Present initiative of Days to face energy problem .Similarly ,Drawbacks of it.

1. A REPORT ON
NUCLEAR ENERGY
F-110 (GENERAL SCIENCE & ENVIRONMENT)
SECTION- B, GROUP NO- 8

2. Page | 2
Dr. Md. Abu Bin Hasan Susan,
Professor,
Department of Chemistry,
Faculty of Science,
University of Dhaka.
Group No: 8
Section: B
Batch – 18
Submission Date: 7.9.2012
Department of Finance
Faculty of Business Studies
University of Dhaka

3. Page | 3
ID NAME REMARKS

4. Page | 4
September 7, 2012
To
Dr. Md. Abu Bin Hasan Susan,
Professor,
Department of Chemistry,
University of Dhaka
Subject: Submission of Term Paper on “Nuclear energy”.
Dear Sir,
It is an honor for us to submit the `Project Report’ on “Nuclear energy” which is prepared
as a partial requirement of the course named “General Science & Environment (F-110)” of BBA
program under Department of Finance of the Faculty of Business Studies, University of Dhaka.
The main objective of study to help the student to have a clear concept about nuclear energy and
give the idea of theoretical and practical idea on nuclear energy. This content really helps us to
understand about nuclear energy, its advantage, disadvantage and future.
We would like to convey our special thanks and gratitude to you for patronizing our effort
& for giving us proper guidance and valuable advice. We have tried our best to cover all the
relevant fields. We earnestly request you to call upon us if you think any further work should
be done on the topic that you have chosen for us.
Thanking you and looking forward to receive your cordial approval of our submission.
Yours Sincerely,
ID No: 18-016
On behalf of the member of
the group No : 8

5. Page | 5
Chapter Content Page No.
Executive Summary 6
One IntIntroduction
1.0: Introduction
1.1: Origin of the Report
1.2: Objectives of the Report
1.3: Methodology
1.4: Scope of Report
1.5: Limitation of Report
7
8
8
8
8
9
9
Two Theoretical Part
2.1: Nuclear energy
2.2: Advantages of Nuclear Energy
2.3: Disadvantages of Nuclear Energy
2.4: Future of Nuclear Energy
10
11
15
18
25
Reference 29

6. Page | 6
As a course requirement for General Science& Environment course, F-110 the report is
on a “Nuclear Energy”, which is assigned to us by our course teacher, Dr. Md. Abu Bin Hasan
Susan, Professor, Department of Chemistry, University of Dhaka.
From this report, we can learn about the theoretical and the different situation faced by the
partners of the partnership business. The theoretical part of this report is given below:
Nuclear energy
Nuclear process
Advantage of nuclear energy
Disadvantage of nuclear energy
Future of nuclear energy
Power Plant of nuclear energy
Almost every topic on nuclear energy is required to be covered on the report. Every case is
explained by illustrations and example.

7. Page | 7
NUCLEAR
ENERGY
PART ONE:
INTRODUCTION
SECTION-B, GROUP NO- 8

8. Page | 8
1
In this chapter we tried to describe the origin of the report, objective of the report,
scope and limitations of the report.
1.1. Origin of the report:
The BBA Program under the department of finance offers a course named
“General Science& Environment (F-110))” which requires submitting a report on a specific
topic determined by the course instructor. The report under the headline ‘Nuclear Energy’ has
been prepared towards the purpose.
1.2. Objective of the report:
There are several objectives to conduct the study which are:
To provide a detail information on nuclear energy.
To demonstration different advantage & disadvantage.
To give a clear concept of nuclear energy.
Future situation & case of nuclear energy
1.3. Methodology:
To prepare this report we mainly depend on the primary data. But also take some
help from our seniors.
Process of collecting secondary data:
We went to our senior to know about the procedure of making a good report. Then we ask for
advices that should be followed to collect a standard data.
Process of collecting primary data:
Primary data are collected from the following sources:
We collected our necessary primary data by the help of internet.

9. Page | 9
1.4. Scope of the report:
Everything has some advantage which helps that work to be completed
thoroughly. We get some scope which helps us to make a standard report. Major of them are-
Enough Time: We have got enough time to prepare a report so that we could gather
information with much tension free mind. .
Easy access to internet: We have a very smooth access to internet in our computer lab.
So that we didn’t face any kind of trouble in this sector.
Easy Topic: The topic of us was much easier than others. So we don’t feel any problem
about our topic.
Every study has some limitations. We faced some usual constraints during the
course of our preparation for the report.

