation from the accident. </p>
<p>Naoto Kan was the prime minister of Japan during this critical period and this book, published in Japanese in 2012 and newly available in English, offers his inside perspective of how events unfolded at the highest levels. </p>
<p>Kan reveals how little even powerful individuals and institutions like him and the government can do in the face of a major nuclear accident. If a society like Japan that is so well-prepared for natural disasters like earthquakes is unable to deal with a severe nuclear accident like Fukushima, there is little doubt that no country would have been able to do much better. </p>
<p>Kan’s account is testimony of the prevalence of the safety myth: the comforting but illusionary idea that technology can prevent nuclear accidents. Sadly, that myth continues to prevail not just in Japan but in most countries that are operating or constructing nuclear power plants. </p>
<p> </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/183368/original/file-20170824-24217-1qmrg69.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/183368/original/file-20170824-24217-1qmrg69.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/183368/original/file-20170824-24217-1qmrg69.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=921&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183368/original/file-20170824-24217-1qmrg69.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=921&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183368/original/file-20170824-24217-1qmrg69.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=921&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183368/original/file-20170824-24217-1qmrg69.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1157&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183368/original/file-20170824-24217-1qmrg69.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1157&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183368/original/file-20170824-24217-1qmrg69.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1157&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"><em>Command and Control</em> by Eric Schlosser.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/303337/command-and-control-by-eric-schlosser/9780143125785/">Handout</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6452798-command-and-control"><em>Command and Control</em></a></h2>
<p><em>Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety</em></p>
<p>By Eric Schlosser (Non-fiction. Paperback, 2014. Penguin.)</p>
<p>The Damascus accident started when a missile technician dropped a socket from a socket-wrench while servicing a Titan II inter-continental ballistic missile (ICBM) in a silo in rural Arkansas. The socket hit the missile, puncturing its outer layer, causing a fuel leak that eventually sparked a powerful explosion that engulfed and propelled out of the silo the multi-megaton thermonuclear warhead. Fortunately, the warhead itself did not explode. </p>
<p>The Sept. 18, 1980, incident was just one of the many close calls involving nuclear weapons that the world has experienced. Going through these experiences, it’s hard to attribute the fact that there have been no accidental nuclear explosions to anything but blind luck. </p>
<p>Eric Schlosser, an award-winning American journalist and author, has produced a very readable account of accidents and near-misses, as well as the decades-long history of trying to control these risks through technological and institutional fixes. </p>
<p><em>Command and Control</em> reminds us of the extraordinary danger posed by the large nuclear arsenals possessed by many countries around the world — most importantly, the United States and Russia. </p>
<p>At a time when Donald Trump and North Korea’s Kim Jong Un are trading aggressive rhetoric and increasing tensions in East Asia and elsewhere, this book raises a further warning: The mere existence of nuclear arsenals — even during periods of low political tension — brings with them the risk of nuclear weapon use, deliberately or inadvertently, along with horrendous consequences. </p>
<p> </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/183369/original/file-20170824-23353-8n6uip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/183369/original/file-20170824-23353-8n6uip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/183369/original/file-20170824-23353-8n6uip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183369/original/file-20170824-23353-8n6uip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183369/original/file-20170824-23353-8n6uip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183369/original/file-20170824-23353-8n6uip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183369/original/file-20170824-23353-8n6uip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183369/original/file-20170824-23353-8n6uip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"><em>Unmaking the Bomb</em> by Harold A. Fieveson et al.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/9780262529723.jpg">Handout</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22104557-unmaking-the-bomb"><em>Unmaking the Bomb</em></a></h2>
<p><em>A Fissile Material Approach to Nuclear Disarmament and Nonproliferation</em></p>
<p>By Harold A. Feiveson, Alexander Glaser, Zia Mian, Frank N. von Hippel (Non-fiction. Hardcover, 2014. MIT Press.)</p>
<p>The threat of nuclear warfare with North Korea, thanks to the posturing by Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un, makes me, like many others, ponder the question of how to rid the world of these hugely destructive weapons. </p>
<p>In contrast to proposals for nuclear disarmament that focus on diplomacy and international relations, this book by four physicists at Princeton University (my former colleagues) offers a more technical road map for nuclear disarmament: Namely, through the control and elimination of highly enriched uranium and plutonium — the fissile materials that are the essential ingredients of all nuclear weapons. </p>
<p>The connection is laid out in the introduction of the book: “If we are to reduce the threat from nuclear weapons, we must deal with the dangers posed by the production, stockpiling, and use of fissile materials. Unmaking the bomb requires eliminating the fissile materials that make nuclear weapons possible.”</p>
<p><em>Unmaking the Bomb</em> provides useful background material for the present crisis in East Asia by presenting some of the most reliable publicly available information on the nuclear facilities in North Korea and the United States (as well as the eight other countries confirmed to possess nuclear weapons) and the best independent estimates of their stockpiles of highly enriched uranium and plutonium. </p>
<p>It also reminds us that most nuclear programs grow by borrowing technology from other states, and that the acquisition of nuclear technology for supposedly civilian purposes can be a stepping stone to a nuclear weapons program. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/183372/original/file-20170824-18740-1xabidb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/183372/original/file-20170824-18740-1xabidb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/183372/original/file-20170824-18740-1xabidb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=916&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183372/original/file-20170824-18740-1xabidb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=916&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183372/original/file-20170824-18740-1xabidb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=916&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183372/original/file-20170824-18740-1xabidb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1151&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183372/original/file-20170824-18740-1xabidb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1151&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183372/original/file-20170824-18740-1xabidb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1151&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"><em>The Rise of Hindu Authoritarianism</em> by Achin Vanaik.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Handout</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30805651-the-rise-of-hindu-authoritarianism"><em>The Rise of Hindu Authoritarianism</em></a></h2>
<p><em>Secular Claims, Communal Realities</em></p>
<p>By Achin Vanaik (Non-fiction. Hardcover, 2017. Verso Books.)</p>
<p>The last few years have seen victories by right wing, authoritarian political parties and leaders in multiple countries. The same phenomenon in India, the “world’s largest democracy,” should be — and is — cause for worry. </p>
<p>In 1998, when the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) came to power for the first time (if one discounts a brief stint in 1996), one of its earliest decisions was to test nuclear weapons, which has since led to well over a billion people living under a nuclear shadow. </p>
<p>The year before the BJP’s rise, Achin Vanaik’s book, <em>The Furies of Indian Communalism: Religion, Modernity, and Secularization</em>, was published. Vanaik — a writer, social activist, former professor at the University of Delhi, and Delhi-based fellow of the Transnational Institute in Amsterdam — has now updated and expanded that work significantly.</p>
<p>In this updated edition, he traces the transformation of the BJP from a relatively fringe position on the political spectrum to becoming the dominant national-level party replacing the Congress, and implanting itself and its ideology “in the country’s structures and institutions.” </p>
<p><em>The Rise of Hindu Authoritarianism</em> not only explores in great detail the growing communalization of the political arena and civil society, it also delineates what an oppositional and transformative project might look like. </p>
<p> </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/183370/original/file-20170824-18734-1q8521.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/183370/original/file-20170824-18734-1q8521.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/183370/original/file-20170824-18734-1q8521.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183370/original/file-20170824-18734-1q8521.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183370/original/file-20170824-18734-1q8521.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183370/original/file-20170824-18734-1q8521.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183370/original/file-20170824-18734-1q8521.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183370/original/file-20170824-18734-1q8521.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"><em>The Great Derangement</em> by Amitav Ghosh.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/G/bo22265507.html">Handout</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/29362082-the-great-derangement"><em>The Great Derangement</em></a></h2>
<p><em>Climate Change and the Unthinkable</em></p>
<p>By Amitav Ghosh (Non-fiction. Cloth, 2016. University of Chicago Press.)</p>
<p>Climate change has rightly come to be seen as one of the greatest challenges — if not the single greatest challenge — confronting the world today. There is an endless stream of academic papers and books, reports by local, national and international bodies, newspaper stories and documentaries on the subject. And yet climate change has appeared only sparingly in the world of fiction and literature. </p>
<p>It is the curious absence of climate change in these latter genres that novelist and writer Amitav Ghosh explored in a series of lectures delivered at the University of Chicago, which were subsequently published in the form of this book.</p>
<p>Ghosh traces this literary absence to “peculiar forms of resistance that climate change presents to what is now regarded as serious fiction,” but then goes on to explore the histories of imperialism, colonialism and capitalism that have brought humanity to what he terms “the Great Derangement.” </p>
<p>Reading this book makes it clear, at least to me, that climate change is not a problem that can be dealt with through some clever technological inventions or some neat-looking financial instrument, but will require us to fundamentally reshape our economic, political and international structures.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/83024/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>MV Ramana does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A nuclear physicist and disarmament expert recommends reading on nuclear disasters, weapons, authoritarianism and climate change.MV Ramana, Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security at the Liu Institute for Global Issues, University of British ColumbiaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/823512017-08-11T00:58:56Z2017-08-11T00:58:56ZWhy the withering nuclear power industry threatens US national security<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/181699/original/file-20170810-20110-1q2r5s3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">After spending $9 billion on a nuclear power plant construction in South Carolina, project developers have pulled the plug. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/scegnews/31860263040/in/photolist-VLcwq5-VLcvWQ-VyZp6w-VCfpQi-Vet1CY-Qxobd1-Qxob7Q-PQfwoN-R4cWo3-Qxoc51-R7ApHk-QTrYjW-Qxobuo-P3vWse-PHcYXo-P3vVYP-R4cVuQ-QxoaYy-P3vXtx-Q4cg3d-P3vWYe-P3vV6X-P3vXwZ-Q6VsVK-Q4chmq/">SCE&G</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>These are tough times for nuclear power in the U.S. Power plants under construction are facing serious delays, halts and cost overruns. Utilities in South Carolina <a href="http://www.thestate.com/news/state/article165339302.html">abandoned a project</a> to complete construction of two power plants in August, while the cost of the only nuclear plant now under construction has <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/tab-swells-to-25-billion-for-nuclear-power-plant-in-georgia-1501691212">ballooned to US$25 billion</a>. </p>
<p>And it’s no secret that several existing nuclear power plants are at <a href="https://theconversation.com/as-us-shutters-aging-nuclear-plants-cutting-emissions-will-become-more-costly-50047">risk of shutting down</a>. In fact, that specter is one of the key motivations behind Energy Secretary Rick Perry’s recent request to the Department of Energy for an <a href="https://theconversation.com/are-solar-and-wind-really-killing-coal-nuclear-and-grid-reliability-76741">analysis of the challenges facing conventional power plants</a>. </p>
<p>While the environmental and reliability impacts of the closures are well-understood, what many don’t realize is that these closures also pose long-term risks to our national security. As the nuclear power industry declines, it discourages the development of our most important anti-proliferation asset: a bunch of smart nuclear scientists and engineers.</p>
<h2>Weapons inspectors</h2>
<p>The challenges facing our aging nuclear fleet are numerous. Cheap natural gas and the rapid growth of low-cost renewables like wind and solar, which have helped drive electricity prices <a href="https://theconversation.com/as-us-shutters-aging-nuclear-plants-cutting-emissions-will-become-more-costly-50047">downward</a> for the first time in decades, make it hard for nuclear power plants to operate profitably. At the same time, the variability of renewables pushes conventional thermal power plants fueled by natural gas, coal and nuclear sources to operate more flexibly to fill gaps when the sun doesn’t shine or the wind doesn’t blow.</p>
<p>This is a problem for U.S. nuclear plants, as ramping their output up and down causes wear and tear, increasing costs. And lingering safety concerns in the wake of the Fukushima disaster in 2011 don’t help either.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/181700/original/file-20170810-27677-160keb8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/181700/original/file-20170810-27677-160keb8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/181700/original/file-20170810-27677-160keb8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=413&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/181700/original/file-20170810-27677-160keb8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=413&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/181700/original/file-20170810-27677-160keb8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=413&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/181700/original/file-20170810-27677-160keb8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=519&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/181700/original/file-20170810-27677-160keb8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=519&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/181700/original/file-20170810-27677-160keb8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=519&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Inspectors from the IAEA survey the ruins of Iraq’s facility to produce highly enriched uranium in the 1990s.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/iaea_imagebank/8490753593/in/photolist-dWikek-dWikde-dWikcK-dWikcr-dWoYpS-dWik5a-dWoYhd-dWik3V-dWoYfE-dWihmM-dWihkp-dWihjZ-dWoVrw-dWoVqQ-dWihht-dWoVoL-dWihgg-dWoVnh-dWihev-dWoVkE-dWihdx-dWifNg-dWifMp-dWifLT-dWoTVY-dWifJt-dWoR95-dUf1LV-dUkC5o-dUkBPf-dUkBJ5-dSsDM7-dSn5At-dSn5zD-dKipA4-dKoSvG-dKoSqj-dWtkzA-dWnGzX-dWtkz5-dWtkx1-dWtkwy-dWnGxk-dWtkp7-dWnrsz-dWt5uo-dWnrnc-dWnrkr-dWp3i9-dWp3hE">International Atomic Energy Agency</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>All of these factors are converging at once, creating significant financial losses for nuclear plant owners. At least 20 nuclear plants are at risk of <a href="http://www.thirdway.org/report/preserving-americas-clean-energy-foundation">closure</a>, if natural gas prices remain low and other market fundamentals don’t change.</p>
<p>This scenario creates headaches for power grid operators and planners who like the reliability of nuclear power plants. It also creates philosophical conundrums for environmentalists who rightly fret about the challenges of long-term radioactive waste storage but also decry the replacement of zero-carbon nuclear power with carbon-emitting natural gas plants.</p>
<p>But there is a third reason why a declining U.S. nuclear power industry will have long-term consequences: the national security risks associated with nuclear weapons.</p>
<p>It is the irony of nuclear power. While many worry that the prominence of nuclear materials for power production increases the risks of weapons proliferation, the opposite is also a problem. The loss of expertise from a declining domestic nuclear workforce makes it hard for Americans to conduct the inspections that help keep the world safe from nuclear weapons. And with the recent news about North Korea’s nuclear ambitions, the need for inspections feels like a pressing priority.</p>
