Nuclear power: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Femto (talk | contribs)
13,836 edits
m rv to 11:37, 1 May 2007 UTC
Line 1: Line 1:
== Headline text ==
{{otheruses4|applications of [[nuclear reactor]]s as power sources|the underlying energy itself|Nuclear energy}}
{{otheruses4|applications of [[nuclear reactor]]s as power sources|the underlying energy itself|Nuclear energy}}
[[Image:Nuclear Power Plant 2.jpg|thumb|250px|right|A nuclear power station. The nuclear reactor is contained inside the cylindrical [[containment building]]s to the right - left is a cooling tower venting water vapor from the non-radioactive side of the plant.]]
[[Image:Nuclear Power Plant 2.jpg|thumb|250px|right|A nuclear power station. The nuclear reactor is contained inside the cylindrical [[containment building]]s to the right - left is a cooling tower venting water vapor from the non-radioactive side of the plant.]]

Revision as of 14:54, 1 May 2007

This article is about applications of nuclear reactors as power sources. For the underlying energy itself, see Nuclear energy.
File:Nuclear Power Plant 2.jpg
A nuclear power station. The nuclear reactor is contained inside the cylindrical containment buildings to the right - left is a cooling tower venting water vapor from the non-radioactive side of the plant.

Nuclear power is the controlled use of nuclear reactions to release energy for work including propulsion, heat, and the generation of electricity. Use of nuclear power to do significant useful work is currently limited to nuclear fission and radioactive decay. Nuclear energy is produced when a fissile material, such as uranium-235 (235U), is concentrated such that nuclear fission takes place in a controlled chain reaction and creates heat — which is used to boil water, produce steam, and drive a steam turbine. The turbine can be used for mechanical work and also to generate electricity. Nuclear power provides 7% of the world's energy and 15.7% of the world's electricity and is used to power most military submarines and aircraft carriers.[1]

Disquiet over the safety of nuclear power was exacerbated by the unsafe design and operation of the Soviet-built plant at Chernobyl. However, new plants designed to be safer than current Western plants are on the verge of being built - and global warming concerns may spark a resurgence. Controversy remains (see Nuclear power controversy).

Use

See also: Nuclear power by country
See also: List of nuclear reactors

The United States produces the most nuclear energy, with nuclear power providing 20% of the electricity it consumes, while France produces the highest percentage of its electrical energy from nuclear reactors—80% as of 2006.[2][3] In the European Union as a whole, nuclear energy provides 30% of the electricity.[4] Nuclear energy policy differs between countries, and some countries such as Austria, Australia and Ireland have no active nuclear power stations.

As of 2007, the IAEA reported there are 435 nuclear power reactors in operation in the world [5], operating in 31 different countries [6]. Together, they produce about 17% of the world's electric power. The U.S., France, and Japan together account for 49% of all nuclear power plants and 57% of all nuclear generated electricity.[6]

For a discussion of new nuclear plants, see Economics of new nuclear power plants.

International research is ongoing into various safety improvements, the use of nuclear fusion and additional uses such as the generation of hydrogen (in support of hydrogen economy schemes), for desalinating sea water, and for use in district heating systems. Lately, there has been renewed interest in nuclear energy from national governments due to energy security and climate change. Other reasons for interest include the public, some notable environmentalists due to increased oil prices, new passively safe designs of plants. The low emission rate of greenhouse gas which all countries, excluding the US and Australia, need to meet the standards of the Kyoto Protocol. A few reactors are under construction, and several new types of reactors are planned.

History

Origins

The first successful experiment with nuclear fission was conducted in 1938 in Berlin by the German physicists Otto Hahn, Lise Meitner and Fritz Strassmann.

During the Second World War, a number of nations embarked on crash programs to develop nuclear energy, focusing first on the development of nuclear reactors. The first self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction was obtained at the University of Chicago by Enrico Fermi on December 2 1942, and reactors based on his research were used to produce the plutonium necessary for the "Fat Man" weapon dropped on Nagasaki, Japan. Several nations began their own construction of nuclear reactors at this point, primarily for weapons use, though research was also being conducted into their use for civilian electricity generation.

