Nuclear Power

From WikiCorporates
Revision as of 17:16, 6 October 2018 by GrayanOne (talk | contribs) (III. Waste)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
https://www.dreamstime.com/flat-concept-nuclear-plant-generator-energy-flat-concept-nuclear-plant-generator-energy-vector-illustration-image124640185

Globally, there were 448 nuclear power reactors in operation at the end of 2017. Construction started on 4, with a total of 59 under construction; 5 were permanently shut down. Around 60% of the reactors had been in operation for 30+ years. Global generating capacity was 392 gigawatts. (2017 report, p.31)
Compared with 2016 levels, the IAEA's 2017 projections for installed nuclear power capacity showed increases of 42% by 2030, 83% by 2040, and 123% by 2050 in the high case scenario. The low case scenario projected a 12% dip by 2030 and a 15% dip by 2040, before a return to current levels by 2050.[1]

ToDo: compare this report with the IAEA's: The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2017, https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/-2017-.html "this 2017 World Nuclear Industry Status Report is perhaps the most deci- sive document in the history of nuclear power. The report makes clear, in telling detail, that the debate is over. Nuclear power has been eclipsed by the sun and the wind. These renewable, free-fuel sources are no longer a dream or a projection-they are a reality that are replacing nuclear as the preferred choice for new power plants worldwide. Nuclear power is far from dead but it is in decline and renewable energy is growing by leaps and bounds. Most revealing is the fact that nowhere in the world, where there is a competitive market for electricity, has even one single nuclear power plant been initiated. Only where the government or the consumer takes the risks of cost overruns and delays is nuclear power even being considered. Since 1997, worldwide, renewable energy has produced 4 times as many new kilowatt-hours of electricity than nuclear power."

Issues

Nuclear power has 3 major issues, the most serious of which is that all known methods of waste disposal require some kind of burial and permanent monitoring for ~240,000 years. The costs of monitoring and maintenance over such a timescale are unimaginable, and generations for hundreds of thousands of years to come will have to pay the cost for a few decades of electricity for our generation.[2] [3] After 50+ years of research, there are no satisfactory answers.[4]

I. Fuel Supply

There's not very much of it. Current estimates put the potentially available global resources at sufficient for the next 85-90 years; but these are based on 2008 levels of consumption.[5][6] Should the current trend towards nuclear power continue, this timeframe could easily be halved to 40 years, ie. 2060. And then?
Advocates assert that advanced nuclear systems will enable mankind to use nuclear power for hundreds to thousands of years. However, after 60+ years of research worldwide, and €100bn in research, not one operating closed-cycle reactor exists. Extraction of uranium ore must require less energy than can be generated from the recovered uranium - the "energy cliff". Analysis of uranium recovery processes shows that the amount of energy consumed per kg of recovered natural uranium rises exponentially with declining ore grades.

II. Accidents

An accident is an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance. In other words, plan all you like, but accidents can and will happen. New reactors, like old ones, are the most vulnerable;[7] scientists term this the "bathtub" curve.[8] After the Fukshima disaster, questions have been raised about the wisdom of operating old reactors.

An average reactor will have about 16bn curies in its core, which is the equivalent of 1,000 Hiroshima bombs. A reactor's fuel rods, pipes, tanks and valves can leak: reactors have an extensive network of buried piping systems and tanks which transport liquids that contain radioactive isotopes including tritium and strontium-90. These piping systems are not adequately inspected or maintained due to their inaccessibility; instead, statistical probability models are used.[9]
Climate Change is exacerbating the problem; the hot summers in France in 2003 and 2018 meant the safety of the country's 58 nuclear plants was a serious concern.[10]
The risk of human error is growing because privatisation and liberalisation have forced operators to increase efficiency and reduce costs. Nuclear energy has high fixed costs: building costs are ~75%; all savings must therefore come from the 25% variable costs of price, notably from efficiency increases and personnel reductions.[10] See also this very long list: Nuclear power plant accidentsWikipedia-W.svg.