<p>The Defense Threat Reduction Agency (<a href="http://www.dtra.mil/">DTRA</a>), the U.S. agency responsible for addressing these risks directly, employs <a href="http://www.dtra.mil/About/Who-We-Are/">2,000 people</a> to tackle chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons. Hundreds work on the nuclear mission alone. Another <a href="https://www.iaea.org/about/staff">2,500 people</a>, including <a href="https://www.bnl.gov/isd/documents/79280.pdf">200 Americans</a>, work at the International Atomic Energy Agency (<a href="https://www.iaea.org/">IAEA</a>), a multi-national organization created for the sole purpose of ensuring peaceful uses of nuclear energy. The IAEA is tasked with conducting regular inspections of civil nuclear facilities and auditing the flow of nuclear materials and experts. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/181710/original/file-20170810-20984-7azfml.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/181710/original/file-20170810-20984-7azfml.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=664&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/181710/original/file-20170810-20984-7azfml.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=664&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/181710/original/file-20170810-20984-7azfml.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=664&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/181710/original/file-20170810-20984-7azfml.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=834&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/181710/original/file-20170810-20984-7azfml.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=834&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/181710/original/file-20170810-20984-7azfml.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=834&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Former Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, a nuclear physicist, was integral to the U.S. negotiation over Iran’s nuclear program.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/inl/14980223721/in/photolist-oPKyBk-hKukZ2-fJYnvb-oxxkHk-f5xCvA-fJYnoY-9Y1S7h-hJ7kwt-fJFQUx-yCpuYi-hKj6Mx-ykNMhj-fJFR1R-fJYmVU-fU1bKu-fU1bLm-fJFQLP-fJYn4q-McsFrY-oxzTWX-oxyuxe-MApUbj-eBVNFR-qKSzLK-ayx63F-eBVPvH-oPLp2B-f19vR8-HfV5C5-ayzLrq-oQ3gPT-f1oSAs-p4jrqE-PF8vuY-eBVPC6-Q4QvNa-Q29XrC-Q4Qv4e-f1oSrh-PF8t5Y-qXKLPG-Q4Qwsr-Qf5cm6-Q4Qw64-eBVQ4p-Q4QxpB-oxyact-p79eHV-oxxnoC-eBZ1Nw">Idaho National Laboratory</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Many of our nuclear inspectors come from the military and national labs – whose missions are more weapons-related – and from the power sector. The demise of the power sector cuts off a flow of civilian talent that can use its background to help distinguish illegal weapons projects from peaceful programs to generate electricity. </p>
<p>Quite simply, it is in our national interest to maintain the expertise needed to staff the DTRA, while also contributing to the international agencies committed to keeping the world safe from nuclear weapons.</p>
<p>In the U.S. more than <a href="https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/03/f30/U.S.%20Energy%20and%20Employment%20Report.pdf">50,000 people</a> are currently employed making nuclear fuels or at the power plants that use them. If the nuclear industry is allowed to wither, we might not have the homegrown talent to help manage the risks.</p>
<h2>Next-generation nuclear</h2>
<p>Bailing out decades-old power plants with government handouts or <a href="https://theconversation.com/compete-or-suckle-should-troubled-nuclear-reactors-be-subsidized-62069">subsidies</a> seems like a step backwards. So how to proceed? The simplest approach is to issue zero-emissions credits (<a href="https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2017/04/06/ohio-lawmakers-taking-up-nuclear-plant-subsidies.html">ZECs</a>) or to put a price on carbon. Doing so harnesses the efficiency of markets while allowing nuclear power to compete because of its low-carbon footprint.</p>
<p>A carbon price or ZEC – which admittedly faces formidable political challenges – would be an immediate lifeline for existing power plants. That buys us time, but doesn’t take us all the way there. We also need to aggressively invest in research and development for modern nuclear fuel cycles that are smaller, flexible, less water-intensive, passively safe, proliferation-resistant and can be replicated in a factory to reduce costs. Reinvigorating the industry would create the need for a steady stream of people trained in nuclear physics and engineering. As a result, the world would be safer and cleaner.</p>
<p>There are already strong economic, reliability and environmental reasons to keep nuclear a part of the national fuel mix. Enhancing our national security makes the argument even more compelling.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/82351/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael E. Webber receives funding from the U.S. Department of Energy and ERCOT (Electric Reliability Council of Texas). A full list of sponsors for Webber's research group at UT Austin is disclosed here: <a href="http://www.webberenergygroup.com">www.webberenergygroup.com</a> </span></em></p>Nuclear power plants don’t just pump out steady, carbon-free electricity; they also help produce the people the US needs for nuclear weapons inspections.Michael E. Webber, Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Deputy Director of the Energy Institute, The University of Texas at AustinLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/812522017-07-24T23:18:46Z2017-07-24T23:18:46ZSmall nuclear power reactors: Future or folly?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178921/original/file-20170719-13558-rs7g2s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C532%2C4000%2C2377&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Large nuclear reactors could fade into history, proponents of small modular nuclear reactors argue. The reality may be more complex.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/nuclear-power-plant-temelin-czech-republic-256727668">(Shutterstock)</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Nuclear energy companies are proposing <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608271/small-reactors-could-kick-start-the-stalled-nuclear-sector/">small nuclear reactors</a> as a safer and cheaper source of electricity. </p>
<p>In June, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories put out a “call for a discussion around <a href="http://www.cnl.ca/en/home/news-and-publications/news-releases/2017/SMR.aspx">Small Modular Reactor (SMRs) in Canada</a>,” and the role the organization “can play in bringing this technology to market.” </p>
<p>The news release asserts that SMRs are “a potential alternative to large-scale nuclear reactors,” would be effective at “decreasing up-front capital costs through simpler, less complex plants” and are “inherently safe” designs. All of this warrants examination. </p>
<p>As a physicist who has researched and written about various policy issues related to nuclear energy and different nuclear reactor designs for nearly two decades, I believe that one should be skeptical of these claims. </p>
<p>SMRs produce small amounts of electricity compared to currently common nuclear power reactors. In Canada, the last set of reactors commissioned were the four at Darlington, east of Toronto, which entered service between 1990 and 1993. These are designed to feed 878 megawatts into the electric grid. </p>
<p>In contrast, the first two nuclear power reactors commissioned in Canada were the Nuclear Power Demonstration reactor at Rolphton, Ont., in 1962, and Douglas Point, Ont., in 1968. These fed 22 and 206 megawatts respectively to the grid. </p>
<p>In other words, reactors have increased in size and power-generating capacity over time. For perspective, normal summer-time peak demand for electricity in Ontario is estimated at <a href="http://www.ieso.ca/en/power-data/demand-overview/real-time-demand-reports">over 22,000 megawatts </a>.</p>
<h2>Cost considerations key</h2>
<p>The reason for the increase in reactor output is simple: Nuclear power has always been an expensive way to generate electricity. Historically, <a href="http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/the-forgotten-history-of-small-nuclear-reactors">small reactors built in the United States all shut down</a> early because they couldn’t compete economically. One of the few ways that nuclear power plant operators could reduce costs was to capitalize on economies of scale — taking advantage of the fact that many of the expenses associated with constructing and operating a reactor do not change in proportion to the power generated. </p>
<p>Building a 800-megawatt reactor requires less than four times the quantity of concrete or steel as a 200-megawatt reactor, and does not need four times as many people to operate it. But it does generate four times as much electricity, and revenue.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/179096/original/file-20170720-24021-1kb0xsd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/179096/original/file-20170720-24021-1kb0xsd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/179096/original/file-20170720-24021-1kb0xsd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=375&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179096/original/file-20170720-24021-1kb0xsd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=375&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179096/original/file-20170720-24021-1kb0xsd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=375&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179096/original/file-20170720-24021-1kb0xsd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=472&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179096/original/file-20170720-24021-1kb0xsd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=472&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179096/original/file-20170720-24021-1kb0xsd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=472&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Small modular reactors are compact enough to be transported fully assembled, as this image from NuScale Power illustrates.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.nuscalepower.com/our-technology/factory-built">(Handout/NuScale)</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Small modular reactors are even smaller. The <a href="http://www.nuscalepower.com/smr-benefits/small">NuScale reactor</a> being developed by NuScale Power in the United States is to feed just 47.5 megawatts into the grid. This reduction is chiefly due to the main practical problem with nuclear power: reactors are expensive to build. </p>
<p>Consider the experience in Ontario: In 2008, the province’s government asked reactor vendors to bid for the construction of two more reactors at the Darlington site. The bid from Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. was reported to be <a href="http://www.thestar.com/business/2009/07/14/26b_cost_killed_nuclear_bid.html">$26 billion for two 1200-megawatt CANDU reactors</a> — more than three times what the government had assumed. The province <a href="http://globalnews.ca/news/894709/ontario-nixes-building-two-nuclear-reactors/">abandoned its plans</a>.</p>
<p>Not surprisingly, with costs so high, few reactors are being built. The hope offered by the nuclear industry is that going back to building smaller reactors might allow more utilities to invest in them. </p>
<p>NuScale Power says a 12-unit version of its design that feeds 570 MW to the grid will <a href="http://www.nuscalepower.com/smr-benefits/economical/construction-cost">cost “less than $3 billion.”</a> But because the reactor design is far from final, the figure is not reliable. There is a long and well-documented history of <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629614000942">reactors being much more expensive</a> than originally projected. This year, Westinghouse Electric Company — historically <a href="https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/Westinghouse-Origins-and-Effects-of-the-Downfall-of-a-Nuclear-Giant.html">the largest builder of nuclear power plants in the world — filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy</a> protection in the United States precisely because of such cost overruns. </p>
<p>Cost overruns aside, smaller reactors might be cheaper but they also produce much less electricity and revenue. As a result, generating each unit of electricity will be more expensive.</p>
<h2>Design aims to reduce costs</h2>
<p>The second part of the SMR abbreviation, “Modular,” is again an attempt to control costs. The reactor is to be mostly constructed within a factory with limited assembly of factory-fabricated “modules” at the site of the power plant itself. It may even be possible to completely build a SMR in a factory and ship it to the reactor site. </p>
<p>Modular construction has been increasingly incorporated into all nuclear reactor building, including large reactors. However, since some components of a large reactor are physically voluminous, they have to be assembled on site. Again, <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/pre-fab-nuclear-plants-prove-just-as-expensive-1438040802">modularity is no panacea</a> for cost increases, as Westinghouse found out in recent years.</p>
<h2>Safety in scale?</h2>
<p>SMR developers say the technology poses a lower risk of accidents, as Canadian Nuclear Laboratories suggests when it asserts “inherent safety” as a property of SMRs. Intuitively, smaller reactors realize safety benefits since a lower power reactor implies less radioactive material in the core, and therefore less energy potentially released in an accident. </p>
<p>The problem is that safety is only one priority for designers. They must also consider about other priorities, including cost reductions. These <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629614000486">priorities drive reactor designs in different directions</a>, making it practically impossible to optimize all of them simultaneously.</p>
<p>The main priority preventing safe deployment is economics. Most commercial proposals for SMRs involve cost-cutting measures, such as siting multiple reactors in close proximity. This increases the risk of accidents, or the impact of potential accidents on people nearby. </p>
<p>At Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi plant, explosions at one reactor damaged the spent fuel pool in a co-located reactor. Radiation leaks from one unit made it difficult for emergency workers to approach the other units.</p>
<h2>Looking ahead</h2>
<p>The future for nuclear energy in Canada is not rosy. Canada’s National Energy Board’s latest <a href="https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/nrg/ntgrtd/ftr/2016updt/index-eng.html">Canada’s Energy Future 2016 report</a> that projects supply and demand to the year 2040 states: “No new nuclear units are anticipated to be built in any province during the projection period.” It notes annual nuclear generation is forecast to decline nearly 12.5 per cent from 98 terawatt-hours in 2014 to 77 in 2040.</p>
<p>Promoters of SMRs argue that investing in small reactors will change this bleak picture. But technical and economic factors, as well as the experience of small nuclear reactors built in an earlier era, all suggest that this is a mislaid hope.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/81252/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>MV Ramana has received funding from various foundations, including MacArthur Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation, and Princeton University's Carbon Mitigation Initative to research various policy issues related to nuclear energy and small modular reactors. All opinions expressed in this article, however, are his own. </span></em></p>Nuclear industry players tout small modular reactors as an “inherently safe,” cost-effective source of electricity. The reality may be less attractive.MV Ramana, Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security at the Liu Institute for Global Issues, University of British ColumbiaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/692302016-11-23T21:02:48Z2016-11-23T21:02:48ZVietnam cancels nuclear reactor deal: a lesson for South Africa<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/147012/original/image-20161122-11005-kf1wed.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A miner takes a break from sorting through coal at a mine in Vietnam. The country relies heavily on coal imports.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Julian Abram Wainwright/EPA</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Vietnam recently <a href="http://www.fin24.com/Economy/Eskom/massive-setback-for-rosatom-as-vietnam-scraps-nuclear-deal-20161120">announced</a> that it would be cancelling its contract to buy two nuclear reactors from <a href="http://www.rosatom.ru/en/">Rosatom</a>, the Russian nuclear vendor. The decision was subsequently <a href="http://www.ibtimes.com/vietnam-nuclear-power-program-national-assembly-scraps-atomic-energy-project-russia-2450250">ratified</a> by the Vietnamese National Assembly in Hanoi. The vice-chair of the parliamentary committee on science, technology and environment, Le Hong Tinh, has <a href="http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/vietnam-ditches-plans-to-build-2-nuclear-plants">stated clearly</a> that the nuclear programme would not be continued.</p>
<p>After the purchase of the two Russian reactors, Vietnam was due to buy a further two from <a href="https://nuclear-news.net/2016/11/19/japans-nuclear-marketing-disappointment-vietnam-to-cancel-reactor-order/">Japan</a>. These plants would have been the socialist republic’s first power reactors. The orders were placed at a time of economic boom in the country during 2009 and 2010. But the more recent downturn in economic activity, the drop in electricity demand, and the doubling of the overnight cost of the reactors to $18 billion, caused the government to think again.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-vietnam-nuclearpower-idUSKBN13D0RK">According to Mycle Schneider</a>, a Paris-based energy analyst: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Vietnam is only the latest in a long list of countries, including more recently Chile and Indonesia, that have postponed indefinitely or abandoned entirely their plans for nuclear new-build.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Vietnam’s decision is for outright cancellation of a contract for two reactors which were to be part of a sequence of purchases. But South Africa is not being as decisive. Yet South Africa is realising that it must at least postpone its nuclear plans. In its latest <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-22/south-africa-delays-nuclear-plant-plan-as-economy-stagnates">Integrated Resources Plan 2016</a>, one option is to delay completion of the first reactor until 2037.</p>
<p>A postponement would mean that South Africa wouldn’t need to start building new nuclear plants until the mid-2020s. The country’s energy provider Eskom, however, is still bent <a href="http://www.fin24.com/Economy/Eskom/eskom-to-push-ahead-with-nuclear-despite-proposed-delay-20161122">on initiating the procurement process</a> very soon. </p>
<h2>Vietnam’s economy</h2>