Electricity was generated for the first time by a nuclear reactor on December 20 1951 at the EBR-I experimental fast breeder station near Arco, Idaho, which initially produced about 100 kW. The Arco Reactor was also the first to a partial melt down (in 1955).

In 1952 a report by the Paley Commission (The President's Materials Policy Commission) for President Harry Truman made a "relatively pessimistic" assessment of nuclear power, and called for "aggressive research in the whole field of solar energy".[7]

A December 1953 speech by President Dwight Eisenhower, "Atoms for Peace", set the U.S. on a course of strong government support for the international use of nuclear power.

Early years

The Shippingport Atomic Power Station in Shippingport, Pennsylvania was the first commercial reactor in the USA and was opened in 1957.

On June 27 1954, the world's first nuclear power plant to generate electricity for a power grid started operations at Obninsk, USSR. The reactor was graphite moderated, water cooled and had a capacity of 5 megawatts (MW). It produced 5 megawatts (electrical), enough to power 2,000 homes.[8][9]

The world's first commercial nuclear power station, Calder Hall in Sellafield, England was opened in 1956, a gas-cooled Magnox reactor with an initial capacity of 50 MW (later 200 MW).[10] The Shippingport Reactor (Pennsylvania, 1957), a pressurized water reactor, was the first commercial nuclear generator to become operational in the United States.

In 1954, the chairman of the United States Atomic Energy Commission (forerunner of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) talked about electricity being "too cheap to meter" in the future, often misreported as a concrete statement about nuclear power, and foresaw 1000 nuclear plants on line in the USA by the year 2000.[11]

In 1955 the United Nations' "First Geneva Conference", then the world's largest gathering of scientists and engineers, met to explore the technology. In 1957 EURATOM was launched alongside the European Economic Community (the latter is now the European Union). The same year also saw the launch of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Enrico Fermi and Leó Szilárd in 1955 shared U.S. patent 2,708,656 for the nuclear reactor.

Development

Installed nuclear capacity initially rose relatively quickly, rising from less than 1 gigawatt (GW) in 1960 to 100 GW in the late 1970s, and 300 GW in the late 1980s. Since the late 1980s capacity has risen much more slowly, reaching 366 GW in 2005, primarily due to Chinese expansion of nuclear power. Between around 1970 and 1990, more than 50 GW of capacity was under construction (peaking at over 150 GW in the late 70s and early 80s) — in 2005, around 25 GW of new capacity was planned. More than two-thirds of all nuclear plants ordered after January 1970 were eventually cancelled.[12]

Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear Power Plants 3 and 5 were never completed

The first organization to develop utilitarian nuclear power, the U.S. Navy, to propel submarines and aircraft carriers. It has a good record in nuclear safety. This is perhaps because of the stringent demands of Admiral Hyman G. Rickover, who was the driving force behind nuclear marine propulsion. The U.S. Navy has operated more nuclear reactors than any other entity, other than the Soviet Navy, with no publicly known major incidents. Two U.S. nuclear submarines, USS Scorpion and Thresher, have been lost at sea, though for reasons not related to their reactors, and their wrecks are situated such that the risk of nuclear pollution is considered low.

During the 1970s and 1980s rising economic costs (related to vastly extended construction times largely due to regulatory changes and pressure-group litigation) and falling fossil fuel prices made nuclear power plants then under construction less attractive.

The 1973 oil crisis had a significant effect on the construction of nuclear power plants worldwide. The oil embargo led to a global economic recession and high inflation that both reduced the projected demand for new electric generation capacity in the United States and made financing such capital intensive projects difficult. This contributed to the cancellation of over 100 reactor orders in the USA.[13] Even so, the plants already under construction effectively displaced oil for the generation of electricity. In 1973, oil generated 17% of the electricity in the United States. Today, oil is a minor source of electric power (except in Hawaii), while nuclear power now generates 20% of that country's electricity. The oil crisis caused other countries, such as France and Japan, which had relied even more heavily on oil for electric generation (39% and 73% respectively) to invest heavily in nuclear power.[14][15] Today, nuclear power supplies about 80% and 30% of the electricity in those countries, respectively.

In the 1980s (U.S.) and 1990s (Europe), flat load growth and electricity liberalization also made the addition of large new baseload capacity unattractive.