10. Page | 10
NUCLEAR
ENERGY
PART TWO:
THEORETICAL
PART
SECTION-B, GROUP NO- 8

11. Page | 11
Nuclear Energy
Nuclear power plants produce electricity by boiling water into steam. This steam then turns
turbines to produce electricity. Where nuclear energy facilities differ from power plants that use
fossil fuels is that nuclear plants do not burn anything to create the energy to boil the water, so
they don’t pollute the air.
Instead, they use uranium fuel to produce energy through a process called fission. Fission entails
the splitting of atoms of uranium inside a nuclear reactor that, in U.S. facilities, uses water to
carry the heat that is converted into steam to turn the turbine/generators.
One of the great advantages of nuclear energy compared to other energy sources is the
tremendous efficiency of uranium as a power source. One thumbnail-sized uranium fuel pellet
provides as much energy as one ton of coal or 149 gallons of oil. This is why a typical reactor,
operating at the industry’s standard reliability levels, can generate enough electricity to power a
city the size of Seattle or Boston for an entire year.
There are 104 reactors, operating in 31 states that produce 20 percent of our nation’s total
electricity supply.
Nuclear energy does not produce greenhouse gases during the production of electricity. In fact, it
produces 70 percent of all emission-free electricity generation in the United States. Worldwide,
more than 440 nuclear power plants provide about half of all carbon-free electricity generation.
Concerns about air quality and the need for reliable, low-cost power are among the factors
driving interest in new nuclear energy facilities. The U.S. Department of Energy projects that the
United States will need nearly 25 percent more electricity by 2035. Worldwide, the International
Energy Agency reports that the global surge in the use of consumer electronics such as flat
screen TVs, iPods and mobile phones will triple electricity consumption by 2030.
Scientists and notable environmentalists agree that nuclear energy has an important role to play
in addressing this energy and environmental challenge. “Although nuclear energy is not a
panacea for the climate [change] problem—there is no panacea—it could make a significant
contribution if we could make it expandable again. It would be easier to solve the climate
problem with the help of nuclear energy than without it,” said Dr. John Holdren, director of the
White House Office of Science and Technology.
President Obama has embraced an inclusive approach to meeting future electricity needs in a
way that protects our environment: “By 2035, 80 percent of America’s electricity will come from
clean energy sources. Some folks want wind and solar. Others want nuclear, clean coal and
natural gas. To meet this goal, we will need them all.”
The byproduct of electricity generation with nuclear energy is uranium fuel assemblies, which
are radioactive and, therefore, must be safely isolated. Currently, when used fuel assemblies are
removed from the reactor core after about six years of use, they cool in a water-filled vault at
nuclear plants for five years or more. After five years of water cooling, they can be removed

12. Page | 12
from these vaults and placed into concrete- and lead-lined storage containers, which the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission has judged safe and secure for up to 120 years.
Because used fuel assemblies still have substantial energy content, they potentially can be
recycled for re-use as reactor fuel. Recycling is done in many nations, such as France, Japan,
Russia and the United Kingdom, and may be part of the energy strategy in the United States in
the decades to come.
Stewart Brand, a noted environmentalist and publisher and editor of The Whole Earth Catalog,
noted on TED.com in 2009 that, “If all the electricity you used in your lifetime was nuclear, the
amount of waste that would be added up would fit in a Coke can.”
Because nuclear power plants operate 24/7, they also play a key a role in stabilizing the nation’s
electrical grid. The average capacity factor for U.S. nuclear plants—a measure of reliability—has
stood very close to 90 percent every year for the past decade. This is significantly higher than
other electricity sources, and helps keep the cost to produce electricity very low. The industry’s
average electricity production cost in 2009 was about two cents per kilowatt-hour.
The coming decades will witness some of the most significant challenges the nation has ever
faced in meeting the twin imperatives of providing for rising electricity demand and reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. No single technology can accomplish these tasks alone, and they
certainly cannot be accomplished overnight. But proven clean-energy sources like nuclear energy
must play a key role.
A diagram showed below simplified how to a reactor works. it consists of strong steel pressure
vessel enclosing a core made of graphite bricks. This graphite core has a number of vertical
channel which are filled with rods of very heavy metal called uranium.
The uranium used in the reactor consists of a mixture of two different kinds of atoms, of which
the most important are called uranium-235.Quite spontaneously, some of these uranium-235
explode or disintegrate to form other atoms of smaller mass. When this happens, energy is
radiated from the central core or nucleus of the atom with small high speed particles called
neutrons.
If one of the neutrons happens to strick the nucleus of a neifhbouring atom this may also
distintegrate, with a further avolution of anergy the production of more neutrons . This splitting
up of the nucleus is called fission.

