Anti nuclear energy essay

It has been developed over 50 years and the latest reactors are reliable, clean and efficient. The last 10 nuclear reactors to be built in the world have been delivered on time and to their budget. It can be fine-tuned to meet peak demand and will not let us down in the depths of winter.

By building new fission reactors Britain will be well placed to develop cleaner fusion reactors. The Government still does not know what to do with the waste that has accumulated from more than 50 years of nuclear power. Civil nuclear power has been used for a covert nuclear weapons programme by several regimes. Zimbabwe is the latest country suspected. Terrorists are already believed to have targeted nuclear power plants, including one in Australia.

Waste and fuel shipments are also at risk of being hijacked and used to manufacture a "dirty" bomb. Although the risk may be small, the consequences of a catastrophic accident are immense. Fossil fuels are needed to run the nuclear cycle, from mining the uranium ore and shipping it to Britain, to disposing of the huge volumes of radioactive waste. You can find our Community Guidelines in full here. Want to discuss real-world problems, be involved in the most engaging discussions and hear from the journalists?

Start your Independent Premium subscription today. Independent Premium Comments can be posted by members of our membership scheme, Independent Premium. It allows our most engaged readers to debate the big issues, share their own experiences, discuss real-world solutions, and more. Our journalists will try to respond by joining the threads when they can to create a true meeting of independent Premium.

The most insightful comments on all subjects will be published daily in dedicated articles. You can also choose to be emailed when someone replies to your comment. The existing Open Comments threads will continue to exist for those who do not subscribe to Independent Premium. Due to the sheer scale of this comment community, we are not able to give each post the same level of attention, but we have preserved this area in the interests of open debate. Please continue to respect all commenters and create constructive debates.

Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Find your bookmarks in your Independent Premium section, under my profile. Subscribe Now Subscribe Now. Final Say. Long reads. Lib Dems. US Politics. Theresa May.

Nuclear Power And Nuclear Energy

Jeremy Corbyn. Robert Fisk. Mark Steel. Janet Street-Porter. John Rentoul. Chuka Ummuna. Shappi Khorsandi. Gina Miller. Our view. Sign the petition. Spread the word. Steve Coogan. Rugby union. Motor racing. US sports. Rugby League. Movers List. Geoffrey Macnab. Tech news. Tech culture. News videos. Explainer videos. Sport videos. Black Friday. Money transfers.

Every U. The Committee views a high degree of standardization as very important for the retention of nuclear power as an option for meeting U. There is not a uniformly accepted definition of standardization. The industry, under the auspices of the Nuclear Power Oversight Committee, has developed a position paper on standardization that provides definitions of the various phases of standardization and expresses an industry commitment to standardization.

The Committee believes that a strong and sustained commitment by the principal participants will be required to realize the potential benefits of standardization of families of plants in the diverse U. It is the Committee's opinion, based upon our experience, that the following will be necessary:. Families of standardized plants will be important for ensuring the highest levels of safety and for realizing the potential economic benefits of new nuclear plants.

Families of standardized plants will allow standardized approaches to plant modification, maintenance, operation, and training. Customers, whether utilities or other entities, must insist on standardization before an order is placed, during construction, and throughout the life of the plant. Suppliers must take standardization into account early in planning and marketing. Any supplier of standardized units will need the experience and resources for a long-term commitment.

Antitrust considerations will have to be properly taken into account to develop standardized plants. An obstacle to continued nuclear power development has been the uncertainties in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's NRC licensing process. Because the current regulatory framework was mainly intended for light water reactors LWR with active safety systems and because regulatory standards were developed piecemeal over many years, without review and consolidation, the regulations should be critically reviewed and modified or replaced with a more coherent body of regulations for advanced reactors of other types.

The Committee recommends that NRC comprehensively review its regulations to prepare for advance reactors, in particular. LWRs with passive safety features. The review should proceed from first principles to develop a coherent, consistent set of regulations. The Committee concludes that NRC should improve the quality of its regulation of existing and future nuclear power plants, including tighter management controls over all of its interactions with licensees and consistency of regional activities.

  1. Comments (90).
  2. august wilson fences rose essay?
  3. socrates ancestor an essay on architectural beginning?
  4. essay on being resourceful.
  5. expository essay outline for high school students?
  6. archetypal metaphor in rhetoric the light-dark family thesis!
  7. 10 Reasons to Oppose Nuclear Energy | Green America.