A general movement against nuclear power arose during the last third of the 20th century, based on the fear of a possible nuclear accident and on fears of radiation, and on the opposition to nuclear waste production, transport and final storage. Perceived risks on the citizens' health and safety, the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island and the 1986 Chernobyl disaster played a part in stopping new plant construction in many countries. However, in the US new construction dropped sharply before the Three Mile Island accident, after the 1973 oil crises.[16]

Unlike the Three Mile Island accident, the much more serious Chernobyl accident did not increase regulations affecting Western reactors since the Chernobyl reactors were of the problematic RBMK design only used in the Soviet Union, for example lacking a containment buildings.[17] An international organisation to promote safety awareness and professional development on operators in nuclear facilities was created: WANO; World Association of Nuclear Operators.

Austria (1978), Sweden (1980) and Italy (1987) (influenced by Chernobyl) voted in referendums to oppose or phase out nuclear power, while opposition in Ireland prevented a nuclear programme there. However, the Brookings Institution suggests that new nuclear units have not been ordered in the US primarily for economic reasons rather than fears of accidents.[18]

Nuclear reactor technology

Main article: Nuclear reactor

Conventional thermal power plants all have a fuel source to provide heat. Examples are gas, coal, or oil. For a nuclear power plant, this heat is provided by nuclear fission inside the nuclear reactor. When a relatively large fissile atomic nucleus (usually uranium-235 or plutonium-239) is struck by a neutron it forms two or more smaller nuclei as fission products, releasing energy and neutrons in a process called nuclear fission. The neutrons then trigger further fission. And so on. When this nuclear chain reaction is controlled, the energy released can be used to heat water, produce steam and drive a turbine that generates electricity. It should be noted that a nuclear explosive involves an uncontrolled chain reaction, and the rate of fission in a reactor is not capable of reaching sufficient levels to trigger a nuclear explosion because commercial reactor grade nuclear fuel is not enriched to a high enough level. (see enriched uranium)

The chain reaction is controlled through the use of materials that absorb and moderate neutrons. In uranium-fueled reactors, neutrons must be moderated (slowed down) because slow neutrons are more likely to cause fission when colliding with a uranium-235 nucleus. Light water reactors use ordinary water to moderate and cool the reactors. When at operating temperatures if the temperature of the water increases, its density drops, and fewer neutrons passing through it are slowed enough to trigger further reactions. That negative feedback stabilizes the reaction rate.

The current types of plants (and their common components) are discussed in the Main Article nuclear reactor.

A number of other designs for nuclear power generation, the Generation IV reactors, are the subject of active research and may be used for practical power generation in the future. A number of the advanced nuclear reactor designs could also make critical fission reactors much cleaner, much safer and/or much less of a risk to the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Controlled nuclear fusion could in principle be used in fusion power plants to produce power without the complexities of handling actinides, but significant scientific and technical obstacles remain. Several fusion reactors have been built, but as yet none has 'produced' more thermal energy than electrical energy consumed. Despite research having started in the 1950s, no commercial fusion reactor is expected before 2050. The ITER project is currently leading the effort to commercialize fusion power.

Safety

Main article: Nuclear safety
Main article: Nuclear safety in the U.S.

Economics

Main article: Economics of new nuclear power plants

This is a controversial subject, since multi-billion dollar investments ride on the choice of an energy source.

Which power source (generally coal, natural gas, nuclear or wind) is most cost-effective depends on the assumptions used in a particular study - several are quoted in the Main Article.

Life cycle

The Nuclear Fuel Cycle begins when uranium is mined, enriched, and manufactured into nuclear fuel, (1) which is delivered to a nuclear power plant. After usage in the power plant, the spent fuel is delivered to a reprocessing plant (2) or to a final repository (3) for geological disposition. In reprocessing 95% of spent fuel can be recycled to be returned to usage in a power plant (4).
Nuclear fuel — a compact, inert, insoluble solid.
Main article: Nuclear fuel cycle