<p>Vietnam has a population of about <a href="http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/vietnam-population/">90 million</a>, almost double South Africa’s <a href="http://www.southafrica.info/about/people/population.htm">54 million</a>. As one of the world’s biggest exporters of <a href="http://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/vietnam-big-year-for-coffee-rice-exports/1519414.html">rice and coffee</a> its production is mainly agricultural. </p>
<p>Since the end of the war against the US in 1975 policies have begun to accommodate market capitalism with ultimate power still in the hands of the state. Personal income or per capita GDP, is up from US$200 in the 1980s to <a href="http://www.tradingeconomics.com/vietnam/gdp-per-capita">$5635 today</a>. South Africa’s is <a href="http://www.tradingeconomics.com/south-africa/gdp-per-capita">$13046</a>. Vietnam’s growth rates have been in the vicinity of <a href="http://www.tradingeconomics.com/vietnam/gdp-growth">6% to 7% per annum</a>.</p>
<p>Vietnam relies on small amounts of coal, hydro and offshore gas, but imports coal for most of its <a href="http://e.vnexpress.net/news/business/vietnam-hungry-for-electricity-turns-into-net-coal-importer-3471924.html">electricity generation</a>. The over reliance on imported coal, the impact of its use on climate change, and the rapid rise in economic production and electricity usage, led the government to consider <a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-t-z/vietnam.aspx">the nuclear route</a>. Reactors would be acquired in sequence, amounting to a total fleet of 13 installed at sites in five provinces on the central coast. </p>
<p>Vietnam currently has a small nuclear research reactor <a href="http://www-ns.iaea.org/downloads/rw/projects/r2d2/workshop7/country-reports-and-reviews/vietnam.pdf">at Dalat</a>. The <a href="http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/IT-Vietnam_passes_law_on_nuclear_energy-0406085.html">law</a> covering nuclear energy was not regarded as robust enough by the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna to take account of the proposed nuclear expansion.</p>
<p>Earlier this year, Vietnamese environmental organisation, <a href="http://en.greenidvietnam.org.vn/">Green Innovation and Development (Green ID)</a>, approached myself and other international experts to comment on the expected revisions to the law and we were invited to Hanoi to address parliamentarians. But the law was never revised. </p>
<p>Then on October 3 we were asked to brief the National Assembly committee on science, technology and environment. The next day we also addressed the <a href="http://www.vusta.vn/en/">Vietnamese Union of Scientific and Technological Associations</a>. Our contributions aimed to provide scientific evidence to dissuade Vietnam from going ahead with the nuclear order.</p>
<h2>Expert advice</h2>
<p>Klaus-Peter Dehde, the mayor of a small town in northern Germany, spoke about the reasons for the new German energy transition away from nuclear energy and his community’s struggle with the question of nuclear waste disposal.</p>
<p>Kanna Mitsuta from Friends of the Earth Japan, whose expertise was on the effects of the Fukushima accident, briefed the audiences on its impact. This included mass evacuation, sterilisation of agricultural land, economic dislocation and the extensive contamination of land and sea. Failure to manage the accident effectively caused Japan to switch off all but two of its <a href="https://theconversation.com/japan-cant-afford-to-leave-nuclear-power-switched-off-11807">54 reactors</a>. The cost of the accident has so far amounted to two trillion yen or roughly <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/08/29/public-cost-fukushima-cleanup-tops-40-billion-and-expected-climb">$40 billion</a>.</p>
<p>I spoke of the need for long-term management of nuclear waste, and the full cost of the reactors. Vendors usually quote the overnight costs, covering acquisition of the land and the construction. This is nowhere near the full cost as it does not include operation, insurance, waste management, emergency management, setting up a regulatory apparatus, or decommissioning the reactor after use. </p>
<p>In the case of Vietnam, as in South Africa, it would be the state that has to cover most of these costs.</p>
<p>Our interventions resulted in lively questioning. The information we provided was the first time many participants had heard counter-arguments to nuclear. Many participants commented afterwards on how open the discussions had been of a formerly taboo subject. Vietnam is still a one-party state, and the traditional role of the MPs has been to endorse policy measures coming from higher up in the party. The nuclear discussion suggests a new openness in decision making.</p>
<p>We left Vietnam thinking that our intervention might lead to a deferment of the order for the reactors while the parliamentarians continued to grapple with revision of the law. Its decision to scrap the orders – which was made shortly after our visit – was therefore a great surprise. Vietnam has been able to act rationally in considering all arguments before making its mind up.</p>
<h2>Lessons for South Africa</h2>
<p>Nuclear energy is unnecessary for the country’s progress as a developing nation. It swallows up too many resources for too little electricity in return. The nuclear fuel and the waste have to be safeguarded for many millennia, and the reactors have to be operated safely. Accidents contaminate huge areas and affect millions of people. </p>
<p>There are a number of safer and cleaner renewable alternatives, especially solar and wind. If Vietnam is brave and shrewd enough to step away from the nuclear abyss, so can South Africa. Instead of postponement of nuclear procurement, South Africa should reject this technology outright.</p>
<p>The country’s Integrated Resources Plan decides on the ratio of different power sources in the total energy mix. South Africa needs to listen more clearly to its scientists. And it could learn some useful lessons from Vietnam’s approach.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/69230/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Fig received funding from the Friedrich Ebert Foundation to brief the Vietnamese parliamentary committee on science, technology and environment and the Vietnamese Union of Scientific and Technological Associations.
David Fig serves on the Steering Committee of the African Uranium Alliance.</span></em></p>Vietnam recently cancelled it’s plans for the procurement of nuclear energy. There are lessons South Africa can take from this.David Fig, Honorary Research Associate, University of Cape TownLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/692132016-11-22T22:29:57Z2016-11-22T22:29:57ZIs Fukushima still safe after the latest earthquake?<p>We all remember March 11, 2011, when the magnitude-9.0 <a href="https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/poster/2011/20110311.php">Great East Japan earthquake</a> triggered a <a href="http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Fukushima_faced_14-metre_tsunami_2303113.html">14-metre tsunami</a> that flooded the <a href="http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/f1/index-e.html">Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant</a>. Four of the six reactors on site were badly damaged, <a href="http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/24-hours-at-fukushima/0">three suffering core meltdowns</a>.</p>
<p>Also affected by the tsunami, but to a much lesser extent, were the four reactors at the <a href="https://www4.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/f2/index-e.html">Fukushima Daini nuclear power plant</a>, roughly 11km further south. That site was partially flooded, but sufficient safety systems were still available to shut down and cool the reactors safely.</p>
<p>At 5.59 am local time on Tuesday the tsunami alarms sounded again, as a magnitude-6.9 earthquake 10km off the coast shook the area. Just over half an hour later the resulting tsunami hit the Fukushima coast – but this one was barely a metre high, and well below the height of the 5.7m seawall, meaning that Fukushima’s nuclear plants were spared another flood. </p>
<p>However, the earthquake caused a circulation pump in the used fuel cooling pond of Fukushima Daini reactor 3 to <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-22/japan-earthquake-prompts-tsunami-warning-blog/8044796">shut down</a>. After checking the system, the pump was restarted after 99 minutes, and operator TEPCO said the plant had suffered no lasting damage. </p>
<p>The situation might have been more serious were it not for the fact that Fukushima Daini, like most of Japan’s nuclear power stations, has been out of action ever since the disaster at its neighbouring station prompted Japan to shut down all of its nuclear reactors for safety checking and upgrades.</p>
<p>Although all of Daini’s systems have since been restored, its reactors have not been restarted. All the fuel has been removed from the reactors and is stored in cooling ponds – which is where the circulation pump failed that normally pushes water through a heat exchanger for cooling. </p>
<p>Because of the low residual heat in the used fuel, the reported temperature rise was less than 1°C during the 99-minute outage. Without cooling, the temperature of the cooling pool would be expected to <a href="http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-Fukushima-earthquake-leaves-nuclear-plants-unaffected-2211167.html">rise by 0.2°C per hour</a>. It would therefore take more than a week without cooling before the normal operating range of 65°C would be exceeded, and this would still be far below the fuel melting point of <a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-accident.aspx">around 2,800°C</a>.</p>
<p>There has been no reported damage from the latest earthquake at the Fukushima Daiichi plant where decommissioning work continues (although it was briefly stopped in response to the earthquake). As of 11am on Tuesday, <a href="http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/f1/pla/2016/images/table_summary-e.pdf">plant parameters</a> show reactor cooling systems operating normally with reactor temperatures of 20-25°C, again far below any dangerous levels. Again, the low amount of residual heat in the fuel means that any changes on loss of cooling are slow. This is in stark contrast to the situation in 2011 where loss of cooling to the operating reactors led to fuel <a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-accident.aspx">melting in less than four hours</a>.</p>
<h2>Is Japan’s nuclear power coming back?</h2>
<p>Before the 2011 meltdowns, there were 54 nuclear power reactors operating in Japan. Since then, only three reactors have completed all of the required modifications and safety inspections and returned to operation, and one of these is currently shut down for routine refuelling. Currently 42 reactors will potentially be restarted, 24 of which are slowly going through the <a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-accident.aspx">restart approval process</a>.</p>
<p>The extent of modifications to avoid possible damage from tsunamis is illustrated by the work that Chubu Electric Power Company is <a href="http://hamaoka.chuden.jp/english/provision/shikichinai.html">carrying out at its Hamaoka nuclear power plant</a> in Japan’s southeast Shizuoka prefecture. This year Chubu has completed construction of a huge seawall, 22m high and 1.6km long, which together with other safety upgrades will cost about 400 billion yen (A$4.9 billion).</p>
<p>After TEPCO faced accusations that it <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/13/world/asia/tepco-admits-failure-in-acknowledging-risks-at-nuclear-plant.html?_r=0">failed to take full account of the tsunami risk at Fukushima</a>, Japan is clearly taking no chances next time around.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/69213/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tony Irwin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The latest earthquake off Japan’s east coast was an ominous reminder of the 2011 Fukushima disaster. But despite a technical hitch at one of Fukushima’s other reactors, there was no repeat this time.Tony Irwin, Visiting Lecturer, Nuclear Reactors and Nuclear Fuel Cycle, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/655242016-09-16T15:59:50Z2016-09-16T15:59:50ZHinkley C must be the first of many new nuclear plants<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/138093/original/image-20160916-17005-jwg55k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The country needs more nuclear power – but not more Hinkleys.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Ganibal / shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Despite Hinkley Point C’s obvious problems, Britain badly needs the proposed nuclear power station. But Hinkley, which was finally <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/15/hinkley-point-c-nuclear-power-station-gets-go-ahead">given the go-ahead</a> on September 15 after a six week government review, must be just the start of a major programme of new nuclear plants in the UK. Coal and gas are too dirty – and wind and solar too intermittent – for the country to be able to rely solely on any of these technologies. </p>
<p>Only nuclear can provide the consistent and secure supply of low-carbon electricity that the UK needs to secure the long-term supply to its national grid.</p>
<p>In order to maintain a stable flow of electricity, Britain needs at least some large fossil or nuclear-fuelled generators. Wind and solar alone can’t do it as the technologies are inherently <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-the-energy-grid-handles-the-surge-after-a-solar-eclipse-38922">unable to hold the grid frequency stable at 50Hz</a>. Yet the UK’s dirty coal-fired plants will be gone by 2025 – so that leaves gas and nuclear plants to provide this stability into the future.</p>
<p>The debate surrounding the proposed nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point C has focused largely on <a href="https://theconversation.com/hinkley-point-c-delay-how-to-exploit-this-attack-of-common-sense-in-energy-policy-63293">the price EDF will get</a> for electricity generated. This was set four years ago at an inflation-linked £92.50/MWh. That’s more expensive than generation from gas, or Britain’s soon-to-be-defunct coal plants, but it should be affordable. </p>
<p>Wind power can take up some of the slack. The UK now has enough turbines installed that, on windy days, total generation is similar to that from nuclear. Things will only accelerate thanks to several <a href="https://theconversation.com/britain-is-only-just-beginning-to-exploit-its-vast-resources-of-offshore-wind-64134">huge projects in the pipeline</a> such as DONG Energy’s Hornsea One, which will become the world’s first offshore windfarm with greater than 1GW of generating capacity. All this has been achieved under an industry target of reducing the cost of energy from offshore wind to below £100/MWh by 2020.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/138098/original/image-20160916-17031-uh33rz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/138098/original/image-20160916-17031-uh33rz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/138098/original/image-20160916-17031-uh33rz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138098/original/image-20160916-17031-uh33rz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138098/original/image-20160916-17031-uh33rz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138098/original/image-20160916-17031-uh33rz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=453&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138098/original/image-20160916-17031-uh33rz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=453&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138098/original/image-20160916-17031-uh33rz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=453&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Coal power is being phased out.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Brian Maudsley</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>An unavoidable consequence of the drive towards cleaner and more sustainable power is that the industry will rely on government subsidies and more expensive electricity prices in order to incentivise the necessary new technologies. Electricity from regular, dirty coal is by far the cheapest form of large-scale generation, but the decision has already been made to move away from this. Many UK coal stations are now closed and in some cases pulled down. So Hinkley C is expensive, but not out of line with the direction of travel in the industry.</p>
<h2>The long-term nuclear option</h2>
<p>The larger questions concerns the long-term security of Hinkley’s supply. After all, it will take a minimum of ten years to build the plant and all the evidence suggests it is highly likely to be <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/new-nuclear-finlands-cautionary-tale-for-the-uk">much longer</a> before it actually comes online. </p>
<p>Hinkley C will use the new third-generation Areva EPR nuclear reactor design which is not yet in commercial operation anywhere in the world. New nuclear plants at Flamanville (France), Olkiluoto (Finland) and Taishan (China) are all currently under construction with this new type of reactor – and all of these projects are <a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/edf-britain-idUKL8N15C22S">experiencing long delays and significant cost over-runs</a>.</p>
<p>At the moment the <a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-t-z/united-kingdom.aspx">UK’s nuclear plants</a> consist of a number of Advanced Gas Cooled Reactor (AGR) stations (including Hinkley B) and the Pressurised Water Reactor (PWR) station at Sizewell B. The AGRs have now all passed their original design lives and have been specially licenced for <a href="http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C-UK-nuclear-plant-gets-ten-year-extension-2001157.html">extended operation</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/138096/original/image-20160916-17023-4isbf9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/138096/original/image-20160916-17023-4isbf9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/138096/original/image-20160916-17023-4isbf9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=339&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138096/original/image-20160916-17023-4isbf9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=339&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138096/original/image-20160916-17023-4isbf9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=339&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138096/original/image-20160916-17023-4isbf9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138096/original/image-20160916-17023-4isbf9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138096/original/image-20160916-17023-4isbf9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Dungeness B was supposed to close in 2018 but has been extended until 2028.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/llamnuds/8552274609/">Shaun Dunmall</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But as the plants get older, the risks inevitably increase. Only two winters ago <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/11169625/Nuclear-reactor-heat-turned-down-to-stop-boilers-cracking.html">cracks were found in the steam generators</a> on the AGR units at Heysham, Lancashire. Not only was Heysham shut down for inspection and repair, but also its sister units in Hartlepool. The result was that a significant proportion of the UK’s nuclear generators were not available for several months over the winter demand-peak, leading to concerns at the time over the <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/2d3c0786-329b-11e4-93c6-00144feabdc0">availability of reserve generating capacity</a>.</p>
