Overview
There are myriad environmental benefits presented by the production and use of nuclear energy. Studies on this fuel have indicated that it has a negligible contribution to global warming since there are no emissions of greenhouse gases.
In addition, other toxic gaseous compounds such as oxides of sulfur and nitrogen are not emitted in nuclear reactor plants or in points of consumption.
In any case, the process entailed in the conversion of nuclear energy to electric energy does not involve any combustion of solid or liquid substances that may be injurious to the environment.
Hence, in a conventional sense, no single substance undergoes the process of incineration as it is common with other types of fuels.
Besides, the production of heat in nuclear plants is due to fission of radioactive substances but not through the process of oxidation. The quantity of fuels spent in nuclear reactors is almost the same amount of end products (energy) produced by the reactor.
This implies that there is minimal loss of energy to the environment in form of waste products. The fuels that have been spent are not let free to the environment but are stored in the assembly points within the reactor.
Contrary to the production of energy using fossil fuels, all the solid wastes and particulate matter in nuclear reactors are not disposed to the ambient environment.
Although wastes generated from nuclear plants are not emitted freely to the surrounding environment, the impact of releasing such wastes would be disastrous if it were permitted.
The reason behind, is the fact that nuclear plants produce an assortment of waste products that are more risky to the environment than fossil fuels.
For instance, solid wastes generated from the reactor system may be highly toxic when exposed to living environment. Moreover, there are quite a number of process chemicals that would pose serious threat to fauna and flora if it were emitted to the environment.
There is also excessive steam emanating from heated water that as well as spent fuel that contain traces of radioactive substances harmful to life. Nonetheless, there is a distinction between the amount of electric energy produced and the mass of waste products, which is rather small.
Therefore, the impact to the environment may not be similar in magnitude to the use of fossil fuels. Moreover, the plant operators have the full control of the harmful wastes being generated.
The waste control measure involves variety of individuals and agencies such as plant managers, owners of the nuclear reactors as well as the Department of Energy.
There are stringent measures taken to ascertain that no waste materials fins their way to the environment until the last stage of disposal.
It is also imperative to note that spent fuel from nuclear waste is primarily radioactive in nature. On the other hand, a very small fraction of waste materials from fossil fuels contain radioactive substances. In both cases though, solid wastes can substantially spoil the environment.
The nature of damage posed to the environment depends on the nature of the nuclear plant being used and also the extraction process of fossil fuel themselves.
Quite often, the management of wastes from nuclear reactors is undertaken up to the disposal phase. However, it is not quite easy to manage particulate matter and stack gases from fossil fuels before they are released from the fuel production system.
The fact the gaseous waste products are dealt with well after they have been released increases the risk of exposure of these toxic substances to human, animal and plant life.
Although it is possible to manage fossil fuel wastes either partially or fully, the process may prove to be costly both in terms of setting up waste management systems within fossil fuel pant establishments in addition to emanating the systems to remain effective and efficient in disposing wastes.
On the same note, operators who run nuclear plants have the responsibility of ensuring that appropriate systems are installed within the nuclear reactors to eliminate or control wastes generated during the radioactive processes and reactions.
Hence, the cost of controlling wastes through building of structures cannot be evaded by either fossil fuel or nuclear plant operators. Furthermore, it is also pertinent to make controversial decisions regarding the most applicable waste control measures to adopt.
To this end, the cost-benefit analysis on environmental impact of nuclear energy compared to other forms of energy relies heavily on the waste value attached on each type of pant used to generate energy resources. For example, airborne wastes originating from nuclear power are largely eliminated before being exposed to the environment.
The minimal volume of radioactive wastes generated from nuclear reactors is indeed advantageous in terms of cost since managing such small quantities of wastes is both cost effective and beneficial to the owners of the company due to reduced overheads.
Similarly, fossil fuels equally generate harmful solid and gaseous wastes but the environmental impact of the latter may be hefty compared to spent fuel from nuclear reactors. Nonetheless, none of the waste stream can be embraced in the environment. Both wastes are disastrous regardless of the point of source.
