Assessment of the actual sustainability of nuclear fission power

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

Volumn 32, Issue , 2014, Pages 16-28

  Verbruggen, Aviel ^a   Laes, Erik ^b   Lemmens, Sanne ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ANTWERP   (Belgium)

^b FLEMISH INSTITUTE FOR TECHNOLOGICAL RESEARCH VITO   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Economics of nuclear power; Independent nuclear agency; Loss of human habitats; Nuclear risk acceptance

Indexed keywords

COSTS; DEVELOPING COUNTRIES; ECONOMICS; ECOSYSTEMS; NUCLEAR ENERGY; NUCLEAR FUELS; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT;

ELECTRICITY EFFICIENCIES; HUMAN HABITATS; INDEPENDENT NUCLEAR AGENCY; NATIONAL ECONOMY; NUCLEAR FISSION POWER; QUALITATIVE EVALUATIONS; RISK ACCEPTANCE; TECHNOLOGY INTENSITIES;

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS;

EID: 84893152154     PISSN: 13640321     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2014.01.008     Document Type: Review

References (82)

1. IEA. Energy technology perspectives 2012. Pathways to a clean energy system. Paris: International Energy Agency; 2012.
2. IAEA. IAEA tools and methodologies for energy system planning and nuclear energy system assessments. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency; 2009.
3. IAEA. Guidance for the application of an assessment methodology for innovative nuclear energy systems. INPRO manual. Vols. 1-9 of the final report phase 1 of the International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles (INPRO). Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency; 2008.
4. UK Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC). Appraisal of sustainability of the revised draft nuclear national policy statement: main report. London: UK DECC; 2010.
5. UNEP. Rio declaration on environment and development. In: The United Nations conference on environment and development. Rio de Janeiro: United Nations Environment Programme; 3-14 June 1992.
6. IPCC. Climate change 2007: synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Geneva, Switzerland; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; 2007. 104 p.
7. J. Beerten, E. Laes, G. Meskens, and W. D'haeseleer Greenhouse gas emissions in the nuclear life cycle: a balanced appraisal Energy Policy 37 2009 5056 5068
8. B.K. Sovacool Valuing the greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power: a critical survey Energy Policy 36 2008 2950 2963
9. V.M. Fthenakis, and H.C. Kim Greenhouse-gas emissions from solar electric- and nuclear power: a lifecycle study Energy Policy 35 2007 2549 2557 (Pubitemid 44896902)
10. B. van der Zwaan The role of nuclear power in mitigating emissions from electricity generation Energy Strategy Rev 1 2013 296 301
11. D. Weisser A guide to life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from electric supply technologies Energy 32 2007 1543 1559 (Pubitemid 46898698)
12. A. Verbruggen Renewable and nuclear power: a common future? Energy Policy 36 2008 4036 4047
13. EPRI. Water use in electric power generation. EPRI report 1014026. Palo Alto, USA: Electric Power Research Institute; 2008.
14. IPCC. Climate change and water. IPCC technical paper VI. Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; 2008.
15. IPCC. Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation. A special report of working groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK/New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press; 2012.
16. Barnaby F, Kemp J. Secure energy? Civil nuclear power, security and global warming. London: Oxford Research Group; 2007 〈http:// www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefing-papers/secure-energy-civil- nuclear-power-security-and-global-warmingâŒ.
17. Eggermont G, Hugé J. Nuclear energy governance. SEPIA project. Brussels: Belgian Science Policy; 2011.
18. T.N. Srinivasan, and T.S. Rethinaraj Fukushima and thereafter: reassessment of risks of nuclear power Energy Policy 52 2013 726 736
19. OECD/NEA. Safety cases for deep geological disposal of radioactive waste - where do we stand? Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development - Nuclear Energy Agency, Symposium Proceedings; 2008.
20. IPCC. IPCC special report on renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation. Prepared by working group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press; 2012. 1075 p.
21. A. Verbruggen, M. Fischedick, W. Moomaw, T. Weir, A. Nadaï, and L.J. Nilsson et al. Renewable energy costs, potentials, barriers: conceptual issues Energy Policy 38 2010 850 861
22. IEA & OECD/NEA. Projected costs of generating electricity, 2010 edition. International Energy Agency, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Nuclear Energy Agency; 2010.
23. OpenEI. Transparent cost database. US Department of Energy Open Energy Information Platform. Retrieved from 〈http://en.openei.org/ apps/TCDB/⌠[accessed 02.12.13].