<p>With a variety of creaky old nuclear plants dating back to the 1970s or 1980s, and question marks over exactly when Hinkley C will be available, what the UK needs is a nuclear building plan that severely reduces the risk of supply gaps.</p>
<p>Fortunately, other nuclear options are potentially more secure. <a href="https://theconversation.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-mini-nuclear-reactors-56647">Small Modular nuclear Reactors (SMRs)</a> are now receiving increased attention and government interest. Each SMR unit is typically capable of delivering 100-200MW of electricity. That’s far smaller than Hinkley C’s planned two units totalling 3,200MW, but their size means they can be built quickly, each one requires a fraction of the capital investment of Hinkley, and they could even be built locally. </p>
<p>New SMR reactor designs are available. <a href="http://en.cnnc.com.cn/2016-04/28/c_51725.htm">China National Nuclear Corporation’s ACP100</a> for example, passively cools the nuclear core in the event of a complete power failure in the same way as the much larger EPR reactor design planned for Hinkley C will do. </p>
<p>The UK needs viable new nuclear plants – and Hinkley C has only ever been one part of the solution. Many more will be needed. Britain is running out of time to deliver further nuclear power before major disruption to its future electricity supply. The door may be opening for small modular nuclear reactors.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/65524/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Simon Hogg holds the DONG Energy Chair in Renewable Energy at Durham University. He receives government funding through RCUK and industry funding from Dong Energy and GE Power to support his research activity.</span></em></p>This is a big opportunity for smaller reactors that can be built quickly and cheaply.Simon Hogg, Executive Director of the Durham Energy Institute, Durham UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/584522016-04-26T15:22:27Z2016-04-26T15:22:27ZWhat we learned from Chernobyl about how radiation affects our bodies<p>The world has never seen a nuclear accident as severe as the one that unfolded when a reactor exploded in Chernobyl on April 26 1986, sending vast amounts of radiation into the skies around Ukraine, Belarus and Russia.</p>
<p>The planet had experienced massive releases like this before, in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. But Chernobyl-related radiation exposure had a more protracted character. </p>
<p>It was the first time in history that such a large population, particularly at a very young age, was exposed to radioactive isotopes, namely iodine-131 and cesium-137, not just through direct exposure, but through eating contaminated food as well. </p>
<p>In 2006, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.22037/full">published estimates</a> of how many excess cancers would occur as a result of this contamination. </p>
<p>While noting that these estimates are subject to substantial uncertainty, the authors found that 1,000 cases of thyroid cancer and 4,000 cases of other cancers had already been caused by the accident. They further estimated that by 2065, 16,000 cases of thyroid cancer and 25,000 cases of other cancers could be attributed to the effects of Chernobyl radiation.</p>
<p>Research on the health impact of the Chernobyl disaster has mainly focused on <a href="http://journals.lww.com/health-physics/Abstract/2007/11000/THYROID_CANCER_INCIDENCE_AMONG_PEOPLE_LIVING_IN.15.aspx">thyroid cancer</a>, in particular in those exposed to radioactive iodine isotopes in childhood and adolescence. Large amounts of iodine-131 were released into the atmosphere after the explosion, and children were exposed by consuming locally produced milk and vegetables.</p>
<p>Efforts were made to better understand the mechanisms of radiation-induced thyroid cancer and which factors could modify the radiation risk. This allowed us to identify a molecular “radiation fingerprint”, which can point to changes that are specific to radiation exposure, as opposed to any other factors. </p>
<p>Studies were also conducted to evaluate the risk of <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19138033">haematological malignancies</a> – tumours that affect the blood, bone marrow, lymph, and lymphatic system – in children and Chernobyl clean-up workers in the three most affected countries. Studies of cancer incidence and mortality, <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3107017/">cardiovascular diseases</a> and all-cause mortality were also conducted on clean-up workers. Although of variable quality, the list of studies done on people affected by the blast is long. </p>
<h2>What we found</h2>
<p>Today, there is an overall agreement among scientist that thyroid cancers increased following exposure to radiation in childhood and adolescence. Several studies have also indicated an increase in <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16614710">haematological malignancies</a> and thyroid cancer in Chernobyl clean-up workers.</p>
<p><a href="http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/121/1/ehp.1204996.pdf">Findings</a> on radiation-associated risk both for chronic lymphocytic leukaemia and other types of leukaemia in clean-up workers were reported in 2013. Before then, chronic lymphocytic leukaemia was not considered to be sensitive to radiation. Further research will be required to confirm these findings. </p>
<p>Some studies focused on non-cancer health consequences of exposure to radiation. <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17390731">Convincing results</a> on eye lens cataracts among Chernobyl clean-up workers led to the revision and considerable reduction in the recommended radiation dose limit for the lens of the eye. </p>
<p>Chernobyl also led to a greater knowledge on optimising treatment and follow-up of survivors of <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18049222">acute radiation sickness</a>. A better understanding of thyroid cancer radiation risks allowed us to respond better to other disasters, such as Fukushima, to minimise potential adverse health consequences.</p>
<h2>What we still don’t know</h2>
<p>Despite these important findings, many grey areas still remain. For example, we still have no convincing evidence for childhood leukaemia associated with Chernobyl. It is unclear if this is due to methodological limitations or for other reasons. </p>
<p>Nor do we know how radiation risk changes over time after a someone is exposed as a child, as a longer follow-up study is required. We also don’t yet understand the potential transgenerational affects on children born to exposed parents. </p>
<p>The need for more research is immense, yet funding is declining. We need a sustainable approach to Chernobyl health research – similar to that taken after the <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC33856/">Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings in Japan</a>. Without this, it is unlikely that the true impact of Chernobyl will ever be fully understood.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/58452/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ausrele Kesminiene ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d'une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n'a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.</span></em></p>Chernobyl is already responsible for up to 5,000 cases of cancer in Europe.Ausrele Kesminiene, Deputy Section Head Section of Environment and Radiation at IARC, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/579422016-04-25T13:49:12Z2016-04-25T13:49:12ZForget Fukushima: Chernobyl still holds record as worst nuclear accident for public health<p>The 1986 Chernobyl and 2011 Fukushima nuclear power plant accidents both share the notorious distinction of attaining the highest accident rating on the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) <a href="http://www-ns.iaea.org/tech-areas/emergency/ines.asp">scale of nuclear accidents</a>. No other reactor incident has ever received this Level 7 “major accident” designation in the history of nuclear power. Chernobyl and Fukushima earned it because both involved core meltdowns that released significant amounts of radioactivity to their surroundings.</p>
<p>Both of these accidents involved evacuation of hundreds of thousands of residents. Both still have people waiting to return to their homes. And both left a legacy of large-scale radioactive contamination of the environment that will persist for years to come, despite ongoing cleanup efforts.</p>
<p>So the tendency is to think of these accidents as similar events that happened in different countries, 25 years apart.</p>
<p>But the IAEA scale isn’t designed to measure public health impact. In terms of health ramifications, these two nuclear accidents were not even in the same league. While <a href="http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/a_e/fukushima/faqs-fukushima/en/">Fukushima</a> involved radioactivity exposures to hundred of thousands of people, <a href="http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/index1.html">Chernobyl</a> exposed hundreds of millions. And millions of those received substantially more exposure than the people of Fukushima.</p>
<p>On the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the April 26, 1986 Chernobyl accident in Ukraine, we do well to reflect on the health burden it caused – and compare it with what we expect to see from Japan’s Fukushima nuclear accident. As I report in my book “<a href="http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10691.html">Strange Glow: The Story of Radiation</a>,” from a public health standpoint, there’s really no comparison between the two events. </p>
<h2>Higher doses of radiation, more health harm</h2>
<p>Chernobyl was by far the worst reactor accident of all time. A total of 127 reactor workers, firemen and emergency personnel on site sustained radiation doses sufficient to cause radiation sickness (over 1,000 mSv); some received doses high enough to be lethal (over 5,000 mSv). Over the subsequent six months, <a href="http://pegasusbooks.com/books/atomic-accidents-9781605984926-hardcover">54 died from their radiation exposure</a>. And it’s been estimated that 22 of the 110,645 cleanup workers may have <a href="https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2012/11/13087/chernobyl-cleanup-workers-had-significantly-increased-risk-leukemia">contracted fatal leukemias</a> over the next 25 years.</p>
<p>In contrast, at Fukushima, there were no radiation doses high enough to produce radiation sickness, even among the reactor core workers. Two Fukushima workers who had leaky respirators received effective doses of <a href="http://pegasusbooks.com/books/atomic-accidents-9781605984926-hardcover">590 mSv and 640 mSv</a>. That’s above the Japanese occupational limit for conducting lifesaving rescue work (250 mSv), but still below the threshold for radiation sickness (1,000 mSv). Due to their exposure, the two workers’ lifetime cancer risks will <a href="http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10691.html">increase about 3 percent</a> (from the 25 percent background cancer risk rate to about 28 percent), but they are unlikely to experience other health consequences.</p>
<p>Beyond just the plant workers, over 572 million people among 40 different countries got at least some exposure to Chernobyl radioactivity. (Neither the United States nor Japan was among the exposed countries.) It took two decades to fully assess the cancer consequences to these people. Finally, in 2006, an international team of scientists completed a comprehensive <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ijc.22037">analysis of the dose and health data</a> and reported on the cancer deaths that could be attributed to Chernobyl radioactivity.</p>
<p>Their detailed analysis included countrywide estimates of individual radiation doses in all 40 exposed countries, and regionwide estimates for the most highly contaminated regions of the most highly contaminated countries (Belarus, Russian Federation and Ukraine).</p>
<p>Using statistical models, the scientists predicted a total of 22,800 radiation-induced cancers, excluding thyroid cancers, among this group of 572 million people. Thyroid cancer warranted separate special scrutiny, as we will discuss presently; this hormonally important gland is uniquely affected by a specific radioactive isotope, iodine-131.</p>
<p>So that’s 22,800 non-thyroid cancers in addition to the approximately 194 million cancer cases that would normally be expected in a population of that size, even in the absence of a Chernobyl accident. The increase from 194,000,000 to 194,022,800 is a 0.01 percent rise in the overall cancer rate. That’s too small to have any measurable impact on the cancer incidence rates for any national cancer registries, so these predicted values will likely remain theoretical.</p>
<h2>Chernobyl’s iodine-131 thyroid effects far worse</h2>
<p>Unfortunately, at Chernobyl, the one type of cancer that could have easily been prevented was not. The population surrounding Chernobyl was not warned that iodine-131 – a radioactive fission product that can enter the food chain – had contaminated milk and other locally produced agricultural products. Consequently, people ate iodine-131-contaminated food, resulting in thyroid cancers.</p>
<p>For the local population, iodine-131 exposure was a worst-case scenario because they were already <a href="http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/backgrounder/en/">suffering from an iodine-deficient diet</a>; their <a href="http://www.thyroid.org/iodine-deficiency/">iodine-starved thyroids</a> sucked up any iodine that became available. This extremely unfortunate situation would not have happened in countries such as the United States or Japan, where diets are richer in iodine.</p>
<p>Thyroid cancer is rare, with a low background incidence compared to other cancers. So excess thyroid cancers due to iodine-131 can be more readily spotted in cancer registries. And this, in fact, has been the case for Chernobyl. Beginning five years after the accident, an increase in the rate of thyroid cancers started and continued rising over the following decades. Scientists estimate that there will ultimately be about <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ijc.22037">16,000 excess thyroid cancers</a> produced as a result of iodine-131 exposure from Chernobyl.</p>
<p>At Fukushima, in contrast, there was much less iodine-131 exposure. The affected population was smaller, local people were advised to avoid local dairy products due to possible contamination and they did not have iodine-deficient diets.</p>
<p>Consequently, typical radiation doses to the thyroid were low. Iodine-131 uptake into the thyroids of exposed people was measured and the <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep00507">doses were estimated to average</a> just 4.2 mSv for children and 3.5 mSv for adults – levels comparable to annual background radiation doses of approximately 3.0 mSv per year.</p>
<p>Contrast this to Chernobyl, where a significant proportion of the local population received thyroid doses in excess of 200 mSv – 50 times more – well high enough to see appreciable amounts of excess thyroid cancer. So at Fukushima, where iodine-131 doses approached background levels, we wouldn’t expect thyroid cancer to present the problem that it did at Chernobyl. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, there has already been one report that <a href="http://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20160307/p2a/00m/0na/022000c">claims there is an increase</a> in thyroid cancer among Fukushima residents at just four years post-accident. That’s earlier than would be expected based on the <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6601860">Chernobyl experience</a>. And the study’s design has been criticized as flawed for a number of scientific reasons, including the <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/mystery-cancers-are-cropping-children-aftermath-fukushima">comparison methods used</a>. Thus, this report of excess thyroid cancers must be considered suspect <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jjco/hyv191">until better data arrive</a>.</p>
<h2>Chernobyl has no comparison</h2>
<p>In short, Chernobyl is by far the worst nuclear power plant accident of all time. It was a totally human-made event – <a href="http://pegasusbooks.com/books/atomic-accidents-9781605984926-hardcover">a “safety” test gone terribly awry</a> – made worse by incompetent workers who did all the wrong things when attempting to avert a meltdown.</p>
<p>Fukushima in contrast, was an unfortunate natural disaster – caused by a tsunami that flooded reactor basements – and the workers acted responsibly to mitigate the damage despite loss of electrical power.</p>
<p>April 26, 1986 was the darkest day in the history of nuclear power. Thirty years later, there is no rival that comes even close to Chernobyl in terms of public health consequences; certainly not Fukushima. We must be vigilant to ensure nothing like Chernobyl ever happens again. We don’t want to be “celebrating” any more anniversaries like this one.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/57942/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Timothy J. Jorgensen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The meltdown at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in 1986 exposed 572 million people to radiation. No other nuclear accident holds a candle to that level of public health impact.Timothy J. Jorgensen, Director of the Health Physics and Radiation Protection Graduate Program and Associate Professor of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/580252016-04-22T09:47:11Z2016-04-22T09:47:11ZChernobyl: new tomb will make site safe for 100 years<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/119822/original/image-20160422-17371-lqs5ls.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:New-safe-confinement-April-2015-IMG_8747.jpg">Tim Porter/Wikimedia</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Thirty years after the <a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/chernobyl-accident.aspx">Chernobyl nuclear accident</a>, there’s still a significant <a href="https://theconversation.com/we-still-dont-really-know-the-health-hazards-of-a-nuclear-accident-56320">threat of radiation</a> from the crumbling remains of Reactor 4. But an innovative, €1.5 billion super-structure is being built to prevent further releases, giving an elegant engineering solution to one of the ugliest disasters known to man.</p>
