European Physical Societymore than ideas

ENERGY FOR THE FUTURE!e Nuclear Option

A position paper of the EPS

The EPS position

The European Physical Society (EPS) is anindependent body funded by contributionsfrom national physical societies, other bodiesand individual members. It represents over100,000 physicists and can call on expertise inall areas where physics is involved.

The Position Paper consists of two parts,the EPS position, summarising the recommen-dations, and a scientific/technical part. Thescientific/technical part is essential to the Posi-tion Paper as it contains all facts and argumentsthat form the basis of the EPS position.

1. The objective of the Position Paper(Preamble)

The use of nuclear power for electricity gene-ration is the subject of worldwide debate: somecountries increase its exploitation substantially,others gradually phase it out, still others for-bid its use by law.This Position Paper aims ata balanced presentation of the pros and consof nuclear power and at informing both deci-sion makers and the general public by com-municating verifiable facts. It aims tocontribute to a democratic debate which ack-nowledges scientific and technical facts as wellas people’s proper concerns.

2. Future energy consumption andgeneration of electricity (Section 1)

The increase of the world population from 6.5billion today to an estimated 8.7 billion in2050 will be accompanied by a 1.7% increasein energy demand per year.No one source willbe able to supply the energy needs of futuregenerations. In Europe, about one third of theenergy produced comes in the form of electric

energy, 31.0% of which is produced by nuclearpower plants and 14.7% from renewableenergy sources. Although the contributionfrom renewable energy sources has grown si-gnificantly since the beginning of the 1990s,the demand for electricity cannot be satisfiedrealistically without the nuclear contribution.

3. Need for a CO2 free energy cycle(Section 1)

The emission of anthropogenic greenhousegases, among which carbon dioxide is the maincontributor, has amplified the natural green-house effect and led to global warming. Themain contribution stems from burning fossilfuels. A further increase will have decisive ef-fects on life on earth.An energy cycle with thelowest possible CO2 emission is called forwherever possible to combat climate change.Nuclear power plants produce electricity wi-thout CO2 emission.

4. Nuclear power generation today(Section 2)

Worldwide, 435 nuclear power plants are inoperation and produce 16% of the world’s elec-tricity. They deliver a reliable base-load andpeak-load of electricity.The Chernobyl accidentresulted in extensive discussions of nuclearpower plant safety and serious concerns wereexpressed. European nuclear capacity will pro-bably not expandmuch in the near future,whe-reas a significant expansion is foreseen in China,India, Japan, and the Republic of Korea.

5. Concerns (Sections 3 and 4)

As any energy source nuclear energy generationis not free of hazards. The safety of nuclearpower plants,disposal of waste,possible prolife-

1

ENERGY FOR THE FUTURE - The Nuclear Option

ration and extremists’ threats are all matters ofserious concern.How far the associated risks canbe considered acceptable is a matter of judge-ment that has to take into account the specificrisks of alternative energy sources. This judge-ment must be made rationally on the basis oftechnical arguments, scientific findings, opendiscussion of evidence and in comparison withthe hazards of other energy sources.

6. Nuclear power generation in thefuture (Section 5)

In response to safety concerns, a new genera-tion of reactors (Generation III) was developedthat features advanced safety technology andimproved accident prevention with the aim thatin the extremely unlikely event of a reactor-coremelt down all radioactive material would be re-tained inside the containment system.

In 2002 an international working grouppresented concepts for Generation IV reactorswhich are inherently safe. They also featureimproved economics for electricity generation,leave reduced amounts of nuclear wastes nee-ding disposal and show increased proliferationresistance. Although research is still required,some of these systems are expected to be ope-rational in 2030.

Accelerator Driven Systems (ADS) offerthe possibility of the transmutation of pluto-nium and the minor actinides that pose themain long-term radioactive hazard of today’sfission reactors.They also have the potential tocontribute substantially to large-scale energyproduction beyond 2020.