The wastes produced by nuclear power have been found to bear the highest environmental costs in comparison to other types of fuels. As already mentioned, the quantity of waste produced from nuclear plants may be quite small when a comparison is drawn with other type of fuels such as fossil fuels.
However, if these wastes from spent fuels are not nipped at the bud, the impacts can be extreme. In fact, wastes generation during the production of nuclear energy should never be permitted into the environment at all costs.
The waste streams can be handled from the point of production using two key options. To begin with, clean sources of energy, also known as renewable energy are usually in place just in case surplus power needs to be generated.
In spite of these alternatives, each of the method of producing energy has its own environmental impact that cannot be avoided in the process of production and consumption of the resource. It is also vital to note that the environmental impacts of these alternative fuels may be positive or negative.
The availability of these power generation sources does not, however, solve the challenge of the ever-increasing power demands in United States. For a considerable length of time now, fossil fuels imported from foreign destination have been instrumental as the chief source of energy.
At a time when there seems to be strain and over-reliance on fossil fuels, nuclear power seems to come in handy. Thus, the cost benefit analysis on the use of nuclear power and the projected environmental concerns are crucial in the evaluation of potentiality of nuclear power.
Secondly, managing demand for power is critical in a bid to alleviate the environmental impacts of wastes generated from spent fuels in nuclear plants (Morris, 2007). It is definite that power generation is usually accompanied by wastes and the two components can be separate or discussed in isolation.
In order to reduce nuclear power wastes, the demand for power should go down. Hence, reducing the demand for power will have a ripple effect on the quantity of wastes produced.
One likely proposal would be to consume less energy so that the demand for the same is lowered. Consequently, wastes associated with power production will equally be lowered.
Nonetheless, this will not address the challenge of economic development since myriad of outlets such as industrials plants and domestic settings will continue to demand for more energy as time progresses.
When managing demand for energy, it is pertinent to acknowledge cycles for need ranges from the daily to seasonal basis. The pattern of fuel choice and use will be affected significantly if such consumption cycles are treated on a common platform or flattened altogether.
The choice of fuel cannot be merged with managing demand for energy. However, the duo processes may as well complement each other. Indeed, the case of nuclear power being compared with fossil fuel is a critical example of this nature (Ramana, 2009). The base load, for instance, works well with nuclear power source.
This base load refers to a state of stable demand for energy over a considerable length of time. Similarly, the cyclical demands for energy can be met using other source of energy like fossil fuels and hydropower.
In line with this, it goes without saying that when nuclear power is put into perspective of cost benefit, it remains to be most reliable during both the peak and off-peak loads.
Hence, when demand level s are leveled, the production of nuclear power may be favored. This can also be a viable way of regulating environment pollution arising from other sources.
On the overall, nuclear energy is a growing contributor of US energy needs, contributing about 20% of the total energy requirement in this vast country. On a global scale, this form of energy accounts close to 14% of energy production.
Although the United States and the world at large is still relying heavily on fossil fuel, the need to devise other alternative and clean sources of energy is ever beckoning. Is this agreement is implemented, then depending on unstable nations for crude oil resources will be reduced substantially.
Besides, the cost of energy production will also go down. Hence, the additional spending on oil imports can be channeled to other areas of development agenda for the country.
Although an alternative power generation is needed to supplement fossil fuel use, the undesirable impacts associated with other sources ought to be addressed beforehand so that the environmental impacts are brought to a level low.
Situational analysis
In 2005 alone, 86 quadrillion of crude oil was imported and consumed by the United States. The quantity of crude oil consumption has continued to grow exponentially even as demand skyrockets. The rate at which energy is being consumed does not match the production rate thereby leading to deficit.
The last fifty years or so witnessed a near balance between the two parameters, namely energy consumption and production. In order to meet this difference, the Federal government ha to import crude oil resources. Sincerely speaking, energy exploration should be given a restart in the US.
The reliability of nuclear energy is one the reasons why the United States should be boasting of rich uranium deposits.