III. Waste

Sites producing Radioactive Waste[11]
The entire nuclear fuel chain, from mining to milling, processing, enrichment, fuel fabrication, and fuel irradiation in reactors, generates radioactive waste.[12] Production of 1,000 tons of uranium fuel generates ~100,000 tons of tailings and 3.5 million litres of liquid waste(Note 1). Long-lived decay products such as thorium-230 and radium-226 are not removed, so the sludge contains 85% of the initial radioactivity of the ore. The sludge also contains heavy metals and other contaminants (eg. arsenic), and chemical reagents used during the milling process.[10] Before the UN Treaty in 1993, govts merrily dumped nuclear waste at sea.[13][14] Waste "management" takes 3 forms: dilute and disperse, delay and decay, and concentrate and contain.[15]
Clearance for "negligible hazard" waste. Every nuclear power reactor dumps radioactive water, scatters radioactive particles, and disperses radioactive gases as part of its routine, everyday operation. Regulations allow water containing "permissible" levels of radioactive isotopes to be released to the environment, unfiltered. A typical 1000-megawatt pressurized water reactor (with a cooling tower) takes in about 90,922 litres of river, lake or sea water per minute for cooling; circulates it through a 80-km maze of pipes; returns about 22,730 litres per minute to the same body of water; and releases the remainder to the atmosphere as vapor. A similar reactor without a cooling tower can take in 2.3 million litres per minute.
Authorised Release to the Environment. Some radioactive gases, stripped from the reactor cooling water, are retained in decay tanks for days before being released into the atmosphere through filtered roof top vents. Some gases leak into the buildings’ interiors and are released during periodic "ventings". These airborne gases contaminate not only the air, but also fall onto soil and water. Economically feasible filtering technologies do not exist for some major byproducts, such as radioactive hydrogen (tritium) and noble gases such as krypton (→ rubidium → strontium) and xenon (→ cesium). Some liquids and gases are retained temporarily in tanks so that shorter-lived radioactive materials can break down before being released to the environment.[16]

Regulated Disposal refers to the solid, liquid or gaseous waste not covered by the previous two routes. This route breaks down into the following 3 categories:
1. Low Level Waste consists mostly of rubbish such as lightly contaminated clothing, paper towels and laboratory glassware. Any site used will need to be subject to land use restrictions for around 300 years after it is closed, and there is always the risk of environmental problems if water leaching through the waste site finds its way into surface and ground waters.[17]
2. Intermediate Level Waste consists of heavily contaminated materials such as used fuel rod casings, used ion exchange resins and parts of decommissioned reactors. This waste can be extremely radioactive, but doesn't require that the heat generated by radioactive decay is taken into account as this is relatively small compared to High Level Waste.[18] ILW requires heavy shielding, as the radioactive contaminants have very long half-lives and require isolation for many thousands of years. The waste is first encased in resin or concrete and sealed in steel drums. The drums are then packed into concrete casks and placed in concrete trenches up to 18 metres deep. When completely filled, the trenches are covered with a concrete slab, a layer of compacted clay and a reinforced concrete intrusion shield and a final layer of clay. Deep disposal takes place, storing the waste in a suitable geological formation at a depth of at least 100 metres[19].
3. High Level Waste: The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority has oversight of the process in the UK. Spent fuel is broken down, and the most potent parts are extracted and concentrated. The most troublesome elements are plutonium-239 (half-life 24,000 years) and neptunium-237 (half-life 2m years). Advocates say the volume is small compared with other pollutants, which is true - but completely irrelevant, given its extreme toxicity. When nuclear waste is released into the environment, it is impossible to control the extent of its impact.
Safe and stable storage of this waste is of great concern. Modern storage methods use concepts based on the naturally-occurring Oklo nuclear reactor.[20] In theory, highly radioactive waste can be stored indefinitely in deep stable formations such as caves and caverns.[19] But there are two fundamental prerequisites: (1) stable geological formations, and (2) stable human institutions over hundreds of thousands of years. No known human civilization has ever lasted for so long, and no geologic formation of adequate size for a permanent radioactive waste repository has yet been discovered that has been stable for so long a period (see Prerequisites for radioactive waste managementWikipedia-W.svg. Nevertheless, countries have adopted this model, for lack of an alternative.
The spent fuel is vitrified, which involves combining the radioactive liquid waste with glass to form a solid compound, which is less likely than a liquid to contaminate the surrounding area if its container becomes faulty. The waste is then sealed in stainless steel canisters. Because the waste generates such intense levels of both radioactivity and heat, heavy shielding and cooling is required; the wastes are therefore stored in specially engineered cooling pools for 50+ years (a hazardous non-solution, as Fukshima demonstrated), to allow both the temperature and radioactivity to gradually decrease, simplifying handling and disposal.[21] The canisters are then placed into deep geologic disposal.[22] So far, only a few countries are actively pursuing this,[23] with Finland leading the way.[24] The USA, the world's largest nuclear power generator, is a classic lesson on how not to do it; it has 90,000+ metric tons sitting around waiting for a solution to turn up. After spending decades and $billions to research permanent disposal sites, the future prospects "remain unclear".[25] In the UK, just as in the US, it's all just sitting there - and it's costing a fortune while it's doing so.[26]



