Written by Rodney Michel, BS Petroleum Engineering, TBP

The demand for power energy in the world is growing along with the need to replace finite supplies of fossil fuels with alternative, economic, and environmentally responsible sources of fuel used in power energy production. Nuclear power generation uses fission technology, reactors, steam turbines, and primarily uranium-based radioactive fuels. Because nuclear power emits no Greenhouse Gases, like CO₂, CO, NO_x, H₂S and SO₂ like fossil fuel based power; it can be considered ‘clean’ energy. The known land-based conventional uranium resource worldwide is 4 million tones; which should last 65 years at current consumption rates without reprocessing. Some unconventional uranium sources include seawater, coal, shales, and granite, which can add fuel for potentially billions of years. The CANDU reactor design has the highest performance rating of all other reactors and is able to be refueled at full power. Fission of an atom of uranium produces 10 million times the energy of combustion of an atom of carbon from coal. Power generating capacity for both nuclear and petroleum plants average about 75%, with nuclear as more reliable. The standard nuclear reactor size is 1000 MWe electrical. Nuclear is greatly benefiting countries such as France who are dependent upon 70% of their power generated by nuclear plants with Japan also getting 30% nuclear power. Countries that lack large resources of fossil fuels benefit the most. The nominal cost to build a 1000 MWe plant is $2 billion, however, if reactors were built upon a larger scale it can be reasonably expected that $1 billion/1000MWe plant. Fuel costs of nuclear power production average 16-33% of those for fossil production, with capital and non-fuel operating costs nearly equivalent. Fuel pellets cost approximately $7 (US) and has the equivalent energy of three barrels of oil or one ton of coal. It is estimated that reactors have a very conservative life expectancy of 40 years due to nuclear damage to the reactor structure. The radiation-cancer link in the mind’s eye of public perception is acute. The primary theory explains cancer risk of low-level radiation (LLR) with the Linear No-Threshold Theory (LNT). The success of the development of nuclear energy in capitalistic countries depends significantly upon the failure or success of the political left along with the cost of petroleum. Technology currently is available to properly store radioactive wastes. Professional engineers are required to design, build, and operate nuclear power plants which emphasis upon cross-disciplinary educational backgrounds. Individuals must complete a 12-16 month licensed operator-training program paid for by the company.

This report gives a comprehensive overview of nuclear power as compared to fossil fuel generated power to fulfill the requirements set forth in the Fuels course at BCIT. Research using books, manuals, periodicals, and many Internet articles has provided the information necessary to construct this report during the September through November 2000 time period. The report discussion, past and current events, concepts, politics, and economic considerations that define the status and development of nuclear power by use of tables, graphs, and charts illustrating the effectiveness of proper data presentation to define key aspects of this highly technical subject in reasonably easy to understand terms. The environmental aspects, raw ore mining and transportation of uranium fuel, reactor designs, nuclear power generation and storage are explained in the first segment of the report. Next supply-demand style economics are shown; along with profitability of the nuclear industry and basic servicing/maintenance costs to produce the electrical power. Lastly Barriers involving public perception, politics or government, disposal of wastes, and a touch of educational requirements needed to work in the nuclear power industry are examined. 

A total of 436 nuclear power plants were operating around the world in 1999 with 38 more plants reported as under construction.¹

In reading this report, the following conversions in Table 1 must be understood to appreciate the power output of the nuclear plants.

A Btu is a standard unit for measuring the quantity of heat energy equal required to raise the temperature of one pound or 16 ounces of water by one degree Fahrenheit.

Efficiency is derived by dividing the heat content of 1 kWh or electricity or 3,412 Btu/kWh by the number of Btu contained in the input used to produce 1 kWh.

*Note: This is a an equivalent quantity of energy without time units

Table 1: Energy Measurement and equivalents

Total Energy Consumption based upon the calculations of the United States Census for the Mountain Region in 1997 for 6,200,000 households is shown in Table 2 with a calculated average per home consumption of each fuel.

