Nuclear energy as a source to
avert an energy crunch after
peak oil: The economic,
political, environmental, and
technological feasibility.
Thijs Blom
ANR: 300172
Tilburg
June 18th, 2012
Bachelor Thesis
Advisor: Prof. dr. R. Gerlagh
Second reader: Dr. M.A. van Tuijl
Tilburg University
Bachelor Liberal Arts and Sciences
Major: Business and Management
2
This page intentionally left blank.
3
TABLE OF CONTENT
Abstract
4
Introduction
5
Methodology
10
Economic perspective
12
Political perspective
18
Environmental perspective
24
Technological perspective
28
Conclusion
34
References
37
4
ABSTRACT
Conventional oil is very important for the world economy, but it is a finite
resource. When its production can no longer increase, so called peak oil, this will
have major negative impact on the economy and society. One of those impacts is
an energy crunch, and to avoid this, alternative energy sources are necessary to
complement for the decreasing production of oil. This paper is a multi perspective
feasibility test for one of those alternatives; nuclear energy. Economic, political,
environmental, and technical perspectives will be taken into account to answer
the main research question: “In order to avert an energy crunch, is nuclear
energy a suitable alternative to complement for the decreasing production of
conventional oil?” The findings indicate that it is a reasonable alternative; the
cost competitiveness, its low carbon footprint, and security of supply are good, but
the negative public perception and the risks that are related to waste disposal
and the proliferation of nuclear weapons form constraints. Solutions to these
problems should come from technological innovations, such as the breeder
reactor, as well political solutions for waste and proliferation problems.
5
INTRODUCTION
For the past two centuries oil has been the most effective and useful
natural energy resource. It is cheap, easy to delve, and easy to transport. Oil is
used as fuel to generate heat in energy plants, and as raw ingredient in the
process of making petrol, diesel, and kerosene. Crude oil can be divided into
conventional and unconventional oil. Conventional oil is liquid (also under
atmospheric conditions), flows naturally or is capable of being pumped without
processing or dilution. (Society of Petroleum Engineers, 1997). It is the so called
‘easy-’ or ‘cheap oil’. It is easy to pump to the surface, to refine and to transport.
Conventional oil is extremely important for our industrial society. 96% of the all
the world’s oil consumption is conventional. The demand for oil was increasing
last 140 years, with some small decreases during the major recessions in 1973
and 1979. Especially last 20 years, during the development of the fast growing
economies in Asia, oil demand is increasing drastically. (EIA, 2011) The reserves
of crude oil are not infinitely, so it is not hard to imagine that this situation is
unsustainable. According to estimations of both the United States Geological
Survey (USGS) and the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG),
approximately 90 to 95% of the conventional oil has been discovered, and about
half of it has been used. (ASPO, 2007) Many more oil experts agree with this:
Jeroen van der Veer, ex-CEO of Shell, said in 2006: “My view is that ‘easy’ oil has
probably passed its peak.” Oil companies Chevron and Shell both stated: “The era
of easy oil is over.” (Middelkoop & Koppelaar, 2008: 84) Even more important
than when the oil is finished, is the moment where the worldwide oil production
can no longer increase, and thus no longer match a rising oil demand. That
6
moment is called ‘peak oil’. An important scientist in the field of peak oil is
geologist and founder of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas, Colin
Campbell. His definition of Peak Oil is generally considered as the official one;
“The term Peak Oil refers to the maximum rate of the production of oil in any
area under consideration, recognising that it is a finite natural resource, subject
to depletion.” (Campbell, 1997) The expectations of governments, agencies,
companies, and individual scientists when peak oil will occur differ greatly.
Whereas most big oil companies predict a peak between 2020 and 2040, the
smaller independent oil companies and individual scientists expect the
production to peak before 2018. (Koppelaar, 2005) Although their time-scale
predictions differ, these scientists have one thing in common, and that is the
belief that Peak Oil is unavoidable. Campbell explained it very easy: “It’s quite a
simple theory and one that any beer drinker understands. The glass starts full
and ends empty and the faster you drink it the quicker it’s gone.”
The Hirsh report examined the likely impacts of peak oil and the energy
crunch that will follow. The main finding is that it has disastrous economical,
political, and environmental consequences, which come at very high costs.
(Hirsch, 2005: 4) An increased production of other energy sources to replace for
the decreasing production of oil, and to satisfy the increasing demand for energy,
is a solution to mitigate the supply based problems. This paper is about one of
those solutions; Nuclear energy, which is often proposed by scientists or
policymaker as an option to avert an energy crunch. The feasibility of economic,
political, environmental, and technical aspects of nuclear energy, will be tested in
order to answer the following research question:
7
“In order to avert an energy crunch, is nuclear energy a suitable
alternative to complement for the decreasing production of conventional oil?”
The expected problems after peak oil are supply based problems.
Therefore, it is more relevant to consider mitigation strategies that solve the
problems on this supply side of the energy market. Mitigation strategies that
solve the problems on the demand side, such as increasing energy efficiency, are
therefore not considered in this paper. Besides an increase nuclear energy
production, other optional technologies to increase energy supply are oil sands,
coal to liquids, gas-to-liquids, enhances oil recovery. The characteristic that all
these options have in common is that they emit greenhouse gasses during the
fuel combustion, and this is increasingly problematic. Besides an energy crunch,
another problem that is global warming. Global warming is believed to be caused
by greenhouse gasses such as CO2, CH4, and N2O. (IPCC, 2007: WG I) Climate
change comes with many negative consequences for society. To mitigate for these,
it is important that greenhouse gas emissions are reduced as much as possible. In
order to do so, international treaties, such as the Kyoto protocol, have been
established. Considering such long term environmental objectives, and given the
fact that nuclear energy does not emit any greenhouse gasses during the energy
generating process, it is much more relevant to study the feasibility of nuclear
energy than that of fuel combustion technologies. Numerous other low-carbon
alternatives have been proposed as well. Technologies that make use of solar
radiation, wind, and tidal powers to generate energy have great potential, and
are already emerging rapidly. The reason to study the feasibility of nuclear
8
energy instead however, is its controversy in contemporary science and politics,
especially after the recent Fukushima accident. Although the technology exists
already for over half a century, the debates about its suitability are still going on.
