References

Power Efficiency Guide

Ultimate Guide to Power Efficiency

Get Instant Access

Albright, D., Berkhout, F., and Walker, W. (1997), Plutonium and Highly Enriched Uranium World Inventories, Capabilities and Policies, 1996, Oxford University Press.

Arthur, E. D. and Wagner, R. L., Jr. (1996), The Los Alamos Nuclear Vision Project, Proc. Uranium Institute 21st Annual Symposium, London, UK (September 4-6).

Arthur, E. D., Cunningham, P. T., and Wagner, R. L., Jr. (1998), Architecture for Nuclear Energy in the 21st Century, Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-98-1931 (June 29).

Aston, F. W. (1919), A positive ray spectrograph, Phil. Mag. 38: 707, and Mass Spectra and Isotopes, Edward Arnold, London, 1992.

Bashmakov, I. A. (1992), What are the current characteristics of global energy systems, in G. I. Pearman (Ed.), Limiting the Greenhouse Effect: Options for Controlling Atmospheric CO2 Accumulation, Chap. 3, John Wiley and Sons, Ltd., New York, NY.

Beck, P. (1994), Prospects and Strategy for Nuclear Power. Global Boon or Dangerous Diversion?, Earthscan Publications, Inc.

Beller D. E. and Krakowski, R.A. (1999), Burnup Dependence of Proliferation Attributes of Plutonium from Spent LWR Fuel, Los Alamos National Laboratory document LA-UR-99-751 (February 12).

Benedict, M. (1971), Electric power from nuclear fission, Technology Review October/November.

Benedict, M., Pigford, T. H., and Levi, H. W. (1981), Nuclear Chemical Engineering, McGraw Hill, New York, NY.

Behnke, W. (1997), Communication from W. Benkhe, former C.E.O. of

Commonwealth Edison Co., owner and operator of Dresden II and Dresden III.

Bennett, L. and Zaleski, C. P. (2000), Nuclear energy scenarios in the 21st century: potential for alleviating greenhouse gas emissions and saving fossil fuels, Proc. Intern. Conf. on Global Warming and Energy Policy, Global Foundation, Inc., Fort Lauderdale, Florida (26-28 October).

Bodansky, D. (1997), Nuclear Energy, American Institute of Physics, Woodbury, NY.

Bohr, N. and Wheeler, J.A. (1939), The mechanism of nuclear fission, Phys. Rev., 56:426.

Bowman, C. D. and Venneri, F. (1996), Underground supercriticality for plutonium and other fissile materials, Science and Global Security, 5(3), 279.

Bos, E.,Vu, My T., Massiah, E., and Bulatao, R. A. (1995), 1993: World Population Projection - Estimates and Projections with Related Demographic Statistics, The World Bank, Johns Hopkins University Press.

Bowman, C. D., Arthur, E. D., Lisowski, R. W., Lawrence, G. P., Jensen, J. R. J.,

ARCO2 (GtonneC/yr) AT(K)

qXyO

Anderson, L. et al. (1992), Nuclear energy generation and waste transmutation using an accelerator-driven intense thermal neutron source, Nucl. Instr. and Meth. A320, 336.

Brewer S. T. and Hanzlik, R. (1999), Nuclear Power and the US Transition to a Restructured, Competitive Power Generation Sector, B. Kursunoglu et al. (eds.) Global Foundation Conference Paris, October 22-23,1998, Plenum Press, Inter. Conf. on Preparing the Ground for Renewal of Nuclear Power, New York, NY (1999).

Brolin, E. C. (1993), Factors affecting the next generation of nuclear power, Proc. 2nd Intern. Conf. on the Next Generation of Nuclear Power Technology, p. D-2, Massachusetts Institute of Technology report MIT-ANP-CP-002 (October 25-26).

Bunn, G. (1997), Strengthening international norms for physical protection on nuclear material, IAEA Conf. on Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials: Experience in Regulation, Implementation, and Operations, 17, (November 10-14, 1997).

CMP (1972), Report from Central Maine Power, Majority Owner of Maine Yankee.10

Cochran, R. G., and Tsoufanidis, N. T. (1990), The Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Analysis and Management, American Nuclear Society, La Grange Park, IL.

Cohen, B. L. (1977), High level waste for light-water reactors, Revs. Mod. Phys., 49:1.

Cottrell, Sir Alan (1981), How Safe is Nuclear Energy?, London; Exeter, N.H.: Heinemann.

Daniel, H. and Petrov Yu. V. (1993), Feasibility Study of an Inherently Safe Subcritical Fission Reactor, Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute Preprint, PNPI-1992.

Daniel, H. and Petrov Yu. V. (1994), Feasibility Study of a Subcritical Fission Reactor Driven by Low Power Accelerator, Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute Preprint, PNPI-1989.

Davis, Z. S. and B. Frankel (1993), The Proliferation Puzzle, Frank Cass and Company, Ltd., London, UK.

DESA (1988), World Population Projections for 2150, Population Division,

Department of Economics and Social Affairs, United Nations Secretariat, New York, NY (February).

Diaz, Nils J. (1998), Nuclear technology: global accomplishments and opportunities, Nuclear News, 36 (May).

Douglas, M. T. (1970), Natural Symbols, Barrie and Rockliff, London, UK (1970).

Edmonds J. and Reilly, J. M. (1985), Global Energy: Assessing the Future, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

EPA (1998), Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analysis (draft), US Environmental Protection Agency (July 17, 1998).

EPA (2000) US Environmental Protection Agency, 40 CFR Parts 141 and 142, National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance and New Source Contaminants Monitoring, Federal Register: 65 (121): 38887-38983 (2000).