<p>Since the disaster that directly killed <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/explainer/2013/04/chernobyl_death_toll_how_many_cancer_cases_are_caused_by_low_level_radiation.html">at least 31</a> people and released large quantities of radiation, the reactor has been encased in a tomb of steel-reinforced concrete. Usually buildings of this kind can be protected from corrosion and environmental damage through regular maintenance. But because of the hundreds of tonnes of highly radioactive material inside the structure, maintenance hasn’t been possible.</p>
<p>Water dripping from the sarcophagus roof has become radioactive and leaks into the soil on the reactor floor, <a href="http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2012/12/features/containing-chernobyl">birds have been sighted</a> in the roof space. Every day, the risk of the sarcophagus collapsing increases, along with the risk of another <a href="https://inis.iaea.org/search/searchsinglerecord.aspx?recordsFor=SingleRecord&RN=27019860">widespread release of radioactivity</a> to the environment.</p>
<p>Thanks to the sarcophagus, up to 80% of the original radioactive material left after the meltdown remains in the reactor. If it were to collapse, some of the melted core, a lava-like material called corium, could be ejected into the surrounding area in a dust cloud, as a mixture of highly radioactive vapour and tiny particles blown in the wind. The key substances in this mixture are iodine-131, which has been linked to thyroid cancer, and cesium-137, which can be absorbed into the body, with effects ranging from <a href="http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search/a?dbs+hsdb:@term+@DOCNO+7389">radiation sickness to death</a> depending on the quantity inhaled or ingested.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/119819/original/image-20160422-17411-l7bqeb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/119819/original/image-20160422-17411-l7bqeb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/119819/original/image-20160422-17411-l7bqeb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/119819/original/image-20160422-17411-l7bqeb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/119819/original/image-20160422-17411-l7bqeb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/119819/original/image-20160422-17411-l7bqeb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/119819/original/image-20160422-17411-l7bqeb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Metal tomb.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tschernobyl_2013_2.jpg">Arne Müseler/Wikimedia</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>With repair of the existing sarcophagus <a href="chernobylgallery.com/chernobyl-disaster/sarcophagus/">deemed impossible</a> because of the radiation risks, a new structure designed to last 100 years is now being built. This “new safe confinement” will not only safely contain the radioactivity from Reactor 4, but also enable the sarcophagus and the reactor building within to be safely taken apart. This is essential if potential future releases of radioactivity, 100 years or more into the future, are to be prevented. </p>
<p>Construction of the steel arch-shaped structure began in 2010 and is currently scheduled for completion in 2017. At 110 metres tall with a span of 260 metres, the confinement structure will be large enough to house St Paul’s Cathedral or two Statues of Liberty on top of one another. But the major construction challenges are not down to size alone. </p>
<p>The close-fitting arch structure is designed to completely entomb Reactor 4. It will be hermetically sealed to prevent the release of radioactive particles should the structures beneath collapse. Triple-layered, radiation-resistant panels made from polycarbonate-coated stainless steel will clad the arch to provide shielding that will be crucial for allowing people to safely return to the area in <a href="http://eng.belta.by/photonews/view/over-20000-people-were-resettled-from-khoiniki-district-after-chernobyl-accident-741/">ongoing resettlement programmes</a>.</p>
<h2>Innovative engineering solutions</h2>
<p>Operating a building site at the world’s most radioactively hazardous site has inevitably led to a number of engineering innovations. Before work could start, a construction site was prepared 300 metres west of the reactor building, so workers could build the structure without being exposed to radiation. Hundreds of tonnes of radioactive soil had to be removed from the area, and great slabs of concrete laid to provide extra radiation protection. </p>
<p>Inconveniently for a 110 metre-high construction, working above 30 metres is impossible – the higher you go, the closer you get to the top of the exposed reactor core, where radiation dose rates are high enough to pose a significant threat to life. The solution? Build from the top down. After each section of the structure was built, starting with the top of the arch, it was hoisted into the air, 30 metres at a time, and then horizontal supports were added. This was done using jacks that were once used to raise the Russian nuclear submarine, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/aug/05/kursk.russia">the Kursk</a>, from the bottom of the Barents Sea. The process was repeated until the giant structure reached 110 metres into the air. The two halves of the arch were also constructed separately and have <a href="http://www.ebrd.com/what-we-do/sectors/nuclear-safety/chernobyl-new-safe-confinement.html">recently been joined together</a>.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/MPYcU7Uno9o?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>The next challenge is to make sure the confinement structure lasts 100 years. In the old sarcophagus, “<a href="http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2012/12/features/containing-chernobyl">roof rain</a>” condensation formed when the inside surface of the roof was cooler than the atmosphere outside, corroding any metal structures it came into contact with. To prevent this in the new structure, a complex ventilation system will heat the inner part of the confinement structure roof to avoid any temperature or humidity differences.</p>
<p>Finally, a state-of-the-art solution is required to move the confinement structure, which weighs more than 30,000 tonnes, from its construction site to the final resting place above Reactor 4. The giant building will slide 300 metres along rail tracks, furnished with specially developed <a href="https://www.theengineer.co.uk/building-chernobyls-new-safe-confinement/">Teflon bearings</a>, which will minimise friction and allow accurate positioning. </p>
<h2>Future safety</h2>
<p>Once the new structure finally confines the radiation, deconstruction of the previous sarcophagus and Reactor 4 within can begin bit by bit. This will be done using a remotely operated heavy-duty crane and robotic tools suspended from the new confinement roof. However, the high levels of radioactivity may damage these remote systems, much like the robots that entered the stricken Fukushima core and “<a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/10/these_fukushima_decontamination_bots_are_dying_trying.html">died trying</a>” to capture the damage on camera. </p>
<p>At the very least, building a new confinement structure buys the Ukrainian government more time to develop new radiation-resistant clean-up solutions and undertake the clean-up as safely as possible, all while the radioactive material is decaying. This is an enforced lesson in patience. Only constant innovation in engineering, robotics and materials will allow nuclear disaster sites like Chernobyl and Fukushima to be made safe, once and for all.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/58025/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Claire Corkhill does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Engineers have devised an innovative way to dismantle Chernobyl’s reactor while preventing further radiation escaping.Claire Corkhill, Research Fellow in nuclear waste disposal, University of SheffieldLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/480712015-09-28T13:38:22Z2015-09-28T13:38:22ZSimpler, smaller, cheaper? Alternatives to Britain’s new nuclear power plant<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/96453/original/image-20150928-415-9n8sac.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/24784125@N07/3286343773">na0905/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Britain appears to finally be on the way to building its first new nuclear power station for 20 years. The chancellor of the exchequer, George Osborne, recently announced a £2 billion loan guarantee linked to the development of the Hinkley Point C power plant, signalling that the final decision to build cannot be far behind. But the plans from French firm EDF have drawn <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2015/sep/21/hinkley-point-nuclear-station-enemies">criticism from an array</a> of experts and commentators for being too expensive and relying on an as yet unproven technology that is already <a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/09/22/uk-edf-britain-hinkley-idUKKCN0RM0YG20150922">being redesigned</a>.</p>
<p>Although the basic principles of nuclear energy are relatively simple, the specific designs of different reactors can vary considerably. The two other companies hoping to build new nuclear plants in the UK, for example, each favour alternatives to EDF’s model. So are we in danger of backing the wrong technology with the current plans for Hinkley Point?</p>
<p><a href="http://www.whatisnuclear.com/articles/nucreactor.html">Nuclear reactors</a> generate heat from uranium using a reaction <a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Introduction/Physics-of-Nuclear-Energy/">known as fission</a>. This is a process where atomic nuclei split into two fragments, releasing energy in the form of heat. Fission of one atom also releases several neutrons that can spark the same process in neighbouring atoms, leading to a chain reaction throughout the uranium fuel within the reactor core. The chain reaction can be slowed or stopped by inserting control rods into the core to absorb the excess neutrons.</p>
<p>The heat from the reaction is used to create steam, which generates electricity via a turbine. The heat is carried away from the core by a coolant substance, which can also be used as a moderator to slow down the neutrons and increase the chances that they induce fission in other fuel atoms (although some designs use separate moderators).</p>
<h2>Overdue, over-budget, over-engineered</h2>
<p>The reactor EDF wants to use at Hinkley Point C is a type of pressurised water reactor (PWR) that uses water as both the moderator and coolant. The specific design is known as a European pressurised reactor (EPR) and evolved from earlier French models with innovations such as a concrete-ceramic <a href="http://pulitzercenter.org/reporting/russia-nuclear-technology-reactors-chernobyl-energy-atomexpo">core catcher</a> to prevent the molten core of the reactor escaping in the case of a meltdown. If built, it will deliver 3.2GW of electrical power, roughly equivalent to 7% of the UK’s electricity.</p>
<p>Power stations featuring this enhanced EPR design are being built in France, Finland and China, but none are yet online and the first two are <a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/09/03/edf-nuclear-flamanville-idUKL5N1182LY20150903">billions of pounds</a> over budget and <a href="http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/nn-olkiluoto-3-start-up-pushed-back-to-2018-0109147.html">years overdue</a>. The Chinese projects are only delayed by <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/29/china-france-nuclear-idUSL4N0V86A320150129">around two years</a>, perhaps due to experience gained in the European projects.</p>
<p>The predicted cost of Hinkley Point C has steadily risen from £14bn to £24.5bn and has <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/11148193/Hinkley-Point-nuclear-plant-to-cost-34bn-EU-says.html">steadily risen</a> from earlier estimates of £16bn. The complexity of the project is enormous, due to what is believed to be by many to be an <a href="http://www.theengineer.co.uk/opinion/reactors-to-speed/308102.article">over-engineered design</a>. There are also <a href="http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-Flamanville-EPR-vessel-anomalies-under-scrutiny-0704154.html">reported issues</a> regarding the manufacture of the reactor pressure vessel for the EPR associated with anomalies in the composition of the steel.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/96454/original/image-20150928-440-4t32mn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/96454/original/image-20150928-440-4t32mn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/96454/original/image-20150928-440-4t32mn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/96454/original/image-20150928-440-4t32mn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/96454/original/image-20150928-440-4t32mn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/96454/original/image-20150928-440-4t32mn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/96454/original/image-20150928-440-4t32mn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Proven technology in Japan.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungmen_Nuclear_Power_Plant#/media/File:台湾第四原子力発電所.jpg">Toach japan/Wikimedia Commons</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Simpler reactor</h2>
<p>EDF <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34149392">has admitted</a> that Hinkley Point C will not start operating in 2023 as originally predicted. As a result, the first new nuclear plant to come online in the UK may actually be an entirely different type: the <a href="http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN_Britain_to_have_boiling_water_reactors_3010121.html">advanced boiling water reactor</a> (ABWR), a proven Japanese design from Hitachi-GE that has been used in nuclear power stations since the 1990s.</p>
<p>This reactor is simpler because the water is allowed to boil in the reactor creating steam directly. In PWRs on the other hand, two stages are required to create the steam and the water in the core is maintained at pressure to prevent boiling. The ABWR is also self-compensating. This means it can maintain a stable temperature simply through normal operation. The hotter it gets, the more steam it produces. This reduces the amount of neutrons produced and so the reaction slows down, diminishing the amount of heat again. </p>
<p>On top of this, the ABWR has advantages from a manufacturing point of view. It has a modular design (it is build in sections assembled in factories rather than in one big piece) and so its construction is more straightforward and therefore cheaper. This means the electricity price the government will need to guarantee to the plant’s operator Horizon is <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10164435/Rival-nuclear-companies-cheaper-than-EDF-Ed-Davey-suggests.html">likely to be lower</a> than that of the 92.5p/MWh agreed with EDF for Hinkley Point C.</p>
<h2>New generation</h2>
<p>Looking further into the future, the NuGen proposal, backed by Toshiba, to bring the Westinghouse AP1000 design to the UK is another promising prospect. This advanced passive 1GW reactor is actually a PWR but is <a href="http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/New-Plants/AP1000-PWR">highly simplified</a> compared to the EPR with far fewer components and so far fewer things that could wrong. It also employs a large amount of passive safety features that work even without an external power source. In this instance natural processes such as gravity-induced flow and convection are used to drive the circulation of cooling.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the rather blinkered focus of the government on delivering the Hinkley Point project without recognising what is coming in the near future is a significant point of weakness for UK nuclear energy policy. An approach that gave greater recognition to the potential of other designs could avoid future embarrassment, as well as saving money for the taxpayer and energy bill payer.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/48071/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The Birmingham Centre for Nuclear Education and Research recieves funding from EPSRC related to nuclear power R&D.</span></em></p>The UK government looks set to allow EDF to build a new kind of nuclear reactor at Hinkley Point. But are there better nuclear technologies we could use?Martin Freer, Professor of Nuclear Physics, Director of Birmingham Centre of Nuclear Education and Research, University of BirminghamLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/460182015-08-16T20:26:41Z2015-08-16T20:26:41ZJapan fires up nuclear power again, but can it ever be safe enough?<p>After <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/may/05/japan-shuts-down-last-nuclear-reactor">two years without any nuclear power</a> in response to the 2011 Fukushima earthquake, tsunami and subsequent nuclear crisis, Japan has restarted its first reactor, Sendai 1. </p>
<p>Following the Fukushima event, Japan’s nuclear power generators were gradually shut down. Before the earthquake, nuclear power accounted for around 30% of Japan’s electricity. After the shutdown, fossil fuels largely picked up the slack and have been doing the heavy lifting ever since, causing a sustained rise in greenhouse gas emissions. </p>
<p>The restart of Sendai 1 is good news for Japan’s response to climate change, and comes with heightened safety regulations around nuclear energy. Based on our assessment of the evidence, this only makes a safe industry safer. But there are still large psychological barriers to overcome. </p>
<h2>Visiting Fukushima</h2>
<p>In May this year we returned to the megalapolis of Tokyo, following <a href="http://decarbonisesa.com/2015/05/28/not-humbled-angered-the-response-to-fukushima-is-an-ongoing-mistake-part-1/">our visit to Fukushima</a> prefecture and the site of the destroyed Daiichi reactors. </p>
<p>We carried <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dosimeter">dosimeters</a> (a device that measures radiation) through the 20 km radius exclusion zone and wore them at the site. At the very foot of reactor unit 1, the dose rate was serious (greater than 400 microsieverts per hour). Just a couple of hundred metres away at the undamaged reactor 6, the rate was normal background (less than 0.5 microsieverts per hour).</p>
<p>Our cumulative dose for the site visit during the course of that day was about one-seventh the <a href="http://www.arpansa.gov.au/radiationprotection/factsheets/is_cosmic.cfm">dose we received on our flights</a> to Tokyo. </p>