Industry has proposed such to NRC. The Committee encourages efforts by NRC to reduce reliance on the adversarial approach to issue resolution. The Committee recommends that NRC encourage industry self-improvement, accountability, and self-regulation initia tives. While federal regulation plays an important safety role, it must not be allowed to detract from or undermine the accountability of utilities and their line management organizations for the safety of their plants.

It is the Committee's expectation that economic incentive programs instituted by state regulatory bodies will continue for nuclear power plant operators. Properly formulated and administered, these programs should improve the economic performance of nuclear plants, and they may also enhance safety.

However, they do have the potential to provide incentives counter to safety. The Committee believes that such programs should focus.

Nuclear power: yes or no? – Physics World

It is the Committee's opinion, based upon our experience, that NRC should continue to exercise its federally mandated preemptive authority over the regulation of commercial nuclear power plant safety if the activities of state government agencies or other public or private agencies run counter to nuclear safety. Such activities would include those that individually or in the aggregate interfere with the ability of the organization with direct responsibility for nuclear plant safety the organization licensed by the Commission to operate the plant to meet this responsibility.

The Committee urges close industry-state cooperation in the safety area. It is also the Committee's opinion, based upon our experience, that the industry must have confidence in the stability of NRC's licensing process. Suppliers and utilities need assurance that licensing has become and will remain a manageable process that appropriately limits the late introduction of new issues. It is likely that, if the possibility of a second hearing before a nuclear plant can be authorized to operate is to be reduced or eliminated, legislation will be necessary.

The nuclear industry is convinced that such legislation will be required to increase utility and investor confidence to retain nuclear power as an option for meeting U. The Committee concurs. It is the Committee's opinion, based upon our experience, that potential nuclear power plant sponsors must not face large unanticipated cost increases as a result of mid-course regulatory changes, such as backfits. The U. Thus, the Committee commends the efforts by both NRC and the industry to work.

Lack of resolution of the high-level waste problem jeopardizes future nuclear power development. The Committee believes that the legal status of the Yucca Mountain site for a geologic repository should be resolved soon, and that the Department of Energy's DOE program to investigate this site should be continued. In addition, a contingency plan must be developed to store high-level radioactive waste in surface storage facilities pending the availability of the geologic repository. The problems associated with establishing a high-level waste site at Yucca Mountain are exacerbated by the requirement that, before operation of a repository begins, DOE must demonstrate to NRC that the repository will perform to standards established by the Environmental Protection Agency EPA.

NRC's staff has strongly questioned the workability of these quantitative requirements, as have the National Research Council's Radioactive Waste Management Board and others. The Committee concludes that the EPA standard for disposal of high-level waste will have to be reevaluated to ensure that a standard that is both adequate and feasible is applied to the geologic waste repository. The Price-Anderson Act will expire in The Committee sought to discover whether or not such protection would be required for advanced reactors.

  • harry potter 6 book report.
  • research paper on abortion pro life.
  • compare contrast essay movies books.
  • gothic frankenstein essay;
  • The clear impression the Committee received from industry representatives was that some such protection would continue to be needed, although some Committee members believe that this was an expression of desire rather than of need. At the very least, renewal of Price-Anderson in would be viewed by the industry as a supportive action by Congress and would eliminate the potential disruptive effect of developing alternative liability arrangements with the insurance industry. Failure to renew Price-Anderson in would raise a new impediment to nuclear power plant orders as well as possibly reduce an assured source of funds to accident victims.

    In view of the infrequent nature of the activities of such a committee, it may be feasible for it to be established on an ad hoc basis and report directly to the NRC chairman. Therefore, the Committee recommends that such a small safety review entity be established. Before the establishment of such an activity, its charter should be carefully defined, along with a clear delineation of the classes of accidents it would investigate. Its location in the government and its reporting channels should also be specified.

    The function of this group would parallel those of NTSB. Specifically, the group would conduct independent public investigations of serious incidents and accidents at nuclear power plants and would publish reports evaluating the causes of these events. This group would have only a small administrative structure and would bring in independent experts, including those from both industry and government, to conduct its investigations.

    The fight to rethink (and reinvent) nuclear power

    It is the Committee's opinion, based upon our experience, that responsible arrangements must be negotiated between sponsors and economic regulators to provide reasonable assurances of complete cost recovery for nuclear power plant sponsors. Without such assurances, private investment capital is not likely to flow to this technology. In Chapter 2 , the Committee addressed the non-recovery of utility costs in rate proceedings and concluded that better methods of dealing with this issue must be established.