24. Koplow DN. Nuclear power: still not viable without subsidies. Union of Concerned Scientists; 2011.
25. M.G. Faure, and K. Fiore An economic analysis of the nuclear liability subsidy Pace Environ Law Rev 26 2009 419 450
26. P. Bradford The nuclear landscape Nature 483 2012 151 152
27. Kaplan S. Power plants: characteristics and costs. Congressional research service report for congress; 2008.
28. Bradford P. Taxpayer Financing for Nuclear Power: Precedents and Consequences. Working paper. Vermont Law School; 2008. Retrieved from 〈http://www.psr.org/nuclear-bailout/resources/ taxpayer-financing-for.pdfâŒ.
29. M. Junginger, W. van Sark, and A. Faaij Technological learning in the energy sector: lessons for policy, industry and science 2010 Edward Elgar Publishing Cheltenham, UK
30. P.F. Ostwald, and J.B. Reisdorf Measurement of technology progress and capital cost for nuclear, coal-fired, and gas-fired power plants using the learning curve Eng Process Econ 4 1979 435 454
31. L. Neij Cost development of future technologies for power generation - a study based on experience curves and complementary bottom-up assessments Energy Policy 36 2008 2200 2211
32. Williams RH. Toward cost buydown via learning-by-doing for environmental energy technologies. Review draft. Workshop on learning-by-doing in energy technologies. Washington: Resources for the Future; 2003.
33. I.N. Kessides Nuclear power and sustainable energy policy: promises and perils World Bank Res Obs 25 2010 323 362
34. I.N. Kessides The future of the nuclear industry reconsidered: risks, uncertainty and continued promise Energy Policy 48 2012 185 208
35. A. Grübler The costs of the French nuclear scale-up: a case of negative learning-by-doing Energy Policy 38 2010 5174 5188
36. World Nuclear News. Flamanville costs up €2 billion. World Nuclear News; 2012. Retrieved from 〈http://www.world-nuclear-news. org/NNFlamanville-costs-up-2-billion-Euros-0412127.html⌠[accessed 17.04.13].
37. L. Mez Nuclear energy - any solution for sustainability and climate protection? Energy Policy 48 2012 56 63
38. Les Echos. Areva remonte au front pour defendre l'EPR; 2012. Retrieved from 〈http://www.lesechos.fr/14/12/2012/LesEchos/21334-092- ECH-areva-remonteau-front-pour-defendre-l-epr.htm?texte=olkiluoto⌠[accessed 22.04.13].
39. World Nuclear News. Olkiluoto 3 delayed beyond 2014; 2012. Retrieved from 〈http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Olkiluoto-3-delayed- beyond-2014-1707124.html⌠[accessed 17.04.12].
40. IAEA PRIS. Country statistics - Sweden - Olkiluoto-3. International Atomic Energy Agency Power Reactor Information System; 2013. Retrieved from 〈http://www.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/ReactorDetails. aspx?current=860⌠[accessed 17.04.13].
41. Makhijani A, Boyd M. Small modular reactors. No solution for the cost, safety, and waste problems of nuclear power. Maryland/Washington: Institute for Energy and Environmental Research/Physicians for Social Responsibility; 2010.
42. Csik BJ, Schenk K. Nuclear power in developing countries: requirements & constraints - a review of IAEA's assistance to countries pursuing the nuclear option to help meet energy demands. Special reports. International Atomic Energy Agency Bulletin 2; 1987. p. 39-2.
43. R. Rhodes, and D. Beller The need for nuclear power Foreign Aff 79 2000 30 44
44. J. Jewell Ready for nuclear energy? An assessment of capacities and motivations for launching new national nuclear power programs Energy Policy 39 2011 1041 1055
45. J. Goldemberg Nuclear energy in developing countries Daedalus 138 2009 71 80
46. The World Bank. Gross domestic product ranking table 2011; 2011. Retrieved from 〈http://databank.worldbank.org/databank/ download/GDP.pdf⌠[accessed 17.04.13].
47. IAEA PRIS. Country statistics - Armenia - summary. International Atomic Energy Agency Power Reactor Information System; 2013. Retrieved from 〈http://www.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/CountryDetails. aspx?current=AM⌠[accessed 17.04.13].
48. IAEA PRIS. World statistics - under construction statistics. International Atomic Energy Agency Power Reactor Information System; 2013. Retrieved from 〈http://www.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/ UnderConstructionReactorsByCountry.aspx⌠[accessed 17.04.13].
49. B. Kruyt, D.P. van Vuuren, H.J.M. de Vries, and H. Groenenberg Indicators for energy security Energy Policy 37 2009 2166 2181
50. IAEA PRIS. World statistics - life time energy availability. International Atomic Energy Agency Power Reactor Information System; 2013. Retrieved from 〈http://www.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/ LifeTimeEnergyAvailabilityFactor.aspx⌠[accessed 19.08.13].
51. A.B. Lovins, I. Sheikh, and A. Merkevich Forget nuclear Rocky Mount Inst Solutions 24 2008 24 27