The relevance, the importance, and the necessity of the question whether
or not nuclear energy is a suitable alternative to complement for the decreasing
production of conventional oil, is emphasised by the findings in the Hirsch report:
“The peaking of world oil production presents the U.S. and the world with an
unprecedented risk management problem. As peaking is approached, liquid fuel
prices and price volatility will increase dramatically, and, without timely
mitigation, the economic, social, and political costs will be unprecedented.”
(Hirsch, 2005: 4) Furthermore, there is a certain sense of urgency. Like other
mitigation options, the transition to an increasing nuclear energy production
takes considerable time. The longer this development is delayed, the harder the
economic hardship will be. (Hirsch, 2005) The answer to the research question
has implications for governments and investors. Policy makers have the interest
to prevent an energy crunch and high energy prices, to avert a disrupted economy
and other chaotic social implication such as described in the Hirsch report.
Furthermore, the transition to other energy sources requires changes in
legislation, and decisions that need to be taken long before. Investors in their
turn could use the answer on the research question to make long term decisions
about whether or not to invest in nuclear energy. The answer can even has its
effect on the public’s perceived social value of nuclear energy. If nuclear energy
turns out to be a suitable alternative, the resistance in society towards nuclear
energy these days, might diminish.
9
The scientific relevance of this paper lies in the concluding remarks of the
Hirsch report, in which the need for more information about potential capacity,
costs, timing, etc. of mitigation actions is emphasised. This paper has just that
goal; providing information about the feasibility of one of those mitigation
technologies. The potential of nuclear energy has been researched by many
scientists before, but often this was done from one particular perspective only.
Yoo and Ku (2009) and Yoo and Jung (2005), for example searched for the
economic effects of nuclear energy, by analysing the relationship between nuclear
energy and economic growth. Jun et al. (2009) took a more political perspective
and measured the social value of nuclear energy. Furthermore, Ayoub and Yuji
(2012) wrote about the effect of governmental intervention to promote renewable
energies. Another example that was written with a political perspective is the one
of Sen and Babali (2007), who describe the effect of conflicts in the Middle East
on the security of energy supply. Elam and Sundqvist (2011) focussed only on
nuclear waste management, and Silverio and Lamas (2011) discuss technical
developments related to nuclear fuel reprocessing. The goal of this paper instead,
is to combine those topics, and come to one comprehensive conclusion. Such a
multi-perspective analysis is especially important in the field of nuclear energy,
where economic, political, environmental, and technical interests are interwoven
and can even be completely conflicting.
10
METHODOLOGY:
The methodology that was used in this thesis is one of a literature
research. In order to find an answer on the research question, a variety of sources
was analysed. These sources include scientific papers that describe economic and
political theories that can be related to nuclear energy. Another import source of
information were the findings from scientific bodies such as the International
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Also reports from intergovernmental
organisations such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD), and the International Energy Agency (IEA) as well as
governmental agencies such as the US department of energy and its Energy
Information Administration (EIA) were used. Together with reports from
professional geological agencies such as the American Association of Petroleum
Geologists (AAPG) or the United States Geological Survey (USGS) they were
useful to retrieve data about resource reserves, CO2 emissions, and future
predictions, reviews, and outlooks. In addition, international treaties such as the
Kyoto protocol, and the Non-proliferation treaty will be discussed in this thesis.
Their content and implementation is important for the development of nuclear
technology. Finally, findings and missions of interest groups such as the
Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO), the World Nuclear
Association (WNA), and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) are also
important to get a better understanding of the possibilities, and limitations of
nuclear energy.
It is important to note that the used method in this paper is not comparing
hard quantitative data. Instead, the focus is more on the characteristics of
11
different energy sources, and how these fit in the larger whole of economic,
political, environmental, and technical objectives and possibilities.
12
ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE
There are several aspects that make the use of nuclear energy an
economically feasible alternative to complement for a decline in conventional oil
production. First of all, the cost of nuclear energy in comparison to other energy
sources; a transition to another energy source is unlikely to happen when this is
not cost competitive. Secondly, it will be shown that the breakdown structures of
those costs are different for nuclear plants than for fuel combustion plants, and
this has implications for long term decisions of politicians and investors.
Moreover, it is relevant to consider not only the costs of the energy generation
itself, but also the externalities. In the case of nuclear energy, the costs of the
waste disposal and decommissioning have to be taken into account, whereas for
fossil burning alternatives, taxes on CO2 emissions contribute to the final price of
energy. The last issue that will be discussed is the cross price elasticity of crude
oil with respect to nuclear energy. With the use of cross price elasticity it can be
calculated whether a country has the potential to increase its nuclear capacity, or
if its energy portfolio has already reached long term equilibrium.
In terms of costs, several agencies and experts have concluded that nuclear
energy is a good alternative energy source to substitute for oil. (EU commission,
2007) (OECD/EIA/NEA, 2010) This is important when the oil production
decreases after the occurrence of peak oil. The International Energy Agency
calculated that nuclear energy is currently the cheapest option for low carbon
electricity generation. (EU commission, 2007: 25) Also, The World Nuclear
Association stated that unless there is access to cheap fossil fuels, nuclear power
is cost competitive with other forms of electricity generation, even when waste
13
disposal and decommissioning costs are included. (World Nuclear Association,
2011)
A difference between fossil burning energy and nuclear energy is how their
cost breakdown is structured. This is an important issue for investors and policy
makers that have to make long-term decisions. In a reactor where fossil fuels
such as gas, coal, and oil are burned, the fuel itself contributes for a large amount
to the generating costs of energy. Whereas the costs of uranium, the actual fuel
for a nuclear reactor, represent only a limited part of the total costs for nuclear
energy. Instead, the major contributors to the total costs of nuclear energy are
the initial building costs of the facility, the costs of storage and disposal of used
fuel, and the decommissioning costs at the end of the lifetime of a nuclear plant.
(MIT, 2003: 21, 37) (Ristinen & Kraushaar, 2006) These facts are important for
future energy prices; Because of a standardized design, the construction costs of a
new nuclear plant have dropped, (WNA, 2005: 7) and they are believed to be
reduced by 25% more on the medium-term (MIT, 2003: 41). Because the initial
building costs form a large part of the total costs, nuclear energy prices can be
expected to decrease significantly. However, projects to develop new nuclear
power plant often suffered from delays in the process, due to extensive
regulations or technical problems, resulting in higher than planned costs.