13. Page | 13
Fig: Gas-cooled reactor
The graphite of which the core is composed is called moderator most of the neutrons escape
through the surface. If, however, the amount of material is increased the chances that a nutron
will collide with an atomic nucleus will also increase, since there are more atoms present. Each
nuclear fission which occursproduces two or three fresh neutrons which are, in turn, capable of
promoting the fission of further nuclei. When the lump of uranium and moderator is above a
certain critical size the fission processproceeds cumulatively in what is called a chan reaction.
This is where thw above mentioned boron steel rods play their part. Before the uranium rods are
loaded into the graphite core the boron rods are already in position, and these have the property
of being able to absorb neutrons which are shot out from the uranium, and so prevent the chain
reaction from starting. When sufficient uranium rods have been added to effect critical
conditions the pressure vessel is sealed and the boron rods raised out of the core. The uranium
rods are now freely bombarded by one another’s neutrons and the chain reaction begins. The rate
at which fission occures can, of course, be controlled by raising or lowering the boron rods. If
these are fully inserted into the graphite core the reaction shut down completely, and only the
nomal spontaneous nuclear fission take place.

14. Page | 14
Fig: Chain Reaction in Uranium 235
Advantages of nuclear power
The heat that is generated by coal in a coal power plant is generated by nuclear fission in a
nuclear power plant. Other than that, the process is the same. The heat is passed on to water,
which turns into steam. This steam is used to push turbines and generate electricity. In a
hydroelectric plant, the force of water drives the turbines. At the end of the day, it is rotating
turbines that produce electricity for consumption on a national scale for the most part except for
solar energy.
The biggest nuclear power advantages are that it is relatively cheap (unless you count the bills
from disasters) and very powerful too. Nuclear power is India’s fourth largest producer of
electricity. The greatest producer is thermal energy. If we compare nuclear energy to thermal
energy, nuclear energy actually is vastly safer on issues like pollution and safety.

15. Page | 15
As for safety, studies show that nuclear power is safer than most other sources of energy – solar
power included. It doesn’t get safer than that. 100% isn’t a real life scenario.
While nuclear accidents are dangerous, they are few and not an exclusive hazard to the planet.
We have massive coal fires raging for decades in a place called Jharia in Jharkhand. We lose
money with every year passed. Smoke from the fire is a health hazard. We had Bhopal. In other
words, if we do little to ensure security, then many things are hazards.
Since we don’t have enough uranium, we are also actively experimenting with thorium. What the
results and risks of that are is unknown.
We do need energy. Most of our country doesn’t have enough electricity. We are not at a stage
where we can afford to create a fuss over an industry which so far hasn’t resulted in a single
fatality in our country and has an overall fatality rate less than others. The more electricity we
can generate, the more we can save our perishable sources of energy. This means a lot in a
country where our petrol price is almost 4 times that in Pakistan. It can mean the difference
between life and death to many.
Nuclear radiation is not that horribly alien either. Your chest X-Ray gives you plenty. There is
ambient radiation all around.
Nuclear energy also saves lives by contributing to the vital functions of the country. Submarines
and large ships are increasingly powered by nuclear energy. This allows them to become
virtually fuel independent in operations.
Hydroelectric dams and such like have been proven to cause ecological damage. Species of fish
have gone extinct, people have suffered large scale displacement. Mass movements have
opposed dams making subsequent projects more forbidding. Plus they are expensive in
comparison with both nuclear and other renewable sources.
While solar power is proving really good for us, there is still a space for nuclear energy, as we
still need far more electricity than we create. Plus, if we were to phase out the burning of so
much coal and replace the output with nuclear energy, it would be a far more dramatic decrease
in risks from what we have. It is not likely that we will be able to develop our renewable
resources alone to cover the entire country’s needs. At least not in the near future. Oh, and BTW,
hydroelectric dams are also a problem because of ecological damage, displacement of people,
and storage of ambient heat.
The production cost of nuclear energy is very low: on average, less than 1.8 cents per kilowatt
hour. This is cheaper than natural gas, which can cost between 3 and 6 cents per kilowatt hour.
Renewable energies cost two to six times as much as nuclear energy. Only coal can rival it, but
with evident environmental drawbacks.
If we compare nuclear energy to coal, we will find that when a coal power station consumes 3