Fusion reactors produce CO2-free energyby fusing deuterium and tritium. In contrast tofission reactors there is essentially no long-livedradioactive waste. This promising option maybe available in the second half of this century.

7. The EPS position (Section 6)

Given the environmental problems our planetis presently facing, the present generation owesit to the future generations not to forgo a tech-nology that has the proven ability to deliverelectricity reliably and safely without CO2emission.Nuclear power can and should makean important contribution to a portfolio ofsources having low CO2 emissions. This willonly be possible if public support is obtainedthrough an open democratic debate that res-pects people’s concerns and is informed by ve-rifiable scientific and technical facts.

Since electricity production from nuclearpower is opposed in some European countriesand research into nuclear fission is supportedin only a few, the number of students in thisfield is declining and the number of know-ledgeable people in nuclear science is likewisedecreasing. There is a clear need for educa-tion in nuclear science and preservation ofnuclear knowledge as well as for long-termresearch into both nuclear fission and fusionand methods of waste incineration, transmu-tation and storage.

Europe needs to stay abreast of develop-ments in reactor design independently of anydecision about their construction in Europe.This is an important subsidiary reason for in-vestment in nuclear reactor RD&D and is es-sential if Europe is to be able to followprogrammes in rapidly developing countrieslike China and India, that are committed tobuilding nuclear power stations, and to helpensure their safety, for instance, through activeparticipation in the IAEA.

The EPS Executive CommitteeNovember 2007

Energy

fort

hefuture

-the

nucle

arop

tion

2

1. Need for sustainable energysupply with a CO2-free energy cycle

The availability of energy for everybody is a ne-cessary prerequisite for thewell-being of human-kind, world-wide peace, social justice andeconomic prosperity.However,mankind has onlyone world at its disposal and owes the next gene-rations a world left in viable conditions. This isexpressed by the term“sustainable”,the definition

of which is given in the Brundtland report [1]from1987: "Sustainable development satisfies theneeds of the present generationwithout compro-mising the chance for future generations to satisfytheirs".This ethical imperative requires that anydiscussion on future energy includes short-termand long-term aspects of a certain energy sourcesuch as availability, safety,and environmental im-pact. For the latter the production of and endan-germent by waste is of utmost concern,be it CO2

3

The European Physical Society has the responsi-bility to state its position on matters for whichphysics plays an important role and which are ofgeneral importance to society. The following sta-tement on TheNuclear Option and its role in fu-ture large-scale sustainable CO2-free electricitygeneration is motivated by the fact that manyhighly developed European countries disregardthe nuclear option in their long-term energy po-licy. Climate change, the growth of the world’spopulation, the finite resources of our planet,the strong economic growth of Asian and LatinAmerican countries, and the just aspirations ofdeveloping countries for reasonable standardsof living all point inescapably to the need for sus-tainable energy sources.

The authors of this report are members ofthe Nuclear Physics Board (NPB) of the EPS whoare active in the field of fundamental nuclear stu-dies, but with no involvement in the nuclearpower industry. The report presents our per-ception of the pros and cons of nuclear power asa sustainable source for meeting our long-termenergy needs.We call for the revision of phasingout of nuclear power plants that are functioning

safely and efficiently and we stress the need forfuture research on the nuclear option, in parti-cular on Generation IV reactors, which promise asignificant step forward with respect to safety,recycling of nuclear fuel, and the incinerationand disposal of radioactive waste. We empha-sise the need to preserve nuclear knowledgethrough education and research at Europeanuniversities and institutes.

Hartwig Freiesleben (Chair NPB),Technische Universität Dresden, Germany

Ronald C. Johnson,University of Surrey, Guildford, United Kingdom

Olaf Scholten,Kernfysisch Versneller Instituut, Groningen,The Netherlands

Andreas Türler,Technische Universität München, Germany

RamonWyss,Royal Institute for Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

November 2007,The European Physical Society6 rue des Frères Lumière,68060 Mulhouse cedex • France

PREAMBLE

ENERGY FOR THE FUTURE - The Nuclear Option>>> Scientific/Technical Part

from burning fossil fuels or radioactive wastefromburning nuclear fuel, to name only two.Thefollowing paragraphs delineate the situation oflarge scale primary energy sources and generationof electricity inEurope today and address the pro-blem of CO2-emissions. The world energyconsumption in the future is also addressed.