**Excluding Kerosene and Fuel oil for which data is N/A

Table 2: Fuel energy type and average household consumption¹⁹

Burning of petroleum produces harmful CO₂, CO, NO_x, H₂S and SO₂ gases in the atmosphere whereas nuclear does not. And pelagic tar from oil spills or improper disposal in the oceans, which is harmful towards sea life by interfering with their sensory organs and behavior patterns. A CO₂ cycle diagram is show below in Figure 2 thus highlighting the importance of limiting Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions ¹⁷

Figure 2: Carbon dioxide cycle

Zero risk of large scale oil spills.² Comparing a nuclear vs. an oil burning 1000MWe power plant, the nuclear plant emits zero SO₂ and NO_x vs. 16,000 and 20,000 tons respectively for the oil burning plant.¹³ Since 1973 the use of nuclear power to offset the demand for electricity generated from coal and oil burning has resulted in a cumulative reduction of 1.6 billion metric tons of CO₂, 65 million tons of SO₂, and 27 million tons of NO_x. Even more interesting is that nuclear is cleaner than hydroelectric, because the dams for hydroelectric back up organic matter which decays and releases methane gas into the atmosphere.¹³

A case study completed by the US Department of Energy Information Administration in 1996 compared using energy-saving methods such as more efficient controls on boilers, incentives for energy-saving appliances, generating electricity from natural gas, burning of gases from landfills and planting of trees to soak up carbon dioxide with nuclear power. The clear winner was nuclear power by cutting a range of 2-10 million tones of CO₂ emissions/plant.¹⁴

The known land-based conventional uranium resource worldwide is 4 million tones; which should last 65 years at current consumption rates without reprocessing. Potential reserves of uranium add 16 million tones. Canada is the world’s leading uranium producer with 25% global production and 14% global reserves with Australia next with 19% production and 25% reserves. All Canadian uranium mines are located in Saskatchewan. The Cigar Lake deposit in Northern Saskatchewan represents 11% of the world’s reserves. A world overview of key reserves is shown in Table 3.¹⁶

*NOTE: Both McClean Lake and McArthur River began operation in 1999;
these figures reflect estimated production at full capacity.

Table 3: Key Uranium Ore Deposits in the World

Geologically the Cigar Lake deposit has taught scientists and engineers that 98% of the ore exists as an oxide ore, UO₂, and that the ore is protected from groundwater by a dome of clay as illustrated in Figure 3. Even though the Cigar Lake deposit is within a highly permeable sandstone host rock, the clay immobilizes the penetration of the groundwater into the deposit; hence no diffusion of uranium atoms out of the deposit. The depth of the deposit is 430 meters, yet no chemical anomaly is detected from the surface. This lends well to Canada’s storage model using even greater control factors.

Another situation where radiation and clays interact is at the Loch Lomond in Scotland. There the lakebed contains high concentrations of uranium, radium, iodine, and bromine, which were deposited at the end of the last ice age. The clay reduces or holds the diffusion properties of highly mobile elements like iodine thus showing the significance of clay in locating high grade deposits, but also in storage plans for any wastes.¹⁶

Figure 3: Model of the Cigar Lake Deposit

Some unconventional uranium sources include seawater, coal, shales, and granite, which can add fuel for potentially billions of years.¹²

The "Finite Supply of Oil Theory" follows a general narrow bell curve developed by M. King Hubbard of the U.S. Geological Survey such as the one shown in Figure 4. Even though the timeline may not be entirely accurate owing to increased fossil fuel demands depleting reserves or major discoveries adding reserves, the consensus among many geoscientists is that the trend is realistic.

Figure 4: Graph showing the general "Finite Supply of Oil Theory"

Separation of isotopes of uranium is expensive, but it is inexpensive to separate different radioactive elements from each other. Numerous factors go into the high cost of refining including cost of ores, geographical location and technology employed.⁴ Raw ore usually contains about 0.72% Uranium which is not rich enough for all reactors except the CANDU, so a gaseous-diffusion plant concentrates the U-235 to 1-4%.

Special transport casks are used to move radioactive fuels and wastes. These casks can withstand being dropped 9 meters on concrete and 800ºC fire for 30 minutes or immersion in water for eight hours.¹⁶

Raw uranium/plutonium ore reserves can be mined at a flexible rate to meet world demand and to preserve future stocks of nuclear fuel for when it is needed by industry. Since most of the energy produced by a nuclear plant is in the form of heat, it is converted into electricity to move the energy in a flexible and convenient manner in electrical grid systems.

