Environmental impact of the nuclear fuel cycle

Geological Society Special Publication

Volumn 236, Issue , 2004, Pages 7-23

  Ewing, Rodney C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CARBON EMISSION; ELECTRICITY GENERATION; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; NUCLEAR POWER;

EID: 11044235148     PISSN: 03058719     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1144/GSL.SP.2004.236.01.02     Document Type: Review

References (58)

1. Adamov, Y. O. 2000. Nuclear power may get its second wind in the 21st century. Nuclear News, 43, 38-42.
2. Ahearne, J. F. 1997. Radioactive waste: The size of the problem. Physics Today, 50, 24-29.
3. Albright, D. & Barbour, L. 1999. Separated neptunium and americium. In: Albright, D. & O'Neil K. (eds) The Challenges of Fissile Material Control. ISIS, Washington, DC, 85-96.
4. Albright, D., Berkhout, F. & Walker, W. 1997. Plutonium and Highly Enriched Uranium 1996 World Inventories, Capabilities and Policies. Oxford University Press, New York, 502 pp.
5. Ansolabehere, S., Driscoll, M. et al. 2003. The Future of Nuclear Power. An Interdisciplinary MIT Study. MIT, 161 pp.
6. Boczar, P. G., Gagnon, M. J. N., Chan, P. S. W., Ellis, R. J., Verrall, R. A. & Dastur, A. R. 1997. Advanced CANDU systems for plutonium destruction. Canadian Nuclear Society Bulletin, 18, 2-10.
7. Brederhoeft, J. D., England, A. W., Stewart, D. B., Trask N. J. & Winograd, I. J. 1976. Geological disposal of high-level radioactive wastes - Earth-science perspectives. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 779, 28 pp.
8. Budnitz, R. J. & Holdren, J. P. 1976. Social and environmental costs of energy systems. In: Hollander, J. M. & Simmons, M. K. (eds) Annual Review of Energy, vol. 1. Annual Reviews Inc., Palo Alto, CA, 553-580.
9. Bunker, B., Virden, J., Kuhn, B. & Quinn, R. 1995. Nuclear materials, radioactive tank wastes. In: Encyclopedia of Energy Technology and the Environment, vol. 4. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 2023-2032.
10. Bunn, M. & Holdren, J. P. 1997. Managing military uranium and plutonium in the United States and the former Soviet Union: Current security challenges. In: Socolow, R. H., Anderson, D. & Harte, J. (eds) Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 22, 403-486.
11. Bunn, M., Fetter, S., Holdren, J. P. & van der Zwaan, B. 2003. The Economics of Reprocessing vs. Direct Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel. Project on Managing the Atom. Final Report, December, 2003, DE-FG26-99FT4028, 127 pp. World wide web Address: http://www.bcsia.ksg.harvard.edu/ BCSIA_content/documents/econ_reprocessing_m_bunn.pdf
12. Carter, L. J. 1987. Nuclear Imperatives and Public Trust. Resources for the Future, Inc., Washington, DC, 473 pp.
13. Carter, L. J. & Pigford, T. H. 1999. The world's growing inventory of civil spent fuel. Arms Control Today, January/February, 8-14.
14. Crowley, K. D. 1997. Nuclear waste disposal: The technical challenges. Physics Today, 50, 32-39.
15. Crowley, K. D. & Ahearne, J. F. 2002. Managing the environmental legacy of U.S. Nuclear - Weapons Production. American Scientist, 90 514-523.
16. Donald, I. W., Metcalfe, B. L. & Taylor, R. N. J. 1997. The immobilization of high level radioactive wastes using ceramics and glasses. Journal of Materials Science, 32, 5851-5887.
17. Dyer, R. 2003. Nuclear has a lot going for it. Nuclear News, 46 36-37.
18. DOE (Department of Energy), U.S., Environmental Management Program. 1997. Linking legacies - Connecting the Cold War Nuclear Weapons Production Processes to Their Environmental Consequences. DOE/EM-0319, 230 pp.
19. DOE (Department of Energy), U.S., Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee. 2002. A Technology Roadmap for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems. GIF-002-00, 91 pp.
20. Ewing, R. C. 1999. Radioactivity in the 20th century. In: Burns, P. C. & Finch, R. (eds) Uranium: Mineralogy, Geochemistry and the Environment, Reviews in Mineralogy, vol. 38, Mineralogical Society of America, Washington, D.C., 1-21.
21. Ewing, R. C. 2001. The design and evaluation of nuclear-waste forms: Clues from mineralogy. Canadian Mineralogist, 39, 697-715.
22. Ewing, R. C. 2002. Acceptance of Hawley Medal for 2002. Canadian Mineralogist, 41, 241-242.
23. Ewing, R. C., Weber, W. J. & Clinard, F. W., Jr. 1995. Radiation effects in nuclear waste forms for high-level radioactive waste. Progress in Nuclear Energy, 29, 63-127.
24. Ewing, R. C. & Wang, L. M. 2002. Phosphates as nuclear waste forms. In: Kohn, M. J. U., Rakovan, J. & Hughes, J. M. (eds) Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry, 48, Mineralogical Society of America, Washington, D.C., 673-699.
25. 7): A nuclear waste form for the immobilization of plutonium and 'minor' actinides. Journal of Applied Physics, 95, 5949-5971.