16. Page | 16
million tons of fuel in a year, a nuclear power station consumes only 25 tons of uranium. 7
million tons of waste a year are generated by this coal power station, most of it in the form of
gases. 1 ton of radioactive waste is produced, 3% of it high-level waste. The other 97% is
recycled. As you can see, it is much more efficient to turn to nuclear energy.
In addition to being highly efficient, nuclear waste can be dealt with well.
Yes, it is radioactive. Yes, it is dangerous. However, we are aware of these dangers and of how
First of all, let me explain to you the process of nuclear waste disposal. Once a year, used
reactor fuel is replaced. The waste is radioactive and very hot, so it is stored in “ponds”,
concrete pools of water, outside the plant site. After several years, when its radioactivity has
been reduced, the fuel is collected and stored in canisters, either to be used again or to be
regarded as waste and no longer used.
If the fuel is to be reused, it undergoes a series of procedures known as reprocessing. The
uranium is separated from plutonium and high-level waste. As stated earlier, 97% of the fuel
can be recycled.
We know how to take care of nuclear waste. It is carefully kept out of our reach, therefore poses
absolutely no danger to us.
Nuclear energy is safe, environmentally friendly and efficient. It is a form of energy superior to
many others. We cannot afford to discontinue it in today’s environmental situation. We need a
form of energy that can help regulate greenhouse gas emissions. We need a form of energy that
is efficient. Nuclear energy is the right choice.

17. Page | 17
What most people do not know is that the Fukushima nuclear plant was not constructed in a
responsible manner. The plant was built in one of country’s regions most prone to earthquakes,
and right on the coast, where, in the event of a tsunami, the reactors would feel its maximum
effects. In addition to that, the four reactors were built very close to each other. Also, the
Fukushima plant’s technology was outdated. It was sixty years old and not well maintained.
Even so, no workers have received radiation doses large enough to set off radiation sickness.
There have not been any negative effects by radiation on the locals, nor any doses near harmful
levels.
Nuclear plants are actually very safe. There have only been three accidents in its entire history. If
we compare its record to coal’s, we’ll find that nuclear plants are much safer. For every one
death caused by nuclear power generation, there are 4000 deaths from coal.
All forms of energy have drawbacks. If we had shied away from every possibly dangerous
activity, we would not have harnessed fire.
Next, we desperately need nuclear energy to help fight climate change. At the moment, we are in
a severe environmental crisis. We need to change our methods of energy production, and we
need to do it now. Currently, 77% of Canada’s primary energy production comes from fossil
fuels, which are not a sustainable resource. As we all know, they emit harmful greenhouse gases,
that are a cause of global warming, which is already affecting both wildlife and humans. In
addition, fossil fuels cause acid rain and expose humans to carcinogenic chemicals.
Coal is another source of energy that competes with nuclear energy, constituting 8.2% of
Canada’s production of primary energy. Nuclear energy only represents 5.9%. Using coal for
energy production should not be favored over nuclear, since it has negative effects on the
environment and on society. It disturbs local biodiversity when mined, due to noise, soil erosion
and water pollution. From 1881 to 1969, 424 coal workers died in mines located at Springhill,
Nova Scotia. In 1992, 26 workers were killed by a methane explosion near Plymouth, Nova
Scotia. In addition to these deaths, coal workers are exposed to carcinogens. For these people,
the risk of developing heart, lung and liver diseases increases. Also, when burned, coal produces
sulfur dioxide a major air pollutant.
Nuclear energy should definitely be favored over coal and fossil fuels.
You might ask, why shouldn’t we turn to renewable energy when it has less effect on the