    The Committee believes that enactment of such legislation could remove much of the investor risk and uncertainty currently associated with state regulatory treatment of new power plant construction, and could therefore help retain nuclear power as an option for meeting U. On balance, however, unless many states adopt this or similar legislation, it is the Committee's view that substantial assurances probably cannot be given, especially in advance of plant construction, that all costs incurred in building nuclear plants will be allowed into rate bases.

    The Committee notes the current trend toward economic deregulation of electric power generation. It is presently unclear whether this trend is compatible with substantial additions of large-scale, utility-owned, baseload generating capacity, and with nuclear power plants in particular. It is the Committee's opinion, based upon our experience, that regional low-level radioactive waste compact commissions must continue to establish disposal sites.

    The institutional challenges are clearly substantial. If they are to be met, the Committee believes that the Federal government must decide, as a matter of national policy, whether a strong and growing nuclear power program is vital to the economic, environmental, and strategic interests of the American people.

    Only with such a clearly stated policy, enunciated by the President and backed by the Congress through appropriate statutory changes and appropriations, will it be possible to effect the institutional changes necessary to return the flow of capital and human resources required to properly employ this technology. Advanced reactors are now in design or development. They are being designed to be simpler, and, if design goals are realized, these plants will be safer than existing reactors.

    Only Nuclear Energy Can Save the Planet

    The design requirements for the advanced reactors are more stringent than the NRC safety goal policy. If final safety designs of advanced reactors, and especially those with passive safety features, are as indicated to this Committee, an attractive feature of them should be the significant reduction in system complexity and corresponding improvement in operability.

    While difficult to quantify, the benefit of improvements in the operator 's ability to monitor the plant and respond to system degradations may well equal or exceed that of other proposed safety improvements. The Committee developed the following criteria for comparing these reactor concepts:. With regard to advanced designs, the Committee reached the following conclusions. The large evolutionary LWRs offer the most mature technology.

    The first standardized design to be certified in the United States is likely to be an evolutionary LWR. The mid-sized LWRs with passive safety features are designed to be simpler, with modular construction to reduce construction times and costs, and to improve operations. They are likely the next to be certified.

    go to link Because there is no experience in building such plants, cost projections for the first plant are clearly uncertain. To reduce the economic uncertainties it will be necessary to demonstrate the construction technology and improved operating performance. These reactors differ from current reactors in construction approach, plant configuration, and safety features. These differences do not appear so great as to require that a first plant be built for NRC certification. While a prototype in the traditional sense will not be required, the Committee concludes that no first-plant mid-sized LWR with passive safety features is likely to be certified and built without government incentives, in the form of shared funding or financial guarantees.


    However, it has not entered NRC's design certification process. Commission requirements are complex and different from those in Canada so that U. The heavy water reactor is a mature design, and Canadian entry into the U. A consortium of industry and utility people continue to promote federal funding and to express interest in the concept, while none has committed to an order. The reactor, as presently configured, is located below ground level and does not have a conventional containment.

    The basic rationale of the designers is that a containment is not needed because of the safety features inherent in the properties of the fuel. However, the Committee was not convinced by the presentations that the core damage frequency for the MHTGR has been demonstrated to be low enough to make a containment structure unnecessary.

    1. Popular Essays;
    2. essay and papers online!
    3. bachelor thesis social entrepreneurship.
    4. quotations on essay my aim in life.
    5. Nuclear power debate - Wikipedia;
    6. Navigation menu!

    The Oak Ridge National Laboratory estimates that data to confirm fuel performance will not be available before The Committee believes that reliance on the defense-in-depth concept must be retained, and accurate evaluation of safety will require evaluation of a detailed design. A demonstration plant for the MHTGR could be licensed slightly after the turn of the century, with certification following demonstration of successful operation. The construction and operation of a first plant would likely be required before design certification.

    Based on the Committee 's view on containment requirements, and the economics and technology issues, the Committee judged the market potential for the MHTGR to be low. The Committee believes that no funds should be allocated for development of high-temperature gas-cooled reactor technology within the commercial nuclear power development budget of DOE. The other advanced light water designs the Committee examined were the United Kingdom and U. The Committee believes there is no near-term U. The lack of operational and regulatory experience for these two is expected to significantly delay their acceptance by utilities.