Fang, D., Lew, D., Li, P., Kammen, D. M., and Wilson, R. (1998), Options for

10 This cost does not include a (later) cost of $20 million to remove a causeway and improve tidal flow in the coolant estuary (which many experts thought was unnecessary and certainly would not have been demanded of a fossil fuel plant).

Reducing CO2: (i) Improving Energy Efficiency, (ii) Alternative Fuels in Reconciling Economic Growth and Environmental Protection in China, M. McElroy, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA 02138.

Federal Register (1986), 51 FR 28044.

Fisher, J. C. and Pry, R. H. (1971), A simple substitution model of technology change, Technical Forecast and Social Change, 3, 75 (1471).

Galperin, A., Reichert, P., and Radkowsky, R. (1997), Thorium fuel for light water reactors - reducing proliferation potential for nuclear power fuel cycle, Science and Global Security, 6, 225.

Gardner, G. T. (1994), Nuclear Non Proliferation: a Primer, Lynne Reiner, Boulder, CO.

Goldschmidt, B. (1982), The Atomic Complex: A Worldwide Political History of Nuclear Energy, American Nuclear Society, La Grange Park, IL.

Hafele, W. (1981), Energy in a Finite World: Paths to a Sustainable Future,

International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Ballinger Press, Cambridge.

Hahn, O., and Strassman, F. (1939), Uber den Nachweis und das Verhalten der bei der Bestahlumg des Urans mittels Neutronen entstehenden Erdalkalimetalle, Naturwiss., 27:11

Hasselmann, K., Hasselmann, S., Giering, R., and Ocana, V. (1995), Optimization of CO2 emissions using coupled integral climate response and simplified cost models: a sensitivity study, in Climate Change: Integrating Science Economics, and Policy, Nakicenovic, N., Nordhaus W. D., Richels R., and Toth, F. L. (Eds.) International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis Report CP-96-1.

Hill, J. (1997), communication to the author by Sir John Hill, Chairman of the UK Atomic Energy Authority at the time of the Thorpe construction.

Hiskes, R. P. (1998), Democracy, Risk, and Community, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

Holloway, D. (1994), Stalin and The Bomb: The Soviet Union and Atomic Energy, 1939-1956, Yale University Press.

IAEA (1991), Electricity and the Environment, Proceedings of the senior expert symposium, Helsinki, Finland, 13-17 May 1991, IAEA, Vienna.

IAEA (1997), Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Reactor Strategies: Adjusting to New Realities, International Atomic Energy Agency.

Jackson, S. A. (1998), Transitioning to risk-informed regulation: the role of research, Nuclear News, p. 29, January.

Jasper, J. M. (1990), Nuclear Politics. Energy and the State in the United States, Sweden, and France, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

Johansson, T. B., Kelly, H., Reddy, A. K. N., and Williams, R. H. (Eds.) (1993), Renewable Energy: Sources for Fuels and Electricity, Island Press, Washington, DC.

Joliot, F., von Halban, H., and Kowarski L. (1939), Number of neutrons liberated in a nuclear fission of uranium, Nature, 143:680.

Kasperson, R. E. (1992), The social amplification of risk: progress in developing an integrative framework, Social Theories of Risk, S. Krimsky and D. Golding (Eds.), pp. 153-158, Praeger, Westport, CT.

Kasperson, R. E. (1993), Can nuclear power gain public acceptance?, Proc. 2nd Intern. Conf. on the Next Generation of Nuclear Power Technology, p. 3-2, Massachusetts Institute of Technology report MIT-ANP-CP-002 (October 25-26).

Kastenberg, W. E., Peterson, P. F., Ahn, J., Burch, J., Casher, G., Chambre, P.,

Greenspan, E., Olander, D. R., Vujic, J., Bessinger, B., Cook, N. G. W., Doyle, F. M., and Hilbert, L. B., (1996), Considerations of autocatalytic criticality of fissile materials in geologic repositories, Nucl. Sci. and Technol., 115, 298.

Krakowski, R. A. (1996), A Multi-Attribute Utility Approach to Generating

Proliferation-Risk Metrics, Los Alamos National Laboratory document LA-UR-96-3620 (October 11).

Krakowski, R. A. (1998a), Energy-Economic-Environment (E3) Modeling Activities/ Capabilities at Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory document LA-UR-98-945 (March 8).

Krakowski, R. A. (1998b), Preliminary Parametric Studies Using the ERB Model in Search of Demand Scenarios for Use by IAEA Consultancy E3 Study Team, Los Alamos National Laboratory document LA-UR-98-2252 (May 18).

Krakowski, R.A. (1998c), The Role of Nuclear Energy in Mitigating Greenhouse Warming, International Conf. on Environment and Nuclear Energy, Washington DC (October 27-28, 1997), Plenum Press.

Krakowski, R. A. (1999), Los Alamos Contributions to the IAEA Overall

Comparative Assessment of Different Energy Systems and Their Potential Role in Long-Term Sustainable Energy Mixes, Los Alamos National Laboratory document LA-UR-99-627 (February 3).

Krakowski, R. A. and Bathke, C. G. (1997a), Long-Term Nuclear Energy and Fuel Cycle Strategies, Los Alamos National Laboratory document LA-UR-97-3826 (September 24).

Krakowski, R. A., Davidson, J. W., Bathke, C. G., Arthur, E. D., and Wagner, R. L, Jr. (1997b), Global economic/energy/environmental (E3) modeling of long-term nuclear futures, Proc. Global '97 International Conf. on Future Nuclear Systems, p. 885, Yokohama, Japan (October 5-10).