52. C. Perrow Normal accidents: living with high-risk technologies 1984 Basic Books Inc. USA
53. Hirsch H, Becker O, Schneider M, Froggatt A. Nuclear reactor hazards. Ongoing dangers of operating nuclear technology in the 21st century. Report prepared for Greenpeace International, Amsterdam; 2005. 128 pp.
54. NAIIC. The national diet of Japan - executive summary. The official report of The Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission, 2012. 88 pp.
55. UK DECC. National policy statement for nuclear power generation (EN-6). London, UK: United Kingdom Department of Energy & Climate Change; 2011.
56. Harremoës P, Gee D, MacGarvin M, Stirling A, Keys J, Wynne B, et al. Late lessons from early warnings: the precautionary principle 1896-2000. Environmental issue report 22. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency; 2001.
57. J.-R. Tyran, and P. Zweifel Environmental risk internalization through capital markets (ERICAM): the case of nuclear power Int Rev Law Econ 13 1993 431 444
58. E. Laes, G. Meskens, and J.P. van der Sluijs On the contribution of external cost calculations to energy system governance: the case of a potential large-scale nuclear accident Energy Policy 39 2011 5664 5673
59. H. Francis The insurance of nuclear installations Prog Nucl Energy 1 1977 63 71
60. A. Verbruggen Revocability and reversibility in societal decision-making Ecol Econ 85 2013 20 27
61. A. Blowers Nuclear waste and landscapes of risk Landscape Res 24 1999 241 263
62. A. Blowers Why Fukushima is a moral issue? The need for an ethic for the future in the debate about the future of nuclear energy J Integrative Environ Sci 2011 73 80
63. Gillon L. De kwestie kernenergie: welke energie voor onze toekomst? Wat na Tsjernobyl? Scriptoria, Antwerp; 1986.
64. S. Jasanoff, and S.-H. Kim Containing the atom: sociotechnical imaginaries and nuclear power in the United States and South Korea Minerva 47 2009 119 146
65. K. Anderson The awareness principle: transparency and accountability in science and politics 2008 Palgrave Macmillan
66. Namekata S. Interview: former U.S. nuke watchdog chair says regulators must stay independent. The Asahi Shimbun; 2013. Retrieved from 〈http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/ AJ201303140050⌠[accessed 21.08.13].
67. L. Winner The whale and the reactor 1986 University of Chicago Press Chicago
68. Grove-White R, Macnaghten P, Wynne B. Wising up: the public and new technologies. Lancaster: Institute for Environment, Philosophy and Public Policy (IEPPP); 2000. 44 pp.
69. J. Rochlin Broken plowshare: system failure and the nuclear power industry J. Summerton, Changing large technical systems 1994 Westview Press Boulder/San Francisco/Oxford 231 261
70. IAEA. Stakeholder involvement throughout the life cycle of nuclear facilities. InternationalAtomic Energy Agency Nuclear Energy Series NG-T-1. Vienna, 2011.
71. IAEA. Establishment of uranium mining and processing operations in the context of sustainable development. IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NF-T-1.1. Vienna: IAEA; 2009.
72. Bergmans A, Elam M, Kos D. Wanting the unwanted: effects of public and stakeholder involvement in the long-term management of radioactive waste and the siting of repository facilities. Antwerp: University of Antwerp; 2008.
73. OECD/IEA. Energy policies of IEA countries. Finland 2007 review. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development/International Energy Agency; 2008. 146 pp.
74. ICRP. Application of the Commission's recommendations for the protection of people in emergency exposure situations. ICRP Publication 109, International Commission on Radiation Protection; 2009.
75. OECD/NEA. Stakeholders and radiological protection: lessons from chernobyl 20 years after. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development - Nuclear Energy Agency; 2006.
76. R. Darst, and J. Dawson Waiting for the nuclear renaissance: exploring the nexus of expansion and disposal in Europe Risks Hazards Crisis Public Policy 1 2010 49 82
77. A. Blowers, and G. Sundqvist Spec Issue J Integrative Environ Sci 2010
78. K. Schrader-Frechette Ethical dilemmas and radioactive waste, a survey of the issues Environ Ethics 1991 327 343
79. The World Commission on Environment and Development Our common future 1987 Oxford University Press Oxford
80. A. Verbruggen Belgian nuclear power life extension and fuss about nuclear rents Energy Policy 60 2013 91 97
81. World Nuclear News. Nuclear essential for climate stability. World Nuclear News; 2013. Retrieved from 〈http://www.world-nuclear- news.org/EE-Nuclear-essential-for-climate-stability-0411137.html⌠[accessed 04.11.13].
82. Caldeira K, Emanuel K, Hansen J, Wigley T. To those influencing environmental policy but opposed to nuclear power. Public letter. Retrieved from 〈https://plus.google.com/104173268819779064135/posts/ Vs6Csiv1xYr⌠[accessed 04.11.13].