Generating power from radioactive elements such as uranium and polonium assures an uninterrupted supply of electric energy and hence, it is highly predictable both in terms of timing in availability and quantity demanded.
The disposal of wastes generated from radioactive substances remains to be the strongest point in the use nuclear energy. United States has the best potential for producing nuclear power since it is well endowed with deposits of uranium.
Premise
One outstanding feature of nuclear power is that it can be accessed readily and easily. However, the United States government has not taken the full advantage of this resource as an option that can be employed in harnessing supplementary power.
Several research studies have already concluded that nuclear energy is effective in terms of cost management. Moreover, this form of energy is quite worthwhile to invest in owing to well refined process of controlling environmental pollution of nuclear generated wastes.
In addition, its sustainability is far beyond par since it can be relied on for a considerably long period of time. If adopted, it can generate adequate power alongside lowering cost of producing energy. Moreover, waste disposal procedures in nuclear plants are indeed phenomenon when addressing the cost benefit analysis of this form of energy.
The key problem statement to be addressed in this paper is the identification of impacts of nuclear power as far as cost and benefit are concerned.
The effect of this energy resource both economically and environmentally is vital in this discussion. When comparing nuclear energy with other sources of energy, the cost benefit analysis cannot be ignored since it gives the clearest picture.
Wastes from nuclear plants
Disposing of wastes from nuclear plants face various restrictions from the local, state and federal government. In order to impose these restrictions, myriad of elements are used.
For instance, government regulation, enactment and enforcement of by-laws or legislations as well as owner commitment to dispose radioactive wastes are all channels through which waste disposal controls can be put into force.
Hence, restrictions of this nature that govern waste disposal from nuclear plants reflects the public opinion on the best measure that can be employed in managing wastes based on their value as well as cost.
It is highly likely that there will be opinion differences among different players or concerned members of the public on the best method to use to control wastes from nuclear reactors.
In other words, the emission policies may not address the views of all those who are concerned with safe disposal of wastes and the environmental impacts of the same.
The type and nature of wastes disposed from an energy production process often depicts the type of restriction imposed. Thus, environmental controls on waste disposal will largely depend on the type of power plant being used to produce energy.
Besides, variations also exist in terms of level needed to regulate the emission of certain environmental pollutants. A crucial example is the effect of steam discharge from hot water, since it may significantly affect the normal temperature of the surrounding water bodies.
In retrospect, it is paramount to note that nay slight change or variation of normal temperature of the nearby water bodies may adversely affect certain plant and animal species which are not accustomed to a warmer environment.
Furthermore, the ecology of the affected water masses is altered. Consequently, policy issues emerge to debate on the impact of such discharges and whether corrective actions should be taken or not.
When concerns of this nature are addressed in operating nuclear power plants, the nature of controls as well as costs required will be established. For instance, a cooling system that lowers the temperature of hot water can be put in place.
Better still, the quantity of waste discharge to the environment can be stipulated in order to monitor how much in terms of pollution is let free in the environment and the degree of impact on plant and animal species.
The spent fuel disposal is still the worst environmental fear for all nuclear plants used to generate power. Usually, the fission of process that involves splitting of radioactive nuclides does not pass through any heating stage.
In practice, no single matter undergoes combustion since the entire process is oxidation-the loss of electrons by the atomic species in the radioactive nuclides. As a result, the process of nuclear fission is accompanied by minimal conversion of mass of the raw material to energy.
From the point of insertion up to the eventual removal from the system, there are myriad of control measures that are put in place. The process of disposing solid and gaseous wastes is so strongest that the immediate environment is not affected negatively at all.
The point at which the solid and gaseous toxic products are deposited is keenly monitored, making it cost effective to the environment in terms of pollution control.
The adoption of strict disposal measures of nuclear wastes is indeed one of the reasons why the use of nuclear power to generate energy is an excellent option when seeking alternative sources of ‘clean’ energy (Suppes & Storvick, 2007).