Large scale primary energy sources

In 2004 the total production of primary energyof the 25 EU countries was 0.88 billion tonnesof oil equivalent or 10.2 PWh (1 PWh = 1 Pe-tawatt hour = 1 billionMWh) [2].This energywas provided by a range of large-scale primaryenergy sources (nuclear: 28.9%; natural gas:21.8%; hard coal and lignite: 21.6%; crude oil:

15.3%) and their derivatives (coke, fuel oil, pe-trol) and on a smaller scale by renewable energysources (biomass and waste: 8.2%, hydro-power: 3.0%; geothermal: 0.6%; wind: 0.6%; atotal of 12.4%).Primary sources fulfill the needfor concentrated energy for industry, in agri-culture and private households, and for trans-portation. In addition, oil and gas can be usedas distributed sources and have the versatilityneeded for small-scale energy production as re-quired, for instance, in the transport sector. It isobvious from the numbers quoted above thatnuclear energy provides a substantial part of thepresent-day energy supply.

About 58.7% of the total energy generationcomes from the combustion of fossil fuels (hardcoal, lignite, crude oil, natural gas) and is ac-companied by the emission of CO2 that makesup 75% of the anthropogenic greenhouse ef-fect. The other important contributors are me-thane (CH4, 13%), nitrous oxide (N2O, 6%),and chlorofluorocarbons (5%) [2]. In order tocombat the greenhouse effect, the use of fossilfuels should be minimised, or their net pro-duction of carbon dioxide drastically reducedwherever possible.The largest potential for thereduction of CO2 emission is in the generationof electricity, in the transport sector and in theeconomic use, for instance, by saving, of energy.

Energy

fort

hefuture

-the

nucle

arop

tion

4

Wind turbines1.8%

Other powerstations 1.5%

Biomass-!redpower stations

2.1%

Oil-!red powerstations 4.5%

Lignite-!redpower stations

9.1%

Hydropowerplants 10.6%

Natural gas-!redpower 18.9%

Coal-!red powerstations 20.4%

Nuclear powerplants 31.0%

! Fig. 1: Electricity generation by fuel used in power stations,EU-25,2004 Source: [2]

" Fig. 2: Results of life-cycle analyses for CO2emission from electricitygeneration by variousmethods (Source: [5])

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Electricity Production

Indirect, from life cycle

Direct emissions fromburningTwin bars indicate range

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0Coal Gas Hydro Solar PY Wind Nuclear

Source: IAEA 2000

gramsCO!

equivalent/kWh

Generationofelectricity andCO2emission

The total electric energy production of 3.2PWh by the 25 EU countries corresponds to32.3% of all the energy produced by the 25 EUcountries in 2004. The itemisation accordingto various sources is shown in Fig. 1. About31.0% of this electrical energy came from nu-clear power stations, 10.6% from hydropowerplants, 2.1% from biomass-fired power plants,1.8% from wind turbines, 1.5% from othersources among which geothermal contributes0.2%; the contribution of photovoltaic was ne-gligible [2]. None of these sources emit CO2when operating. In contrast, gas, oil, and coalfueled power plants emit CO2; they togethercontribute 52.9% to the electric energy pro-duction.

It is obvious from these numbers that nu-clear power plants provide the mainstay of theEuropean electricity supply; they furnish on alarge scale the stable base load and, on de-mand, peak loads.Reducing their contributionto electricity supply will cause a serious lack ofelectricity in Europe.

