Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Rise and Fall of the Carbon Civilisation pp 103–124Cite as

Nuclear Energy: The Ultimate Technological Fix?

  • Chapter

  • 953 Accesses

Part of the book series: Green Energy and Technology ((GREEN))

Abstract

From its origins in the development of nuclear weapons in the 1940s, nuclear fission power has been the most controversial of all energy sources, which makes it particularly difficult to forecast its future. Controversy has embroiled all aspects of nuclear power: the safety of reactors, the extent of uranium resources, the effects on health of low levels of ionising radiation, the likelihood of nuclear weapons proliferation, and the effectiveness of various nuclear waste disposal methods. Because nuclear energy is an established technology (unlike many of the proposed technical fixes for our global environmental and resource problems), there is a factual basis for the discussion of these factors. All these issues are considered in some detail in this chapter, as are the ethical issues that would be involved in a massive shift to nuclear power.

The global uranium resource base may not be sufficient for a long-term solution to our energy needs. Thus, if nuclear power is to have a long-term future as a major energy source, the presently-used thermal reactors must be seen as only a transition technology to so-called fast reactors, which, it is claimed, can extend the world’s limited resources of uranium by perhaps a factor of 30. However, the experience with both commercial and large prototype fast reactors has indicated that they are both more expensive and difficult to control than thermal reactors. This chapter also examines the prospects for fusion reactors, a future technology, which, it is claimed, can alleviate many of the difficulties facing nuclear fission reactor designs.

Like renewable energy, nuclear energy involves long lead times before it could provide a significant share of our energy needs—particularly fusion energy, which will not be available, if ever, before the latter part of this century. Given the ageing reactor fleet, and the declining share of nuclear energy, an ambitious reactor construction program would be needed merely to maintain nuclear energy’s current share.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. BHP (2009) Olympic dam expansions draft EIS. http://www.bhpbilliton.com/bb/odxEis/downloads/draftEisDocuments.jsp. Accessed 9 January 2010

    Google Scholar 

  2. BP (2009) BP statistical review of world energy 2009. BP, London, UK

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bradford PA (2009) The nuclear renaissance meets economic reality. Bull Atomic Scientists 65(6):60–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Brumfiel G (2009) Fusion dreams delayed. Nature 459:488–489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Butler D (2004) Nuclear power’s new dawn. Nature 429:238–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Chapman P (1975) Fuels paradise. Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, UK

    Google Scholar 

  7. David S (2005) Future scenarios for fission based reactors. Nucl Phys A:429c–441c

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dittmar M (2009) The future of nuclear energy: Facts and fiction chapter III: How (un)reliable are the Red Book uranium resource data? http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0909/0909.1421v1.pdf. Accessed 19 0ctober 2009

    Google Scholar 

  9. Edwards R (2006) Disaster waiting to happen. New Sci 28 October:8–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Edwards R (2008) Nuclear super-fuel too hot to handle. New Sci 12 April:8–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Energy Information Administration (EIA) (2009) International energy outlook 2009. US Department of Energy, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  12. Fairlie I (2008) Reasonable doubt. New Sci 26 April:18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Feiveson, HA (2007) Faux renaissance: Global warming, radioactive waste disposal, and the nuclear future. Arms Control Today 37(4):13–17

    Google Scholar 

  14. Fthenakis V, Kim HC (2007). Greenhouse-gas emissions from solar electric and nuclear power: A life-cycle study. Energy Policy 37(2):2549–2557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hirsch H, Becker O, Schneider M et al. (2007) Nuclear reactor hazards: Ongoing dangers of operating nuclear technology in the 21st Century. Estudos Avancados 21(59):253–257

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hirsch RL (2003) Fusion power: The burning issue. Public Utilities Fortnightly 141(3):33–36

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. Hoffert MI, Caldeira K, Benford G et al. (2002) Advanced technology paths to global climate stability: Energy for the greenhouse planet. Science 298:981–987

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hultman NE, Koomey JG, Kammen DM (2007) What history can teach us about the future costs of U.S. nuclear power. Env Sci & Technol April 1:2088–2093

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hultman NE, Koomey JG (2007) The risk of surprise in energy technology costs. Env Res Lett 2:1–6. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/2/3/034002

    Google Scholar 

  20. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (2008) Energy, electricity and nuclear power estimates for the period up to 2030. http://www-pub.iaea.org?MTCD/publications/PDF/RDS1-28_web.pdf. Accessed 12 October 2009

    Google Scholar 

  21. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (2009) Nuclear technology review 2009. IAEA, Vienna, Austria