The processes of generating power incorporate two main reactions namely nuclear fusion and nuclear fission. The two processes take place between the materials and the fuel units and are both accompanied by notable loss of heat energy with the emission of certain radioactive particles harmful to skin and the rest of the animal body (Hantula & Voege, 2009).
The accumulation of products obtained from fission (splitting) and fusion (joining) results into the spending of nuclear fuel. At this point, the nuclear fuel cannot generate any surplus power.
There is a large amount of energy fuel which is not consumed in this process. However, there is need to investigate whether surplus fuel can be produced from the residues.
The chemical and physical characteristics of the spent fuel are not similar I nay way. This difference is indeed necessary in the process of handling waste materials and disposing them before they exit the reactor.
Nonetheless, the stages involved in the handling of these wastes do not come without a cost. There are expenses which are incurred and are part and parcel of the nuclear production overhead (Department of Energy, DOE., 1988).
Spent fuel can be handled in different applying unique procedures. Hence, potential techniques are varied. For instance, recycling is one of the procedures used to eliminate or alleviate the toxicity of spent fuels which are already in form of wastes.
The main advantage of recycling is that the process undertakes some form of reprocessing of raw materials that were not completely used up. Hence, recycling is an economically beneficial process that improves the viability of setting up a nuclear plant.
When some the spent fuel is recycled, the environmental risk of the crude waste product is reduced significantly. The end product after reprocessing is less harmful and can be safely released into the environment.
Another benefit of recycling is the increased output of the total energy production. There is minimal wastage of the raw materials that have been categorized as waste products.
The approach being taken in the United States is that which entails burying down all the waste products collectively known as spent fuel. All waste products from radioactive reactors are perceived to be highly toxic and the best alternative of managing such wastes is to burry then deep underground.
Although this procedure of disposing wastes seem to be viable, it may equally lack sustainability especially in situations whereby landfills are to be acquired separately for burying wastes. This will imply that the operators of nuclear plants will have to undergo additional expenses as part of the production costs.
Both transmutation and recycling have not been adopted in totality since they are still under policy considerations. In addition, the two aforementioned processes will interfere with the timing, quantity, period and the nature of the very burials (Nunn & Ebel, 2000).
The operating costs of the nuclear plants will definitely be increased perhaps by substantial amount. Currently, the overall duty of disposing spent fuels from nuclear plants lies with the US Department of Energy.
Well, this has been quite reliable source of funding although sustainability remains to be subject of concern owing to the on-going dispute over the legality and constitutionality of such charges.
The burden of funding waste disposal program has been left to the public and the very funds have been considered to be a form of subsidy to the waste disposal initiative.
It is important to note that the federal government involves itself directly in the nuclear waste disposal program than any other type of energy production program (OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, 2003).
There are also concerns over the sufficiency of funds being raised by the public. The costs involved in the reprocessing of wastes may indeed go up with time. Worse still, if the nuclear energy production program is expanded by any means, the volume of nuclear wastes generated will equally increase (Findlay, 2010).
This will be the case especially in a few years time since the demand for energy is continually increasing. Hence, nuclear energy generation may face lack of adequate funds in the foreseeable future.
Should this happen, then the disposal of toxic nuclear wastes may be a gigantic challenge to the Department of Energy. Furthermore, as the cost of producing nuclear power may also be unpredictable owing to factors such as inflation and economic recession.
The Department for Energy in liaison with the federal government is currently a burial site for nuclear wastes in Nevada. Although much hope has been vested in acquiring this site, the court dispute is still raging and therefore the time when this site will be acquired is indefinite.
Such controversies especially those regarding waste disposal mechanisms has remained to be a major challenge in the adoption of nuclear energy production as an alternative source of energy. Even as environmental concerns continue to bother the Department of Energy, the US energy demand is still an economic quagmire.
As it is the case now, the status of nuclear waste disposal is pathetic. The use of temporary sites for disposing spent fuels from nuclear reactors is the order of the day. Hence, most of the wastes emitted from nuclear plants have not been disposed appropriately.