All sources of electricity require dedica-ted plants to be built and fuel to be supplied.These activities involve extraction, processing,conversion and transportation, and contribute

themselves to CO2 emission. Together theyform the upstream fuel-cycle. There is also adownstream fuel-cycle. In the case of nuclearpower plants this includes the handling andstorage of spent fuel and, in the case of coal oroil fired plants, the retention of sulphurdioxide (SO2), unburnt carbon, and in anideal case the storage of CO2 [3] to avoidemission into the atmosphere. However, thistechnique requires substantial research sincethe effects of long-term storage of CO2 arenot known at present. The decommissioningof a power plant is also part of the downs-tream fuel-cycle. Both the upstream and thedownstream fuel-cycle inevitably involveCO2 emission. The advantages or disadvan-tages of a particular process of electricity ge-neration can be discussed realistically only ifthe whole life-cycle of a system is assessed.

The amount of CO2 emitted for 1 kWh ofelectric energy produced, sometimes called thecarbon footprint, can be calculated as a by-pro-duct of life-cycle analyses [4].The results ob-tained depend on the power plant consideredand yield a spread of values which are shown aspairs of bars for each fuel in Fig. 2.

5

# Fig. 3: Pasterze–Glaciertongue with Großglockner (3798m)(Source: [11])

About 1900 Year 2000

Other studies use different weightingsand arrive at slightly different values. TheGlobal Emission Model for Integrated Sys-tems of the German Öko-Institut [6] yieldsthe following values for CO2 in grams emit-ted per kWh: coal (app. 1000), gas combinedcycle (app. 400), nuclear (35), hydro (33) andwind (20) (cited by [7]). These values are li-kely to reflect the German situation and maynot be typical of other countries [8]. Forexample, France generates 79% of its electri-city from nuclear power (Germany 31%) andtherefore has lower CO2 emissions than Ger-many. Even if one adopts the values of ref. [4]a power plant burning coal still emits 29 to37 times more CO2 than a nuclear powerplant.That means nuclear electricity genera-tion (31.0% of 3.2 PWh) avoids the emissionof 990 to 1270 million tonnes of CO2 everyyear, while all the renewable energy sourcesstogether (14.7% of 3.2 PWh) save less thanhalf as much.The nuclear saving is more thanthe 704 million tonnes of CO2 emitted by theentire car fleet in Europe each year (4.4

Tkm/year [2], 1 Tkm = 1 Terakilometer = 1million million km; 160 g/km [9]). Replacingnuclear electricity production by productionfrom fossil fuels in Europe would be equiva-lent to more than doubling the emissions ofthe European car fleet.The world-wide emis-sion of CO2 of about 28 billion tonnes [3]would increase by between 2.6 to 3.5 billiontonnes per year if nuclear fuel were to be re-placed by fossil fuel.

These examples of life-cycle analyses showundoubtedly that nuclear electricity is a negli-gible contributor to greenhouse gas emissionsand that this result is independent of the atti-tude towards nuclear energy taken by the ins-titution that carried out the analysis.

Climate change

Since the beginning of industrialisation theworld has experienced a rise in average tem-perature which is almost certainly due to theman-made amplification of the naturalgreenhouse effect by the increased emissionof greenhouse gases [10]. Evidence for thistemperature rise includes the melting of gla-ciers (Fig.3), permafrost areas, and the arcticice cap at an accelerated rate.

Over the same period the concentration ofanthropogenic greenhouse gases in the atmos-phere, among which carbon dioxide (CO2) isthe main contributor, has increased to a levelnot observed for several hundreds of thousandsof years; Fig. 4 shows the development of CO2concentration over the last 10,000 years.Thereis a consensus among scientists that a furtherincrease of the CO2 concentration in the at-mosphere will have detrimental effects on lifeon earth [10,12]. Thus increased emission ofgreenhouse gases, stemming mainly from theburning of fossil fuels, must be controlled asagreed in the Kyoto protocol [13].

