Search results

In recognition of the urgency of the global need to reduce CO₂ emissions from the electricity sector, the purpose of this paper is to analyze the cost‐effectiveness of nuclear power and fossil‐fuel‐based power with and without the provision of carbon capture and storage in select, yet environmentally‐significant, group of countries – China, India, Russia, Korea, Pakistan, Poland, Argentina, Bulgaria and Romania.

The analyses are based on comparisons of electricity generation costs for nuclear and fossil‐fuel technologies. These costs, expressed in present value terms, are estimated on the basis of life‐cycle costs, employing detailed country‐specific technological and economic data and assumptions.

The analyses suggest that that the provision of carbon capture and storage is likely to result in a significant increase in the cost of electricity produced from fossil fuels (principally coal) in all countries represented in this paper. Such increase would completely erode the existing cost advantage enjoyed by fossil‐fuel power (in relation to nuclear power) in some countries (Argentina, Bulgaria, China, and India) and considerably enhance the existing cost‐advantage of nuclear power in other countries (Korea, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, and Russia).

Notwithstanding these limitations, the findings of this paper contribute appreciably to the emerging knowledge on this topic and provide useful foresight into the likely challenges of developing internationally acceptable policy prescriptions for mitigation CO₂ emissions from the electricity sector. At a mundane, yet important, level, this paper establishes a platform on which further analyses could be built.

Improved nuclear reactor configurations that address major concerns of environmentalists and safety analysts are discussed. In addition to social acceptance, these new modes of power generation have economic potential to become the dominant producers of energy in the twenty‐first century. The class of power generation with this promise is the high temperature gas reactor (HTGR); the variant we focus on is the pebble‐bed modular reactor (PBMR). We also focus on using nuclear power as an energy source for desalinating seawater. Finally, the case is made that HTGR reactors are ideal for supplying the high‐temperature heat needed for manufacturing molecular hydrogen, a leading candidate for clean fuel consumption. These three themes are developed in a broad context with the objective of recommending policy actions dealing with global warming, public health, and economic opportunity.

Nuclear energy is of vital importance for the energy independence of countries. Therefore, some of the countries have given priority to nuclear energy investments. However, there are some risks in nuclear reactors. For this reason, some countries are uneasy about nuclear energy investments. Thorium-based nuclear power plants are also recommended to minimize these risks. It is possible to talk about many advantages of these power plants. However, there are some negative aspects to these investments. In this study, both positive and negative aspects of thorium-based nuclear power plants are discussed simultaneously. In this context, first, the literature was comprehensively examined, and seven different factors were determined. An analysis is then carried out using the DEMATEL method. It is concluded that the cost and uncertainties have the greatest weight. In addition, suitability and physical and chemical reasons are other significant items. The results obtained show that thorium-based nuclear power plants are not very efficient now. In this context, the costs of thorium-based nuclear reactors should be reduced by new research and development activities. Otherwise, the high-cost problem reduces the efficiency of these reactors. With the developing technology, it is necessary to reduce the high costs. If the costs cannot be reduced, financial sustainability of thorium-based nuclear reactors will not be possible, although there are many benefits.

The nuclear battery technology depends on the spontaneous decay of the atomic nuclei of radioactive isotopes to generate electricity. One of the merits of a nuclear battery is its high-energy density, which can be around ten times higher than that of hydrogen fuel cells and a thousand times more than that of an electrochemical battery. A nuclear battery has an extremely long life and low maintenance and running costs coupled with applications in remote and hostile environmental environments. The rise of silicon technology has intensified research activities in the area of nuclear batteries. The paper aims to present a general overview of a nuclear battery.

This paper presents a general overview of a nuclear battery and will significantly reduce reliance on non-renewable energy source. The requirement for long-lived power supplies have necessitated the pragmatic shift toward the realization of cleaner, safer and renewable energy sources.

Nuclear battery is a safe enabling technology for many applications including military and commercial applications. They have very long operating life under harsh environmental conditions. These cells demonstrate high potential for use in low power applications under a broad range of temperatures.

The nuclear battery technology has been receiving considerable in-depth research for applications that require long-life power sources.

This paper aims to investigate the major causes of the nuclear power plant (NPP) disasters since 1950, elucidates the commonalities between them and recommends strategies to minimize the risk of NPP disasters.

This paper analyzes facts from five case studies: Chernobyl disaster, USSR 1986; Fukushima Daiichi disaster, Japan 2011; Three Mile Island incident, USA 1979; Chalk River Accident, Canada 1952; and SL-1 Accident, USA 1961. A qualitative approach is adopted to compare and contrast the major reasons that led to the accidents, and consequent social and technological impacts of the disasters on environment, society, economy and nuclear industry are analyzed.

Although each of the nuclear accidents is unique in terms of its occurrence and impacts, this research study found some common causes behind the accidents. Faulty system design, equipment failure, inadequate safety and warning systems, violation of safety regulations, lack of training of the nuclear operators and ignorance from the operators and regulators side were found to be the major common causes behind the accidents.

This paper recommends some of the nuclear disaster risk reduction strategies in terms of “lessons learned from the past accidents”. The findings of the research paper would serve as an information tool for the nuclear professionals for informed decision-making and planning for proper preventive measures well in advance so that the mistakes which led to the occurrence of accidents in the past are not repeated in the future.

Asks whether nuclear power is viable as a clean source of energy and an independent energy source and whether it should be used to attain targeted reductions in fossil fuels or as a method of electricity generation. Also considers whether nuclear energy should be used in preference to energy from a third country. Discusses problems such as technological safety, nuclear waste, costs and the individual energy policies of Member States. Cites the main issue as public perception as the subject is regarded as dangerous and secretive. Outlines how the debate in Europe is being re‐evaluated and with the evolution of new science and technology, the positive contribution of nuclear energy to sustainable development is a factor to be weighed in the balance.

The article aims to explore the potential for pebble‐bed high‐temperature gas reactor (HTGR) technology to meet possible future energy shortages.

The historical evolution of nuclear power is reviewed followed by empirical data that demonstrate the finite nature of oil and gas reserves. The characteristics of HTGR technology are then explored.

A pebble‐bed HTGR ameliorates nuclear waste disposal issues, does not disgorge large quantities of excess heat, is terrorist‐resistant, solves persistent problems concerning weapon proliferation, and is inherently safe.

The article makes the case for the US Department of Energy to take the lead in demonstrating a pebble‐bed HTGR plant to overcome industry reluctance to invest in this technology.

The potential of biotechnology to cure disease and feed the Third World has not eased public disquiet about its safety. In the rush to commercialization, can lessons be learnt from the introduction of nuclear power a generation ago? While France’s nuclear programme stayed on track, America’s was derailed by accidents and corporate secrecy. So is an industry under state control safer than one in private hands? And in the absence of clear evidence about the long‐term effects of genetic manipulation, how can we design a consultation process that addresses public concerns?