The reprocessing of these wastes within the plant system seems o be the most viable and readily used method as per now. Sooner or later, the alternate or temporary sites will be overwhelmed by the continual disposal unless lasting solution is sought in due time.
Comparison
The main forms of energy production are quite flexible and resilient in generating electricity. Although oil can be used to generate electricity, its high market cost as an imported product prohibits its use in the generation of electricity (Molak, 1997).
As it is well known, the use of natural gas and coal poses gross environmental risks in spite of the fact each of these energy component has its own emission criteria. For instance, the amount of greenhouse gases emitted during the combustion of coal may not necessarily be the same although both of them are pollutants in the environment.
When nuclear power is used to generate electricity, a clear distinction can be drawn right from the outset. There are vivid environmental pollution levels when all of these energy components are used to reduce power.
When coal is used, there is a possibility of choosing between cal that contains high and low contents of sulfur alongside other emissions. Similarly, the use of fossil fuels also allows differences in emission levels.
These variations may be tagged on the type of burners used, the level of technology employed as well as the apparatus used to monitor and control emission levels.
The application of emission allowances as enshrined in the Clean Air Act adopted in 1990 can be a real booster in nuclear waste management.
Since 2002, there have been plans to include nuclear power plants in the emission allowances that are applicable with plants that emit oxides of nitrogen. In spite of the low volume of these allowances, it may indeed save a lot in terms of emissions that are usually avoided in totality (Eisenbud & Gessell, 1997)
Emission levels have been set up by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to act as a guide to nuclear and other power generating plants. For example, for each 1 MWh of electricity produced, coal plants should not exceed the cap of 2249 of carbon dioxide while for oil plants; the maximum allowable emission is 1135 by volume.
The remaining pollutants such as sulfur dioxide and the oxides of nitrogen also have their emission levels which cannot be exceed by operators. However, nuclear plant reactors are not emitted to emit any waste products to the environment, whether the pollutant is considered to be mild or less severe.
The reason given behind this prohibition is that any allowable emission to the environment emanating from nuclear wastes may contain traces of radioactive substances known to be highly devastating even after being deposited for a long period of time.
The radioactive wastes can still initiate chain reactions millions of years after emission to the ambient environment (Eisenbud & Paschoa, 1989). This also explains the reason why the residues emanating from nuclear wastes are buried deep underground so that the elements do not move to the surface and cause health havoc such as gene mutation in animals.
Hence, nuclear power plants should be operated in a very sensitive manner right from the time raw materials are fed into the reactor up to the time period when waste products are being disposed.
The quantity of spent fuel produced by nuclear power on an annual basis is estimate at 2,000 metric tons. This quantity is far much less than the stipulated allowable emission levels per every Megawatt hour of electricity produced.
This implies that even though the environmental effects of spent fuel can be devastating, nuclear plants emit quite a marginal amount of these wastes to the environment.
From this perspective, it is likely that a nuclear plant which operates in more than 90% of the total duration and has a capacity of one thousand MWe, waste generation from this plant will be approximately 46,000 lbs per year translating close to 23 tones.
From this evidence, it implies that the amount of wastes generated from a nuclear plant per annum is relatively small compared to other forms of energy production. However, the challenge remains how adequately and satisfactorily these wastes can be disposed to avoid pollution of the immediate environment.
When the same quantity of electricity is generated from coal, over three hundred thousand tons of waste products in form of ashy residues will be formed. This will translate to about ten prevent of coal burnt. the process of srubbing is used to remove ash impurities.
This marks the main difference between the volume of waste products generated in nuclear plants and other forms of energy generation (Simon, 2007).
It is possible to make resolutions and change to nuclear fuel from fossil fuel. However, this will rely on the type of fuel being substituted and the emission which is of great significance. Airborne emissions emanating from nuclear power plants and other sources of energy such as coal have common significance throughout.
There has been a gradual decline in the building of new nuclear plants since the past three decades or so. By 1996, one nuclear power plant was completed in United States in spite of the fact that there are pending building licenses of nuclear plants (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, NCRP, 2004).