Recently built plants in Asia however, show that projects can be finished on
schedule and on budget. (WNA, 2005: 7, 19, 22) The second effect that the cost
breakdown structure has on future energy prices is related to price volatilities.
Uranium itself is only a small contributor to the total costs, so a potential price
increase will not have much effect on the price of nuclear energy. For oil, gas, and
14
coal on the other hand, a price increase of the raw ingredient has a more
significant effect on the end price of energy. This price stability makes nuclear
energy more attractive alternative for investors. However, there are also
legitimate reasons why investors are reluctant to invest in new nuclear energy
facilities. Besides the fact that the overnight costs are very high compared to
fossil combustion plants, it is also the uncertainty that plays a role. The value of
the investment depends on the developments in other field, such as the
improvements of solar technology and other green alternatives, development in
CCS technology, legislation, and taxation policies. Even accidents in other
nuclear plants can cause delays for the developments of new ones. Furthermore,
licence procedures, from design to construction and operating licences are time
consuming, and contribute to the high investment costs.
What is often missing in price comparisons between different energy
sources is the economic value assigned to environmental impacts, such as the
emission of greenhouse gasses in fossil burning facilities. However, this is about
to change; many countries have come up with actions to promote the transition
from conventional fossil energy to renewable energy. Those measures include
higher taxes on energy generated by fossil fuel combustion. (Ayoub & Yuji, 2012:
190) A MIT study found that when a system of such carbon emission credits is
implied, it can give nuclear energy generation a cost advantage. It shows that
when the costs of carbon emissions are included, an emission cost of 100 to 200
dollars/tonne carbon significantly improves the competitiveness of nuclear energy
compared to fossil burning alternatives. (MIT, 2003: 8) At this moment, a carbon
tax of 100 to 200 dollars/tonne would be very high. Proposed carbon taxes do
15
usually not exceed 30 dollars, but Sweden, which is a forerunner in the field of
sustainable energy and energy efficiency, has a carbon tax of 130 dollar (SEK
930)/tonne. When other countries show more political will to solve the problem of
greenhouse gasses, and establish or increase carbon taxes as well, the
competitiveness of nuclear energy might be improved further. (IEA, 2008: 24)
In order to avoid those carbon emission charges, energy companies can
invest in Carbon Capture Systems (CCS). Newell et al. found that when climate
rules and regulations are sufficiently stringent, CCS is economically attractive.
(Newell et al., 2006: 573) It will decrease the emitted greenhouse gasses and thus
the charges, but it is also an extra investment that will improve the costcompetitiveness of nuclear energy compared to other fossil fuels even more.
Lee and Chiu investigated whether nuclear energy has the potential to
substitute for oil and become an important factor for countries’ industrialisation
in the future. They found that this depends on the long-run cross-price elasticity
of nuclear energy demand with respect to oil. (Lee & Chiu, 2011; 247) When this
is positive, suggesting a substitute relationship between oil and nuclear energy,
the long-run equilibrium is not yet reached and a further transition from oil to
nuclear is possible. In that case, for example in the U.S. and Canada, nuclear
energy can be used effectively to replace oil demand on long-term. In France,
Japan, and the U.K. on the other hand, the relationship is complementary, which
means that nuclear energy is not an option to replace oil. (Lee & Chiu, 2011; 247)
An explanation for this difference is that these three countries already generate a
large amount of their national energy in nuclear facilities, and that their energy
portfolio is already in a long-term equilibrium. The incentive of the US and
16
Canada to increase the nuclear capacity depends on their alternatives; as long as
they hold large amounts of relatively cheap fossil resources such as tar sand in
Canada and coal in the US, they are less eager to increase the nuclear capacity.
Another finding from Lee and Chiu that is relevant to the question whether
nuclear energy is a suitable alternative to complement for a decreasing oil
production is that there is a significant impact of oil prices on the long-term
nuclear energy consumption. Increasing oil prices will stimulate the development
of nuclear energy. (Lee & Chiu, 2011; 248) This finding implies that nuclear
energy will be a good alternative for conventional oil, because peak oil theories
predict oil prices to increase.
It can be concluded that nuclear energy is, in economic terms, a more than
suitable alternative to complement for the decreasing production of conventional
oil. In terms of cost, nuclear energy is already competitive with other energy
sources such as coal, oil, and gas. Moreover, this cost competitiveness can even be
expected to increase in the long run for several reasons: First of all a nuclear
power plant has higher initial costs than a fossil combustion plant, its fuel
contributes only to a fraction of the total costs. Furthermore, the initial building
costs are expected to decrease. Thirdly, carbon emission taxes are emerging, and
will increase the price of fossil burning alternatives. In addition, fossil fuels,
starting with oil, and later gas, are depleting and getting scarcer and thus more
expensive. Moreover, oil prices have a significant impact on nuclear consumption
in the long run, so increasing oil prices due to peak oil, stimulate the demand for
nuclear energy. Finally, the cross price elasticity of nuclear demand with respect
17
to oil demand shows that there is considerable growth potential for nuclear
energy in the US and Canada.
18
POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE
The objective in this chapter is to analyse the political implication of
nuclear energy in order to find out whether it is an alternative energy source that
fits general political objectives, such as geopolitical stability, safety, and a secure
energy supply. Policy makers have a large impact on decisions concerning
nuclear programs, so the satisfaction of those objectives is important for its
development. In case these objectives cannot be met, political support will be an
obstacle for nuclear as a future energy resource. The first relevant issue is the
distribution of uranium over the world, because it affects geopolitical relations
and the stability of energy supply. Another issue in political decision making is
the risk for nuclear accidents; politicians are concerned with safety, so a high risk
negatively affects nuclear energy’s development. And because elected policy
makers are supposed to represent the public’s opinion, the social valuation of
nuclear energy is important. A negative public perception concerning nuclear
energy is a burden for its development. The last political issue is the risk for
nuclear proliferation. International treaties are important to prevent this from
forming an obstacle.