6

! Fig. 4: CO2 concentration (parts per million, ppm) in theatmosphere during the last 10,000 years; inset panel: since1750 (Source: [10])

Energy

fort

hefuture

-the

nucle

arop

tion

World primary energy sources

Scenarios for future world primary energysources (as distinct from electricity sources) havebeen the subjects of many detailed studies.Thesustainable development scenario of the IEA/OECD study [14] predicts the progressionshown in Fig. 5 in Gtoe (1 Gtoe = 1 Gigatonneof oil equivalent = 11.63 PWh) with the worldpopulation growing from 6.5 billion today to anestimated 8.7 billion in 2050.Tomeet the esca-lated demand for energy all sources available atpresent will have to step up their contribution.After 2030,when fossil fuels start to contributeless primary energy, as indicated by Fig. 5, nu-clear, biomass and other renewable energysources (hydroelectric, wind, geothermal) willhave to be increasingly exploited. According tothe “World EnergyOutlook,2004”of IEA [16]both energy demand and energy-related CO2emission will increase, up to 2030, at a com-pounded rate of about 1.7% per year.

It must be kept in mind that the main re-newable source of electricity is hydropower(cf. Fig. 1), the contribution of which cannotbe significantly increased in Europe in the fo-

reseeable future [17]; the same holds true forelectricity from geothermal sources [17].Windmill farms for electricity generationhave been built in large numbers in Europesince 1990; however, it is difficult to see howelectricity generation from wind will replaceelectricity generation by gas, oil and coal(52.9% in total) or by nuclear (31.0 %) in thenear future; the annual incremental increase isnot nearly large enough, as can be deducedfrom Fig. 5. Therefore, all possible sourcesmust be exploited in order to cope with thegrowing energy demand.

The most recent ambitious plan of theEU to reduce the CO2 emissions by 20%below the level of 1990 by 2020 [18] relies ona significant reduction of CO2 emission fromthe transportation sector, but also implicitlyon a much faster growth rate of photovoltaicand windmill farms than in the past. Howe-ver, electricity generation, for instance, by

7

# Fig. 5: Scenario of world primary energy sources for asustainable future (Source: [14], see also [15].) Note the sup-pressed zero point of the population scale.

World

Prim

aryE

nergyS

ources

(Gtoe)

30

25

20

15

10

5

6

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

World

Popu

lation(Billion

s)

Other Renewables

Biomass

Nuclear

Gas

Oil

Coal

Population

windmills, would have to increase by a factorof about 17 to draw level with nuclear elec-tricity generation. It is difficult to see howthis growth can be reached by 2020.This cal-culation does not even include the expectedadditional 1.7% increase in energy demandper year. In addition, energy storage devicesare needed to supply a weather-independentload; they are not available yet.Thus, the ob-jective of replacing nuclear electricity com-pletely by renewable sources is debatable ifnot unrealistic (see also [12]). Therefore, therealisation of the CO2 reduction plan of theEU depends heavily on the availability ofelectricity from nuclear power plants.

2. Nuclear power generationtodayNuclear energy is already used for large-scaleelectricity generation and is presently basedon fission of uranium-235 (U-235) and plu-tonium-239 (Pu-239) in power plants. It cor-responds to about 5% of the world’s totalenergy generation, supplies about 16% (2.67PWh) of the world’s electricity [19] and savesbetween 2.6 – 3.5 billion tonnes of CO2emission per year. Using the new solutionsmentioned below nuclear power has the po-tential to continue as a major energy source inthe long-term, with facilities that incineratenuclear waste and produce energy at the same

time and involve inherently safe designconcepts. At present (31 May 2007) 435 nu-clear power plants are in operation world-wide, 196 of them in Europe [19]. Varioustypes of reactors are in use: 264 PressurisedWater Reactors (PWR), 94 Boiling WaterReactors (BWR), 43 Pressurised HeavyWater Reactors (PHWR or CANDU), 18Gas Cooled Reactors( AGR&Magnox); inaddition, 11 Light Water Graphite Reactors(RBMK) are operating in Russia and one inLithuania; four Fast Neutron Reactors (FBR)in Japan [19]. There are 37 new units underconstruction, mostly in Eastern Europeanand Asian countries, which are going to pro-vide a power of 32 GW.