A nuclear reactor is only part of the life-cycle for nuclear power. The process starts with mining. Generally, uranium mines are either open-pit strip mines, or in-situ leach mines. In either case, the uranium ore is extracted, usually converted into a stable and compact form such as yellowcake, and then transported to a processing facility. Here, the yellowcake is converted to uranium hexafluoride, which is then enriched using various techniques. At this point, the enriched uranium, containing more than the natural 0.7% U-235, is used to make rods of the proper composition and geometry for the particular reactor that the fuel is destined for. The fuel rods will spend about 3 years inside the reactor, generally until about 3% of their uranium has been fissioned, then they will be moved to a spent fuel pool where the short lived isotopes generated by fission can decay away. After about 5 years in a cooling pond, the spent fuel is radioactively cool enough to handle, and it can be moved to dry storage casks or reprocessed.

Fuel resources

Main article: Uranium market
Main article: Future energy development - Nuclear power

Uranium is a common element, approximately as common as tin or zinc, and it is a constituent of most rocks and of the sea. The world's present measured resources of uranium, economically recoverable at a price of 130 $/kg, are enough to last for some 70 years at current consumption. This represents a higher level of assured resources than is normal for most minerals. On the basis of analogies with other metal minerals, a doubling of price from present levels could be expected to create about a tenfold increase in measured resources, over time. The fuel's contribution to the overall cost of the electricity produced is relatively small, so even a large fuel price escalation will have relatively little effect on final price. For instance, typically a doubling of the uranium market price would increase the fuel cost for a light water reactor by 26% and the electricity cost about 7% (whereas doubling the gas price would typically add 70% to the price of electricity from that source). At higher prices eventually extraction from sources such as granite and seawater become economically feasible.[19]

Current light water reactors make relatively inefficient use of nuclear fuel, leading to energy waste. But nuclear reprocessing makes this waste reusable (except in the USA, where this is not allowed) and more efficient reactor designs would allow better use of the available resources (and reduce the amount of waste material).[20]

As opposed to current light water reactors which use uranium-235 (0.7% of all natural uranium), fast breeder reactors use uranium-238 (99.3% of all natural uranium). It has been estimated that there is up to five-billion years’ worth of uranium-238 for use in these power plants.[21] Breeder technology has been used in several reactors, but requires higher uranium prices before becoming justified economically.[22] Currently (December 2005), the only breeder reactor producing power is BN-600 in Beloyarsk, Russia. (The electricity output of BN-600 is 600 MW — Russia has planned to build another unit, BN-800, at Beloyarsk nuclear power plant.) Also, Japan's Monju reactor is planned for restart (having been shut down since 1995), and both China and India intend to build breeder reactors.

Another alternative would be to use uranium-233 bred from thorium as fission fuel — the thorium fuel cycle. Thorium is three times more abundant in the Earth's crust than uranium, and (theoretically) all of it can be used for breeding, making the potential thorium resource orders of magnitude larger than the uranium fuel cycle operated without breeding.[23] Unlike the breeding of U-238 into plutonium, fast breeder reactors are not necessary — it can be performed satisfactorily in more conventional plants.

Depleted uranium

Main article: Depleted uranium

Uranium enrichment produces many tons of depleted uranium (DU) which consists of U-238 with most of the easily fissile U-235 isotope removed. U-238 is a tough metal with several commercial uses — for example, aircraft production, radiation shielding, and making bullets and armor — as it has a higher density than lead. There are concerns that U-238 may lead to health problems in groups exposed to this material excessively, like tank crews and civilians living in areas where large quantities of DU ammunition have been used.

Solid waste

Further information: Radioactive waste

The predominant waste stream from nuclear power plants is spent fuel. A large nuclear reactor produces 3 cubic metres (25-30 tonnes) of spent fuel each year.[24] It is primarily composed of unconverted uranium as well as significant quantities of transuranic actinides (plutonium and curium, mostly). In addition, about 3% of it is made of fission products. The actinides (uranium, plutonium, and curium) are responsible for the bulk of the long term radioactivity, whereas the fission products are responsible for the bulk of the short term radioactivity.

Spent fuel is highly radioactive and needs to be handled with great care and forethought. However, spent nuclear fuel becomes less radioactive over time. After 40 years, the radiation flux is 99.9% lower than it was the moment the spent fuel was removed, although still dangerously radioactive.[20]

The safe storage and disposal of nuclear waste is a significant challenge. Because of potential harm from radiation, spent nuclear fuel must be stored in shielded basins of water (spent fuel pools), and usually subsequently in dry storage vaults or dry cask storage until its radioactivity decreases naturally ("decays") to levels safe enough for other processing. This interim stage spans years or decades, depending on the type of fuel. Most U.S. waste is currently stored in temporary storage sites requiring oversight, while suitable permanent disposal methods are discussed. As of 2003, the United States had accumulated about 49,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel from nuclear reactors. Underground storage at Yucca Mountain in U.S. has been proposed as permanent storage. After 10,000 years of radioactive decay, according to United States Environmental Protection Agency standards, the spent nuclear fuel will no longer pose a threat to public health and safety. See the article on the nuclear fuel cycle for more information.

The amount of waste can be reduced in several ways, particularly reprocessing. Even so, the remaining waste will be substantially radioactive for at least 300 years even if the actinides are removed, and for up to thousands of years if the actinides are left in. Even with separation of all actinides, and using fast breeder reactors to destroy by transmutation some of the longer-lived non-actinides as well, the waste must be segregated from the environment for one to a few hundred years, and therefore this is properly categorized as a long-term problem. Subcritical reactors or fusion reactors could also reduce the time the waste has to be stored.[25] It has been argued that the best solution for the nuclear waste is above ground temporary storage since technology is rapidly changing. The current waste may well become a valuable resource in the future.

The nuclear industry also produces a volume of low-level radioactive waste in the form of contaminated items like clothing, hand tools, water purifier resins, and (upon decommissioning) the materials of which the reactor itself is built. In the United States, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has repeatedly attempted to allow low-level materials to be handled as normal waste: landfilled, recycled into consumer items, etc. Most low-level waste releases very low levels of radioactivity and is only considered radioactive waste because of its history. For example, according to the standards of the NRC, the radiation released by coffee is enough to treat it as low level waste.

In countries with nuclear power, radioactive wastes comprise less than 1% of total industrial toxic wastes, which remain hazardous indefinitely unless they decompose or are treated so that they are less toxic or, ideally, completely non-toxic.[20] Overall, nuclear power produces far less waste material than fossil-fuel based power plants. Coal-burning plants are particularly noted for producing large amounts of toxic and mildly radioactive ash due to concentrating naturally occurring metals and radioactive material from the coal. Contrary to popular belief, coal power actually results in more radioactive waste being released into the environment than nuclear power [8].

Reprocessing

Further information: Nuclear reprocessing

Reprocessing can potentially recover up to 95% of the remaining uranium and plutonium in spent nuclear fuel, putting it into new mixed oxide fuel. This would produce a reduction in long term radioactivity within the remaining waste, since this is largely short-lived fission products, and reduces its volume by over 90%. Reprocessing of civilian fuel from power reactors is currently done on large scale in Britain, France and (formerly) Russia, will be in China and perhaps India, and is being done on an expanding scale in Japan. The potential of reprocessing has not been achieved because it requires breeder reactors, which are not yet commercially available. France is generally cited as the most successful reprocessor, but it presently only recycles 28% (by weight) of the yearly fuel use, 7% within France and another 21% in Russia.[26]

Iran has announced its intention to complete the nuclear fuel cycle via reprocessing, a move which has led to criticism from the United States and the International Atomic Energy Agency.[27] Unlike other countries, the U.S. forbade nuclear reprocessing in 1977 for fear of proliferation. Spent fuel is all currently treated as waste.[28]


Concerns about nuclear power

Main article: Nuclear power controversy

The use of nuclear power is controversial for a number of reasons (see below and the Main Article). Proponents believe that these risks are small and can be further reduced by the technology in the new reactors. They further claim that the safety record is already good when compared to other fossil-fuel plants, that it releases much less radioactive waste than coal power, and that nuclear power is a sustainable energy source. Critics, including most major environmental groups, claim nuclear power is an uneconomic and potentially dangerous energy source with a limited fuel supply, especially compared to renewable energy, and dispute whether the costs and risks can be reduced through new technology.