18. Page | 18
environment than nuclear energy does the answer is this: it does not produce enough energy to
respond to our energy needs.
According to the Canadian Nuclear Association, Canada is the fifth largest producer of
electricity in the world. We generate about 4% of the total world production of primary energy.
It is not possible to meet these needs if we suddenly replace fossil fuels with renewable energy.
As mentioned before, 77% of Canada’s energy production is from fossil fuels. Only 0.1 % is
generated by wind, tidal and solar energy.
But can nuclear energy can meet those needs?
Absolutely. Unlike up and coming renewable, there is already a “community” of constructed
nuclear plants. What’s more, is that nuclear energy is renowned for its efficiency – the capacity
of producing a lot of energy from very little fuel.
A single gram of uranium contains as much energy as four tons of coal. Therefore, a plant
requires very little uranium to produce electricity.
Disadvantages of Nuclear Energy
Nuclear energy is created by a controlled nuclear chain reaction that boils water, produces steam,
and powers steam turbines. Although this is an excellent way to generate electricity, there are a
few disadvantages of nuclear energy. Some of them include the waste, cost, and the possibility of
accidents
Most of the disadvantages with nuclear energy have to do with the inherent properties of
nuclear fission. The energy and byproducts released by nuclear fission are health hazards-
either because of being extremely hot, due to highly energetic release of heat during nuclear
fission, or because of the destructive effects of radiation poisoning. Other disadvantages tend
to be industrial in nature. Not only does nuclear power come with an extremely high initial
expense, but the storage of waste products remains a difficult and controversial problem.

19. Page | 19
The disadvantages of nuclear energy are as
follows:
Nuclear Waste
The storage and management of nuclear waste has been a problem plaguing the nuclear industry
since its inception. The waste products of nuclear fission have a half-life measured from decades
to centuries to millennia, making their management very much a long-term prospect. The usage
of the Yucca Mountain area as an American depository of nuclear waste was met with extreme
controversy and was eventually cancelled. The storage and handling of nuclear waste has not
been without incident. Containment failure at Chelyabinsk-65, a Russian reactor, led to increased
incidents of leukemia and other symptoms of chronic radiation poisoning.
It is possible to reprocess nuclear waste for further use as an energy source. However, its
relatively greater expense than unprocessed uranium and its unwelcome byproducts have not
made it a priority of the nuclear industry. One of the biggest disadvantages of nuclear energy is
the waste. Although the output of waste is relatively small, it releases harmful radiation as it
decays. There is no method to get rid of the radioactivity of the waste or speed up the rate of
decay. The waste must be sealed and buried in a safe location to prevent contamination of the
environment and other people. Currently, there are no suitable locations that provide a permanent
storage site for nuclear waste.

20. Page | 20
Accidents
Another one of the biggest disadvantages of nuclear energy is the occurrence of accidents due to
core meltdown. These accidents happen when the core overheats and radiation products are
allowed to escape the building. This contaminates the surrounding area with radioactive material
that is very harmful for people’s health, often causing cancer.
Nuclear Disasters Over Years:
 A well known nuclear disaster was the attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United
States during World War II. An experiment, as described by some, was a grave event in
the history of nuclear energy and its effects. It was the
first of its kind.
 Another infamous event is the Chernobyl disaster. The
Chernobyl disaster that occurred at the Chernobyl
Nuclear Power Plant in 1986 in Ukraine, was the worst
nuclear power plant disaster. Although an accident, it
made the world realize that controlling such a potentially
great power is not entirely in our hands. The accident
happened during a test in a nuclear power plant. The
extent of damage was controlled as the plant was shut
down immediately, and the residents relocated. One of
the nuclear reactors of the plant exploded, releasing high
amount of radiation in the environment. It resulted in thousands of casualties, mostly
due to exposure to harmful radiation. One cannot deny the possibility of repetition of
such disasters in future. Even now, the city is in ruins, a pale picture of its past.
 The most recent nuclear mishap was the Fukushima Accident in Japan. It was caused
by an earthquake-generated tsunami. The nuclear reactor was seismically robust