see https://www.health24.com/Lifestyle/Environmental-health/News/How-nations-are-tackling-nuclear-waste-storage-20140715

Note to me: when done, go through this page http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-waste-management.aspx and modify my text where necessary.

Radioactive waste management, decommissioning and environmental remediation: The Agency issued two publications addressing the management of radioactive waste: Selection of Technical Solutions for the Management of Radioactive Waste (IAEA-TECDOC-1817) and Use of the Benchmarking System for Operational Waste from WWER Reactors (IAEA-TECDOC-1815). In the area of decommissioning and environmental remediation, the Agency issued Data Analysis and Collection for Costing of Research Reactor Decommissioning (IAEA-TECDOC-1832) and the proceedings of an international conference entitled Advancing the Implementation of Decommissioning and Environmental Remediation Programmes. The Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radioactive Sources: Guidance on the Management of Disused Radioactive Sources (GC(61)/23) was approved by the Board of Governors and endorsed by the General Conference in September. The guidance takes into account the Agency’s safety standards and nuclear security guidance, and addresses safety and security in an integrated manner. In collaboration with Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the European Commission and the State Atomic Energy Corporation “Rosatom”, the Agency finalized the development of the Strategic Master Plan for Environmental Remediation of Uranium Legacy Sites in Central Asia, providing a strategy and implementation plan for remediating uranium legacy sites in Central Asia.

Management of spent Fuel from Nuclear Power reactors: he first Research Coordination Meeting of the CRP entitled ‘Management of Severely Damaged Spent Fuel and Corium’ was held in Vienna in February. The project, involving seven Member States, is aimed at expanding the existing knowledge base and identifying optimal approaches for managing severely damaged spent fuel. p.37


To go through:

  • Horizon Nuclear Power, a wholly owned subsidiary of Japanese electronics giant Hitachi Ltd, is attempting to construct a 2.7 gigawatt nuclear power plant in Wylfa, on the scenic and historic island of Anglesey, Wales. The project cannot proceed without public financial support, and the Japanese govt is orchestrating an “all-Japan” support system to secure its financing, backed up by public money. Urgent Petition : No to Hitachi's Nuclear Exports Using Japanese Public Money