There is much hope that yet another nuclear plant will be constructed soon to supplement energy production in meeting high demand. The decline has not been without a cause. For instance, the associated expenses and overheads required to erect new power plants is quite high.
The capital required for this investment is huge and as a result, it has prohibited the development of new nuclear sites. In addition to the element of cost, the risks involved in the constructing and running of nuclear power plants are overwhelming.
As much as there is increasing demand for energy resources, the returns on nuclear power plants may not be significant especially at the initial stages of production due to the fact that management of wastes from spend fuel is a costly affair.
Besides, waste disposal is a mandatory requirement in nuclear plants and as such, the operating costs may remain all time high, thereby jeopardizing operations. Building fossil fuel plants as well as coal plants has been quite easy in terms of cost compared to the construction of nuclear plants (Diesendorf, 2007).
There are highly charged views over the possibility of alleviating greenhouse gas emissions through the adoption of nuclear power generation. Acidic gases, solid wastes and metallic particles have been a concern for a lengthy period of time.
There seems to be concurrence that greenhouse gas emissions can indeed be reduced when nuclear power generation is given a serious thought instead of over-relying on fossil fuels (Sovacool, 2010).
Furthermore, the emission of acidic gases like the oxides of sulfur and nitrogen will significantly go down if fossil fuels such as coal and oil are sufficiently replaced with energy production using nuclear power. Although the cost benefit analysis of setting up a nuclear plant reveals hefty financial risk, the overall result is definitively impressive.
The other side of the coin must also be analyzed. When fossil fuel is replaced with nuclear power, the quantity of nuclear spent will be higher, necessitating the need for further disposal.
The control technologies for regulating emissions from nuclear power plants is yet another option that can reduce or completely eliminate the release of harmful waste products to the environment.
Environmental effects
Right from the initial stage of construction, a nuclear power plant is a real source of noise disturbance to the neighboring community. However, this kind of disturbance is quite common in most industrial establishments (Leeuwen & Smith, 2003).
For instance, the increase in traffic flow, digging of natural sites trough excavations by heavy machinery, destroying of the natural ecosystem by interfering of plant and animal habitats are likely to be experienced whenever a nuclear power plant is being constructed.
There are instances when the natural environment is completely defaced, leaving bare ground, deep valleys and rugged surfaces. Nonetheless, it is vital for an environmental impact assessment to be carried out before such construction works begin.
This type of assessment will ascertain any mitigation measures that need to be taken or put in place in order to reduce damage to the terrestrial and aquatic environment.
An impact assessment to the environment is carried out by environmental experts and a report outlining some of the measures to be taken as the construction goes on is released to the contractor (Diesendorf, 2008).
To begin with, the selection of a nuclear power plant site is an important step to take. A carefully selected site will by far and large, minimize the effects of these negative impacts to the environment.
For instance, it is highly recommended that a nuclear power plant be located away from human settlement. Residential places should not be positioned within the vicinity of nuclear plants.
Another environmental impact of nuclear power plants is the thermal discharges that emanates from heat that has not been used in the process of driving the turbines. Both the fossil fuel and heat generated from fission and fusion in the reactor are not conducive to the environment.
Complications arising from reproduction, growth and development of initial stages of tiny animal species like insects as well as children and adults.
In order to address this environmental problem, there are regulatory agencies whose main role is to set up standards regarding water temperature and the associated discharges being released into the environment (New Nuclear Energy Agency, 2008).
The aquatic populations may also undergo demise due to exposure to extremely hot discharges. The transmission lines that are highly visible is a common sight in locations where nuclear power plants have been located. These lines serve the purpose of transmitting electricity at very high voltage.
Although underground cable can be used t transmit electricity from the source of production to various destinations, such an undertaking is not economically feasible and may as well translate into a financial risk.
Hence, the net returns on nuclear power projects may be hampered by not only the cost of transmitting electric power from one location to another, but also the impact posed to the environment by the transmission lines such as accidents, requirement of additional space to erect power lines and so on (Benduhn, 2009).