Transportation problems include theft of nuclear materials or sabotage of plants, but with well-trained security personal using high-tech equipment and communications, this is very unlikely in developed countries like the United States and Canada. Also engineers are also planning on having the ore refineries located nearby the nuclear plant thereby limiting the distance required to transport ore to the reactor. In instances of spills or contamination of the environment, the clean-up process may include removing and disposing of all soils and in rare instances may be impossible with only time allowing long term decay of dangerous radioactive isotopes into less harmful ones¹⁶

With petroleum pipelines, tankers, storage containers, railroads and trucks are used to transport both raw petroleum liquids and gases. Furthermore, a worldwide infrastructure is in place to facilitate this transportation with moderate amounts of regulation. Problem areas occur when petroleum is spilled and contaminates the environment. In instances like the Exxon Valdez disaster clean up is expensive and difficult; also remediation of soils and groundwater zones from leaking tanks or spills is a time consuming process.

Heavy water reactors use heavy water or deuterium which is water with an extra neutron added to the hydrogen written as: H₂O + neutron => D2O This water is much heavier than regular water and occurs naturally as one part/7000 parts. A useful feature of this D2O is that it has a cross-sectional absorption area that is 1/600^th that of regular water; in other words there is less area to slow down neutrons emitted from natural uranium allowing the neutrons to reach criticality.¹⁶

1) The Canadian CANDU (Canada Deuterium Uranium) reactors as shown in Figure 5 do not use enriched fuel instead of expensive heavy water. The designer is the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) which is a federal crown corporation¹⁶

Ø Highest performance rating of all other designs of this conventional reactors

Ø Can be refueled at full-power

Ø Removes need for burnable poisons in the core to suppress early core life reactivity

Ø Used in producing 13% of all Canadian electricity supply or 74Terra Watt Hours

Ø Can be used to dispose of weapons grade plutonium from American and Russian arsenals

Ø Holds natural uranium fuel bundles of 0.5m long and 20kg weight

Ø Uses D2O water coolant operating at 310° C @ 1,450psi

Ø The steam produced drives a turbo generator to produce electricity

 

Figure 5:  CANDU reactor design

2) Pressurized light-water reactors shown below in Figure 6 are used in US nuclear submarines. These use enriched U-235 fuel because the light water absorbs more neutrons than heavy water. The reactor is capable of producing 1,100 MWe of power and can operate 10-12 months before refueling. The light water is heated to 320° C @ 2,250psi which in turn drives a steam generator to produce power.

Figure 6:  Pressurized light water reactor design

Breeder reactors are built to handle the U-238 tailings from primary fission reactions. These reactor designs are the basis of all billion-year fuel resource estimates and extract over 100 times more energy than current mainstream reactor designs. Also more fuel is produced than consumed (i.e.) increases the natural supply of uranium.¹²

1. Liquid metal fast breeder reactors (LMFBR) called the Superphe´nix is shown in Figure 7 use liquid sodium as a coolant instead of water giving the following benefits:

Ø Increased production of fuel

Ø Built in France

Ø Higher power density in the core/smaller reactor size

Ø Better heat transfer characteristics to improve plant efficiency

Ø Uses a separate turbo generator building

Ø Simple to construct¹⁷

 

Figure 7: Superphe´nix light metal fast breeder reactor

2. Light water breeder

Ø The Shippingport Atomic Power Station project after running the reactor for five years had a net gain of 1.3% more Uranium fuel than at the start.

3. Integral fast reactor (IFR) is an experimental reactor design that reprocesses on site. Politics of the US Federal Government and ‘anti-nukes’ mothballed the project.¹²

Power is managed by temperature of the control rods and chemical shim i.e. boron, B-10, is dissolved in the coolant to form a power robbing concentration. When more power is needed, the B-10 concentration is diluted.⁸ Also by moving in and out control rods that absorb neutrons generated by fission to keep control rods from becoming to hot. The heat in turn is used to generate steam to drive turbines and make electricity.¹²

Fission of an atom of uranium produces 10 million times the energy of combustion of an atom of carbon from coal.¹²

Fertile material is an isotope that will readily absorb a neutron and undergo a series of radioactive decays with U-238 and Th-232 as most important elements. A fissile material is an isotope that will readily accept fission with U-233 & 235, Pa-239 as primary elements as Figure 8 illustrates via a chain reaction.³

Figure 8: Fission of nuclear material

The general goal of fission is to control the reaction using a moderator like heavy water or boron that slows down the velocity of neutrons emitting from core of the reactor during fission. A multiplication factor ‘K’ is used to express the number of surviving neutrons after fission. As the neutrons are emitted, they collide with other nuclei to split them. When K is <1, there is no chain reaction; when K>1 the chain reaction proceeds exponentially. The goal is to have a K=1 for optimum controlled reactions.

