Chapter five

Conclusion

Over millennia, Man has developed technology, and this technology has
made possible a great increase in population, which in return finds
technology indispensable. The progress in technology has been accompanied
by a depletion in natural resource and pollution.
The doubling of the population required 1650 years from the Year AD One,
but now takes a mere 45 years. Consumption-based economies in modern
times also mean that each person consumes ever so many things in order to
live, and massive production and distribution networks lead inevitably to
pollution and environmental devastation. The future of mankind is in
jeopardy and nature has only a limited capacity to absorb and handle this
extra burden of pollution. Fortunately, nuclear energy can be deployed to
mitigate and even to reverse the global trend toward destruction of the
environment. Issues are addressed under the headings of what is known,
what should be done now and for the future.
Our first priority should be training of manpower to make effective use of
the nuclear knowledge which is already abundantly available. Secondly we
must push for research & development in all phases of the nuclear program.
Our third priority must be to develop a desalination reactor and to produce
cheap and abundant nuclear hydrogen and confront the environmental issue
with a high-temperature reactor. IAEA's (International atomic energy
agency) INPRO and U.S.-led Gen lV programs together with associated fuel
cycle schemes must be encouraged with a view towards eventually
developing economic, reliable and proliferation-resistant reactors and fuels.
Finally, the nuclear community must strive to develop a commercial
transmutation reactor to incinerate long-lived radioactive nuclide.
1. Just over 100 nuclear plants supply electricity for one of every five
homes and businesses across the country. Nuclear energy is a reliable,
safe and clean source of electricity for today, and it will be even more
vital in the future.
( http://www.ecolo.org/conferences/some_conferences/speech_wna_2
001/)
As nuclear energy’s contribution to America’s energy supply has increased,
so too have the environmental advantages that it provides and its importance
as a secure domestic energy source. In fact, with such a large output from
relatively few plants, nuclear energy has the smallest environmental
footprint of any large power supply source. Beginning in the1960s, growing
concern about the environment led to passage of several major U.S. laws—
among them, the 1970 Clean Air Act, which established stringent standards
for the gaseous and particulate emissions from industrial facilities and power
plants. The first nuclear plants were just beginning to operate at that time.
Since then, nuclear energy—as it expanded to become today’s second-largest
source of electricity—has made a staggering contribution toward the
reduction of harmful emissions. Between 1973 and 2000, U.S. nuclear
power plants avoided the emission of 66.1 million tons of sulphar dioxide
and 33.6 million tons of nitrogen oxide, compared to fuels that otherwise
would have produced electricity. In 2000 alone, nuclear plants avoided the
emission of 4.1 million tons of SO2— nearly as much as the entire power
sector reduced its emissions between 1990 and 2000 (4.5 million tons) as a
result of the Clean Air Act. Nuclear plants also avoided the emission of
about 2 million tons of NOX and 174.4 million metric tons of carbon in
2000. In the absence of nuclear energy, U.S. electric sector emissions of
carbon would have been 27 percent higher that year. Yet none of the clean
air legislation acknowledges nuclear energy’s significant role in avoiding air
pollutants and greenhouse gases altogether.(/nuclear%20decompssion/NEI
%20-%201)%20Nuclear%20Energy%20Contributes%20to%20Clean
%20Air%20Compliance.htm)
Over the past dozen years, concern has grown over a new threat—global
warming. Scientific evidence is mounting that carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gases are building in the atmosphere. At current levels, many
scientists contend that the earth may have already warmed somewhat and, if
left unchecked, will harm the world’s climate. Many of the world’s
industrialized countries are responding with programs to reduce dramatically
the emission of greenhouse gases. Since carbon dioxide is by far the most
abundant greenhouse gas, much of the effort has been directed at coal and
natural gas power plants and other large stationary sources of carbon
emissions. Many countries have signed the international Kyoto accords,
which obligate them to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by specific target
percentages through 2012. The United States already has a voluntary carbon
reduction program, and has decided to continue with the voluntary approach.
In 2000, the nuclear energy sector accounted for 43 percent of the carbon
reductions reported nationwide. A number of countries are discovering that
they will suffer severe economic losses, including billions of dollars and
hundreds of thousands of jobs in some countries, in complying with the
goals of the Kyoto accords. They are also finding that the loss in economic
production and jobs will be much less severe if they include emission-free
nuclear energy in their plans to meet the Kyoto goals. Some countries, such
as Japan, South Korea and several European nations, will rely heavily on
nuclear energy in meeting their environmental goals, while other countries
are rethinking their plans to curtail or eliminate nuclear power in light of this
environmental imperative. Finland, in fact, recently decided to build a new
nuclear plant to help meet its energy and environmental goals. The U.S.
government has affirmed the valuable contribution of nuclear energy to the
environment in formulating both its new clean air and national energy
policies. Nuclear energy is by far the largest emission- free source of
electricity in the United States, accounting for three quarters of all clean-air
electricity. Nuclear power plants have improved their productivity by one-
third since the beginning of the 1990s, which has reduced the cost of energy
from these facilities and further avoided air pollution from fossil plants
where the electricity would have been produced. Even with the best
available emission control technology, coal-fired power plants still emit
large amounts of carbon dioxide and other pollutants .Natural gas is lower in
emissions than coal, but periodic supply shortages have led to soaring gas
prices and spot shortages. Renewable electricity generation sources such as
solar and wind power also is emission-free, and their use will expand in the
future. However, the infrastructure to support their large-scale use has yet to
be developed and, since they are dependent on the weather, there for Nuclear
power plants are good for the environment—and good to the environment.
Nuclear plants don't pollute the air. They don't produce any carbon dioxide
—the major greenhouse gas—or any sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxides. The
small amount of waste that a nuclear plant produces is carefully contained
and safely stored. Radiation levels are checked 24 hours a day, seven days a
week. Most nuclear plants have a nature park or wildlife sanctuary, too.
Accept responsibility for radioactive waste, Nuclear power plants produce
two types of radioactive waste: high-level and low-level. Nearly all high-
level waste is used fuel. Low-level waste includes such things as protective
clothing, tools and equipment that may contain small amounts of radioactive
material. Used fuel is handled by remote control and safely stored inside the
plant in steel-lined, concrete pools filled with water or on the plant property
in huge steel-lined, concrete containers. Low-level waste can be shipped to a
disposal facility or stored at the plant.

