I have been studying nuclear power…

I just wanted to do a quick study using Wikipedia. Well, that didnt happen. On the other hand, now i learned alot about nuclear power. Starting with 1 tab open, i eventually had to open a metatab in Firefox. The number of tabs in this metatab rose exponentially from 1 to 38 tabs. I have sorted them below here.

 

Main articles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_debate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_safety

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_energy_policy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_plant

Economics and politics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_cost_of_electricity_generated_by_different_sources

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_renaissance

This book is very often cited in various articles. It is against NP. I want to read it. So far, it was not convicing in the places it was mentioned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contesting_the_Future_of_Nuclear_Power

Another paper by the same guy, which finds that altho NP is not CO2 free, it is much better than fossil-fuel based power. Also, this is for current reactors, not future reactors. With future reactors, some of the fossil-fuel using infrastructure can be replaced becus we can make hydrogen fuel with future reactors.

http://www.nirs.org/climate/background/sovacool_nuclear_ghg.pdf

Abstract

“This article screens 103 lifecycle studies of greenhouse gas-equivalent emissions for nuclear power plants to identify a subset of the most current, original, and transparent studies. It begins by briefly detailing the separate components of the nuclear fuel cycle before explaining the methodology of the survey and exploring the variance of lifecycle estimates. It calculates that while the range of emissions for nuclear energy over the lifetime of a plant, reported from qualified studies examined, is from 1.4 g of carbon dioxide equivalent per kWh (g CO2e/kWh) to 288 g CO2e/kWh, the mean value is 66 g CO2e/kWh. The article then explains some of the factors responsible for the disparity in lifecycle estimates, in particular identifying errors in both the lowest estimates (not comprehensive) and the highest estimates (failure to consider co-products). It should be noted that nuclear power is not directly emitting greenhouse gas emissions, but rather that lifecycle emissions occur through plant construction, operation, uranium mining and milling, and plant decommissioning.”

From the conclusion:

“The first conclusion is that the mean value of emissions over

the course of the lifetime of a nuclear reactor (reported from

qualified studies) is 66 g CO2e/kWh, due to reliance on existing

fossil-fuel infrastructure for plant construction, decommissioning,

and fuel processing along with the energy intensity of uranium

mining and enrichment. Thus, nuclear energy is in no way ‘‘carbon

free’’ or ‘‘emissions free,’’ even though it is much better (from

purely a carbon-equivalent emissions standpoint) than coal, oil,

and natural gas electricity generators, but worse than renewable

and small scale distributed generators (see Table 8). For example,

Gagnon et al. (2002) found that coal, oil, diesel, and natural gas

generators emitted between 443 and 1050 g CO2e/kWh, far more

than the 66 g CO2e/kWh attributed to the nuclear lifecycle.

However, Pehnt (2006) conducted lifecycle analyses for 15

separate distributed generation and renewable energy technolo-

gies and found that all but one, solar photovoltaics (PV), emitted

much less g CO2e/kWh than the mean reported for nuclear

plants. In an analysis using updated data on solar PV, Fthenakis

et al. (2008) found that current estimates on the greenhouse

gas emissions for typical solar PV systems range from 29 to

35 g CO2e/kWh (based on insolation of 1700 kWh/m2

/yr and aperformance ratio of 0.8).” (my bold)

Another interesting book. Freely available.

http://www.amazon.com/Sustainable-Energy-Without-Hot-Air/dp/0954452933

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/book/tex/sewtha.pdf

“Addressing the sustainable energy crisis in an objective manner, this enlightening book analyzes the relevant numbers and organizes a plan for change on both a personal level and an international scale—for Europe, the United States, and the world. In case study format, this informative reference answers questions surrounding nuclear energy, the potential of sustainable fossil fuels, and the possibilities of sharing renewable power with foreign countries. While underlining the difficulty of minimizing consumption, the tone remains positive as it debunks misinformation and clearly explains the calculations of expenditure per person to encourage people to make individual changes that will benefit the world at large.”

Safety

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_by_death_toll

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_waste_treatment_technologies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_radioactive_waste_management

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-level_waste

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY (Not in my backyard!)

4 non-Wikipedia links, that try to show that the accidents so far were really not that bad, and i agree.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf06.html

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf36.html

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.html

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/fukushima_accident_inf129.html

About the radioactivity of coal

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste&page=2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_effects_of_nuclear_power

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining_debate

Specific designs and proposals

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000 (lots of these are being built in China)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrapower (Bill Gates is a supporter, see video below)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba_4S

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Pressurized_Reactor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK (The design used in soviet reactors at Chernobyl)

More technical

I probably shud have refreshed my knowledge of particle fysics before reading these.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_poison

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iodine_pit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scram

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_safety_systems

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inherently_safe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety

Thorium

Public opinion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_nuclear_issues

One interesting report is mentioned which found that education was a predictor of positive opinions towards NP. The report is here: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_271_en.pdf

Leave a Reply