Fusion means fusing or joining two light nuclei together to form a heavier nucleus which is often unstable, hence yields energy trying to reach stability. A prototype for low-level fusion is shown in Figure 9 as a Tomahawk.¹⁷

Ø Basis for E=mc² since during fusion, the measuring of the masses of particles to be joined generally do not equal the mass of the particles of the joined product with the difference being energy, E.

Ø Occurs naturally in stars which fuse hydrogen gas, H₂, into helium or He and furthermore into heavier elements like iron, after which energy ceases to be released.

Ø Limitations of trying to create controlled man-made fusion reactions are achieving 100 million ° K and confining particle for enough time to allow them to fuse.¹⁰

 

Figure 9: Tomahawk fusion reactor model

Power generating capacity for both nuclear and petroleum plants average about 75%, with nuclear as more reliable.² The standard nuclear reactor size is 1000 MWe electrical.¹¹

Petroleum energy can be indefinitely stored as raw liquid or gases in the original reservoir formation or extracted and stored in pipelines, tanks, tanker ships and reserve salt domes. Much of the energy from petroleum is also generated as heat energy via a combustion process and converted directly to mechanical power. The petroleum does have the advantage of great flexibility and availability of infrastructure for petroleum to energy conversion such as aircraft, for which there is no feasible fuel substitute for petroleum.¹¹

A joint project of the Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL) and Los Alamos National Laboratory involves developing a small nuclear power supply called the Nuclear Battery. The main features of this design use a block of graphite filled with 500 fuel rods in the core that remotely transfer heat energy by pipes to a primary working fluid that flows out of the core and transfers its energy to a secondary working fluid; which condenses and flows back into the core. The entire process is passive and requires no pumping or external work energy. The fuel is composed of 20% enriched uranium kernels of 0.9mm in diameter that are coated with graphite and ceramics. The energy production lasts 15 years with 600kW net electricity capacity using a Rankine cycle engine connected to the heat pipes. The overall dimensions of the unit are 2 meters high x 2.5 meters in diameter.¹⁶

With petroleum, primarily the middle class and wealthy peoples in the world, but since petroleum provides money and the means of increased agriculture through chemicals and fuels, medicines, and transportation, most of the world benefits immensely. For work provided by combustion of petroleum vs. the amount of time and effort human kind would spend to complete the same task using traditional methods, petroleum is a bargain. Nuclear is greatly benefiting countries such as France who are dependent upon 70% of their power generated by nuclear plants with Japan also getting 30% nuclear power. Countries that lack large resources of fossil fuels benefit the most.¹²

Economic models depend upon a huge amount of variables in the energy industry. The following Figure 10 llustrates this point well and offers insight into the factors that must be considered during feasibility studies for the implementation of a major electricity generation plant.

Figure 10: Various variables that must be considered in economic energy models

As world population grows nuclear can provide the large amounts of electricity needed for the shift from fossil fuel based transportation to light rail and electric automobiles.¹

If all energy were nuclear and world energy consumption at American standards given the present population, 40,000 reactors would be required. But for world consumption at American standards given 15 billion in population would require 120,000 reactors in 6,000 power plants.¹¹

Unconventional uranium sources include seawater, coal, and granite, which theoretically can provide enough fuel for billions of years.¹²

The CANDU reactors can be built in countries with minor heavy-industry infrastructure and offers flexible access to natural uranium fuel markets.¹⁶

The nominal cost to build a 1000 MWe plant is $2 billion (based upon an estimate from a Canadian proposal to build a reactor in Indonesia). However, if reactors were built upon a larger scale it can be reasonably expected that $1 billion/1000MWe plant. It would require an investment of $4 Trillion to generate all American energy, which translates into less than one year’s US GDP of $6 Trillion.¹¹

Total value of Canadian nuclear electricity in 1994 was $4 billion CND with a trade surplus of $500 million in 1991 making it one of only two Canadian high-tech industries (along with aerospace) showing annual trade surpluses.¹⁶

Breeder reactors are extremely expensive to build and generally cost 1.5 times as much than conventional reactors.¹¹ The abundance of relatively inexpensive uranium is a major factor in limiting the numbers produced of this reactor design.¹²

In order to accurately compare the competitiveness of nuclear energy, plant-by-plant analysis is critical since electricity prices vary by region. Factors to consider in such an evaluation include:

Ø The total surplus generating capacity of the region and how long the surplus is expected to last

Ø Emissions costs constraints in fossil fuel depended plants under the Clean Air Act (for example)