<p>The nuclear accident destroyed four of the six reactors at this site. The decommissioning will take a long time. But it did not irrecoverably poison a landscape. Formal expert studies have shown that the radiation <a href="http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2013/14-06336_Report_2013_Annex_A_Ebook_website.pdf">has caused and will cause no discernible human harm</a>. </p>
<h2>The psychology of a nuclear disaster</h2>
<p>The most serious outcomes have, again, been <a href="http://eandt.theiet.org/news/2015/jul/radiation-psychological.cfm">psychological hurt</a> inflicted on those affected. As we heard first-hand from officials in Naraha town, <a href="http://decarbonisesa.com/2015/05/28/not-humbled-angered-the-response-to-fukushima-is-an-ongoing-mistake-part-1/">“unfounded rumours”</a> continue to be one of the biggest obstacles for the community to recover from this event.</p>
<p>The prolonged closure of the rest of the largely undamaged Japanese fleet of reactors also led to a steep increase in fossil fuel importation, hurting the Japanese economy and <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2014/11/17/japan-co2-emissions-worst-on-record/">sending greenhouse emissions rising steeply</a>. Japan’s recent electricity supply has come to resemble Australia’s dependence on fossil fuels. That’s not a good thing, unless you sell fossil fuels. </p>
<p>Yet despite the economic hit and the massive setback to its previously announced climate change targets, Japan has been struggling to restart its reactors. When we visited the Japan Atomic Industrial Forum on this same visit, the mood was sober. Public opinion was holding hard against nuclear. The restart was far from certain despite exhaustive checks and approvals. </p>
<p>One in our number was prescient when he said that Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s government will simply need to spend political capital, restart reactors and manage the response. That appears to have been the case with the restart of 30-year-old, 890-megawatt Sendai 1 reactor this week.</p>
<h2>Making a safe industry safer</h2>
<p>No informed observer argues that the failings displayed at Fukushima, both technical and procedural, were not serious. So how can people, most of all the Japanese, feel confident in the restart of other reactors?</p>
<p>The Japanese regulator took strong action with <a href="http://www.nsr.go.jp/data/000067212.pdf">major boosts in safety standards</a>. Here are some of those new actions:</p>
<p>A nuclear plant must be designed to withstand a tsunami larger than any recorded event - which includes the 2011 events. As a result, major new seawall infrastructure has been installed to protect plants. </p>
<p>The major failure at Fukushima, the loss of power to the reactor, has been addressed. Off-site power supply must now be from two fully independent circuits. Previously, two emergency on-site generators were required. This has been boosted to a third permanent installed generator, plus two mobile units located in nearby elevated terrain, all with a seven-day fuel supply. These requirements apply to all plants.</p>
<p>Previously, internal flooding was not regarded as a plausible event. Now it is. No matter the hypothetical cause, all critical buildings must demonstrate protection from flooding, for example through the installation of new watertight doors.</p>
<p>At Fukushima Daiichi, the loss of cooling in the core during the first day of the accident led to the buildup of steam and hydrogen gas in the reactor pressure vessel. After delays due to power loss to the pressure pumps, these gases were eventually released from the containment vessel, but the power failure meant that venting from the reactor building itself to the outside failed. The highly volatile hydrogen gas accumulated and chemical explosions subsequently ensued.</p>
<p>There are new systems tied to the additional backup power supply to ensure prompter venting from the containment vessel. Permanently installed filtered venting systems are now in place to then vent any gases from the reactor building. </p>
<p>If containment does fail, large-scale water cannons will be deployed to douse the reactor building and prevent the dispersion of material away from site.</p>
<p>Reactors that have been operating for more than 30 years will require assessment of structure, systems and components at year 30 and every decade thereafter. Operational lives are limited to 40 years with one potential extension of not more than 20 years.</p>
<p>Such extraordinary measures, piled on top of a sector that has operated very safely bar one accident triggered by an extraordinary external catastrophe, will make the very safe even safer. </p>
<h2>But do we feel safe?</h2>
<p>Despite the increase in regulation, many people still feel unsafe around nuclear energy. This may in fact be <em>because</em> of the high levels of regulation – if something needs so much attention, it must be dangerous, right? </p>
<p>We can contrast this with the risks of fossil fuels. More than 7 million deaths are <a href="http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2014/air-pollution/en/">attributed to air pollution annually</a>, with fossil fuels an important contributor to this figure. Burning coal for energy and heat contributes <a href="https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/CO2EmissionsFromFuelCombustionHighlights2014.pdf">20% of greenhouse gases</a> that are warming the earth every year. That all happens when they are in perfect working order.</p>
<p>Will nuclear technology ever win hearts and minds to scale-up and replace coal? </p>
<p>The focus now is on “stupid-proofing” nuclear technology - making nuclear power immune to human error (also called <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety">“walk-away safe”</a>). Reactor technology is heading increasingly in this direction.</p>
<p>Today’s designs like the <a href="http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/new-plants/ap1000-pwr">AP-1000</a> from Westinghouse go a long way towards “stupid” safety. It will likely be metal-fuelled, liquid-metal-cooled recycling reactors like the <a href="http://gehitachiprism.com/">PRISM</a>, or fluid-fuelled reactors like the <a href="http://terrestrialenergy.com/imsr-technology/">IMSR</a> from Terrestrial Energy (for whom Ben has consulted) or the <a href="http://thorconpower.com/">ThorCon</a> reactor that decisively change the game for nuclear technology. </p>
<p>All of these designs incorporate “inherent” safety systems. Rather than requiring an operator, they rely on physical principles to regulate the reactor (for instance, gravity-fed cooling systems or the expansion of the fuel with heat).</p>
<p>Can Japan and the world be confident their nuclear sector is safe? The only evidence-based conclusion we can reach is “yes”. But it may take fundamental changes in the technology before most people will believe it.</p>
<p><em>This article was amended on August 18, 2015, to correct an error in the reported background radiation rate near the undamaged reactor 6. The recorded rate was less than 0.5 microsieverts per hour, not less than 5 microsieverts per hour as originally stated.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/46018/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ben Heard consulted for Terrestrial Energy for the preparation of a submission to the South Australian Royal Commission. He traveled to Japan as a guest of the National Graduate Institute of Policy Studies (GRIPS) (Tokyo), the Institute of Energy Economics of Japan, The Breakthrough Institute (USA), and the Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Barry W. Brook receives research funding from the Australian Research Council. He is a member of the Expert Advisory Committee of the South Australian Royal Commission into the Nuclear Fuel Cycle, and the International Awards Committee of the Global Energy Prize.
He traveled to Japan as a guest of the National Graduate Institute of Policy Studies (GRIPS) (Tokyo), the Institute of Energy Economics of Japan, The Breakthrough Institute (USA), and the Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia.</span></em></p>The restart of Japan’s nuclear reactors is good news for climate change. But there are still large psychological barriers to overcome.Ben Heard, Doctoral student, University of AdelaideBarry W. Brook, Professor of Environmental Sustainability, University of TasmaniaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/352842015-05-21T09:58:27Z2015-05-21T09:58:27ZHarvesting usable fuel from nuclear waste – and dealing with the last chemical troublemakers<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82103/original/image-20150518-25400-1fnl94d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">No one's a fan of nuclear waste. What if we could just recycle it all?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/genphys/17029863549">General Physics Laboratory (GPL)</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>This article is part of The Conversation’s worldwide series on the Future of Nuclear. You can read the rest of the series <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/future-of-nuclear-series">here</a>.</em></p>
<p>Nuclear energy provides about <a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/Nuclear-Basics/">11% of the world’s total electricity</a> today. This power source produces no carbon dioxide during plant operation, meaning it doesn’t contribute to climate change via greenhouse gas emissions. It can provide bulk power to industry and households around the clock, giving it a leg up on the intermittent nature of solar and wind. </p>
<p>It also receives widespread contempt for a variety of reasons – many purely emotional and with little or no scientific grounding. The most pressing legitimate issue is the management of used nuclear fuel, the waste by-product that needs to be removed from the reactor and replaced with fresh fuel to sustain power generation.</p>
<p>Ongoing research is tackling this problem by attempting to figure out how to transform much of what is currently waste into usable fuel.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82101/original/image-20150518-25412-f8454x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82101/original/image-20150518-25412-f8454x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82101/original/image-20150518-25412-f8454x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=515&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82101/original/image-20150518-25412-f8454x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=515&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82101/original/image-20150518-25412-f8454x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=515&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82101/original/image-20150518-25412-f8454x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=647&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82101/original/image-20150518-25412-f8454x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=647&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82101/original/image-20150518-25412-f8454x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=647&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The nuclear fuel cycle.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/nrcgov/7845780234">Nuclear Regulatory Commission</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>How do reactors generate nuclear waste?</h2>
<p>The reaction that produces energy in a nuclear reactor takes place in the nuclei of atoms – hence the name. One atom of uranium-235 (which contains 92 protons and 143 neutrons) absorbs a neutron and splits into two new atoms. This process releases large amounts of energy and, on average, 2.5 new neutrons that can be absorbed by other uranium-235 atoms, propagating a chain reaction. This process is called fission. The two new atoms are called fission products. They contribute to most of the short- to medium-term radioactivity of the fuel upon discharge from the reactor.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82099/original/image-20150518-25432-1o96zam.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82099/original/image-20150518-25432-1o96zam.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82099/original/image-20150518-25432-1o96zam.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82099/original/image-20150518-25432-1o96zam.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82099/original/image-20150518-25432-1o96zam.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82099/original/image-20150518-25432-1o96zam.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82099/original/image-20150518-25432-1o96zam.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82099/original/image-20150518-25432-1o96zam.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Replacing some of the core and replacing with fresh fuel.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/iaea_imagebank/8568198036">IAEA Imagebank</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Fission is most likely to take place in heavy atoms. Nuclear engineers and nuclear chemists focus on the heaviest elements – that is, the actinides, located at the very bottom of the periodic table. The fission process continues, consuming fuel, until the amount of burnable (fissile) atoms is no longer economical to keep using. Then the reactor is temporarily shut down for refueling. A third of the core is removed and replaced with fresh fuel. The remaining two-thirds of the core is shuffled around to optimize the power production. The leftover material, the used fuel, is highly radioactive and physically hot, and must therefore be cooled and shielded for safety reasons. </p>
<p>In a commercial power reactor, brand new unused fuel consists of 3%-5% uranium-235, with the balance being uranium-238. The heavier uranium-238 isotope will not fission but can transform to an even heavier isotope, uranium-239, via a process called neutron capture. Continued neutron capture eventually produces a suite of elements heavier than uranium (so called trans-uranics), some of which will fission and produce power, but some of which will not. </p>
<p>These trans-uranic, actinide elements – including neptunium, plutonium, americium and curium – have one thing in common: they contribute to the long-term radioactivity of the used fuel. After the energy-generating fission reaction, the fission products’ radioactivity decreases rapidly. But because of the other trans-uranic elements in the mix, the material needs to be isolated until deemed safe – on the order of millions of years.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82105/original/image-20150518-25400-7e21zy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82105/original/image-20150518-25400-7e21zy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82105/original/image-20150518-25400-7e21zy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=410&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82105/original/image-20150518-25400-7e21zy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=410&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82105/original/image-20150518-25400-7e21zy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=410&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82105/original/image-20150518-25400-7e21zy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=516&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82105/original/image-20150518-25400-7e21zy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=516&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82105/original/image-20150518-25400-7e21zy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=516&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">At least 23 feet of water covers the fuel assemblies in the spent fuel pool at the Brunswick Nuclear Power Plant in Southport, North Carolina.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/nrcgov/15856396219">Matt Born/Wilmington Star-News</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Upon discharge from the reactor, the used fuel contains only about 3%-4% fission products. The rest is uranium and trans-uranics that weren’t part of the fission reaction. Most of the material is the original uranium-238, still perfectly suited to use in new fuel, as is the remaining uranium-235 and the plutonium-239 (combined about 1.5% of the used fuel).</p>
<p>Disposing of this material as waste is like taking one small bite of a sandwich and then throwing the rest in the trash. It’s no surprise then that several countries are <a href="http://www.areva.com/EN/operations-1118/areva-la-hague-recycling-used-fuel.html">recycling nuclear fuel</a> to recover the remaining <a href="http://www.sellafieldsites.com/solution/spent-fuel-management/thorp-reprocessing/">useful material</a>. Other countries are revisiting these <a href="http://www.energy.gov/ne/fuel-cycle-technologies/fuel-cycle-research-development">options</a>, at least on a <a href="https://www.kaeri.re.kr/english/sub/sub04_03.jsp">research basis</a>.</p>
<h2>Scope of the waste problem</h2>
<p>A typical power reactor (1 GWe) produces about <a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Nuclear-Wastes/Radioactive-Waste-Management/">27 metric tons of used fuel</a> each year, in order to generate the electricity needed to power 700,000 homes (assuming an average American home <a href="http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=97&t=3">consumes</a> about 11,000 kWh annually and a power plant has an average capacity factor of 85%). For comparison, a coal plant of similar power output will produce <a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Nuclear-Wastes/Radioactive-Waste-Management/">400,000 metric tons of ash</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82104/original/image-20150518-25444-noqk7k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82104/original/image-20150518-25444-noqk7k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82104/original/image-20150518-25444-noqk7k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=681&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82104/original/image-20150518-25444-noqk7k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=681&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82104/original/image-20150518-25444-noqk7k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=681&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82104/original/image-20150518-25444-noqk7k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=856&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82104/original/image-20150518-25444-noqk7k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=856&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82104/original/image-20150518-25444-noqk7k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=856&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Once spent fuel has cooled, it’s loaded into special canisters.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/nrcgov/6473422629">Nuclear Regulatory Commission</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The world’s <a href="https://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/n/nuclear-power-plant-world-wide.htm">nuclear power capacity</a> is on the order of 370 GW, which corresponds to about 10,000 metric tons of used fuel generated each year worldwide. The total amount of used fuel in the world (as of September 2014) is around <a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Nuclear-Wastes/Radioactive-Waste-Management/">270,000 metric tons</a>, of which the <a href="http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/666454.pdf">US is storing about 70,000 metric tons</a>.</p>