Krakowski, R. A., Davidson, J. W., Bathke, C. G., Arthur, E. D., and Wagner, R. L, Jr. (1998a), Nuclear energy and materials in the 21st century, International Symp. on Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Reactor Strategy: Adjusting to New Realities, Vienna, Austria (June 3-6, 1997).

Krakowski, R. A., Bennett, L., and Bertel, E. (1998b), Nuclear fission for safe, globally sustainable, proliferation resistant and cost effective energy, Inter. Conf. on Preparing the Ground for Renewal of Nuclear Power: Global Foundation, Paris (October 22-23, 1998), Plenum Press, New York, NY.

Krakowski, R. A., and Bathke, C. G (1998c), Long-Term Global Nuclear Energy and Fuel-Cycle Strategies, Los Alamos National Laboratory document LA-UR-97-3836 (September 24).

Kress, T. (1994), Report to Nuclear Regulatory Commission from the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.

Kurihara, H. (1977), Strengthening physical protection of nuclear material, IAEA Conf. on Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials: Experience in Regulation, Implementation, and Operations, 9 (November 10-14).

Lackner, K. S., Wendy, C. H., Butt, D. P., Joyce, E. I., and Sharp, D. M. (1995), Carbon dioxide disposal in carbonate minerals, Energy, 20(11), 1153.

Lackner, K. S. and Ziock, H. (2001), How coal could fuel the 21st century. Talk at Columbia University.

Laidler, J. J., Battles, J. E., Miller, W. E., and Gay, E. C. (1993), Development of IFR pyroprocessing technology, Proc. Int. Conf. on Future Nuclear Systems: Emerging Fuel Cycles and Waste Disposal Options Global '93, pp. 1061-1065, Seattle, WA.

LaPorte, T. R. and Metla, D. S. (1996), Hazards and institutional trustworthiness -facing a deficit of trust, Public Admin. Rev., 56(4), 341.

Lawrence, G. P., Jameson, R. A., and Schriber, S. O. (1991), Accelerator technology for Los Alamos nuclear-waste transmutation and energy-production concepts, Proc. Intern. Conf. on Emerging Nuclear Energy Systems, Monterey, CA (June 16-21).

Lindstrom, S. (1992), The brave music of a distant drum: Sweden's nuclear phase out, Energy Policy, 20, 623-631.

Lochard, J. (Chm.) (1997), Key issues paper no. 4: safety, health, and environment implications of the different fuel cycles, International Symposium on Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Reactor Strategies: Adjusting to New Realities, Vienna, Austria (June 3-6, 1997), International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna (1998), 191.

Longworth, R. C. (1998), Global Squeeze: The Coming Crisis for First-World Nations, Contemporary Books, Chicago, IL (1998).

Lutz, W. (Ed.) (1996), The Future Population of the World: What Can We Assume Today?, Earthscan, London.

Manne, A. S. and Richels, R. G. (1992), Buying Greenhouse Insurance: The Economic Costs of Carbon Dioxide Emission Limits, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Marshalkin, V. E., Pavyshev, V. M., Trutnev, Ju. A. (1997), On solving the fissionable materials non-proliferation problem in the closed uranium-thorium cycle, in Advanced Nuclear Systems Consuming Excess Plutonium, E. R. Merz and C. E. Walter (Eds.) Kluwer Academic Publ., 237-257.

Marshall, W. (Ed.) (1983), Nuclear Power Technology, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Masters, C. D., Attanasi, E. D., Dietzman, W. D., Meyer, R. F., and Mitchell, R. W. (1987), World resources of crude oil, natural gas, natural bitumen, and oil shale, Proc. 12th World Petroleum Congress, Houston, TX.

Masters, C. D., Attanasi, E. D., and Root, D. H. (1994), World petroleum assessment, Proc. 14th World Petroleum Congress, Stavanger, Norway (1994).

McCoy, B. (1998), talk by vice president of Commonwealth Edison, Kennedy School of Government.

Meneley, D. (Chm.) (1997), Key issues paper no. 3: future fuel cycle and reactor strategies, International Symposium on Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Reactor Strategies: Adjusting to New Realities, Vienna, Austria (June 3-6, 1997), International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna (1998).

Messner, S. (1997), Endogenized Technological Learning in an Energy Systems Model, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis document RR-97-15 (November).

Messner, S. and Strubegger, M. (1995), User's Guide for MESSAGE III, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis report WP-95-69.

Meyer, S. M. (1984), The Dynamics of Nuclear Proliferation, Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Murogov, V. M., Dubinin, A. A., Zyablitsev, D. N. et al. (1995), Uranium-thorium Fuel Cycle - Its Advantages and a Perspective of the Nuclear Power Development on Its Base, Institute for Physics and Power Engineering (IPPE) preprint 2448, Obninsk, Russia.

Nakicenovic, N. (Study Director) (1995), Global Energy Perspectives to 2050 and Beyond, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) and World Energy Council (WEC) report (1995); recently re-issued by N. Nakicenovic, A. Grubler, and A. McDonald (Eds.), Global Energy: Perspectives, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (1998).

Nakicenovic, W. D., Nordhaus, R., Richels, and Toth, F. L. (Eds.) (1995), International Institute for Applied Systems Studies report CP-96-1.

NAS (1991), Nuclear Power: Technical and Institutional Options for the Future, National Research Council, J. F. Ahearn (Chm.); National Academy Press.

NCRP (1990), Implementation of the Principle of As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) for Medical and Dental Personnel, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Report No. 107.

NEI (1998), Nuclear Energy: Perception Gap, Nuclear Energy Insight, Nuclear Energy Institute, 8, (March).

Nelkin, D. (1971), Scientists in an environmental controversy, Science Studies, 1:245.