Reactors in Europe supplying electriccurrent to the grid and those under construc-tion or being planned are listed in Table 1(the letter “e” refers to electric power).

This capacity will probably remain un-changed in the near future with some up-grades (mainly in the Eastern Europeancountries) and life extensions. Some countries(Belgium, Germany, The Netherlands, Swe-den) are planning a gradual phase-out of nu-clear energy while in others (Austria,Denmark,Greece, Ireland, Italy, and Norway)the use of nuclear power is prevented by law.The situation in the Far East, South Asia andMiddle East is rather different: there are 90reactors in operation and a significant expan-sion is foreseen, especially in China, India,Japan, and the Republic of Korea [19].

Energy

fort

hefuture

-the

nucle

arop

tion

8

Replacing nuclear power plants by coal bur-ning plants is not an option since it would si-gnificantly increase the world’s total CO2emission. Renewable sources will not grow fastenough to replace nuclear power in the near fu-ture. In order to meet the growing demand forelectricity, the recent EU goal of CO2 reduction,and to avoid potentially disastrous climatechanges, the choice is not nuclear or renewablesources, but nuclear and renewable sources.

Nuclear power plants provide 16% of theworld’s electricity; they are a mainstay of Eu-rope’s electricity production and supply 31% ofits electricity. A few new power plants are underconstruction in Europe, whereas a significant ex-pansion of nuclear electricity generation is fore-seen in South Asia and the Far East.

3. Concerns

Risks and safety

Our daily life involves hazards that are all as-sociated with certain risks. This is also truefor energy generation. Since mankind is de-pendent on energy one must evaluate therisks that are inherent to different sources ofenergy in order to judge their merits. Scien-tists have developed tools to quantify the levelof risks.

For example, a risk-oriented compara-tive analysis was carried out by the Paul-Scherrer-Institute, Villigen, Switzerland[20], which focused on energy-related se-vere accidents in the years 1969 – 2000.One outcome is shown in Fig. 6 where thenumber of immediate fatalities per Giga-watt (electric) year is shown (note the non-linear vertical scale).

Nuclear power stations are seen to be theleast fatality-prone facilities. In the case ofthe Chernobyl accident, however, the long-term consequences must be considered.Theywere investigated by the WHO study groupin 2005 [21], which consisted of 8 UN spe-cialised agencies as well as governments ofBelarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine.The report listed 50 immediate casualtiesamong emergency workers who died of acuteradiation syndrome and nine children whodied of thyroid cancer. The question of thetotal number of deaths in the future that arecausally related to the release of considerablequantities of radioactive material into the en-vironment is a complex one and is also ad-dressed in detail in the WHO report [21].

While it is possible to investigate accidentsin the past, it is difficult to assess the possibleimpact of accidents that may take place in the

9

" Table 1: Europeannuclear power reactors[19]

future. Such a risk assessment was carried outby B. L.Cohen, who, in order to quantify risk,introduced a quantity he called “loss of life ex-pectancy” [22]. This science-based analysisshows that the risk from electricity generationby nuclear power plants is far less than otherrisks of daily life [22].

This objective assessment of relative riskhas to compete with the fact that there is fre-quently a significant difference between theperceived risk of an event and the actual chanceof this event happening.A small risk of a majoraccident is perceived differently from a largerisk of a minor accident, even though the totalnumber of casualties per year may be the samefor the two cases.This is particularly true in thepublic perception of nuclear energy where ra-dioactivity comes into play.