21. Page | 21
Reactor Cost
Cost is also one of the major disadvantages of nuclear energy. It costs between three and five
billion dollars just to build a nuclear power plant. Maintenance and operating costs are also
high because lots of money must be sent on safety systems in case something goes wrong. One
of the largest economic drawbacks to nuclear energy is its inherently steep price. Nuclear
reactors are a multibillion-dollar capital project, with new ones expected to cost in excess of
$15 billion to construct. This is due primarily to the greatly increased cost of labor and
materials, exacerbated by the increasing demand for power. Nuclear power plants built in the
1970s were expected to run in the single-digit billions, with $5 billion as a high-end cost.
Though large amount of energy can be produced from a nuclear power plant, it requires large
capital cost. Around 15-20 years are required to develop a single plant. Hence, it is not very
feasible to build a nuclear power plant. The nuclear reactors will work only as long as uranium is
available. Its extinction can again result in a grave problem.
Weapons
One of the most feared disadvantages of nuclear energy is the potential for weapons. Each
year, every nuclear reactor is capable of making enough plutonium to build over thirty nuclear
bombs. Nuclear plants must be secured well enough to prevent this material from falling into
the wrong hands. This energy can be used for production and proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Nuclear weapons make use of fission, fusion or combination of both reactions for destructive
purposes. They are a major threat to the world as they can cause a large-scale devastation.

22. Page | 22
Uranium
One of the final disadvantages of nuclear energy is the uranium supply. Nuclear energy can't
completely replace other fossil fuels because there is not enough uranium to power the needed
plants. Other types of reactors can produce energy using other materials, but they are slow,
expensive, and the technology won't be completely ready for at least another decade.
Radiation Poisoning
Radiation poisoning, formally known as acute radiation syndrome, is caused by the irradiation
of all or a large part of the body. Its onset symptoms include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, fatigue
and anorexia. Radiation burns at only small parts of the body are not as lethal as an all-body
exposure. Most fatalities caused by radiation exposure are because of a wholesale depletion of
bone marrow due to extremely large radiation exposure, usually at the 70 red ranges or higher.
If there is gastrointestinal and/or neurological damage to the victim, survival becomes
drastically less likely, with death expected from two weeks to just three days.
Security and Safety
Due to the threat of militantly radical groups both domestic and foreign, and the inherently
dangerous nature of radioactive materials, security for nuclear reactors is necessarily much
stricter than that of conventional power generators.
The Russian Chernobyl incident demonstrated the risks inherent in a badly regulated, or even
sabotaged, nuclear reactor on the surrounding environment and population.
Politics
There has not been a new nuclear facility in the United States of America since the much-
publicized Three Mile Island incident. Furthermore, there are more than 40 special interest
groups in the country that have been formed in protest and counter of the nuclear power industry.
Although the increased demand for power and predicted peak oil has increased interest in nuclear
power, it remains politically dangerous to implement.
Low Level of Radioactivity from Normal
Operation
The nuclear energy also produces a large volume of low level radioactive waste in the form of
contaminated items like clothing hand tools, water purifier resins, and the materials of which he
reactor itself is built.

23. Page | 23
High Capital Investment, Cost Overrun,
Long Gestation Time
The time to construct a large nuclear power project can take between 5-10 years which leads to
time and cost overruns .The nuclear plant being built in Finland has been one of the biggest
failure in project finance. The reactor has been delayed b many year and has lead to a massive
cost overrun.Arvea he main nuclear equipment supplier has endured huge losses. In fact the
safety regulations and the long time of construction has brought he nuclear energy in the
developed world to almost a halt.
Fuel Danger
Uranium which is the main fuel used in nuclear fission power plants is limited to a few countries
and suppliers. Its use transport is regulated by international treaties and groups. India which
came under sanctions because of testing of nuclear weapons had to shut man of its nuclear plants
because of embargoes.

24. Page | 24
Others
The byproducts of nuclear fission consist of short and long half life radioactive isotopes. In the
short term the short half life isotopes are the most dangerous, as they emit the most radiation per
unit of time. However, many short lived isotopes decay within weeks or months, and are no
longer a problem. The real problem is the long lived isotopes. Some of these have half lives of
many thousands of years, and so a secure long term storage is required. The major issue is that it
is difficult to guarantee that a storage site will not leak or corrode, and the potential for
radioactive isotopes to be released in to the atmosphere means that it a serious issue. It is capable
of causing genetic disorders, thus once exposed, can affect generations to come adversely.
Another drawback is the storage of nuclear wastes, as it too can lead to disastrous effects if not
disposed or stored in the right manner.
THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY
TO 2030
There are signs of life in the nuclear power industry that have not been seen since the 1980s,
driven by concerns about energy security and climate change and by a growing demand for
electricity worldwide. Scores of states, including developing countries, have expressed interest in
nuclear energy and some have announced plans to acquire it. Several existing nuclear energy
states, notably in Asia, are already building new reactors, while others are studying the
possibilities. There is certainly a revival of interest.
This study concludes, however, that on balance, a significant expansion of nuclear energy
worldwide to 2030faces constraints that, while not insurmountable, are likely to outweigh the
drivers of nuclear energy. Globally, while the gross amount of nuclear-generated electricity may
rise, the percentage of electricity contributed by nuclear power is likely to fall as other cheaper,
more quickly deployed alternatives come online. An increases high as a doubling of the existing
reactor fleet as envisaged in some official scenarios seems especially implausible, given that it
can take a decade of planning, regulatory processes, construction and testing before a reactor can
produce electricity. While the numbers of nuclear reactors will probably rise from the current
number, the addition of new reactors is likely to be offset by the retirement of older plants,
notwithstanding upgrades and life extensions to some older facilities. The economics are
profoundly unfavorable and are getting worse. This will persist unless governments provide
greater incentives, including subsidies for first entrants, and establish carbon prices high enough
to offset the advantages of coal and to a lesser extent natural gas. Nuclear is not nimble enough