One of the factors that make an energy source politically suitable is its
security of supply. Energy security is commonly defined as reliable and adequate
supply of energy at reasonable prices. (Bielecki, 2002: 237) Not only the fact that
there is enough of a particular resource available matters, also is its distribution
over the world important for the security of energy. A large majority of the
conventional oil reserves are located in the Middle East, an area that has been
politically unstable for a long time. Sen and Babali (2006) emphasise the
19
importance of peace and cooperation in the Middle East. The numerous wars in
the area, and the risk for radical terrorist cause problems for an uninterrupted
oil supply. Also Bielecki concludes that such security concerns are justified
because in some sectors, a strong concentration of market power has developed.
(Bielecki, 2002: 249) Furthermore, he expects that energy security is becoming a
more problematic issue in the future.
The reserves of uranium, the vital ingredient for nuclear fission, in
contrast to oil, are widely distributed over the world; the thirteen countries with
the largest uranium reserves are: Australia, Kazakhstan, Canada, USA, South
Africa, Namibia, Brazil, Niger, Russian Federation, Uzbekistan, India and
China. (IAEA, 2009: 11) The fact that uranium can be found in such a diversity of
countries, has the advantage that there is a more guaranteed supply of uranium,
and thus energy. Furthermore, it decreases the chance for possible geopolitical
conflicts and energy wars. A stable, uninterrupted supply and no geopolitical
conflicts are important political objectives. Nuclear energy has the advantage of
fitting those objectives, which makes it a good alternative energy source for oil.
However, nuclear energy comes with a risk, and politicians have the
objective to judge those risks and to act as risk averse as possible, because
stability and safety are considered more important for a country. When the risks
are too high, politicians can decide to phase out or stop a nuclear program.
Nuclear accidents may negatively influence the political support for the
progression of nuclear energy. Several nuclear accidents have happened since its
commercial introduction in 1954. The three most notorious were the Three Mile
Island disaster (1979), the Chernobyl disaster (1986), and the very recent
20
Fukushima disaster (2011). Those tragedies are mostly followed by political
actions that postpone or hold off new nuclear projects. (EIA, 2011: 13) After the
latest disaster in Japan, the German government decided to accelerate the
process to leave nuclear energy. Seven power plants were immediately shut
down, of which three will never open again. Other German nuclear plants will
close earlier than planned. (Breidthhardt, 2011) Actions, such as those taken in
Germany have a negative effect on the potential of nuclear energy as an
alternative for oil.
Policymakers are supposed to represent their country’s citizens, so a
perceived danger and resistance towards nuclear energy by the public is
problematic for its development. However, such a negative image does not have
to be permanent. Jun, et al. studied the social acceptance of nuclear energy. They
found that public acceptance is one of the most important barriers for the further
development of nuclear energy. Even though recent technological and
institutional innovations lowered the risk of nuclear accidents, and increased the
benefits compared to other energy sources, nuclear energy is still perceived as
very negative. The result of their study of the social valuation of nuclear energy,
suggests that this social undervaluation is due to a lack of communication and
delivery of information to the public about nuclear energy. (Jun, et al., 2010:
1475) A solution to increase the public acceptance and the social value of nuclear
energy is thus by providing precise and appropriate public information. In order
to start, restart, or expand national nuclear energy programs, informing the
public, to generate support, is essential. Countries that are currently reducing
their national nuclear program due to low public valuation of nuclear energy
21
should follow the example of France, where early education of young children on
the topic of energy is an effective strategy for support of future policy. (Jun, et al.,
2010: 1475) This can be seen as state indoctrination, and indeed, it serves a
certain purpose, but as long as this education is based on facts, it is legitimate.
Incorrect knowledge on the other hand forms an unnecessary obstacle for the
development of nuclear energy.
In terms of safety, nuclear energy is contrary to the interest of politicians,
who should strive for the safety of their country. Nuclear energy program comes
with a risk for the proliferation of nuclear materials. Although the nuclear
reactors themselves do not have a significant proliferation risk, and although the
fuel they use cannot be directly used in nuclear bombs, there are some
connections; The technologies that are used in civil nuclear power plants overlap
with the technologies that can be used for nuclear weapons, and the knowledge of
radioactive materials is very important for the development of a weapon
program. (American Physical Society, 2005: 2) Energy expert Amory Lovins
formulated this as follows: “Nuclear power plants are a nuclear weapons starter
kit”. (Cirincione, 2009) The concern of the United Nations is that countries with
violent intentions can secretly use their nuclear power plants and developed
knowledge to produce essential materials for nuclear weapons. Especially Iran is
notorious for this; although its government officially states that they use their
nuclear installation for scientific- and energy production purposes only, the
international community fears that they enrich uranium to 20 percent fissile
purity, and now uses diplomatic methods to make Iran suspend their program.
(Quinn, 2012) Even countries that have no nuclear program yet cause
22
international political unrest. Joseph Cirincione, a non-proliferation expert,
writes that he is disturbed about the intentions of several Middle Eastern
countries that have suddenly become interested in nuclear power. The United
Arab Emirates, Turkey, Tunisia, Morocco, Egypt, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and
Tunisia have plans to develop civilian nuclear programs. Cirincione writes: “This
is not about energy, it is about Iran...” He even thinks that we are witnessing the
beginning of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East; this is because Iran’s rivals
are afraid of the political and military power that nuclear weapons might give
Iran. (Cirincione, 2009) Up until today, no individuals or groups have ever stolen
nuclear materials for use in weapons. (Sailor et al., 2005) Nevertheless, the
threat itself is already a burden for the expansion of nuclear energy programs.
Therefore,
effective
safeguards
and
international
collaboration
on
non-
proliferation is necessary for the further development of nuclear energy systems.
The most important institution that works to prevent nuclear proliferation is the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Besides that, there is the Treaty on
the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which is ratified by 189
countries. (UN, 1968) The only non-parties are Israel, India, Pakistan and North
Korea, that all have nuclear weapons. Other approaches to non-proliferation are
sanctions against nations pursuing weapons, which is currently happening to
Iran. Or the destruction of nuclear facilities that could lead to weapons; Israel did
this with facilities in Bagdad (1981) and Syria (2007). (Intriligator, 2011: 157)
Measures and treaties of international agencies can prevent that the risk of
nuclear proliferation forms an obstacle in the development of nuclear energy. So
whether or not nuclear energy is a politically suitable alternative depends
23
partially on the effectiveness of international treaties in order to prevent
proliferation.
It can be concluded that there are still some serious constraints to nuclear
energy that make it problematic for politicians to support an energy transition.
The distribution of uranium resources over the world has positive effects on the
geopolitical stability, and consequently results in a more secure energy supply.
However, the risk of accidents and the risk for nuclear proliferation result in a
low social value of nuclear energy. Last year’s accident in Japan and the current
threat coming from Iran are, based on historic events, likely to result in a
reluctant attitude toward nuclear energy in Europe and the US. To make nuclear
energy a politically attractive alternative, further developments in the field of
safety and better public information to improve public perception are necessary
to take away these constraints.
24
ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVE
In this chapter, nuclear energy will be analysed on environmental
suitability. A suitable energy source in terms of environment has low negative
impact on nature, animals, and humans. Important examples of those negative
impacts are pollution, toxic gasses and radiation, and greenhouse gas emissions.
Nuclear energy is in these terms twofold; on the one hand has it an extremely low
carbon footprint, but on the other hand are the used fuel rods radioactive for
millions of years. Those two characteristics play an important role for the future
of nuclear energy.
Because of its low carbon emission, nuclear energy is an attractive energy
source to generate large amounts of electricity, and still meet the goals set by
international environmental treaties to reduce global warming. Meeting those
objectives
is
important,
because
the
numerous
scientists
of
the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) argue that many current
negative environmental changes are due to global warming and predict that
future environmental related problems will occur. (IPCC WG II, 2007) The IPCC
states in its fourth assessment report that “warming of the climate system is
unequivocal”, and that the “Most of the observed increase in global average
temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed
increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”’(IPCC WG I, 2007: 5,
10) Those findings suggest that humans can mitigate the negative effects, so
international efforts are made to reduce greenhouse gasses. The Kyoto protocol,
aims to fight global warming by stabilizing greenhouse gasses. Those long lived
greenhouse gasses include: Carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous
25
oxide (N2O). The IPCC proposed to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations by a
whole series of mitigation policies, and for the energy supply sector, this also
includes the further development of nuclear energy. (IPCC WG III, 2007) In
terms of greenhouse gas emissions, nuclear energy is a perfect option, because
during the power generation process itself, no greenhouse gasses are emitted. Oil
combustion on the other hand, produced 10.6 Gt CO2 in 2009, and this is
expected to grow to 12.6 Gt in 2035. The CO2 emissions coming from coal
combustion, another alternative for oil, are even higher: 12.5 Gt in 2009, which
is projected to grow to 14.4 Gt in 2035. And for gas, these numbers are: 5.8 Gt in
2009, and 8.4 Gt in 2035. (IEA, 2011: 8) Note that for all these energy sources the
CO2 emissions are increasing. Considering the need to reduce CO2 emission in
order to mitigate for climate change, nuclear energy has a large potential
advantages above fossil combustion technologies such as coal and gas. However,
it needs to be taken into account that during the production process of fuel for the
reactors, some CO2 gets emitted. (Kraushaar & Ristinen, 2006)
Nuclear power generation might be favourable for the environment in
terms of reducing greenhouse gasses and so slowing down global warming, but
nuclear waste causes serious environmental problems. The radioactive material
that is left over after the energy generating process is dangerous for the
environment. This so called high-level waste can be radioactive up to many
millions of years, and can make humans and animals terminally ill. Therefore, it
is important to keep it on a safe place. It is the task of agencies such as the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the United States Nuclear
Regulatory Commission to monitor nuclear waste. Besides that fact that the
26
waste is so dangerous, it is also problematic that it stays radioactive for millions
of years. Even though we would have the technology to keep it safe, there is no
guarantee that later generations will not look for it out of curiosity. It is
impossible to predict how society and the state of science will be in thousand
years, and equally difficult to warn people living thousands of years from now for
the dangers of a technology that they might not even know. Mostly, the waste is
stored on the reactor site, in so called dry casks; steel cylinders stored in a
concrete bunker. (Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2011) Another possibility is to
store the waste deep underground, in sealed containers, but even there, it is not
guaranteed safe. In the German village Asse, barrels with nuclear waste were
stored in an old salt mine, but due to bad maintenance they started leaking,
thereby threatening the safety of the groundwater. Underground storages can
also be dangerous in case of earthquakes. Sweden is with their KBS method one
of the few countries with that has moved towards a safe long-term solution for
this problem. (Elam & Sundqvist, 2011: 246) With the KBS method, the nuclear
waste is capsulated in iron and copper, and is then stored in drilled holes in rock.
Another alternative for the radioactive waste problem is the reprocessing of the
spent fuel. After it has been used, the nuclear fuel has still some useful energy in
it, and techniques that enable to reprocess this have been developed. Although,
these reprocessing technologies are still too expensive to be economic feasible,
some countries already use the technique. (Sylverio & Lamas, 2011)
It can be concluded that the environmental suitability of nuclear energy is
twofold. On the one hand it is a green energy source that fit with globally set
goals to reduce greenhouse gasses and so mitigate for negative climate change, on
27
the other hand is its waste very harmful for humans, animals, and nature.
Improvements for waste disposal are needed when nuclear energy takes a larger
share of the global energy supply.
28
TECHNOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
It has been described in this paper that economic, political, and
environmental aspects are important while analysing nuclear energy as a
complementing energy source for conventional oil. However, the potential of
nuclear energy above all depends on the state of technology. This chapter
describes the current state of the nuclear technology and the developments that
are to be expected in the next 50 years that might affect the economic, political,
and environmental feasibility of nuclear energy. Useful developments could be
improvements that take away disadvantages of nuclear energy, such as those
related to safety, waste disposal, nuclear proliferation, and high building costs.
This chapter describes the history of nuclear energy, which is relevant to make
expectations about the potential of prospective technologies. Finally, two
technologies that are currently developed by nuclear engineers, breeding
technology and fusion technology, will be discussed.
The course of history of nuclear energy is not only the base of the state
technology today, it is also relevant to project predictions for the future. Since the
first commercial nuclear power plant in 1957, there has been a development
towards the goal of safer, both in terms of meltdown and proliferation, and more
efficient nuclear reactors, that furthermore operative at lower costs. The power
plants that have been developed during the last 55 year, and those predicted to
be developed in the next 20 years are categorised into generations. The early
prototypes, built between 1950 and 1960 are considered to be part of the first
generation. They were usually very small. The only remaining commercial
generation I power plant, located in Wales, will permanently shut down later this
29
year. (Goldberg & Rosner, 2011: 4) The second generation power plants were
built between 1960 and 1980. They were designed to be reliable and economical,
and these reactors still form the majority of nuclear plants around the world.