Nelkin, D. (1974), The role of experts in a nuclear siting controversy, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 30(9):29-36.

Nelkin, D. and Pollak, M. (1981), The atom besieged: extra-parliamentary dissent in France and Germany, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

NRC (1975), Rule making RM-30-2, Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

NRC (1990), Severe Accident Risks: An Assessment for Five US Nuclear Power Plants, Nuclear Regulatory Commission report NUREG 1150.

Nordhaus, W. D. (1991a), To slow or not to slow: the economics of the greenhouse effect, The Economic Journal, 101:929.

Nordhaus, W. D. (1991b), The cost of slowing climate change: a survey, The Energy Journal, 12, 37.

Nuclear News (1992), The new reactors, 35(12), 65 (September).

NYT (1996), Figures reported in the New York Times.

OECD (1996), Uranium: 1995 Resources, Production, and Demand, Nuclear Energy Agency of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (NEA/OECD) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) joint report, OECD, Paris.

OECD (1998a), Projected Costs of Generating Electricity: Update 1997, OECD/NEA-IEA report.

OECD (1998b), Nuclear Power and Climate Change, Nuclear Energy Agency

(NEA)/Organization for Economic Co-operation Development (OECD) report (April).

OTA (1977), Nuclear Proliferation and Safeguards, Office of Technology Assessment, Praeger Publishers, New York, NY (1977).

Parkinson, C. N., 1957, Parkinson's Law, 12, Houghton Mifflin, Boston.

Pigford, T. H. and Choi, J. S. (1991), Inventory reduction factors for actinide-burning liquid-metal reactors, Trans. Amer. Nucl. Soc., 64, 123.

Price, T. (1990), Political Electricity: What Future for Nuclear Energy, Oxford University Press.

Reiss, M. (1995), Bridled Ambitions: Why Countries Constrain Their Nuclear

Capabilities, Woodrow Wilson/Johns Hopkins University Press, Washington, DC.

Repetto, R. and Austin, D. (1997), The Costs of Climate Protection: A Guide for the Perplexed, World Resources Institute report.

Rochlin, G. I. (1993), Nuclear technology and social culture, Proc. 2nd Intern. Conf. on the Next Generation of Nuclear Power Technology, p. 7-11, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Report MIT-ANP-CP-002 (October 25-26).

Rochlin, G. I. and von Meier, A. (1994), Nuclear power operations: a cross-cultural perspective, Ann. Rev. Energy and Environment, 19, 153.

Rochlin, G. I. and Suchard, A. (1994), Nuclear power operations: a cross-cultural perspective, Ann. Rev. Energy and Environment.

Rogner, H. H. (1996), Hydrogen technologies and the technology learning curve, Proc. 11th World Hydrogen Energy Conf., 2, 1839, Stuttgart, Germany (June 23-28).

Rogner, H. H. (1997), An assessment of world hydrocarbon resources, Annual Review, Energy and Environment, 22, 217.

Sailor, W. C., Beard, C. A., Venneri, F., and Davidson, J. W. (1994), Comparison of accelerator-based with reactor-based nuclear waste transmutation schemes, Prog. in Nuclear Energy, 28(4), 359.

Sakharov, A. M. (1978), Nuclear power and freedom of the West, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, pp. 12-14.

Seaborg, G. (1968) Report to Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Congressional Record.

Sekimoto, H. and Takagi, N. (1991), Preliminary study on future society in nuclear quasi-equilibrium, J. Nucl. Sci. and Technol., 28(10), 941.

Shlyakhter, A. I. and Wilson, R. (1992), Chernobyl: the inevitable result of secrecy, Public Understanding of Science, 1:251-259.

Shlyakhter, A., Stadie, K., and Wilson, R. (1995), Constraints limiting the expansion of Nuclear Energy, Energy, Environment, and Economics Program, US Global Strategy Council, Washington, DC.

Silvennoinen, P. (1982), Nuclear Fuel Cycle Optimization: Method and Modeling Techniques, Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK.

Slovic, P. (1993), Perceived risk, trust and democracy: a system perspective, Risk Analysis 13:675-682.

Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., and Lichtenstein, S. (1982), Risk-aversion, social values, and nuclear safety goals, Trans. Amer. Nucl. Soc., 41, 448.

Steinberg, M.,Wotzak, G., and Manowitz, B. (1958), Neutron Burning of Long-Lived Fission Products for Waste Disposal, Brookhaven National Laboratory Report BNL-8558.

Takagi, N. and H. Sekimoto (1992), Feasibility of fast fission system confining long-lived nuclides, J. Nucl. Sci. and Technol., 29(3), 276.

Takagi, N., Takagi, R., and Sekimoto, H. (1998), Effect of decontamination factor of recycled actinide and fission products on the characteristics of SCNES, Prog. in Nuclear Energy, 32(3/4), 441.

Taylor, T. B. and Willrich, M. (1974), Nuclear Theft: Risks and Safeguards, Ballinger, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Tengs, T. O., Adams, M. E., Pliskin, J. S., Safran, D. G., Siegel, J. E., Weinstein, M. C., and Graham, J. D. (1995), Five hundred life saving interventions and their cost effectiveness, Risk Analysis, 15:369.

Thompson, M., Ellis, R., and Wildavsky, A. (1990), Cultural Theory, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.

Todreas, N. E. (1993), What should our future nuclear energy strategy be?, Proc. 2nd Intern. Conf. on the Next Generation of Nuclear Power Technology, p. 7-2, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Report MIT-ANP-CP-002 (October 25-26).

Towers Perrin (1994), Nuclear Regulatory Review Study, Final Report (October), Report to Nuclear Energy Institute, Washington DC.