    LMRs offer advantages because of their potential ability to provide a long-term energy supply through a nearly complete use of uranium resources. Were the nuclear option to be chosen, and large scale deployment follow, at some point uranium supplies at competitive prices might be exhausted. Breeder reactors offer the possibility of extending fissionable fuel supplies well past the next century. In addition, actinides, including those from LWR spent fuel, can undergo fission without significantly affecting performance of an advanced LMR, transmuting the actinides to fission products, most of which, except for technetium, carbon, and some others of little import, have half-lives very much shorter than the actinides.

    Actinides are among the materials of greatest concern in nuclear waste disposal beyond about years. However, substantial further research is required to establish 1 the technical and the economic feasibility of recycling in LMRs actinides recovered from LWR spent fuel, and 2 whether high-recovery recycling of transuranics and their transmutation can, in fact, benefit waste disposal. Assuming success, it would still be necessary to dispose of high-level waste, although the waste would largely consist of significantly shorter-lived fission products. Special attention will be necessary to ensure that the LMR's reprocessing facilities are not vulnerable to sabotage or to theft of plutonium.

    The unique property of the LMR, fuel breeding, might lead to a U. From the viewpoint of commercial licensing, it is far behind the evolutionary and mid-sized LWRs with passive safety features in having a commercial design available for review. A federally funded program, including one or more first plants, will be required before any LMR concept would be accepted by U. The Committee could not make any meaningful quantitative comparison of the relative safety of the various advanced reactor designs.

    The Committee believes that each of the concepts considered can be designed and operated to meet or closely approach the safety objectives currently proposed for future, advanced LWRs. The different advanced reactor designs employ different mixes of active and passive safety features. The Committee believes that there currently is no single optimal approach to improved safety. Dependence on passive safety features does not, of itself, ensure greater safety.

    The Committee believes that a prudent design course retains the historical defense-in-depth approach. The economic projections are highly uncertain, first, because past experience suggests higher costs, longer construction times, and lower availabilities than projected and, second, because of different assumptions and levels of maturity among the designs. The Electric Power Research Institute EPRI data, which the Committee believes to be more reliable than that of the vendors, indicate that the large evolutionary LWRs are likely to be the least costly to build and operate on a cost per kilowatt electric or kilowatt hour basis, while the high-temperature gas-cooled reactors and LMRs are likely to be the most expensive.

    Although there are definite differences in the fuel cycle characteristics of the advanced reactors, fuel cycle considerations did not offer much in the way of discrimination among reactors, nor did safeguards and security considerations, particularly for deployment in the United States.

    The development required for commercialization of any of these concepts is substantial. It is the Committee's overall assessment that the large evolutionary LWRs and the mid-sized LWRs with passive safety features rank highest relative to the Committee 's evaluation criteria. The evolutionary reactors could be ready for deployment by , and the mid-sized could be ready for initial plant construction soon after The Committee's evaluations and overall assessment are summarized in Figure This table is an attempt to summarize the Committee's qualitative rankings of selected reactor types against each other , without reference either to an absolute standard or to the performance of any other energy resource options, This evaluation was based on the Committee's professional judgment.

    Safety and cost are the most important characteristics for future nuclear power plants. LWRs of the large evolutionary and the mid-sized advanced designs offer the best potential for competitive costs in that order. Safety benefits among all reactor types appear to be about equal at this stage in the design process. Safety must be achieved by attention to all failure modes and levels of design by a multiplicity of safety barriers and features.

    Consequently, in the absence of detailed engineering design and because of the lack of construction and operating experience with the actual concepts, vendor claims of safety superiority among conceptual designs cannot be substantiated.

    Featured Research

    LWRs can be deployed to meet electricity production needs for the first quarter of the next century:. The evolutionary LWRs are further developed and, because of international projects, are most complete in design. They are likely to be the first plants certified by NRC. They are expected to be the first of the advanced reactors available for commercial use and could operate in the to time frame. Compared to current reactors, significant improvements in safety appear likely.

    Compared to recently completed high-cost reactors, significant improvements also appear possible in cost if institutional barriers are resolved. While little or no federal funding is deemed necessary to complete the process, such funding could accelerate the process. Because of the large size and capital investment of evolutionary reactors, utilities that might order nuclear plants may be reluctant to do so.