They include the light water reactors such as the boiling water reactor (BWR),
the pressurised water reactor (PWR), and the supercritical water reactor
(SCWR). The lifetime is usually 40 years, but this is often extended. (EIA, 2011:
13) The youngest generation is the III and III+. Improvements that are made
compared to generation II are: a better thermal efficiency, safety, a higher
burnup percentage of the fuel, and a standardised design, which can decrease the
building costs. Nevertheless, reality shows that the overnight costs have doubled
over the last 3-4 years. The operational lifetime of the generation III and III+ is
increased; 60 years but potentially much longer. New built reactors are usually
light-water reactors of this type, and many more are planned. (Goldberg &
Rosner, 2011) The history of nuclear energy teaches us that, although the
technology did improve in terms of safety and efficiency, it went slow and came
with interruptions. Nuclear accidents in the past have caused delays on the
growth of the nuclear energy; The Three Mile accident stopped the growth in the
US, and after the Chernobyl accident European power plants were disturbed as
well. (Ahearne, 2011: 578) Recent political decisions to reduce the nuclear
program as a reaction on the Fukushima accident, (EIA, 2011: 13) such as in
Germany (Breidthhardt, 2011), indicate that history will repeat itself and that
the building of new power plants is probably to be delayed again.
Uranium is, like oil, coal, and natural gas a non-renewable resource. A fact
that eventually results in similar problems as those threatening the oil
30
production today; one day the uranium will run out. This would imply that
nuclear energy can, no matter how cost competitive, no matter how politically
attractive, and no matter how environmental responsible, never be a long term
solution. The fourth generation reactors however, offer enormous potential for
extending the lifetime of the uranium reserves. Breeding reactors, also called fast
reactors, are more efficient; where a first, second, or third generation reactor can
use about 2% of the thermal energy in uranium, a breeder reactor can use 80% of
it. (Fjaestad, 2009: 2) In addition, breeding reactors can produce more fuel than
they consume, so they can actually ‘breed’ their own fuel. In older generations,
only the
335U
could be used for the fission reaction, the reaction in the breeder
reactor however converts
238U,
to
239Pu,
which can be used as reactor fuel.
Natural uranium has about 140 times as much
238U
as
335U
in it, so this
technology extends the lifetime of the uranium resource with about 140 times,
which means that there will be enough uranium for thousands of years. (Ristinen
& Kraushaar, 2006, 184) And because less uranium is needed, the price of energy
can decrease and energy security will increase. There are also advantages in
environmental perspective; because more energy can be generated from the same
amount of uranium, the waste can be reduced significantly. In addition, old
nuclear waste can even be reused to generate energy. Thereby using existing
waste useful and reducing the risk for nuclear proliferation.
The theory of the breeder reactor is known since the beginning of nuclear
programs, and in 1946 the US already built a first breeder reactor. Fjaestad
(2009) analysed why the breeder reactor never grow out to a fully developed
energy source for the future. The first problem was the development of uranium
31
prices; when new deposits were found the price did not increase as expected,
thereby making it less necessary to develop the breeder reactor in order to save
on fuel costs. Also some safety requirements were not met and even some partial
meltdowns occurred in the US. And when costs turned out to be higher than
expected, the support of technicians and politicians diminished. Fjaestad
concludes that the breeder was a scientific success because in the last decennia
many funds have been allocated to fundamental nuclear research. However, it
was due to several international complications, a political failure. There has been
international cooperation within Europe, called European Fast Reactor project
(EFR). Even some breeding reactors were built in Great-Britain, Germany,
France, Sweden, and the former USSR, however, such projects were terminated.
The combination of technical and economical difficulties, military implications,
and even ideological objections, made that the technology never matched its
promising potential, so governments stopped financing these projects and the
EFR was discontinued by 1993. (Fjaestad, 2009)
The need for clean, safe, and cheap energy is more necessary than ever
before considering the expected decreasing oil production in the future.
(Koppelaar, 2005) Therefore, the technology of generation IV is being researched
again. Twelve countries and Euratom are working together in the Generation IV
International Forum (GIF). They collaborate in order to solve the challenges of
economics, sustainability, safety and reliability, and proliferation resistance and
physical protection that were also described earlier in this paper. The GIF’s
objective is to have 4th generation nuclear energy systems available to use around
2030. By then, many of the current nuclear power plants will be near the end of
32
their lifetime. (US DOE & GIF, 2002) Looking to the past, the GIF project is no
guarantee for success, because an earlier collaboration attempt in order to
develop generation IV technology, the EFR, failed. The effects of peak oil
however, in combination with a fast growing world population, global warming
and the problems with radioactive waste make generation IV more promising
than ever, which could have its effect on the possibility of success this time.
An even more suitable nuclear technology would be nuclear fusion. During
the fusion reaction of two nuclei, a large amount of energy can be released. The
advantage of this technology is that there is an enormous store of fuel available
to feed the fusion reaction, because the required deuteron atoms can be found in
water. If the technology would work, enough resources are available to meet the
global energy need for millions of years. In addition, like fission reactors, there
will be no CO2 emission during the energy generating process. Finally, there are
no radioactive reaction products at all, thereby elimination the waste disposal
problem. (Ristinen & Kraushaar, 2006: 196-204) To share knowledge and
investments related to fusion technology, the EU, US, China, Japan, Russia,
South Korea and India are collaborating in the ITER project (International
Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor). Currently, they are building a test
facility in Cadarache, in the South of France. Despite these efforts, it is unlikely
that fusion technology becomes a reality for energy generation in the next
decades. The theory has been known for more than half a century, but has never
showed some practical applications. Problems are that is very difficult to achieve
the necessary temperature and particle density, and so far the technology has not
been able to produce more energy than is used for the fusion reaction. In
33
addition, there are still some other constraints, such as the availability of
particular materials to build energy plants. (Ristinen & Kraushaar, 2006)
The development of new technologies does not come with advantages only;
nuclear safety engineer David Lochbaum (2004) says that especially new nuclear
systems have a great safety risk. He explains that the risk profile during the
three phases of the lifetime of a nuclear plant, the break-in phase, the middle life
phase, and the wear-out phase, has the shape of a bathtub. Especially in the
beginning of the lifetime, and during the wear-out phase the chance on problems
is high whereas the middle life phase is relatively safe. The risk during the
break-in phase comes from the many unexpected safety problems that occur in
the first years, and the fact that engineers lack the operating experience to deal
with those problems. (Lochbaum, 2004: 1)
The nuclear development so far went with several setbacks and delays, but
shows progress. The breeding technology of fourth generation power plants is
promising to solve the problems of finite uranium resources, waste disposal,
energy security, and price stability. The generation IV International Forum is
responsible for research and development in this field. Fusion energy can even
completely solve the problems related to nuclear waste, but important
developments in this technology are far less likely. However, the results of the
ITER project in the brand new facility in France will be decisive. And, no matter
how promising the developments are, it has been shown that it comes with
increased risk during the start-up phase.