The ionizing radiation emanating from nuclear reactors is indeed the man cause of worry when generating power using nuclear power. Strict monitoring of the power generating plant is necessary at all times.
Any slight leakage from the system may lead to hum exposure to high power penetrating radiation such as gamma rays and beta particles. In particular, the former has a very high penetrating power and can render the victim dead or with complications after a short period of exposure.
In summing up, it is vital to reiterate that the cost-benefit analysis of the environmental impacts of nuclear power generation reveals that in spite the high cost of establishing a nuclear plant in addition to the exaggerated costs of managing wastes in from of spent fuel, this form of energy production is a potential alternative to fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal.
The total volume of waste products generated by a nuclear plant per annum has also been found to be significantly low compared to other forms of energy production. Nonetheless, the most satisfying way of managing these wastes is still a challenge up to date.
The high cost of installing subsidiary systems within the nuclear plant to eliminate toxic wastes requires and additional capital investment (Sovacool, 2008). Furthermore, nuclear power generating plants are by far and large considered most convenient in the production of energy compared to coal or oil resources.
The major disadvantage in terms of cost benefit analysis remains to be the relatively high cost required to set up the plant as well as maintenance costs. Of great importance in any nuclear plant is the ability to isolate waste without releasing any amount into the ambient environment.
Finally, if waste disposal methods such as burial and reprocessing can be applied to the latter, the negative environmental impacts of this form of energy production can be feasible and highly reliable when demand is low or high.
References
Benduhn, T. (2009). Nuclear Power, New York: Gareth Stevens Inc.
Department of Energy, DOE. (1988). Data Base for 1988: Spent Fuel and Radioactive Waste Inventories, Projections and Characteristics. DOE/RW-0006, Rev, 4. Washington, D. C.
Diesendorf, M. (2007). Greenhouse Solutions with Sustainable Energy, Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.
Diesendorf, M. (2008). Is nuclear energy a possible solution to global warming? Web.
Eisenbud, E. & Gessell, T. (1997). Environmental Radioactivity from Natural, Industrial, and Military Sources, Fourth edition, Academic Press, San Diego.
Eisenbud, E. & Paschoa, A. S. (1989 ). Environmental radioactivity, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, A280, 470-482.
Findlay, T. (2010). The Future of Nuclear Energy to 2030 and its Implications for Safety, Security and Nonproliferation: Overview, The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI), Ontario: Waterloo.
Hantula, R. & Voege, D. (2009). Nuclear Power, New York: Infobase Publishing.
Leeuwen, V.S. & Smith, P. (2003). Nuclear Power — The Energy Balance. Web.
Molak, V. (1997). Fundamentals of Risk Analysis and Risk Management, New York: CRC Press Inc.
Morris, N. (2007). Nuclear Power, MN: smart Apple Media.
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, NCRP. (2004). Radiological assessment: predicting the transport, bioaccumulation, and uptake by man of radionuclides released to the environment, NCRP, Bethesda.
New Nuclear Energy Agency. (2008). Nuclear Energy Outlook 2008, New York: AEN NEA.
Nunn, S. & Ebel, E.R. (2000). Managing the global nuclear materials threat: a report of the CSIS Nuclear materials management,Washington D.C.: CSIS Press.
OECD Nuclear Energy Agenc. (2003). Nuclear energy today, Issue 964, New York: AEN NEA.
Ramana, M.V. (2009). Nuclear Power: Economic, Safety, Health, and Environmental Issues of Near-Term Technologies, Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 34: 127 -152.
Simon, A.C. (2007). Alternative energy: political, economic, and social feasibility Plymouth: Rowman & LittleField.
Sovacool, B. K. (2010). A Critical Evaluation of Nuclear Power and Renewable Electricity in Asia. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 40(3), 369-400.
Sovacool, B.K. (2008). The costs of failure: A preliminary assessment of major energy accidents, 1907–2007, Energy Policy, 36 (5): 1802-1820.
Suppes, J.G.& Storvick, S.T. (2007). Sustainable nuclear power, Burlington: Elsevier.