25. Page | 25
to meet the threat of climate change in the short term. Demand for energy efficiency is leading to
a fundamental rethinking of how electricity is generated and distributed that will not be favorable
to nuclear. The nuclear waste issue, unresolved almost 60years after commercial nuclear
electricity was first generated remains in the public consciousness as a lingering concern. Fears
about safety, security and nuclear weapons proliferation also act as dampeners of a nuclear
revival.
In short, despite some powerful drivers and clear advantages, a revival of nuclear energy faces
too many barriers compared to other means of generating electricity for it to capture a growing
market share to 2030.This might appear to imply that there should be no concerns about global
governance of nuclear energy. Nothing could be further from the truth. The second major finding
of this study is that the various regimes for nuclear safety, security and nonproliferation, despite
improvements in recent years, are still inadequate in meeting existing challenges, much less new
ones. They have all emerged in fits and starts across the decades, reacting to, rather than
anticipating, threats and crises like Chernobyl, the dangers of nuclear terrorism post-9/11 and
attempts to acquire nuclear weapons by Iraq, North Korea and Iran. The regimes are all under-
funded, under-resourced, un-integrated and too often lacking in transparency and openness. The
civilian nuclear industry tends to keep a wary distance from the regimes, while governments and
international organizations often fail to consult and involve industrial and other stakeholders,
including civil society. A revival of the nuclear industry on even a modest scale, even if limited
to the existing nuclear energy states and a handful of inexperienced new ones, poses risks that
should be anticipated and prepared for. In order to avoid mistakes made at the outset of the
nuclear age, some of which led to disastrous results, steps must be taken now to strengthen
global governance. One more major nuclear accident, one more state that develops nuclear
weapons under the guise of generating electricity, or one more 9/11 but with nuclear weapons
this time, is one catastrophe too many
The Outlook to 2030
Plans for real “new build” have been announced by 19 of the 31 countries that already have
nuclear power. Especially extensive are the intentions of China, India, Japan, Russia, South
Korea, the UK and the US. However, close examination of each country’s preparations and
progress to date elicits caution. The national case studies commissioned by this project on major
existing nuclear energy states (Canada, China, France, India, Russia, the UK and the US)
expressed skepticism about their ambitious visions for expansion. China has the most extensive
plan of any country and is the only one likely to come close to fulfilling it. But it is starting from
a very low base: even its most ambitious projections envisage an increase to
justfivepercentofitselectricityby2020.Alreadythereareconcernsaboutcosts, financiahortages,
especially given the boom in building other types of power plants The Centre for International
Governance Innovation12 cigionline.org in China, notably for coal. India, now free of import