34
CONCLUSION
It has become clear that in the field of nuclear energy, economic, political,
environmental, and technical interests are interwoven and can even be
completely conflicting. For that reason, it was necessary to take a multiperspective approach to answer the main research question; In order to avert an
energy crunch, is nuclear energy a suitable alternative to complement for the
decreasing production of conventional oil?
The results of the analysis indicate that there were many aspects that
make nuclear energy a very suitable source, but also some major constraints that
need to be taken away to clear the way for a further growth of nuclear
technology. The costs of nuclear energy are already competitive with other energy
sources. Moreover, with higher costs for fossil fuels, CO2 emission taxes, and
lower building costs in the line of expectation, the economic feasibility is even
more promising.
Although nuclear energy has a certain value for politicians, i.e. more
geopolitical stability, better energy supply, they are still reluctant towards it.
One reason for this is the low social value where nuclear energy suffers from,
secondly the reluctance is based on the risk for nuclear accidents, problems
related to waste disposal, and the risk for nuclear proliferation.
Especially
the
environmental
aspect
of
nuclear
energy
is
very
controversial. The imminent threat of global warming and the negative effects of
climate change demand for a low carbon energy source. In this perspective,
nuclear is an attractive solution, would it not be that the problem of nuclear
waste disposal is underestimated by almost all countries.
35
Technological improvements might take away those obstacles in the
future, and clear the way for a long term solution. The fourth generation reactor,
the breeder, might, in case the technology is working and feasible in the future,
offer solutions for both the waste disposal problem and the fact that uranium
reserves are finite. The same holds for nuclear fusion technology, but the
probability that that will be feasible within the next 50 years is very unlikely.
Problematic will always be the fact that nuclear energy is especially useful
to generate electricity. Oil on the other hand is being used for many more
purposes. In particular the transportation sector will suffer from shortages in oil
supply, because they rely on liquid fuels such as petrol, diesel, and kerosene. The
automobile industry can switch to electric or hybrid technologies, but for trucks
and airplanes this is more problematic. Gas- and coal-liquefaction technologies
can have a role to create synthetic fuels, but this will come at higher costs.
It has to be noted that the solution to avert an energy crunch has to come
from a combination of energy sources. Solely relying on nuclear energy is too
risky for the energy security, and is furthermore impossible due to a variety of
constraints, such as a limited building capacity, human resources, and
infrastructure. Partly because of the rising fossil resource prices, and especially
because of the increasingly problematic effects of climate change, there is also a
major role for green renewable alternatives such as solar, wind, tidal, and
geothermal energy.
Finally, to avert an energy crunch, also the demand side of the energy
market needs to implement changes; higher energy efficiency, and a change in
the behaviour of energy usage, i.e. more focus energy saving.
36
After all, it can be concluded that nuclear energy is a reasonable
alternative to complement for a decreasing oil production, and so avert an energy
crunch. However, there are still some constraints for the further growth of
nuclear capacity. On the short term, a solution has to be found for the waste
disposal problem. In order to this successful, close cooperation between scientists
and politician is can be useful. In the long run, the problem of finite uranium
reserves needs attention. In that sense, the fourth generation nuclear power
plants is very promising. Further investment in research and development,
together with international political and scientific cooperation, to develop these
breeder reactors is extremely important. Not only to avert the energy crunch that
will occur after peak oil, also to mitigate for the negative effects of climate
change. Certain urgency is desirable, because peak oil and global warming will
not wait for it. ∎
37
REFERENCES
Ahearne, J.F. (2011), Prospects for nuclear energy. Energy Economics, 33, (4),
572-580.
American Physical Society Panel on Public Affairs – Nuclear Study Group (2005),
Nuclear power and proliferation resistance: securing benefits, limiting risk.
Washington: APS (http://www.aps.org/policy/reports/popa-reports/proliferationresistance/upload/proliferation.pdf retrieved on May 8th 2012).
ASPO (2007), World Oil reserves and production: Industry view. Association for
the study of peak oil conference VI. Cork Ireland.
Ayoub, N., Yuji, N. (2012), Governmental intervention approaches to promote
renewable energies – Special emphasis on Japanese feed-in tariff. Energy Policy,
43, 191-201.
Breidthhardt, A. (2011), German government wants nuclear exit by 2022 at
latest. Reuters news service. Berlin: May 30th, 2011
(http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/30/us-germany-nuclearidUSTRE74Q2P120110530 retrieved May 15, 2012).
Bielecki, J. (2002), Energy security: is the wolf at the door? The quarterly review
of economics and finance, 42, (2), 235-250.
Campbell, C.J. (1997), The Coming Oil Crisis. Essex, UK: Multi-Science
Publishing Company & Petroconsultants.
Chien-Chiang Lee, Yi-Bin Chiu. (2011), Nuclear energy consumption, oil prices,
and economic growth: Evidence from highly industrialized countries. Energy
Economics, 33, (2), 236-248.
Cirincione, J. (2009), Chain reaction. How the U.S. -UAE nuclear deal could set
off a Middle East arms race. Foreign Policy.
(http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/05/06/chain_reaction retrieved on
May 24th, 2012).
Elam, M., Sundqvist, G. (2011), Meddling in Swedish success in nuclear waste
management. Environmental politics, 20, (2), 246-263.