Nuclear science and technology has come to the present level as a result of
research and development carried over several decades. Many research
reactors as well as other major experimental facilities have been built around
the world and major nuclear research centers have grown around such
facilities. These centers have played an important role in the development,
demonstration and deployment of nuclear technologies and have enabled
scientific enquiry and technology development to be pursued in a synergistic
manner. As a result of these efforts, a sound theoretical base, a variety of
skills and several technological processes have evolved. All these together
comprise nuclear knowledge, and what has been painstakingly acquired has
to be preserved. Knowledge generated at research centers or laboratories has
been exploited by governments for the welfare of the people and by industry
for economic growth. Ensuring adequate funding for generic research has
been a government responsibility, while industry has concentrated on
customizing the outcome of generic research for the development of specific
goods and services. During periods of growth of a given technology, R&D
funding naturally takes place. However, difficulties arise during periods of
stagnation and it is during such periods that governments have to step in
with a long term perspective. Think tanks also have to help in identification
of issues involved and provide directions for the future.
All around the world, there is a growing chorus of voices about issues
related to sustainability. One has to remember that sustainability issues,
while they arise as a result of economic and other evolutionary processes
that come about as a result of technology, their solution also lies in
technology itself. For example, application of technology to agriculture has
ensured that in spite of continuous growth of population, hunger is not as
prevalent as predicted. However, new sustainability issues have arisen and
have to be solved. Increase in the level of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere due to the use of fossil fuels is also one such issue. It has not
happened overnight, but over several decades. Indiscriminate use of plastics,
increase in generation of all types of industrial wastes are some other issues.
The issue of nuclear waste, however, has attracted disproportionate adverse
attention in spite of the availability of technological fixes, a situation far
better than many other similar issues. All these issues need to be addressed
on the basis of available knowledge and continuous research. The research
activity aimed at finding a long term solution for nuclear waste has been
highlighted by the nuclear industry out of genuine concern for human
welfare and scientific solutions now exist and what is needed is the political
will to implement the scientific decisions.
Thus, it would appear that development imperatives would drive evolution
and deployment of technologies. The driver could be the industry or the
government depending on the gestation period involved. [Regional
agreements]
Decommissioning: What's Involved? After a nuclear power plant is
permanently shut down, it must be decommissioned.
This entails two steps. First, the company that operates the plant either
decontaminates or removes contaminated equipment and materials. It also
places the used nuclear fuel in dry storage until its final disposal. These
materials and equipment account for more than 99 percent of the plant's
radioactivity. Their removal lowers the level of radiation and thus reduces
the exposure of workers during subsequent decommissioning operations.
In the second step, the company deals with the small amount of radioactivity
remaining in the plant, which must be reduced to harmless levels through a
cleanup phase-decontamination.
In decontamination, workers remove surface radioactive material that has
accumulated inside pipes and heat exchangers or on floors and walls, and
was not decontaminated during normal plant operations because of
inaccessibility or operational considerations. They are aided in
decontamination activities by the records that plants are required to keep
during operation. Workers use chemical, physical, electrical and ultrasonic
processes to decontaminate equipment and surfaces. The removed
radioactive material is concentrated, packaged, and transported for disposal
at a low-level radioactive waste disposal site. Concentration cuts the volume
of low-level radioactive waste, thus reducing the expense of disposal.
A wide range of decontamination techniques is available, including those
developed by the Department of Energy, EPRI - the industry research
institute, and by the decommissioning industry. Many are in use now at
operating plants as part of standard preventive maintenance programs or
general repair efforts.
Companies have three primary decommissioning options:
Every company that operates a nuclear power plant is required to amass the
funds needed for decommissioning. Three types of decommissioning funds
are acceptable to the:
• An external sinking fund that builds up money for decommissioning
gradually, over the plant's operating lifetime. Revenues earmarked for
decommissioning are collected from customers through rates and invested in
a trust fund that is professionally managed.
• A prepayment account in which the company deposits money before the
plant begins operation. The account may be a trust, escrow account,
government fund, certificate of deposit or government securities. It is kept
separate from a company's other assets and is outside its control.
• A surety bond, letter of credit or insurance, which guarantees that
decommissioning costs will be paid if the company defaults on its
obligation.
Companies typically have set up sinking funds to accumulate money to
decommission nuclear plants. In the early years of a nuclear unit's operating
life, decommissioning funds build up slowly, then accelerate more quickly
as the compounded earnings on the trust fund's investments increase.
( /nuclear%20decompssion/environmeny%20waste%20decompssion.htm)