Associated Organisations

  • The International Atomic Energy Agency is the global central intergovernmental forum for scientific and technical co-operation in the nuclear field. It works for the safe, secure and peaceful uses of nuclear science and technology.
  • The OECD's Nuclear Energy Agency is an inter-governmental agency that facilitates co-operation among countries with advanced nuclear technology infrastructures to seek excellence in nuclear safety, technology, science, environment and law. The NEA's mission is to "assist its member countries in maintaining and further developing, through international co-operation, the scientific, technological and legal bases required for the safe, environmentally friendly and economical use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes".
  • The International Panel on Fissile Materials is a group of independent nuclear experts from 17 countries: Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Iran, Japan, Mexico, Norway, Pakistan, South Korea, Russia, South Africa, Sweden, the UK, and the USA (the Netherlands was a member, but recently dropped out). It aims to provide the technical basis for policy initiatives to reduce global stocks of military and civilian fissile materials.[27] The Panel produces an annual Global Fissile Material Report which summarizes new information on fissile material stocks and production worldwide, as well as periodic research reports.
  • The Office for Nuclear Regulation is the safety regulator for the civil nuclear industry in the UK. The ONR also has responsibility for assessing safety and accident response systems at Ministry of Defence sites.[28]
  • The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority has a strategic role: it establishes the overall approach, allocates budgets, sets targets and monitors progress. The actual cleaning up is done via contracts with Site Licence Companies. There are currently 17 historic (1940s-1970s) nuclear sites being decommissioned.
  • The World Nuclear Association is an international trade organisation that promotes nuclear power and supports the companies that comprise the global nuclear industry.
  • WISE is an information and networking center for citizens and organizations concerned about nuclear power, radioactive waste, radiation and sustainable energy issues. The organization advocates the implementation of safe, sustainable solutions such as energy efficiency and renewable energy.