Venneri, F., Ning, Li, Williamson, M., Houts, M., and Lawrence, G. (1998), Disposition of nuclear waste using sub-critical accelerator-driven systems: technology choices and implementation scenario, Proc. 6th Intern. Conf. on Nuclear Engineering (ICONE-6), ASME Publication (May 10-15).

Wade, W. D. (1994), Management of transuranics using the integral fast reactor

(IFR) fuel cycle, Proc. Intern. Conf. on Reactor Physics and Reactor Computations, 104, Tel-Aviv, Israel (January 23-26).

Wagner, H. F. (Chm.) (1997), Key issues paper no. 1: global energy outlook, International Symposium on Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Reactor Strategies: Adjusting to New Realities, Vienna, Austria (June 3-6, 1997), International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna (1998).

Way, K. and Wigner, E. P. (1948), The rate of decay of fission products, Phys. Rev., 73:1318.

Webster (1972), Letter from William Webster, President of NE Electric System (operator of Connecticut Yankee) to Richard Wilson.

WEC (1995), Survey of Energy Resources, World Energy Council report.

Weinberg, A. M. and Wigner, E. P. (1958), The Physical Theory of Neutron Chain Reactors, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

West, J. (2000), Presentation to Special Committee on ANL (Argonne National Laboratory) Nuclear Technology Division, (October 17, 2001).

Williamson, M. A. (1997), Chemistry technology base and fuel cycle of the

Los Alamos accelerator-driven transmutation system, Proc. Global '97 Conf., Yokohama, Japan.

Willrich, M. and Taylor, T. B. (1974), Nuclear Theft: Risks and Safeguards, Ballinger, Cambridge, MA.

Wilson, R. (1989), Global energy use: a quantitative analysis, in Global Climate Change Linkages, J. C. White (Ed.), Elsevier, NY.

Wilson, R. (1992), The future of nuclear power, Env. Sci. Technol., 26, 1116-1120.

Wilson, R. (1994a), The potential for nuclear power, in Global Energy Strategies: Living with Restricted Greenhouse Gas Emissions, White, J. C. (Ed.), Plenum Press, NY. pp. 27-45.

Wilson, R. (1994b), The potential environmental effects of nuclear power, in Environmental Contaminants and Health, S. K. Majumdar, F. J. Brenner, E. W. Miller, and L. M. Rosenfeld, (eds.) Pennsylvania Academy of Sciences (in press).

Wilson R (1998a), Over-regulation and Other Problems of Nuclear Power, presented at the Global Foundation Conference, Washington DC (October 27-29, 1997). Plenum Press, New York, NY.

Wilson, R. (1998b), Remembering How to Make Cheap Nuclear Electricity, testimony to Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, United States Senate Committee on Appropriations (May 19), Washington DC.

Wilson, R. (1998c), Public Acceptance of Nuclear Energy: Regulatory Issues and a Critique of Accelerator Driven Reactors, Energy, Environment and Economy Program Report.

Wilson, R. (1999), Restoring the balance in safety regulation, Inter. Conf. on

Preparing the Ground for Renewal of Nuclear Power: Global Foundation, Paris, (October 22-23, 1998), Plenum Press, New York.

Wilson, R. and Spengler, J. D. (Eds.) (1996), Particles in Our Air. Concentrations and Health Effects, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA 02138.

Wilson R. (2000), The changing need for a breeder reactor, Nuclear Energy, 39:99-106.

Appendix 7.A Abbreviated chronology of nuclear energy and nuclear weapons developmenta

1934 Discovery of artificial radioactivity in Paris by Frédéric and

Irene Joliot-Curie.

1938 Discovery of nuclear fission in Berlin by Otto Hahn, Lisa

Meitner, and Fritz Strassmann.

1938 Measurement of average number of neutrons released per fission by J. Huban and Kasanski (1939).

1939 Neils Bohr and John Archibald Wheeler predict that only very heavy nuclei containing an odd number of neutrons would be fissile to neutrons of all energies, even down to nearly zero energy.

1939 Secret memorandum by refugee German physicists Rudolf

Peierls and Otto Frisch asserted the extraordinary power of a fission based on 235U, set out the mechanism for such a weapon, and described its effects.

1939 Leo Szilard suggests colleagues among the Allies cease open-

literature publication of findings from uranium research. Alexander Sachs passes on letter from Albert Einstein and an affixed report by Leo Szilard to Franklin D. Roosevelt; research secrecy under the Manhattan Project is born.

December 1942 Demonstration of controlled nuclear fission reactor by Enrico Fermi at Stagg Field, University of Chicago.

August 6 and 9, 1945 Japan struck by first atomic bombs used in warfare.

November 1945 Tripartite Declaration by United States, United Kingdom, and Canada that "industrial applications" of nuclear energy should not be shared among nations until adequate safeguards and international controls were in place. Baruch Plan presented to United Nations and called for the creation of an International Atomic Development Authority that would be entrusted with all phases of the development and use of atomic energy. All nuclear weapons would be destroyed under this revolutionary form of world government, and the development of nuclear energy would only then proceed. Soviet Union wanted first the destruction of all nuclear weapons (e.g., the US nuclear arsenal must be eliminated first).

Atomic Energy Act of 1946 (McMahon Act) established the civilian US Atomic Energy Commission, made secret all information on the use of fissionable material for the production of electrical energy. The government-industry-university partnership created under the Manhattan Project remained intact to develop both a nuclear arsenal and nuclear energy.

Formation of Westinghouse Atomic Power Division (WAPD) at Bettis, Pittsburgh, to work jointly with the AEC and Argonne National Laboratory to design/construct/operate the Submarine Thermal Reactor (STR) based on the pressurized-water reactor (PWR) concept.