    Google Scholar 

  22. International Energy Agency (2008) World energy outlook 2008. IEA/OECD, Paris

    Book  Google Scholar 

  23. International Energy Agency (2009) Key world energy statistics 2009. IEA/OECD, Paris

    Book  Google Scholar 

  24. Jones S (2008) Windscale and Kyshtym: A double anniversary. J Environ Radioactivity 99:1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kumar A, Ramana MV (2008) Compromising safety: Design choices and severe accident possibilities in India’s Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor. Science and Glob Security 16:87–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Krymm R, Woite G (1976) Estimates of future demand for uranium and nuclear fuel cycle services. IAEA Bull 18(5/6)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Lyman ES (2008) Can nuclear plants be safer? Bull Atomic Scientists 64 (4):34–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Mangano JJ, Gould JM, Sternglass E et al. (2002) Infant death and childhood cancer reductions after nuclear plant closings in the United States. Arch Environ Health 57(1):23–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. McKenna P (2008) Nuke in a box. New Sci 2 August:34–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Moriarty P, Honnery D (2007) Intermittent renewable energy: The only future source of hydrogen? Int J Hydrog Energy 32:1616–1624

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Moriarty P, Honnery D (2009) What energy levels can the Earth sustain? Energy Policy 37:2469–2474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Mullins J (2009) Warning on global uranium supplies. New Sci 28 November:10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Parkins WE (2006) Fusion power: Will it ever come? Science 311:1380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Penner SS, Seiser R, Schultz KR (2008) Steps toward passively safe, proliferation-resistant nuclear power. Prog Energy and Combust Sci 34:275–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Perrow CB (2008) Complexity, catastrophe, and modularity. Sociol Inquiry 78 (2):162–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Price R, Blaise JR (2002) Nuclear fuel resources: Enough to last? NEA updates, NEA News 20.2

    Google Scholar 

  37. Ramana MV (2009) Nuclear power: Economic, safety, health, and environmental issues of near-term technologies. Annu Rev Environ Resourc 34:127–152

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  38. Rippon (2004) Where next for nuclear power? Proc Instn Mech Engrs 218-A(5):277–282

    Google Scholar 

  39. Romm J (2008) The self-limiting future of nuclear power. www.americanprogressaction.org. Accessed 10 November 2009

    Google Scholar 

  40. Sacchetti D (2008) Earth, wind and fire: Preparing nuclear power plants for nature’s fury. IAEA Bulletin 50-1:50–53

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  41. Schiermeier Q (2005) Advice on nuclear safety set for update in wake of floods. Nature 437:6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Schneider M (2008) 2008 world nuclear industry status report. Bull Atomic Scientists 64 (5):26–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Schneider M (2009) Fast breeder reactors in France. Science & Glob Security 17:36–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Schneider M, Thomas S, Froggatt A et al. (2009) 2009 world nuclear industry status report. Bull Atomic Scientists 65(6):1–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Shrader-Frechette K (2008) Ideological toxicology: Invalid logic, science, ethics about lowdose pollution. Human & Exp Toxicology 27:647–657

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Sims REH, Schock RN, Adegbululgbe A et al. (2007) Energy supply. In: Metz B, Davidson OR, Bosch PR et al. (eds) Climate change 2007: Mitigation. CUP, Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  47. Smith CL, Ward D (2008) Fusion. Energy Policy 36:4331–4334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Starr C, Hirsch RL, Dieckamp H et al. (2006) Reexamining fusion power. Science 313:170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Utgikar VP, Scott JP (2006) Energy forecasting: Predictions, reality and analysis of causes of error. Energy Policy 34:3087–3092

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. van Leeuwen JWS, Smith P (2008) Nuclear power – the energy balance. http://www.stormsmith.nl/. Accessed 6 June 2009

    Google Scholar 

  51. von Hippel FN (2001) Plutonium and reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. Science 293:2397–2398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Wikipedia (2010) Background radiation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation. Accessed 12 January 2010

    Google Scholar 

  53. Wikipedia (2010) Control rod. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_rods. Accessed on 12 January 2010

    Google Scholar 

  54. Wikipedia (2010) Heavy water. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_water. Accessed on 12 January 2010

    Google Scholar 

  55. Wikipedia (2010) Nuclear power. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power. Accessed 9 February 2010

    Google Scholar 

  56. Wikipedia (2010) Plutonium. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium. Accessed on 14 January 2010

    Google Scholar 

  57. Wikipedia (2010) Uranium. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium#Isotopes. Accessed on 9 February 2010

    Google Scholar 

  58. World Nuclear Association (2009) Generation IV Nuclear Reactors. http://www.worldnuclear.org/info/inf77.html. Accessed 20 October 2009

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer-Verlag London Limited

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

(2011). Nuclear Energy: The Ultimate Technological Fix?. In: Rise and Fall of the Carbon Civilisation. Green Energy and Technology. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84996-483-8_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84996-483-8_6

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-84996-482-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-84996-483-8

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation