Reassessing the safety of nuclear power

Wheatley, Spencer; Sovacool, Benjamin K.; Sornette, Didier

doi:10.1016/j.erss.2015.12.026

Cited by 85 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the risk of nuclear power accidents over time since 1952 amounts 0.003 events per plant per year [49].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison and Screening of NFC Options in View of Sustainable Performance and Waste Management

Schwenk-Ferrero¹,

Андрианов²

2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Is it true that the nuclear technology applied to electric energy generation offers a clean, safe, reliable and affordable i.e. sustainable alternative? Yes it is, but its impact on the environment strongly depends on the implementation bearing residual risks due to a human factor, technical failures or natural catastrophes. A full response is therefore difficult and can first be given when the wicked multi-disciplinary problems get well formulated and "solved". These problems have multidimensional nature lying at the interface between: necessary R&D effort, the industrial deployment and the technology impact in view of the environmental sustainability including the management of produced hazardous waste. This enormous complexity indicates that just a description of the problem might represent a problem. The paper proposes a holistic approach to assess the nuclear energy systems potential with respect to sustainable performance applying Multi-criteria decision analysis with a suitable objective tree and a multi-level criteria structure and examines the trading-off techniques for ranking of the alternatives. The framework proposes a multi-criteria and multistakeholders treatment which can be used as a pre-decisional support towards an implementation of nuclear fuel cycles adapted to national preferences and priorities. Proposed approach addresses some aspects of the environmental footprint of nuclear energy systems. Advanced nuclear fuel cycles, previously investigated by the NEA/OECD expert group WASTEMAN, are analyzed as a case study. Sustainability facets of waste management, resource utilization and economics are in focus.Keywords: advanced nuclear fuel cycles; waste management; resource utilization; economics; performance comparison; multi-criteria decision analysis; sensitivity/uncertainty analysis; environmental footprint BackgroundInnovative electrical energy generating technologies should be sustainable that means clean, safe, reliable and affordable and moreover able to preserve resources and minimize liabilities [1]. The nuclear technology option might compete in this sense with other large-scale energy producing technologies as, for instance, those consuming the coal or oil resources [2]. However, similar to the other non-nuclear energy generation options, each nuclear option produces hazardous radioactive waste -called high-level waste (HLW) due to the contained long-living radionuclides. For this reason, HLW should be isolated from the biosphere by a disposal and an enclosure in special facilities, called HLW repositories [3]. Mainly for this reason, nuclear waste management causes in some countries a public concern due to a residual risk of radiotoxic fission products' or minor actinides' migration from casks containing HLW into the environment. This risk which is higher for waste radiotoxic components soluble in water is assessed in the R&D studies on repository safety cases. Another type of threads were: A severe accident of boiling water reactors after an earthquake and a tsunami, which ...

show abstract

“…However, the risk of nuclear power accidents over time since 1952 amounts 0.003 events per plant per year [49].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison and Screening of NFC Options in View of Sustainable Performance and Waste Management

Schwenk-Ferrero¹,

Андрианов²

2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the risk of nuclear power accidents is negligibly small and amounts 0.003 events per plant per year while estimated over time since 1952 [61].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison and Screening of Nuclear Fuel Cycle Options in View of Sustainable Performance and Waste Management

Schwenk-Ferrero

Андрианов

2017

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Is it true that a nuclear technology approach to generate electric energy offers a clean, safe, reliable and affordable, i.e., sustainable option? In principle yes, however a technology impact on the environment strongly depends on the actual implementation bearing residual risks due to technical failures, human factors, or natural catastrophes. A full response is thus difficult and can be given first when the wicked multi-disciplinary issues get well formulated and "resolved". These problems are lying at the interface between: the necessary R&D effort, the industrial deployment and the technology impact in view of the environmental sustainability including the management of produced hazardous waste. As such, this problem is clearly of multi-dimensional nature. This enormous complexity indicates that just a description of the problem might cause a dilemma. The paper proposes a novel holistic approach applying Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis to assess the potential of nuclear energy systems with respect to a sustainable performance. It shows how to establish a multi-level criteria structure tree and examines the trading-off techniques for scoring and ranking of options. The presented framework allows multi-criteria and multi-group treatment. The methodology can be applied to support any pre-decisional process launched in a country to find the best nuclear and/or non-nuclear option according to national preferences and priorities. The approach addresses major aspects of the environmental footprint of nuclear energy systems. As a case study, advanced nuclear fuel cycles are analyzed, which were previously investigated by the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA/OECD) expert group WASTEMAN. Sustainability facets of waste management, resource utilization and economics are in focus.Keywords: advanced nuclear fuel cycles; waste management; resource utilisation; economics; performance comparison, multi-criteria decision analysis; sensitivity/uncertainty analysis, environmental footprint BackgroundInnovative electrical energy generating technologies should be sustainable, i.e., clean, safe, reliable and affordable and moreover able to preserve resources and minimise liabilities [1]. The nuclear technology option might compete in this sense with other large-scale energy producing technologies as, for instance those consuming coal or oil resources [2]. However, very much like other non-nuclear energy generation options, a nuclear option produces hazardous radioactive waste (radwaste)-called high-level waste (HLW) that contains long-living radionuclides. Therefore HLW should be isolated from the biosphere by a disposal site/system and an enclosure in special facilities, called HLW repositories [3]. This is the reason why nuclear waste management is of public concern in some

show abstract

“…These short-term financial gains provide support for nuclear plant construction in some countries, e.g., France, South Korea, China. However, the potential costs associated with nuclear externalities heavily outweigh the short-term benefits [29]. For example, if the risk premium of potential disasters could be included in the standard utility bills, nuclear power will be higher priced than other electricity supply options.…”

Section: A Tedious "Axiom" Of Global Energy and Climate Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

Positioning Nuclear Power in the Low-Carbon Electricity Transition

Verbruggen

Yurchenko

2017

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Addressing climate change requires de-carbonizing future energy supplies in an increasingly energy-dependent world. The IEA and the IPCC (2014) mention the following as low-carbon energy supply options: 'renewable energy, nuclear power and fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage'. Positioning nuclear power in the decarbonization transition is a problematic issue and is overridden by ill-conceived axioms. Before probing these axioms, we provide an overview of five major, postwar energy-related legacies and some insight into who is engaged in nuclear activities. We check whether low-carbon nuclear power passes the full sustainability test and whether it is compatible with the unfettered deployment of variable renewable power sourced from the sun and from wind and water currents, which delivers two negative answers. We show that the best approach of the sustainable energy transition was Germany's 2011 decision to phase out nuclear power for a fast development and full deployment of renewable power. This is the best approach for the sustainable energy transition. We offer five practical suggestions to strengthen and accelerate carbon-and nuclear-free transitions. They are related to institutional issues like the role of cost-benefit analysis and the mission of the International Atomic Energy Agency, to the costs of nuclear risks and catastrophes, and to the historical record of nuclear technology and business.

show abstract

Reassessing the safety of nuclear power

Cited by 85 publications

References 10 publications

Comparison and Screening of NFC Options in View of Sustainable Performance and Waste Management

Comparison and Screening of NFC Options in View of Sustainable Performance and Waste Management

Comparison and Screening of Nuclear Fuel Cycle Options in View of Sustainable Performance and Waste Management

Positioning Nuclear Power in the Low-Carbon Electricity Transition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About