26. Falkowski, P., Scholes, R. J. et al. 2000. The global carbon cycle: A test of our knowledge of Earth as a system. Science, 290, 291-296.
27. Fetter, S. 2000. Energy 2050. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists July/August, 28-38.
28. Gong, W. L., Lutze, W. & Ewing, R. C. 2000. Zirconia ceramics for excess weapons plutonium waste. Journal of Nuclear Materials, 277, 239-249.
29. Grimston, M. C. & Beck, P. 2000. Civil Nuclear Energy: Fuel of the Future or Relic of the Past? The Royal Institute of International Affairs, Energy and Environment Programme, London, 126 pp.
30. Hedin, A. 1997. Spent nuclear fuel - how dangerous is it? SKB Technical Report 97-13, Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Co., Stockholm, Sweden, 60 pp.
31. Hoffert, M. I., Caldeira, K. et al. 2002. Advanced technology paths to global climate stability: Energy for a greenhouse planet. Science, 298, 981-987.
32. Houghton, J. 2000. Global Warming: The Complete Briefing. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 251 pp.
33. Houghton, J. T., Ding, Y. et al. (eds) 2001. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Cambridge University Press, 881 pp.
34. JNREG (Joint Norwegian -Russian Expert Group Report). 1997. Sources contributing to radioactive contamination of the Techa River and areas surrounding the 'Mayak' production association, Urals, Russia. Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority, 134 pp.
35. Ko, W. I., Kim, H. D. & Yang, M. S. 2002. Radio-active waste arisings from various fuel cycle options. Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology, 39, 200-210.
36. Lake, J. A. 2000. Foundations for the fourth generation of nuclear power. Nuclear News, 43, 32-35.
37. Loewen, E. P. & León, S. B. 2001. Implications of recent developments in global climate change policy - a radical suggestion. Nuclear News 44, 23-25
38. Lutze, W. & Ewing, R. C. (eds) 1988a. Radioactive Waste Forms for the Future. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, 778 pp.
39. Lutze, W. & Ewing, R. C. 1988b. Summary and evaluation of nuclear waste forms. In: Lutze, W. & Ewing, R. C. (eds) Radioactive Waste Forms for the Future. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, 699-740.
40. Magwood, W. D., IV. 2000. Roadmap to the next generation of nuclear power systems: A vision for a powerful future. Nuclear News, 43 35-38.
41. Mark, J. C. 1993. Explosive properties of reactor-grade plutonium. Science & Global Security, 4, 111-128.
42. NRC (National Research Council) 2003. End Points for Spent Nuclear fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste in Russia and the United States The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 137 pp.
43. Oversby, V. M., McPheeters, C. C., Degueldre, C. & Paratte, J. M. 1997. Control of civilian plutonium inventories using burning in a non-fertile fuel. Journal of Nuclear Materials, 245, 17-26.
44. Perkovich, G. 1999. India's Nuclear Bomb: The Impact on Global Proliferation. University of California Press, Berkeley, 597 pp.
45. Pigford, T. H. 1976. Environmental aspects of nuclear energy production. In: Hollander, J. M. & Simmons, M. K. (eds): Annual Review of Energy, vol. 1, Annual Reviews Inc., Palo Alto, CA, 515-559.
46. Romer, R. H. 1972. Resource letter ERPEE-1 on energy: Resources, production, and environmental effects. American Journal of Physics 40, 805-829.
47. Rosenfeld, A. H., Kaarsberg, T. M. & Romm, J. 2000. Technologies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the next decade. Physics Today, November, 29-34.
48. Sailor, W. C., Bodansky, D., Braun, C., Fetter, S. & van der Zwann, R. 2000. A nuclear solution to climate change. Science, 288, 1177-1178.
49. Sarmiento, J. L. & Gruber, N. 2002. Sinks for anthropogenic carbon. Physics Today, August, 30-36.
50. Science News Section. 2003. Britain set to pull plug on nuclear-fuel reprocessing. Science, 425, 7-8.
51. Schimel, D. S., House, J. I., et al. 2001. Recent patterns and mechanisms of carbon exchange by terrestrial ecosystems. Nature, 414, 169-172.
52. Sutcliffe, W. G., Condit, R. H., Mansfield, W. G., Myers, D. S., Layton, D. W. & Murphy, P. W. 1995. A perspective on the dangers of plutonium. Center for Security and Technology Studies, Report CSTS-48-95, 13 pp.
53. von Hippel, F. N. 2001. Plutonium and reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. Science, 293, 2397-2398.
54. Webster, P. 2003. Haunted by Red October. Science, 301, 1460-1463.
55. Weinberg, A. M. 2000. Some necessary conditions for the rebirth of nuclear energy. Nuclear News, 43, 47-48.
56. Williams, R. H. & Feiveson, H. A. 1990. How to expand nuclear power without proliferation. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 46, 1-8.
57. 2 emission-limitation proposals for stabilization of atmospheric concentrations. Science 390, 267-270.
58. Zorpette, G. 1996. Hanford's nuclear wasteland. Scientific American May, 88-97.