Articles

  • Jun.04.2018: UK takes £5bn stake in Welsh nuclear power station in policy U-turn. The UK will take a £5bn-plus stake in a new nuclear power station in Wales in a striking reversal of decades-long govt policy ruling out direct investment in nuclear projects. Ministers said they had reached an initial agreement with the Japanese conglomerate Hitachi to back the Wylfa plant but emphasised that no final decision had yet been made and negotiations were just beginning. Business secretary Greg Clark, announcing the Wylfa agreement in the Commons, said: “For this project the govt will be considering direct investment alongside Hitachi and Japanese govt agencies.” The Wylfa project is expected to create thousands of jobs and generate low carbon power for around 5m homes, or around 6% of UK demand. However, the use of £billions of taxpayer money will be highly controversial at a time when there is pressure to increase NHS funding and alternatives such as solar and wind power are falling in cost. The govt stake has also reduced the guaranteed price of power from the plant, which is paid through subsidies on household energy bills, to around £75-£77 per megawatt hour - which is considerably higher than the average £62.14/MWh awarded for offshore wind farms, which are due to come online years before Wylfa is powered up in the mid-2020s. Onshore wind and solar developers believe they could build for even cheaper contracts but have been barred by govt from competing for subsidies. Rebecca Long-Bailey, Labour’s shadow business secretary, attacked the govt for the lack of transparency or parliamentary scrutiny, and for indecision on whether to support a trailblazing £1.2bn tidal lagoon project in Swansea, which was backed by a govt review 17 months ago. Ministers are believed to to have privately decided to turn down the clean energy scheme but in parliament Clark would only promise an update soon on the lagoon. Caroline Lucas, co-leader of the Green party, said: “Taking a stake in this nuclear monstrosity would see taxpayers locked into the project and paying out for a form of electricity generation that’s not fit for the future.” Greenpeace attacked what it called a “bailout” of the project and accused Clark of being coy about what Hitachi had been offered. map of nuclear sites. Adam Vaughan, The Guardian.
  • Jun.03.2018: Taxpayer bankrolls £15bn nuclear plant at Wylfa in Wales. Ministers will this week reverse decades of opposition to investing taxpayer money in nuclear energy by agreeing to bankroll a £15bn-plus power station in Wales. The govt will commit to taking a direct stake in the Wylfa plant on Anglesey, planned by the Japanese industrial giant Hitachi, after more than 2 years of negotiations. It is understood the govt will also provide the vast bulk of the £9bn debt. State equity will slash the cost of borrowing, but leave the taxpayer exposed if costs balloon or the project overruns. It has, though, helped ministers to negotiate a strike price — a guaranteed payment for the plant’s electricity — of about £77.50 per megawatt hour. The govt was determined to achieve a cheaper price than the £92.50 agreed with EDF, which is building the £20bn Hinkley Point power station in Somerset. Ministers will claim the investment is vital to cut carbon emissions, replace ageing coal and nuclear plants, and supplement wind and solar power. The agreement on the 2.7-gigawatt Horizon Nuclear Power project, which is capable of powering about 5m homes, will be followed by a binding deal next year. Hitachi is believed to be considering increasing the number of reactors at Wylfa from 2 to 4, with a strike price of less than £70, and to be planning a plant in Gloucestershire. Wylfa’s 3 shareholders — the UK and Japanese govts and Hitachi — will pump in about £6bn of equity on top of the £9bn debt provided largely by UK taxpayers. John Collingridge, The Sunday Times.
  • May.25.2018: UK nuclear plans 'risk collapse if Hitachi talks fail'. Japanese group believed to be demanding direct financial support with consumers making up the difference. The 3GW plant at Wylfa by the Hitachi subsidiary Horizon Nuclear Power would be the UK’s second new nuclear power station after EDF Energy’s Hinkley Point C under construction in Somerset. More are planned: EDF wants to build at Sizewell on the Suffolk coast, South Korea’s Kepco at Moorside in Cumbria and China’s CGN at Bradwell in Essex, with EDF’s help. Hitachi wants to build abroad because of a moribund home market, while the UK govt sees nuclear as an important source of low-carbon power. BEIS enthusiastically backing the project. Paul Dorfman at the Energy Institute at University College London said: “This would mean the hardworking UK taxpayer and energy consumer, who are labouring under ramping austerity, are being asked to stump up for an extraordinarily expensive nuclear plant just at the time that renewable costs are plummeting.” Greenpeace said the UK was wrongly pursuing a “dinosaur” technology and should focus on renewables, batteries and interconnectors to other countries. map of nuclear power stations Linkback: New Nuclear Watch Europe. Adam Vaughan, The Guardian.