26. Page | 26
constraints, may advance faster than in the past, but has never come anywhere near its previous
outlandish targets. Even in the United States, seen as a bellwether of the nuclear revival
following the launch of its Nuclear Power 2010program in 2002, construction has not started on
a single new reactor, despite loan guarantees and other subsidies for early entrants. Industry
promoters predict that only four to eight new reactors will come online in the US by2015 and
then only if even bigger government loan guarantees materialize. Canada’s plans for new build
have so far come to naught, with cancellations by Ontario and hesitation in Alberta and
Saskatchewan. France, already so well supplied with nuclear electricity that it exports it, is
building just one new reactor. However, French companies Areva and Electricité de France are
gearing up to export and operate reactors abroad. Russia has elaborated domestic and export
schemes but faces significant barriers in realizing all of these. South Korea envisages relatively
steady expansion of an already sizeable fleet of reactor sand has export intentions that have
already been realized with a sale to the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
Many existing nuclear energy states have no plans for expansion. Currently, of the European
states that decided to phase out nuclear power after Chernobyl, only Italy has completely
reversed its position, while Sweden has partly done so. With the electorate deeply divided, the
current government in Germany plans only to extend the existing phase-out. South Africa has
cancelled its expansion plans due to its financial situation. Australia, despite huge uranium
deposits, continues to reject nuclear electricity. A small number of new entrants may succeed in
acquiring
Their first nuclear reactors by 2030, among them two were European countries — Poland and
Turkey. A handful of developing states, those with oil wealth and/or command economies, or
special support from other countries, may be able to embark on a modest program of one or two
reactors. The most likely candidates appear to be Algeria, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Kazakhstan,
the UAE and Vietnam, although some of these have envisaged acquiring nuclear reactors for
decades and all face significant challenges in doing so now.

27. Page | 27
It is thus likely that expansion in nuclear energy to2030 will be confined largely to the existing
nuclear energy producers, plus a handful of newcomers. Forth vast majority of states, nuclear
energy will remains elusive as ever.
Technology Trends to 2030
Most “new build” to 2030 is likely to be Generation III+light-water reactors, of 1,000 megawatt
(MW) capacity and above, in order to achieve economies of scale. Three individual brands
(Areva, Westinghouse/Toshiba and General Electric/Hitachi) are poised to dominate the global
export market. Construction consortia, sometimes assembled by utilities like Electricity de
France or new entrants like South Korea, are required, as no single company can currently build
a nuclear power plant singlehandedly. It is not clear whether Canada, India or Russia will
succeed in exporting new reactor types. New generation reactor technology promises to be more
efficient, safer and more proliferation-resistant, but this remains to be demonstrated. Nuclear
power will continue to prove most useful for base load electricity in countries with extensive,
established grids. Lifetime extensions and renovation will continue to prolong the life of existing

28. Page | 28
reactors to 2030 and in some cases beyond: they are proving profitable since construction costs
have long been written off and running costs, including for fuel, are low. Large nuclear plants
will continue to be infeasible for most developing states and other states with small or fragile
electricity systems. Small reactors are still in the research and development stage and are
unlikely to be widespread by 2030. A couple of pilot Generation IV re may be deployed by 2030,
but nuclear fusion will remain completely elusive. Uranium is unlikely to be in short supply and
current cost advantages compared with coal and natural gas are likely to persist or increase (for
nuclear power fuels cheap but the plant expensive, the opposite for candy natural gas). Price rises
are likely to trigger more exploration and development of uranium resources, with Australia,
Canada and Kazakhstan well placed to remain the major suppliers. The “once through” fuel
cycle will predominate, as will continuing interim storage of spent fuel and nuclear waste at
reactor sites or in some cases at centralized capacity is likely to be necessary: the number of
international customers for existing plants in France, Russia and the UK has been dwindling for
years. Uranium enrichment will increase modestly t locater for so increased demand, but new
entrants are likely to be deterred: enrichment plants are expensive, existing enriches can simply
add additional centrifuges to meet demand, and tightening export controls will likely amount to a
permanent moratorium on exports of the technology. Given the relative cheapness of uranium
and the expense of reprocessing, advanced fuel cycles involving fast or breeder reactors will be
rare, confined even by 2030 to a few states, probably only India, Japan and Russia. Even then,
deployment will depend on resolving persistent difficulties with the technology. Such reactors
are unlikely as in the past, to generate much electricity. Mixed oxide (uranium and plutonium)
fuel, known as Maxwell continue to be used to take advantage of plutonium already reprocessed,
but will not expand greatly, partly due to cost, but also to proliferation and security concerns.
The thorium fuel cycle will not be viable by 2030

29. Page | 29
REFERENCE
1. Physics by A.F. Abbot
2. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power
3. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_ energy
4. library.thinkquest.org/3471/nuclear_energy.html
5. www.epa.gov/cleanrgy/energy-and-you/affect/nuclear.htm
6. www.westinghousenuclear.com › Community
7. www.nei.org/
8. www.westinghousenuclear.com › Community
9. www.epa.gov/cleanrgy/energy-and-you/affect/nuclear.html