1946

1946

Robert Krakowski and Richard Wilson Appendix 7.A (cont.)

Date(s)

Event(s)

1949 1952 ca. 1953

1954

December 8, 1954

Soviet Union tests nuclear explosive, after a 1942 decision to pursue the development of a nuclear weapon, which did not become a high priority until 1945.

United Kingdom tests nuclear explosive, followed by a period (1952-57) of nuclear-weapons buildup at a rate constrained by nuclear-weapons versus nuclear-energy economic trade-off. Major task was to demonstrate nuclear power could be practical and economic; the prize was cheap power at home and substantial sales abroad. United States, United Kingdom, France, and Canada (e.g., the 1945 Tripartite Declarers plus France) gave nuclear power development a high priority.

US submarine Nautilus launched powered by the STR2 (PWR, highly enriched uranium core) reactor.

Dwight D. Eisenhower makes "Atoms for Peace" speech to the United Nations, which suggested the establishment of an International Atomic Energy Agency to be responsible for contributions of fissionable material made by the United States, Soviet Union, and other nations, and to devise ways and means to allocate fissionable materials for peaceful purposes and "to provide abundant electrical energy to the power-starved areas of the world". The Soviet Union responded with curt negativity (e.g., the proposal would do little in reducing the danger of nuclear war); the proposal, however, enjoyed strong worldwide support, and presented a conjunction of ideas and interest that reordered priorities away from international inspections and towards peaceful applications of nuclear energy:

• US Non-Proliferation Policy: Allies could move under the US Nuclear Umbrella, while benefiting from the development of a peaceful use of atomic energy.

• Nuclear Options: The common path to nuclear weapons and nuclear energy could be traversed by nations close to the point of divergence without fear of reprimand or reprisal.

• Nuclear Science: Global scientific exchange or nuclear information not related to weapons was encouraged, expanded, and supported. Cooperation and competition flourished.

• Industrial Interests: Also flourished under private ownership of nuclear enterprises under substantial government support of a promising, but risky, business.

• Government Interests: Assured a strong US position in the world nuclear-energy market, particularly in areas of expensive energy costs (Europe, developing countries).

Atomic Energy Act of 1954 changed domestic law to the extent needed to implement the Atoms for Peace proposals of Dwight D. Eisenhower, including allowing the US to become a member of the (future) IAEA. Impacted (US) government-industry relationships with regard to things nuclear; openness versus secrecy swung to the former; strong support of industry by government to promote nuclear energy.

What Can Nuclear Power Accomplish? Appendix 7.A (cont.)

Date(s)

Event(s)

1955

1956

1956

1957

1957 1957

1958

1958

1960

December 1963

1963

1964 1964

Soviet Union first used nuclear reactor for electricity production from a 5-MWe experimental reactor.

United Kingdom uses electricity from four 50-MWe carbon-dioxide-cooled, natural-uranium-fueled graphite-moderated reactors (at Calder Hall). These "dual-use" reactors were built for weapons-plutonium production and were uneconomic for electricity production alone; the French followed the same route at Marcoule.b

US bilateral agreements on nuclear energy flourished in the form of both outright gifts for nuclear research (small research reactors and required fuel) and for research and power applications.

The United States contributes the light-water-cooled Shippingport (Pennsylvania) as a 60-MWe small-scale demonstration of nuclear electric power generation. Joint project between AEC and Duquesne Light Company; power later increased to 90 MWe; used later as a test bed for the U-Th-based light-water breeder reactor (LWBR).

Secret Chinese-Soviet agreement on sharing in nuclear science and engineering.

IAEA becomes new international organization with potential for global membership. Idea of the IAEA as nuclear materials bank never took hold; became a framework for technical assistance that is aimed primarily at providing guidelines for safeguarding special nuclear material and providing safeguard-related inspections.

Dresden-1(180 MWe) was the first commercial boiling-water reactor (BWR) commissioned after a turnkey contract was signed (1954) between General Electric Company and Commonwealth Edison of Chicago.

Formation of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) within the European Economic Community (began with formation of the European Coal and Steel Community in 1952) to foster rapid growth of nuclear industries in Europe; US bilateral nuclear agreements ultimately transferred to/through Euratom.

France tests nuclear weapon, after a development period (1956-60) that largely tracked that of the United Kingdom.

Jersey Central Power and Light Company announces intention to build the 560-MWe LWR at Oyster Creek without government assistance with the promise of producing cheaper electricity than a fossil-fuel plant of similar capacity; orders for nuclear power plants dramatically increased. Limited Test Ban Treaty (LTBT) concluded; limited nuclear weapons testing to under ground. China tests nuclear explosive.

Private ownership of fissionable materials in the United States was authorized by law.

Robert Krakowski and Richard Wilson Appendix 7.A (cont.)

Date(s)

Event(s)

1967 ca. 1967

ca. 1968

1968 1969b

1971

June 1972

May 18, 1974

1974

1975

1975

1977

Treaty of Tlatelolco completed; prohibited nuclear weapons in Latin America; impelled by the Cuban missile crisis.

Decision to scale US light-water reactors up in size by roughly a factor of two to >—1000 MWe to gain competitive edge with fossil-fuel electric generation stations.

Canada advances technologies based on heavy-water-moderated, natural-uranium-fueled, light-water-cooled CANDU reactors, which find domestic markets as well as markets in less-developed countries (India, Pakistan). Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) completed. UK switches from Calder Hall type reactors to AGRs, and France adopts LWRs, both operating on low-enriched uranium fuel.

Zangger Committee (dozen nuclear technology exporting nations) formed to control exports of nuclear technologies by creating "trigger list" of nuclear technologies requiring safeguards if exported to non-nuclear-weapon nations.

First published domestic regulation specifically addressing physical protection of nuclear material in response to increasing terrorists activities in the early 1970s; US Regulation 10 CFR Part 73, Physical Protection of Plant and Materials.

India explodes an experimental (physics) plutonium nuclear device in Rajasthan desert near Pakistan (Peaceful Nuclear Explosive, PNE) using plutonium generated in its CIRUS research reactor.

US Nuclear Regulatory Commission publishes a comprehensive study on the safety of light-water reactors (US DOE report WASH-1400, the Rasmussen Report). IAEA responds to terrorist-related concerns in 1972 by establishing Advisory Group that issued first set of international guidelines (June 1972) that set the basis for more elaborate international guidelines issued in 1975 as INFCIRC/225, The Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials, again in response to increased terrorist activities; sequentially broadened/strengthened/updated:

INFCIRC/225/Rev.2(1989),INFCIRC/225/Rev.3(1993), and INFCIRC/225/Rev.4(1998)cd

Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG, or "London Club") formed to consider/implement further restrictions on trade in nuclear technologies; similar membership as Zangger Committee (1971), but included France.

Issue US Congress Office of Technology Assessment report, "Nuclear Proliferation and Safeguards".

US Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act passed (NNPA); US would no longer reprocess spent fuel or export uranium enrichment or reprocessing technologies.

What Can Nuclear Power Accomplish? Appendix 7.A (cont.)

Date(s)

Event(s)

1979

1980

June 7, 1981 1983

1985

1986

March 28, 1986 1988

1992 1995

• End nuclear trade with non-nuclear-weapon states with nuclear facilities not subject to full-scale safeguards.

• Requirement of US permission to reprocess, enrich, or reexport nuclear materials received from the US.

• Prohibited export of nuclear technologies to "non-nuclear-weapons" nations that detonated a nuclear explosive.

• Re-negotiation of all contracts to assure compliance with the last three requirements.

Core meltdown at Unit 2 of the Three Mile Island PWR generating station.

IAEA report of the International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation (INFCE).

Israel destroys Iraqi research reactor at the Tammuz nuclear center at El-Tuwaitha (outside Baghdad). Fast-neutron, liquid-metal-cooled, 1200-MWe, breeder reactor, Super Phénix is completed.

Treaty of Rarotonga completed; non-nuclear-weapons zone established for the South Pacific, while requiring that some exports to nuclear-weapons states be safeguarded.

Former technician at Dimona nuclear facility reveals strong evidence of Israeli nuclear weapons program, which began with the importation of French research reactor and reprocessing equipment in 1956. RBMK reactor at Chernobyl experiences core meltdown/burn/dispersal.

South Africa claims capability to manufacture nuclear weapons (began in early 1970s; six uranium nuclear weapons in 1990; program terminated in 1990 and weapons destroyed).

Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) adopts full-scale safeguards and expands trigger to include "dual-use" items.

Non-Proliferation Treaty renewal/extension.

Notes:

a Willrich and Taylor (1974), Goldschmidt (1982), Gardner (1994). b By —1969, the British, who at that time had the largest nuclear power capacity in the world, had shifted to low-enriched uranium fuel used in advanced gas reactor (AGR) design. The French also shifted to light-water reactors (LWR) using low-enriched uranium that were manufactured at that time under license from the US and/or German firms. c Kurihara (1977). d Bunn (1997).

320

Robert Krakowski and Richard Wilson

Appendix 7.B Design characteristics

Evolved LWR

Evolutionary

Design characteristics

System 80+

ABWR

SBWR

APWR 1000

APWR 1300

Reactor type

Pressurized

Boiling water

Boiling water

Pressurized

Pressurized

water reactor

reactor

reactor

water reactor

water reactor

Lead designer

ABB-CE

GE

GE

Westinghouse

Westinghouse

MWe (net)

1300

1300

640

1050

1300

MWt

3817

3926

2000

3150

3900

Coolant type

Light water

Light water

Light water

Light water

Light water

Moderator type

Light water

Light water

Light water

Light water

Light water

Fuel material

UO2 and/or

UO2

UO2

UO2

UO2

PuO2

Cladding material

Zircaloy-4

Zircaloy-2

Zircaloy-2

Zircaloy-4

Zircaloy-4

Fuel geometry

16 x 16

8 x 8 or 9 x 9

8 x 8 or 9 x 9

17 x 17

19 x 19

Number of fuel assemblies

241

872

732

193

193

Fuel pin diameter, mm

9.7

12.3

12.3

9.5

10.3

Number of control rods

93 control

205

177

53 black rods;

69 black rods;

element

16 gray rods

28 gray rods;

assemblies

88 displacer

(CEAs)

rods

Control rod material

48 B4C CEAs;

B4C

B4C

Black-Ag-In-

Black-B4C/

20 Ag-In-Cd

Cd; Gray-

Ag-In-C4d

CEAs; 25

stainless steel

hybrid; gray-

Inconel 625

stainless steel;

CEAs

displacer-

zirconium

Control rod form (i.e.,

Magnetic jack

Electric/

Electric/

Magnetic jack

Magnetic jack

drive power source)

hydraulic

hydraulic

for black and

gray rods;

hydraulic for

displacer rods

Active fuel length, mm

3810

3708

2743

3658

3900

Equivalent core diameter, mm

3650

5164

4880

3370

4000

Thermal-neutron or fast-

Thermal

Thermal

Thermal

Thermal

Thermal

neutron reactor

Vessel height/diameter, m

15.3/4.6 (I.D.)

21.0/7.1

24.5/6.0

12.06 (outside)/

16.4 (outside)/

4.47 (inside)

5.1 (inside)

for new nuclear reactors (Nuclear News, 1992)

LWR

Other

New LMR

AP600

EPR

PIUS

MHTGR

CANDU-3

EFR

ALMR

Pressurized

Pressurized

Pressurized

Gas-cooled

Pressurized

Liquid-metal

Liquid-metal

water reactor

water reactor

water reactor

reactor

heavy-water

fast breeder

fast breeder

reactor

reactor

reactor

Westinghouse

NPI

ABB Atom

General

AECL

EFR

GE/Argonne

Atomics

CANDU

Associates

600

1450

640

538

450 (nominal)

1450

1440 (3 power

(4 modules)

blocks)

1940

— 1450

2000

1400

1440.7

3600

4245 (3 power

(4 modules)

blocks)

Light water

Light water

Light water

Helium

Heavy water

Liquid sodium

Liquid sodium

Light water

Light water

Light water

Graphite

Heavy water

None

None

UO2

UO2 or

UO2

UCO fissile,

Natural UO2

Mixed UO2

U/25%-Pu/

UO2/PuO2

THO2 fertile

& PuO2

10%-Zr metal

alloy, by wt.

Zircaloy

Zircaloy

Zircaloy-4

Refractory

Zircaloy-4

Austenitic

HT-9 ferritic

coated particles

stainless steel

alloy

AIM1 &

Nimonic PE16

17 X 17

17 X 17

18 X 18

Hexagonal

37-element fuel

331 pins in

217 pins in

graphite blocks

bundle

triangle, in

hexagonal

hex steel

bundle

envelope

145

205

213

660

232 fuel

387

66 driver fuel

channel

assemblies

assemblies

9.5

9.5

9.5

13

13.1

8.2

7.2

45 control

69

None

30

24

33

6

rods; 16

gray rods

Ag-In-Cd/ SS

Hybrid: B4C &

NA

B4C compacts

Stainless steel

Boron carbide

Natural boron

304

Ag-In-Cd

sheathed

carbide

cadmium

Magnetic jack

Gravity

NA

Electric

Mechanical

Raised &

Gravity and

(gravity &

lowered by

fast drive-in

spring)

electric motors;

motor

free fall by

gravity

3658

4200

2500

7925

5944

1000

1350

2922

—3470

3760

1650 I.D., 3500

4912

4000

1570

O.D. annular

Thermal

Thermal

Thermal

Thermal

Thermal

Fast

Fast

11.59/4.39

12.8/5.25 (O.D.

Overall height-

22/6.8

NA/NA

17/17.2

18.7/5.7

of core shell)

43; width-

27 x 27; cavity

diameter-12;

depth-38

Appendix 7.B.

Evolved LWR

Evolutionary

Design characteristics

System 80 +

ABWR

SBWR

APWR 1000

APWR 1300

MW/m3

95.5

50.6

41.0

96.2

80.0

Linear heating rate,

7.1

5.8

4.7

6.8

6.7

kW/m

Coolant inlet temperature,

558 (292)

420 (216)

420 (216)

548 (287)

558 (292)

°F (°C)

Coolant outlet

615 (324)

550 (288)

550 (288)

616 (325)

621 (327)

temperature, °F (°C)

Main coolant system

2235 (15.41)

1025 (7.07)

1025 (7.07)

2250 (15.51)

2250 (15.51)

pressure, psig (MPa)

Containment

Dual: spherical

Pressure

Pressure

Cylindrical steel

Cylindrical steel

steel w.concrete

suppression/

suppression/

shield building

reinforced

reinforced

concrete

concrete

Operating cycle between

18 to 24

18

24

17

16.5

refuelings, startup to

shutdown, months

Refueling outage duration

0.56 months

45 days

45 days

30 days

45 days

Estimated yearly total

<70

<100

<100

<100

<100

occupational radiation

exposure person-rem/yr/

reactor

Note:

a Based on 4254/3 MWt per power block, 217(16 driver fuel pins, and 70% to total thermal power generated in the

driver fuel pins.

(cont.)

LWR

Other

New LMR

AP600

EPR

PIUS

MHTGR

CANDU-3

EFR

ALMR

78.8 5.6

— 107 7.6

72.3 5.1

5.9 0.8

12.78 1.7

290 15.3

1258a 51.2a

529 (276)

— 555 (—291)

500 (260)

497 (258)

515 (268)

743 (395)

640 (338)

594 (312)

—617 (—325)

554 (290)

1268 (687)

590 (310)

1013 (545)

905 (485)

2235 (15.41)

2250 (15.51)

1305 (8.99)

925 (6.38)

1436 (9.90)

Unpressurized

Unpressurized

Steel

Yes

Yes

None

Yes

Yes

Yes

18 or 24

12 to 18

11-12; can go to 24

19.2

NA (on-power refueling)

12

24

30 days (refueling & maintenance)

—1 month

< 1 month (2-3 weeks expected)

0.5 months

NA

0.6 months

0.6 months/ reactor

70

<100

100

40

40 in initial years, 75 in final years

20

20

Was this article helpful?

0 0
Guide to Alternative Fuels

Guide to Alternative Fuels

Your Alternative Fuel Solution for Saving Money, Reducing Oil Dependency, and Helping the Planet. Ethanol is an alternative to gasoline. The use of ethanol has been demonstrated to reduce greenhouse emissions slightly as compared to gasoline. Through this ebook, you are going to learn what you will need to know why choosing an alternative fuel may benefit you and your future.

Get My Free Ebook


Post a comment