  • May.11.2018: Sellafield faces huge fine over worker's exposure to radiation. The Office for Nuclear Regulation said its investigation had led it to prosecute Cumbria-based Sellafield Ltd, which handles the waste from the UK’s nuclear power stations as well as spent fuel from Japan and the US. It is the first time in 5 years that the ONR has prosecuted the company. Last time, Sellafield was fined £700,000 for sending bags of radioactive waste to a landfill dump instead of a specialist facility. The case relates to an accident in February 2017, when a site employee was wounded while handling equipment, leaving him open to internal radiation exposure. more Adam Vaughan, The Guardian.
  • May.06.2018: Taxpayers on the hook for £15bn Hitachi nuclear plant. Hitachi met Theresa May and chancellor Philip Hammond last week to urge progress on the project after more than 2 years of talks. The final deal may see taxpayers take an equity stake in the Horizon plant, possibly as much as 33%, alongside Hitachi and the Japanese govt. John Collingridge, The Times.
  • May.06.2018: Cracks in nuclear reactor threaten UK energy policy. The govt’s energy policy is under renewed pressure after the prolonged closure of Hunterston B in Scotland, one of Britain’s oldest nuclear reactors, because of cracks in its graphite core raised questions over the future of 6 other plants built in the 1970s and 1980s. The temporary shutdown of reactor three at Hunterston B in Scotland is also expected to burn an estimated £120m hole in the revenues of its owner, EDF Energy. The Hunterston plant is one of 7 using advanced gas-cooled reactors (AGRs). Map of gas reactors in the UK. Adam Vaughan, The Guardian. Also see the articles at the bottom of this page.
  • Mar.12.2018: The Guardian view on nuclear fusion: a moment of truth. Until recently the attractions and drawbacks of nuclear fusion reactors were largely theoretical. Within a decade this will not be the case. claims that the technology is on the "brink of being realised" by scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a private company should be viewed sceptically. The MIT-led team say they have the “science, speed and scale” for a viable fusion reactor and believe it could be up and running within 15 years, just in time to combat climate change. The MIT scientists are all serious people and perhaps they are within spitting distance of one of science’s holy grails. But no one should hold their breath. Fusion technology promises an inexhaustible supply of clean, safe power. If it all sounds too good to be true, that’s because it is. Hopes for fusion now rest with the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (Iter), a multi-national $20bn effort in France to show that the science can be made to work. Like JET, Iter uses a fusionWikipedia-W.svg fuel which is a 50-50 mixture of deuterium and a rare hydrogen isotope known as tritium. To make Iter self-sustaining it will have to prove that tritium can be "bred", a not inconsiderable feat. Iter will also test how "clean" a technology fusion really is. About 80% of a fusion reaction’s energy is released as subatomic particles known as neutrons, which will smash into the exposed reactor components and leave tonnes of radioactive waste. Just how much will be crucial in assessing whether fusion is a dirty process or not. If Iter falls short, then there must be a realistic rethink of fusion's potential. After all, the money that has been poured into it could have been spent on cheap solar technology which would allow humanity to be powered by a fusion reactor that’s 150m kilometres away, called the sun. Editorial, The Guardian.
  • Jan.23.2018: As the govt faces accusations of refusing to intervene over the collapse of Carillion, there are reports that it is considering pumping public money into troubled nuclear projects. Could we be about to see a wave of public money for new nuclear? The Japanese and UK govts refused to confirm or deny reports that both are considering investing in the Wylfa nuclear project. Joe Sandler Clarke, UnEarthed@Greenpeace.