Ø Total transmission constraints

Ø Capital requirements now average $10-15/kW/year

Ø Regulatory climate which may cause premature shutdown of a plant before its operating license expires

Fuel costs of nuclear power production average 16-33% of those for fossil production, with capital and non-fuel operating costs nearly equivalent. Lawsuits by special interest political groups inflate the capital costs of nuclear over the short term.² Fuel pellets cost approximately $7 (US) and has the equivalent energy of three barrels of oil or one ton of coal.¹³ After two years of fission, the fuel rods are ‘spent’ and must be removed or replaced by new ones. Since there are still useful U and Pa isotopes which can be recovered by reprocessing and using as reactor fuel.¹²

When a country decides not to reprocess, the spent fuels remain radioactive longer and requires more security due to high plutonium contents this translates into higher costs.¹²

Most reactors require one to two months to replace 1/3 of the spent fuel rods, but CANDU reactors replace fuel continuously. Then when fuel rods are replaced additional costs of building new storage in water filled cooling tanks becomes necessary.¹² Table 4 compares fuels by cost, amount of fuel wasted and frequency to refuel for uranium, coal, OPEC oil and natural gas.

Table 4: Cost Comparison of fuels

It is estimated that reactors have a very conservative life expectancy of 40 years due to nuclear damage to the reactor structure. Replacing parts of the facility is not as expensive as rebuilding a whole new plant.¹¹

To decommission a nuclear power plant, $300-500 million is the average range of costs.

The radiation-cancer link in the mind’s eye of public perception is acute. The primary theory explains cancer risk of low-level radiation (LLR) with the Linear No-Threshold Theory (LNT). This means that no level or radiation exposure is safe, that radiation absorption is a cumulative process, and that even a single particle or radiation hitting a DNA molecule in the human body can initiate a cancer, hence risk is directly proportional to the number of ‘hits’. Oral ingestion is generally harmless when it comes to a toxic substance like plutonium; the real risk is inhalation where plutonium has a cumulative effect in lung tissue. Considerations of this theory are as follows:

4. Primary methodology used in Federal regulatory purposes due to the conservative nature

5. Human body produces DNA repair enzymes

6. Cancer development is a multi-stage process

7. Radiation can alter cell timing

8. Immune system plays an important role in preventing cancer development and its effectiveness can by altered by radiation

9. Natural radiation exposure in the form of gamma rays are directly related to geographical region

10. Radon effects in homes

11. Defining control groups and performing studies without infinite variables⁹

It is widely perceived that nuclear plants can blow up like a bomb. The large size of the plant vs. the compact size of the plant, make such an occurrence is unlikely based upon fundamental physics of fission neutron velocity. However, faulty plant design coupled with operation errors increase explosion risk.¹²

Nuclear power plant fuel rods being used to make bombs are a public concern. Although the Soviets are speculated to have used Pa from their reactors (same design as Chernobyl), the costs to separate the necessary bomb components and small yield make this prohibitive to most countries. However, India uses Canadian built CANDU clone reactors capable of producing the weapons grade plutonium for their internationally politically unacceptable underground weapons tests.¹⁶

The Three Mile Island and Chernobyl events have created international public concern. With Three Mile Island, no detectable radiation was emitted and with Chernobyl, the design of that plant had no containment structure like Western reactors and the 1000 extra deaths projected are 1/10^th the deaths/year due to coal mining black lung disease.¹³

The success of the development of nuclear energy in capitalistic countries depends significantly upon the failure or success of the political left along with the cost of petroleum.⁶ The single largest activity of the US Military is ensuring the security of the Middle East for U.S. Interests, chiefly the US dependence upon imported oil.² The U.S. is not reprocessing fuel rods on the grounds that ‘nuclear proliferation’ or increase in use of nuclear projects and arms would be reduced. This decision was made during the Carter Administration and later the Reagan/Bush Administrations wanted to reprocess but the political fallout would have been high, so the proposal has been temporarily halted.¹²

Technology currently is available to properly store radioactive wastes and studies have estimated temperature effects upon host rocks of the storage facilities as shown below in Figure 11.¹⁷ The Canadian waste storage plan is to encase the wastes into corrosion-resistant containers surrounded by bentonite clay, then insert them into chambers up to 3000 feet deep into Canadian Shield batholiths or granite intrusives. The project cost is estimated to be around $9-13 billion CND over a 60-90 year period which means the consumer will pay less than 1% of the electricity costs to achieve this result. An engineering simulation has shown that radionuclides will be effectively immobilized from reaching the biosphere for several hundred thousand years.¹⁶