EIA (2011), Annual energy review 2010. Washington DC: EIA
(http://205.254.135.24/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/aer.pdf retrieved on April 2nd
2012).
EIA (2011), International energy outlook 2011. Washington DC: EIA
(http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/pdf/0484(2011).pdf retrieved on April 2nd 2012).
38
EU Commission (2007), An energy policy for Europe. Brussels: EU
(http://ec.europa.eu/energy/energy_policy/doc/01_energy_policy_for_europe_en.pdf
retrieved May 20th 2012).
Fjaestad, M. (2009), Why did the breed reactor fail? (Working paper No. 186).
Centre of excellence for science and innovation studies. Stockholm: CESIS
(http://scripts.abe.kth.se/cesis/documents/186.pdf retrieved on May 25th).
Goldberg, S. M., Rosner, R. (2011) Nuclear reactors: generation to generation.
Cambridge, MA: The American academy of arts and sciences.
(http://www.amacad.org/pdfs/nuclearreactors.pdf retrieved on March 28th 2012).
Hirsch, R.L. (2005), Peaking of World oil production: impacts, mitigation, & risk
management. Washington DC: US Department of Energy.
(http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/pdf/Oil_Peaking_NETL.pdf retrieved
on April 12th 2012).
IAEA (2009), World distribution of uranium deposits (UDEPO) with uranium
deposit classification. Vienna: IAEA (http://wwwpub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1629_web.pdf retrieved on May 10th
2012).
IEA (2008), Energy policies of IEA countries – Sweden. Paris: IEA
(http://www.iea.org/publications/free_new_Desc.asp?PUBS_ID=2023 retrieved on
June 16th)
IEA (2011), IEA statistics: CO2 emissions from fuel combustion. Paris: IEA
(http://www.iea.org/co2highlights/co2highlights.pdf retrieved on April 5th 2012).
Intriligator, M. D. (2011), We’re losing the fight against nuclear proliferation.
Frontiers of peace economics and peace science. Bingly, U.K.: Emerald group
publishing limited. 169-178.
IPCC (2007), Fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on
climate change. Working group I: The physical science basis. Cambrigde:
Cambridge University press.
(http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html retrieved on
March 8th, 2012).
IPCC (2007), Fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on
climate change. Working group II: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability.
Cambrigde: Cambridge University press.
(http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/contents.html retrieved
March 8th, 2012).
IPCC (2007), Fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on
climate change. Working group III: Mitigation of climate change. Cambrigde:
Cambridge University press.
39
(http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/contents.html retrieved
March 8th, 2012).
Jun, E.; Joon Kim, W.; Hoon Jeong, Y.; Heung Chang, S. (2010), Measuring the
social value of nuclear energy using contingent valuation methodology. Energy
policy, 38, 3, 1470-1476.
Koppelaar, R.H.E.M. (2005), World Oil Production & Peaking Outlook.
Amsterdam: Peak Oil Netherlands Foundation. (http://www.peakoil.nl/wpcontent/uploads/2006/09/asponl_2005_report.pdf retrieved on March 3rd 2012).
Lochbaum, D. (2004), US nuclear plants in the 21st century. The risk of a
lifetime. Cambridge, MA: Union of concerned scientists Publications
(http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear04fnl.pdf
retrieved on May 1st 2012).
Middelkoop, W.; Koppelaar, R.H.E.M. (2008), De Permanente Oliecrisis.
Amsterdam: Nieuw Amsterdam.
MIT (2003), The future of nuclear energy. An interdisciplinary MIT study.
Boston: Massachusetts Institute of Technology (http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/
retrieved on May 5th 2012).
Newell, R. G., Jaffe, A. B., Stavins, R. N. (2006), The effects of economic and
policy incentives on carbon mitigation technologies. Energy Economics, 28, (11),
563-578.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (2011), Fact sheet on storage of spent nuclear
fuel. Washington DC: US NRC (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/fact-sheets/dry-cask-storage.html retrieved on May 17th 2012).
OECD / EIA / NEA (2010), Projected costs of generating electricity. Paris: OECD
(http://iea.org/w/bookshop/add.aspx?id=403 retrieved May 5th 2012).
Quinn, A. (2012), US set against recognizing Iranian right to enrich. Reuters
news service (May 24, 2012) Baghdad: May 24, 2012
(http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/24/us-iran-nuclear-usa-officialidUSBRE84N1EF20120524 retrieved on May 24th 2012).
Ristinen, R. A.; Kraushaar, J. J. (2006), Energy and the Environment, 2nd edition.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Sailor, W.C., et al. (2000), A nuclear solution to climate change? Science, 288,
(5469), 1177-1178.
Sen, S., Babali, T. (2007), Security concerns in the Middle East for oil supply:
problems and solutions. Energy Policy. 35, (3), 1517-1524.
40
Seung-Hoon Yoo, Kun-Oh Jung. (2005), Nuclear energy consumption and
economic growth in Korea. Progress in Nuclear Energy, 46, (2), 101-109.
Silverio, L. B., Lamas, W. Q. (2011), An analysis of development and research on
spent nuclear fuel reprocessing. Energy Policy, 39, (1), 281-289.
Society of Petroleum Engineers; World Petroleum Council. (1997). Glossary of
Terms Used in Petroleum Reserves/Resources Definitions. Allen, TX: SPE
(http://www.spe.org/industry/docs/GlossaryPetroleumReservesResourcesDefinitions_2005.pdf retrieved on April 2nd 2012).
United Nations (1968), Treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. New
York: UN (http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/NPTtext.shtml
retrieved on March 28th).
US DOE, GIF (2002), A technological roadmap for generation IV nuclear energy
systems. Washington DC: US DOE nuclear energy research advisory committee,
and Generation IV international Forum. (http://www.gen4.org/PDFs/GenIVRoadmap.pdf, retrieved May 21st 2012).
World Nuclear Association (2005), New economics of nuclear power. London:
WNA http://www.world-nuclear.org/reference/pdf/economics.pdf retrieved on May
15th 2012).
World Nuclear Association (2011), The economics of nuclear power. London:
WNA (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html retrieved on May 22nd 2012).
Yoo, Seung-Hoon; Ku, Se-Ju. (2009) Causal relationship between nuclear energy
consumption and economic growth: A multi-country analysis. Energy policy, Vol.
37, (5), 1905-1913.