See Also

The Nuclear Lobby

Footnotes

  • Note 1: Enough to power the world's 448 reactors for approximately 2 years, assuming that an average reactor uses 1,005 kg per year.[29]
  • Note 2: How long does nuclear waste stay dangerous for? Seven isotopes have been identified which will still be active after millions of years: Technetium 99, Tin 126, Selenium 79, Zirconium 93, Caesium 135, Palladium 107, and Iodine 129. For example, Caesium 135 has a half life of 2.3m years, and the most dangerous parts will have decayed to only a small proportion of their original activity after a few thousand years. See The 7 long-lived fission productsWikipedia-W.svg. Note that the standard used by nuclear scientists in Europe is that waste may be considered safe when it has decayed to the point that it is no more radioactive than naturally-occurring uranium ore. According to this criterion, spent fuel is safe in about 6,000,000 years.
  • Note 3: What harm does nuclear waste do to you? There are two main hazards. Some wastes are chemically poisonous, just like eg. mercury or arsenic. Other wastes give off radiation; very low level radiation is only dangerous if ingested into the body, whereas hard (ionizing) radiation can change cells' DNA, cause cancer, or induce organ failure.[30]

References

  1. ^ iAEA Annual Report 2017. IAEA. Accessed Oct.04.2018.
  2. ^ Toxic Time Capsule: Why nuclear energy is an intergenerational issue. This paper argues that cancelling Hinkley Point C, dubbed “the most expensive building on Earth”, could save Britain at least £30-£40bn. The paper compares the cost of nuclear to the likely costs of alternative energy supplies from onshore wind and solar, and questions whether current policy-makers have the right to pass such an unknown and escalating additional burden – and risk – on to younger and future generations. Andrew Sims, Intergenerational Foundation, Apr.2016.
  3. ^ Disposal of High-Level Nuclear Waste. The "best" option will require something akin to a “nuclear priesthood” to pass along their skills at monitoring these wastes for thousands of generations. James C.Warf, Sheldon C. Plotkin, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Sept.12.1996.
  4. ^ 7 Other problems associated with nuclear power. Nuclear Monitor, Issue #621-622, WISE, Feb.01.2005.
  5. ^ Global Uranium Resources to Meet Projected Demand. International Atomic Energy Agency, Jun.02.2006.
  6. ^ Supply of Uranium. World Nuclear Assocation, 2016.
  7. ^ Plant Life Extensions. No2NuclearPower, Dec.04.2012.
  8. ^ US Nuclear Plants in the 21st Century: The Risk of a Lifetime. D. Lochbaum, The Union of Concerned Scientists, Mar.2005.
  9. ^ Leak First, Fix Later. Beyond Nuclear, May.2015.
  10. ^ a b c 7 Other problems associated with nuclear power. Nuclear Monitor, Issue: #621-622, World Information Service on Energy, Feb.2005.
  11. ^ Radioactive Wastes in the UK: A Summary of the 2016 Inventory. Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy. Accessed Oct.03.2018.
  12. ^ II. What are the types of radioactive waste? The Nuclear Energy Agency. Accessed Oct.03.2018.
  13. ^ History of nuclear waste disposal proposals in Britain. Prior to 1976, very little thought had been given to the question of how we were going to deal with the nuclear waste produced by military and nuclear electricity programmes. Some lower level waste was disposed of at sea, but most waste was simply accumulating at various nuclear sites around the country. Then a report from the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (the "Flowers Report") raised the alarm. No2NuclearPower, Feb.12.2016.
  14. ^ Russia’s sunken subs to lie where they are for another three years. Russian officials have again raised the possibility of retrieving tons of nuclear trash from the bottom of the Arctic Ocean – only to confess just as quickly that they don’t have the money to do it. Charles Digges, Anna Kireeva, Bellona, Oct.24.2017.
  15. ^ Selection of Technical Solutions for the Management of Radioactive Waste. page 5, International Atomic Energy Agency, Jul.2017.
  16. ^ Routine Radioactive Releases from US Nuclear Power Plants. Beyond Nuclear, Dec.2012.
  17. ^ NRC Maps of Radioactive Waste Sites US Regulatory Commission, Aug.17.2018.
  18. ^ Where to Dispose of Britain's Nuclear Waste. By 2030 Britain will have generated approximately 1.4 million cubic metres of LLW, 260 thousand cubic metres of ILW and 3 thousand cubic metres of HLW. In terms of the total amount of radioactivity, however, HLW is the largest category, followed by ILW and then LLW. All of this waste must ultimately be disposed of somewhere, or stored in perpetuity. Ignoring the problem is not an option; the waste now exists and needs proactive management. It will not go away on its own. Centre for Computational Geography, University of Leeds. Accessed Oct.01.2018.
  19. ^ a b The Storage / Disposal of Radiactive Waste Produced by Nuclear Power Stations. Technology Student, 2009.
  20. ^ Nature's Nuclear Reactors: The 2-Billion-Year-Old Natural Fission Reactors in Gabon, Western Africa. Evelyn Mervine, Scientific American, Jul.13.2011.
  21. ^ The disposal of high-level radioactive waste. Nuclear Energy Agency, Jan.1989.
  22. ^ How nations are tackling nuclear waste storage. Tens of thousands of tons of spent fuel stored at nuclear power plants will remain dangerously radioactive for thousands of years- a vexing problem that nuclear-powered nations around the world face. Health24, Jul.15.2014.
  23. ^ Radioactive waste and spent fuel. So far Finland, France and Sweden have selected sites for the deep geological disposal of intermediate and high level waste. It is likely that they will open the first repositories for these kinds of waste between 2022 and 2030. European Commission. Accessed Oct.04.2018.
  24. ^ On Nuclear Waste, Finland Shows U.S. How It Can Be Done. Henry Fountain, New York Times, Jun.09.2017.
  25. ^ Disposal of High-Level Nuclear Waste. The nation's decades of commercial nuclear power production and nuclear weapons production have resulted in over 90,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel and other high-level nuclear waste. This highly radioactive waste is currently stored at sites in 35 states because no repository has been developed for the permanent disposal of this waste. US Government Accountability Office. Accessed Oct.01.2018.
  26. ^ Hardest sell: Nuclear waste needs good home. Greig Watson, BBC News, Jan.8.2016.
  27. ^ About IPFM. International Panel on Fissile Materials. Accessed Oct.03.2018.
  28. ^ Sites that we regulate. Office for Nuclear Regulation. Accessed Oct.03.2018.
  29. ^ Fuel Consumption of Conventional Reactor. Uranium 235 consumption in a nuclear reactor. Nuclear Power. Accessed Oct.02.2018.
  30. ^ Radiation Effects on Humans. Atomic Archive. Accessed Oct.03.2018.