Figure 11:  Temperature-depth of burial vs. time curve

At Yucca Mountain research scientists are injecting tracer gas into an input borehole and recovered from a distant output borehole. This yields time travel information for fluids and gases, thus simulating how fast radioactivity might move from stored nuclear waste.¹

When fuel rods are reprocessed, each reactor would produce one cubic meter of waste/year. The Canadian plan currently is focusing upon storing waste deep underground in the Pre-Cambrian shield.¹²

Professional engineers are required to design, build, and operate nuclear power plants which emphasis upon cross-disciplinary educational backgrounds. Individuals must complete a 12-16 month licensed operator-training program paid for by the company. This program strongly emphasizes reactor physics, thermodynamics, and fluid flow along with plant-integrated operations, transient and accident analysis procedures. Then the reactor operator must complete a rigorous written examination, plus demonstrate competence on a simulator before being eligible for certification and licensing. Some institutions whom offer academic programs in nuclear energy include: Air Force Institute of Technology, Columbia University, Cornell University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Oregon State University, Purdue University, Texas A & M University, and the University of California at Berkeley among others.

Nuclear power is an economically viable energy alternative to fossil fuels depending upon many factors. When developing nuclear power the environmental benefits, availability and transportation of radioactive fuel, reactor design, generating and storage capacity of each design must be tailored to meet existing and future demands by the end consumer in an economic, sustainable way as to not endanger the health of consumer or that of future generations of consumers.

REFERNCES

Internet Sources

1. U.S. Ambassador: Nuclear Power a Deterrent to Climate Change, Environment News Service, 2000, Available at: http://ens.lycos.com/ens/mar2000/2000L-03-20-03.html

2. Smith, Roy, Nuclear Power: Energy for Today and Tomorrow, Available at: http://pw1.netcom.com/~res95/energy/nuclear.html

3. Breeder Reactors, Available at: http://pw1.netcom.com/~res95/energy/breeder.html

4. McCarthy, John, Relevant Very Elementary Physics, Mostly Nuclear, Stanford University, 1995, Available at: http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/physics.html

5. International Symposium Concluded that Uranium Supply for Nuclear Power is Secure, International Atomic Energy Agency, 2000, Available at: http://wwwiaea.org/worldatom/Press/P_release/2000/prn2600.shtml

6. Nuclear Politics, Stanford University, 1996, Available at: http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-politics.html

7. Cohen, Bernard, How Long will Nuclear Energy Last?, Pittsburgh University, 1996, Available at: http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html

8. Guthrie, B. Alan, Technical Supplement on Nuclear Energy, Available at: http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-supplement.html

9. Cohen, Bernard L., Validity of the Linear No-Threshold Theory of Radiation Carcinogenesis at Low Doses, The Uranium Institute, Twenty Third Annual International Symposium 1998, Available at: http://www.unilondon.org/sym/1998/cohen.htm

10. Heeter, Robert F., Fusion as a Physical Phenomenon, 1994, Available at: http://fusedweb.pppl.gov/FAQ/section1-physics.txt

11. What If All Energy Were Nuclear, 1996, Available at: http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/whatif.html

12. McCarthy, John, Frequently Asked Questions About Nuclear Energy, Stanford University, 1995, Available at: http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html

13. Cabreza, Neil M., Nuclear Power VS. Other Sources of Power, Department of Nuclear-Engineering, University of California, Available at: http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/thyd/ne161/ncabreza/sources.html

14. Activities on Climate Technology: Inventory for Nuclear Generation, Nuclear Energy Agency, Available at: http://www.nea.fr/html/ndd/climate/acting.html

15. Bossew, Peter, The True Price of Nuclear Power, Available at: http://www.ratical.com/radiation/WorldUraniumHearing/PeterBossew.html

16. Whitlock, Dr. Jeremy, The Canadian Nuclear FAQ, 2000, Available at: http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~cz725/cnf.htm

17. Siever, Raymond, Energy and Environment, Scientific American, San Francisco, W. H. Freeman and Company, 1980

18. Energy in Transition 1985-2010, National Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, W. H. Freeman and Company, 1980

19. Total Energy Consumption in U.S. Households by Climate Zone, 1997, Census for the United States Department of Energy, 1997, Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs97_cd/t1_12c.html