<h2>The first round of reprocessing waste</h2>
<p>Removing uranium and plutonium from used fuel relies on a chemical process. Reprocessers dissolve the used fuel in acid and treat it with organic solvents to selectively remove the elements of interest and leave the unwanted elements behind. Commercial plants all use more or less the same method, <a href="https://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/p/purex-process.htm">PUREX</a> (Plutonium Uranium Reduction EXtraction). </p>
<p>Originally invented in the US in the late 1940s, over the years PUREX has been adapted slightly to improve its performance. This process doesn’t separate out elements heavier than plutonium. The waste product after the reprocessing still needs to be isolated for what is essentially an eternity.</p>
<p>The benefit, though, is that it can recycle about 97% of the spent fuel, massively decreasing the volume of waste. The bulk of the material can then be made into new reactor fuel containing a mix of uranium and plutonium, so-called mixed oxide or MOX-fuel.</p>
<p>Major reprocessing plants are located in the UK, France and Russia. India has some capacity, and Japan has a reasonably large plant that was recently completed but is currently not used. Global reprocessing capacity of commercial fuel is around 4,000 metric tons per year. To date about 90,000 metric tons of used fuel has been reprocessed, about <a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Fuel-Recycling/Processing-of-Used-Nuclear-Fuel/">30% of the total amount of used fuel</a> produced in commercial reactors.</p>
<p>Some countries that do not have their own reprocessing plants ship material to countries that do, such as France. It’s expensive to invest in reprocessing infrastructure. It can also be a political decision not to do so, as in the US, because the technology can be used to create material for weapons (this was the original use in the 1940s). Of course, all reprocessing plants are under the scrutiny of the <a href="https://www.iaea.org">International Atomic Energy Agency</a>, and must account for all processed material to ensure that nothing is diverted for potential use in weapons.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82106/original/image-20150518-25400-754c5f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82106/original/image-20150518-25400-754c5f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82106/original/image-20150518-25400-754c5f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82106/original/image-20150518-25400-754c5f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82106/original/image-20150518-25400-754c5f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82106/original/image-20150518-25400-754c5f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82106/original/image-20150518-25400-754c5f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82106/original/image-20150518-25400-754c5f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">IAEA inspectors seal the spent fuel pond at Dukovany Nuclear Power Plant in the Czech Republic.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/iaea_imagebank/8567098529">IAEA Imagebank</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Dealing with that last 3%</h2>
<p>But that level of reprocessing doesn’t completely solve the issue of used nuclear fuel. My <a href="http://nuclear.eng.uci.edu">research at UC Irvine</a>, as well as that of other labs around the world, focuses on new ways to deal with the last few troublemakers in the used nuclear fuel. </p>
<p>We’re working on how to remove the remaining long-lived trans-uranic actinides with an efficiency high enough that the remaining nuclear waste’s isolation time would be decreased to 1,000 years or less. Maybe this still sounds like a long time, but the world is full of structures that have lasted for more than 1,000 years; we should be confident that we can construct something that will last a millennium. We could also, with reasonable confidence, create signs or informational material to mark the storage that people 1,000 years from now could reliably interpret.</p>
<p>While removing uranium and plutonium is readily done (as via PUREX), the next separation step is a grand challenge for various reasons. One is that many of the remaining fission products behave chemically very similar to americium and curium. This requires highly specialized chemicals that are often complex and expensive to synthesize. The radioactive nature of the material provides an additional layer of complexity; the radiation is not only hazardous for people but will also break down the chemicals needed for separation and may speed up corrosion and damage the equipment used in these processes. </p>
<p>The research efforts under way focus on developing new chemical reagents that are more stable with regard to radiation, more selective for the elements we are interested in recovering, and easier to make. Because of this, a lot of effort goes to fundamental studies of the chemical interactions between reagents and elements in used fuel. The <a href="http://www.acsept.org/AIWOpdf/AIWO1-12-Nash.pdf">problem at hand</a> has been described as a chemists’ playground and an engineers’ challenge.</p>
<p>The bottom line is that none of this is science fiction. Getting to a point at which almost all nuclear waste can be repurposed poses a grand challenge, perhaps comparable to putting a man on the moon, but it is not impossible.</p>
<p><em>This article is part of The Conversation’s worldwide series on the Future of Nuclear. You can read the rest of the series <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/future-of-nuclear-series">here</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/35284/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mikael Nilsson receives funding from the US Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. He is affiliated with the American Nuclear Society.</span></em></p>Even the biggest proponents of nuclear power can’t ignore 10,000 metric tons of spent fuel globally every year. What if we could recycle every last atom of nuclear waste?Mikael Nilsson, Associate Professor of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, University of California, IrvineLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/360462015-05-20T10:09:56Z2015-05-20T10:09:56ZHow nuclear power-generating reactors have evolved since their birth in the 1950s<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81920/original/image-20150515-25415-lc4l9m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Reactor pressure vessel during construction of Shippingport Atomic Power Station in Pennsylvania, 1956.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Shippingport_LOC_135430pu.jpg">U.S. Department of Energy, Naval Reactors Program</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>This article is part of The Conversation’s worldwide series on the Future of Nuclear. You can read the rest of the series <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/future-of-nuclear-series">here</a>.</em></p>
<blockquote>
<p>There is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Four internationally recognized <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/03/world/nuclear-energy-climate-change-scientists-letter/">climate scientists</a> issued this plea to fellow environmentalists in November 2013, arguing that nuclear energy needs to be a part of the global climate change solution. We need to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuels. <a href="http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/24/more-views-on-nuclear-power-waste-safety-and-cost/">Nuclear power is the best option</a> today; it can deliver electric power in a sufficiently safe, economical, continuous and secure manner synergistic with supply from other carbon-free sources such as solar and wind. And the technology has been evolving since its birth during World War II.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81751/original/image-20150514-28606-vdxy0k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81751/original/image-20150514-28606-vdxy0k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81751/original/image-20150514-28606-vdxy0k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=445&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81751/original/image-20150514-28606-vdxy0k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=445&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81751/original/image-20150514-28606-vdxy0k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=445&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81751/original/image-20150514-28606-vdxy0k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=559&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81751/original/image-20150514-28606-vdxy0k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=559&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81751/original/image-20150514-28606-vdxy0k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=559&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Scale model of Fermi’s CP-1 reactor, actually built in a University of Chicago rackets court.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HD.5A.032_(10542728606).jpg">United States Department of Energy</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Nuclear energy’s origin story</h2>
<p>Nuclear energy started beneath the football stands at the University of Chicago. That’s where, in late 1942, a group of scientists under Enrico Fermi created the first nuclear reactor. Like all reactors that followed, this one split fuel atoms into lighter elements – a process called fission that releases large amounts of energy, more than a million times as large as an ordinary chemical reaction. </p>
<p>Fermi’s group assembled fissionable uranium fuel within an array of graphite blocks. This configuration slowed the speed of the first neutrons created by fission sufficiently to continue the reaction. The Fermi reactor proved that a sustainable yet controlled chain reaction could be produced, thus ushering the way to much larger reactors capable of supplying cities and whole regions with electrical power. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81753/original/image-20150514-28590-sf25od.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81753/original/image-20150514-28590-sf25od.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81753/original/image-20150514-28590-sf25od.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=776&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81753/original/image-20150514-28590-sf25od.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=776&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81753/original/image-20150514-28590-sf25od.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=776&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81753/original/image-20150514-28590-sf25od.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=975&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81753/original/image-20150514-28590-sf25od.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=975&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81753/original/image-20150514-28590-sf25od.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=975&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Rear Admiral Rickover inspecting the USS Nautilus.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hyman_Rickover_inspecting_USS_Nautilus.jpg">United States Navy</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>By early 1955, Admiral Hyman Rickover had overseen the construction and successful launch of the submarine Nautilus. To propel the vessel, it used light water coolant to extract the energy released via fission of its highly enriched uranium-fueled core. The pressurized coolant had sufficient density to slow the neutrons down enough such that the chain reaction could be maintained. Based on its successful use for submarine and surface naval vessel propulsion, this pressurized light water cooled design was subsequently adopted for commercial nuclear power in the US and is used today worldwide for electricity production, along with its close relative, the boiling light water reactor.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81908/original/image-20150515-25441-o068wq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81908/original/image-20150515-25441-o068wq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81908/original/image-20150515-25441-o068wq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=339&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81908/original/image-20150515-25441-o068wq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=339&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81908/original/image-20150515-25441-o068wq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=339&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81908/original/image-20150515-25441-o068wq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=426&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81908/original/image-20150515-25441-o068wq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=426&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81908/original/image-20150515-25441-o068wq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=426&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The heat from pressurized water reactors makes steam that turns turbines that generate electricity.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/nrcgov/10713724664">US Nuclear Regulatory Commission</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Reactor concepts have evolved since then over the 60-year period of nuclear power reactor development, using other coolants such as gas, molten salt and liquid metals including sodium and lead that allow operation at higher temperatures and hence more efficient power cycles.</p>
<p>Extensive attention to reactor safety, construction and maintenance costs, and control of spent used fuel have led to the reactors deployed today – about 100 in the US and over 400 worldwide. They’re overwhelmingly of the light water type of the Nautilus design that uses pressurized water as the coolant to capture the heat released by fission and transfer it to electrical generators.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82279/original/image-20150519-30566-1hnyz24.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82279/original/image-20150519-30566-1hnyz24.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82279/original/image-20150519-30566-1hnyz24.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82279/original/image-20150519-30566-1hnyz24.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82279/original/image-20150519-30566-1hnyz24.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82279/original/image-20150519-30566-1hnyz24.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82279/original/image-20150519-30566-1hnyz24.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82279/original/image-20150519-30566-1hnyz24.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Vogtle nuclear plant currently under construction in Georgia.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/nrcgov/16040487141">Nuclear Regulatory Commission</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Nuclear power’s next generation</h2>
<p>Nuclear energy has the potential to supply electricity to countries without alternate fuel resources, to contribute to climate stabilization by producing electricity without CO2 emissions, and to displace fuels that lead to air pollution. In light of these advantages, engineers in national laboratories and universities and in the private sector are actively pursuing innovation in nuclear power reactors. </p>
<ul>
<li>A reactor that needs to be fed only natural uranium and thus – unlike existing enriched-uranium reactors – <a href="http://terrapower.com/pages/technology">extracts the full energy</a> of our abundant world supply of uranium fuel.</li>
<li>A reactor that burns fuel made from the waste fuel of existing reactors or its own recycled spent fuel. Reactors of this type are in operation in China and Russia, under construction in Russia and India, and design in <a href="http://www.nuklear.kit.edu/img/02_494.WE-Heraeus-Seminar_Dec_2011_Zaetta.pdf">France</a>.</li>
</ul>
<p>Both of these newer reactor types are cooled with sodium (or in one project, lead). Both elements do not appreciably slow down neutrons since they are of higher atomic weight than water’s hydrogen-oxygen combination. They are aptly called <a href="http://www4vip.inl.gov/research/sodium-cooled-fast-reactor/">fast reactors</a>, referring to the speed of the neutrons. The higher speed allows neutron interactions with the fuel materials – both natural uranium and higher atomic weight transuranics – to extract the full energy value of uranium and to burn spent fuel.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81918/original/image-20150515-25412-1eb9xlh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81918/original/image-20150515-25412-1eb9xlh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81918/original/image-20150515-25412-1eb9xlh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=771&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81918/original/image-20150515-25412-1eb9xlh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=771&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81918/original/image-20150515-25412-1eb9xlh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=771&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81918/original/image-20150515-25412-1eb9xlh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=968&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81918/original/image-20150515-25412-1eb9xlh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=968&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81918/original/image-20150515-25412-1eb9xlh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=968&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Pebble bed reactor scheme English svg.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pebble_bed_reactor_scheme_(English).svg">Picoterawatt</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<ul>
<li>A high-temperature reactor, the helium-cooled thermal spectrum gas reactor pioneered in the US, is now under construction in China. This reactor uses fuel placed within billiard-sized graphite balls, hence its description as “the <a href="http://web.mit.edu/pebble-bed/Presentation/HTGR.pdf">pebble bed reactor type</a>.” It operates at such high temperatures that it could displace the existing need for natural gas (used for multiple chemical processes) and also be an efficient producer of hydrogen, a 21st-century fuel.</li>