Several concerns about nuclear power have been expressed, and these include:

  • Concerns about nuclear reactor accidents, such as the Chernobyl disaster
  • Vulnerability of plants to attack or sabotage
  • Use of nuclear waste as a weapon
  • Health effects of nuclear power plants
  • Nuclear proliferation
  • Concerns about the complexity of nuclear power plants

There is concern in some countries over North Korea and Iran operating research reactors and fuel enrichment plants, since those countries refuse adequate IAEA oversight and are believed to be trying to develop nuclear weapons. North Korea admits that it is developing nuclear weapons, while the Iranian government vehemently denies the claims against Iran.

List of atomic energy groups

References

  1. ^ "Key World Energy Statistics" (PDF). International Energy Agency. 2006. Retrieved 2006-11-08.
  2. ^ "Impacts of Energy Research and Development With Analysis of Price-Anderson Act and Hydroelectric Relicensing". Nuclear Energy (Subtitle D, Section 1241). Energy Information Administration. 2004. Retrieved 2006-11-08.
  3. ^ Eleanor Beardsley (2006). "France Presses Ahead with Nuclear Power". NPR. Retrieved 2006-11-08.
  4. ^ "Gross electricity generation, by fuel used in power-stations". Eurostat. 2006. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |accesdate= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
  5. ^ NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS INFORMATION, by IAEA, 15/06/2005
  6. ^ a b World NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS 2005-06, 15/08/2006, Australian Uranium Information Centre Cite error: The named reference "UIC" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  7. ^ Makhijani, Arjun and Saleska, Scott (1996). "The Nuclear Power Deception". Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. Retrieved --. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  8. ^ "From Obninsk Beyond: Nuclear Power Conference Looks to Future". International Atomic Energy Agency. Retrieved June 27. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
  9. ^ "Nuclear Power in Russia". World Nuclear Association. Retrieved June 27. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
  10. ^ "On This Day: 17 October". BBC News. Retrieved 2006-11-09.
  11. ^ "Too Cheap to Meter?". Canadian Nuclear Society. 2006. Retrieved 2006-11-09.
  12. ^ "50 Years of Nuclear Energy" (PDF). International Atomic Energy Agency. Retrieved 2006-11-09.
  13. ^ [1]
  14. ^ [2]
  15. ^ [3]
  16. ^ "The Rise and Fall of Nuclear Power". Public Broadcasting Service. Retrieved June 28. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
  17. ^ "Backgrounder on Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant Accident". Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Retrieved June 28. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
  18. ^ "The Political Economy of Nuclear Energy in the United States". Social Policy. The Brookings Institution. 2004. Retrieved 2006-11-09.
  19. ^ [4][5]James Jopf (2004). "World Uranium Reserves". American Energy Independence. Retrieved 2006-11-10.[6][7]
  20. ^ a b c "Waste Management in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle". Information and Issue Briefs. World Nuclear Assosciation. 2006. Retrieved 2006-11-09.
  21. ^ John McCarthy (2006). "Facts From Choen and Others". Progress and its Sustainability. Stanford. Retrieved 2006-11-09.
  22. ^ "Advanced Nuclear Power Reactors". Information and Issue Briefs. World Nuclear Assosciation. 2006. Retrieved 2006-11-09.
  23. ^ "Thorium". Information and Issue Briefs. World Nuclear Assosciation. 2006. Retrieved 2006-11-09.
  24. ^ "Radioactive Waste Management". Uranium & Nuclear Power Information Centre. 2002. Retrieved 2006-11-09.
  25. ^ "Accelerator-driven Nuclear Energy". Information and Issue Briefs. World Nuclear Association. 2003. Retrieved 2006-11-09.
  26. ^ IEEE Spectrum: Nuclear Wasteland. Retrieved on 2007-04-22
  27. ^ "Q&A: Iran Nuclear Stand-Off". BBC News. 2006. Retrieved 2006-11-09.
  28. ^ Baker, Peter. "Nuclear Energy Plan Would Use Spent Fuel". Washington Post (2007-01-26). Retrieved 2007-01-31. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |quotes= and |month= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

See also

External links

Template:Energy Conversion

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nuclear_power&oldid=127430064"