<li>Another thermal spectrum high temperature reactor that uses the same type uranium fuel in graphite balls but a molten fluoride salt coolant which is of low atomic weight. Importantly, the fluoride salt properties allow operation at very high temperatures to produce electricity without high coolant pressure or boiling, so that thin walled structures of low capital cost can be employed.</li>
</ul>
<p>Each of these four reactor types will enhance the safe, economical and secure delivery of nuclear power.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81926/original/image-20150515-25422-64xhk5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81926/original/image-20150515-25422-64xhk5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81926/original/image-20150515-25422-64xhk5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=391&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81926/original/image-20150515-25422-64xhk5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=391&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81926/original/image-20150515-25422-64xhk5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=391&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81926/original/image-20150515-25422-64xhk5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=491&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81926/original/image-20150515-25422-64xhk5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=491&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81926/original/image-20150515-25422-64xhk5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=491&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Nuclear fuel pellets made of processed uranium.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/nrcgov/15420174614">Nuclear Regulatory Commission</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Enhancing safety at today’s reactors</h2>
<p>But to achieve industrial and commercial acceptance, these new concepts also must achieve improvement in cost and safety performance. So too must the advanced nuclear power stations now being deployed worldwide based on proven light water reactor technology to replace the existing fleet of operating reactors.</p>
<p>Such safety gains are now being achieved through the adoption of reactor safety systems operated by laws of nature such as gravity and natural circulation, rather than being dependent on actively generated electric power. These emergency coolant safety systems can automatically deliver needed coolant to prevent core damage by gravity flow, without the need for operator action.</p>
<p>Approaches to reduce reactor costs are being achieved through innovations in construction techniques which reduce both capital costs and erection time.</p>
<p>The energy needs of the world are large and growing. The 1.2 billion people who don’t even have <a href="http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/energy">access to electricity</a> cannot be denied the ability to improve their quality of life. Nuclear energy provides a scalable, clean source of safe, reliable power which, with other clean energy sources, can meet the world’s needs in a sustainable manner.</p>
<p><em>This article is part of The Conversation’s worldwide series on the Future of Nuclear. You can read the rest of the series <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/future-of-nuclear-series">here</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/36046/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Neil Todreas currently receives research funding from Électricité de France. Previously he has received funding from the US Department of Energy and the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. He is a fellow of the American Nuclear Society. He has previously served as a consultant and advisory committee member to the US, French and Belgian national governments and to academia on national and international activities in fission nuclear energy. In the past, he has served as a safety advisor for several nuclear power plants and as a member and chair of the advisory committee of the Institute for Nuclear Power Operations.</span></em></p>The basics of fission physics have stayed the same over the decades. But power-generating reactor designs have evolved, turning to new coolants, recycled fuel and other innovations.Neil Todreas, Professor Emeritus of Nuclear Science and Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/337082015-02-05T06:20:11Z2015-02-05T06:20:11ZWhat’s inside the first new US nuclear plant in two decades<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/71135/original/image-20150204-28618-1bw0j6j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Nuclear power plants, like this one in Tennessee, supply almost 20 percent of the electricity in the US.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Nuclear Regulatory Comission</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>It’s been almost two decades since a new nuclear plant opened for business in the United States. But that’s about to change as construction wraps up on the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Watts Bar Unit 2 (<a href="http://www.tva.gov/power/nuclear/wattsbar_unit2.htm">WB2</a>) plant. </p>
<p>Completion of the plant’s construction, following a long hiatus, confirms the importance of nuclear power in the overall energy supply in the US and beyond. To some, its opening later this year heralds the beginning of a much-anticipated nuclear renaissance in the US.</p>
<h2>Nine-inch-thick steel walls</h2>
<p>It’s been a long and winding road for WB2. The project <a href="http://www.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/ReactorDetails.aspx?current=700">started</a> in 1972 and was suspended in 1988 when the growth in power demand began to decline for TVA. Its sister unit, Watts Bar Unit 1, went on to open in May 1996, and was the last nuclear plant to do so in the United States.</p>
<p>Work resumed in 2007 on WB2. TVA says total construction <a href="http://www.tva.com/news/releases/aprjun12/watts_bar.html">investment</a> to complete construction of the plant is in the range of US$4 to $4.5 billion, with commercial operation anticipated for late 2015 or early 2016. When operational, WB2 will add more than <a href="http://www.tva.gov/power/nuclear/wattsbar.htm">1,100 megawatts</a> of generating capacity to the TVA system – enough to power 650,000 homes.</p>
<p>Engineers started drawing up the plans for these two Tennessee reactors in the 1960s, so critics have said that Watts Bar 2 isn’t so much the first nuclear power plant of the 21st century but instead the last one of the 20th century. But it has successfully passed a number of pre-operational tests of key systems and confirmed that all equipment and facilities ordered or built 40 years ago have been properly refurbished and updated. WB2 meets the latest safety standards, including those instituted after the 2011 Fukushima disaster in Japan.</p>
<p>One example is the steel reactor vessel with nine-inch-thick walls that can withstand a system pressure of 2,250 pounds per square inch. It serves as an important barrier for any radioactive material produced in the reactor core during the operation of the plant. </p>
<p>In a nuclear power plant, rods of uranium fuel are submerged in a pool of water. Fission chain reactions in the nuclear fuel generate heat and, by circulating water through the reactor core, the power plant produces steam that turns a turbine to generate electricity. Water is continuously pumped through the reactor core to remove the heat and avoid overheating that could cause problems. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/MGj_aJz7cTs?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>The <a href="http://www.tva.gov/power/nuclear/wattsbar_howworks.htm">WB2 plant</a> uses a well-established pressurized water reactor design that forms the basis for approximately two-thirds of the 100 nuclear plants, which generate about 20% of the nation’s electricity. The design, construction, and operation of the plants rely on the principle of having multiple safety barriers, which is called <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118043462">defense in depth</a> in the industry.</p>
<h2>Prepared for the worst</h2>
<p>A key safety feature of the plants is that the fission rates – or the rate of uranium chain reactions that create heat – will slow down if the cooling water temperature gets too high. That will reduce the power output and avoid overheating. </p>
<p>The 2011 Fukushima accident taught a valuable lesson when massive tsunami waves damaged four nuclear plants. In response, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission mandated new safety rules to lower the risk from this type of threat. Plants now have sheltered facilities where emergency equipment including power sources, pumps, hoses and communication devices are stored. </p>
<p>The Watts Bar site features 16-foot tall, 18-inch thick tornado-proof doors. The site is also served by one of two response centers at nearby Memphis, Tennessee, where five sets of portable emergency equipment are maintained.</p>
<p>The ice condenser containment building at Watts Bar 2 has come in for some criticism because it has a smaller volume than those at most other pressurized water reactors. It features beds of ice that could quench steam generated in major accidents and thus protect the reactor core and the containment building, the structure that encloses the reactor vessel and the core to prevent the escape of radiation in an emergency. </p>
<p>Eight other pressurized water plants in the US, including the Watts Bar Unit 1 and Sequoyah Unit 1, which is also in Tennessee, have similar ice condenser containments. In <a href="http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1150/v1/#intro">studies</a> analyzing the <a href="http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1303/ML13031A500.pdf">risk</a> associated with nuclear plants, the overall risk of operating the Sequoyah plant is estimated to be comparable to nuclear plants without ice water containment.</p>
<h2>The need for nuclear energy</h2>
<p>The world needs affordable, clean energy and entrepreneurs are working on figuring out new ways to generate it. Natural gas could be an inexpensive source of energy in the near term, but fracking technique used to extract it may pose substantial geological concerns and releases methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Furthermore, combustion of natural gas produces a significant amount of greenhouse gases.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/71132/original/image-20150204-28615-1bgrsyh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/71132/original/image-20150204-28615-1bgrsyh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=211&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/71132/original/image-20150204-28615-1bgrsyh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=211&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/71132/original/image-20150204-28615-1bgrsyh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=211&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/71132/original/image-20150204-28615-1bgrsyh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=265&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/71132/original/image-20150204-28615-1bgrsyh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=265&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/71132/original/image-20150204-28615-1bgrsyh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=265&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Watts Bar 2 nuclear plant will use the Westinghouse AP1000 design, which is being used in other countries including China.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://westinghousenuclear.com/New-Plants/AP1000-PWR">Westinghouse</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Even Bill Gates has established a company to develop and eventually build a so-called breeder reactor. This new type of nuclear reactor could operate with recycled used nuclear fuel and uranium tailings left over from enrichment plants. Breeder technology would help solve the problems associated with disposal of used nuclear fuel and at the same time produce affordable clean energy for the foreseeable future.</p>
<p>As the WB2 plant in 2015 and four other plants with the <a href="http://westinghousenuclear.com/New-Plants/AP1000-PWR">AP1000</a> nuclear power plant design prepare to go online over the next few years, nuclear deserves to take a prominent role as a carbon-free source of energy in the US.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/33708/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Lee does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>It’s been almost two decades since a new nuclear plant opened for business in the United States. But that’s about to change as construction wraps up on the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Watts Bar Unit 2…John Lee, Professor of Nuclear Engineering and Radiological Sciences, University of MichiganLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/357732014-12-22T13:43:22Z2014-12-22T13:43:22ZIf South Korea’s nuclear plant staff are vulnerable, then so are the reactors<p><a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/401112/claude-shannon-reluctant-father-of-the-digital-age/">Claude Shannon</a>, who many consider the father of modern information theory, <a href="https://archive.org/stream/bstj28-4-656">wrote a paper</a> in 1949 in which he pointed out that security should never be based upon your enemy’s ignorance of how your system is built. This is known today as the mantra: “There is no security through obscurity”. Does it matter then that a <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-30572575">South Korean nuclear plant was hacked</a> and plans of the complex stolen? That rather depends on what happens next.</p>
<p>As it is South Korea that’s the subject of this latest attack everyone tends to assume it must have had something to do with North Korea. With a target as sensitive as a nuclear power plant, not unreasonably people are asking if safety could be compromised by a cyber attack. Could hackers cause the next Chernobyl or Three Mile Island? The South Korean authorities have sought to reassure the public, making it clear that no “core systems” – those computers that control the reactor and safety systems – were compromised.</p>
<p>If it was North Korea – and there is no evidence it was – then one might imagine it was actually the technical details and blueprints of a modern nuclear reactor that was the intended target. But sadly there is secondary security implication: the plans reveal the role of the human operators in running the reactor, and when it comes to hacking into critical infrastructure it is people that are the weakest link.</p>
<h2>Weakest link in the chain</h2>
<p>For example, when Iran’s nuclear reprocessing plant at Natanz was hacked with the infamous <a href="http://www.wired.com/2014/11/countdown-to-zero-day-stuxnet/">Stuxnet</a> virus, it should not have been possible as the computers affected were not connected to the outside world. There was a very distinct “air gap” maintained between the reactor computer controllers and any other network. But that air gap was relatively easy to bridge, by leaving <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-your-usb-stick-the-enemy-30375">USB sticks</a> where curious people would find them, plug them in, and transfer the virus to the systems.</p>
<p>Imagine that – now you know which computers operate a nuclear power plant, and who uses them, which departments they work in, and at what times. Suddenly it’s possible to design a very targeted attack on the operators themselves, aimed at fooling them into breaching their own security. Information about people and processes that operate a technology is as valuable to a hacker as knowledge of the technology itself. Not only did Stuxnet damage equipment, it caused the computers to falsely report that all was well to the operators. It doesn’t take much imagination to see how the same could happen to a nuclear power plant – with devastating consequences.</p>
<p>And so although it’s great to hear that the plant operators are running safety drills I really hope they make sure that their security drills include the vital triad of <a href="http://www.iienet2.org/Details.aspx?id=24456">people, processes and technology</a>.</p>
<h2>The ‘soft target’ of civilian infrastructure</h2>
<p>This again points to an important and infrequently discussed problem, the vulnerability of critical national infrastructure. Cyber-attacks like these are a great way of levelling the playing field: why invest in massively expensive nuclear weapons programmes if you can simply shut down your enemies’ power, gas, water, and transportation systems? Increasingly more and more infrastructure is connected to the internet, with all the security risks that entails.</p>
<p>And many of these systems – hardware and software – are old, updated far less frequently than a desktop computer at home or at work. Computer security flaws that may have ceased to be a problem in data centres or on desktops years ago might still affect an embedded system running a gas pump, sluice gate or electricity sub-station somewhere. </p>
<p>The UK government at least has been on the case for some time, having established the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure (<a href="http://www.cpni.gov.uk/">CPNI</a>) to focus on infrastructure resilience to cyber-attacks. Bringing together various government agencies and businesses, it has made significant progress in at least establishing what might be vulnerable, which is the first step in knowing where to focus your efforts. </p>
<p>There is no room for complacency, however, as every day more systems become internet-connected, and more security vulnerabilities are discovered. This trend of attaching everything and anything to the internet – such as with the growing <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-the-internet-of-things-16542">Internet of Things</a>, but not limited to that – is embraced even more enthusiastically in Europe and the US. Take a look at search engines like <a href="https://www.shodan.io/">Shodan</a> or <a href="https://thingful.net/">Thingful</a> which show locations of online devices, and see just how widespread the Internet of Things has already become.</p>
<p>This problem will not go away. It is a fact now and will only grow in the future. Security is possible only by including people and processes as well as technology. And anyone who relies solely on security through obscurity is doomed to fail.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/35773/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alan Woodward does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Claude Shannon, who many consider the father of modern information theory, wrote a paper in 1949 in which he pointed out that security should never be based upon your enemy’s ignorance of how your system…Alan Woodward, Visiting Professor , University of SurreyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.