Radioactivity - the phenomenon of spon-taneous disintegration or transformation ofan atomic nucleus into another, accompaniedby the emission of alpha, beta or gamma ra-diation, referred to collectively as ionising ra-diation - is a facet of nature which existed

long before the formation of our planet. Ra-dioactive elements like thorium and uraniumare found in various regions of the world.Their abundance in the earth’s crust is about7.2 mg of thorium per kg of crust [23] and2.4 mg of uranium per kg of crust [24]. Bothelements decay and produce radium andradon, a radioactive noble gas, which leaksfrom ore-bearing deposits and constitutes aparticularly prominent source of natural ra-dioactivity near such deposits. Natural ra-dioactivity is also found in both flora andfauna. As an example, radioactive carbon-14(C-14), which is continuously produced bynuclear reactions in the earth’s atmosphere

Energy

fort

hefuture

-the

nucle

arop

tion

10

Fatalities/

GW

(e)y

T

OEC

D

100

10

1

0.1

0.01

0.001

Coal Oil Natural Gas LPG Hydro Nuclear

OEC

D

non-OEC

Dw/o

China

non-OEC

Dw/o

Bang

iao/Sh

iman

tan

non-OEC

Dw<ith

China

China

China

1994

-199

9

OEC

D

EU15

non-OEC

D

OEC

D

EU15

non-OEC

D

OEC

D

EU15

non-OEC

D

OEC

D

EU15

non-OEC

D

OEC

D

EU15

non-OEC

D

# Fig. 6: Comparison of aggregated, normalised, energy-rela-ted fatality rates, based on historical experience of severeaccidents that occurred in OECD countries, non-OECD coun-tries and EU15 for the years 1969- 2000, except for data fromthe China Coal Industry Yearbook that were only available forthe years 1994-1999. For the hydro chain non-OECD valueswere given with and without the largest accident that everhappened in China, which resulted in 26,000 fatalities alone.No reallocation of damages between OECD and non-OECDcountries was used in this case. Note that only immediate fata-lities were considered here. (A"er [20]). LPG: lique#edpetroleum gas

induced by the intense flux of cosmic radia-tion present in the solar system, enters thebiosphere and the food chain of all livingbeings. Furthermore, the bones of all animalsand humans contain, for example, the ele-ment potassium (K); its radioactive isotopeK-40 (with 0.0117% abundance) has a life-time longer than the age of the earth. In total,in the body of an average-sized person, aged25 and of 70 kg weight, about 9000 radioac-tive decays take place per second [25].

It is often claimed that nuclear powerplants emit radioactive material to a poten-tially hazardous extent. Many countries haveregulations which set upper limits to both theemission of ionising material via exhaust airand effluents and immissions into the envi-ronment (e.g., the Federal Immission ControlAct of Germany [26]), and compliance withthem is kept under strict surveillance. In ad-dition, the operation of power plants by thenuclear industry and research reactors areboth subject to strict regulations, the com-pliance with which is monitored by indepen-dent governmental agencies who may beauthorised to shut down a power station inthe case of violations. It has been found thatboth emission and immission close to nuclearpower plants is well within the spatial fluc-tuations of the background radiation [27]. Itshould be noted that coal-fuel power plantsalso emit radioactive material as coal contains0.05 to 3 mg uranium per kg [28]. Uraniumitself and its radioactive decay products can-not be completely retained by filters and areemitted into the environment [29].

Another widely spread assertion is thatcases of leukaemia occur more frequentlynear nuclear installations. However, studieshave shown that “the local clustering of leu-kaemia occurs quite independently of nuclearinstallations” [30], see also [31].The number

of cancer cases resulting from the Chernobylaccident was investigated by the WHO [21].The results were discussed above.

The safety of nuclear power plants is animportant issue. The devastating accident atChernobyl was related to a LightWater Gra-phite Reactor (RBMK), a type still used inRussia and Lithuania; such an accident is im-possible for all other nuclear power reactorsworld-wide because of the technology used.The further improvement of safety is one ofthe driving force behind the development ofnext generation reactors. They are construc-ted in such a way that either a reactor-coremelt-down is physically impossible or thisworst case scenario is incorporated into thereactor’s design so that the consequences areconfined to the reactor’s containment systemand do not affect the environment.The reac-tor’s containment system is also designed towithstand the impact of any aircraft.

Waste

Yearly, 10,500 tonnes of spent fuel are dis-charged from nuclear reactors world-wide[32]. The spent fuel must be either repro-cessed or isolated from the environment forhundreds of thousands of years in order toprevent harm to the biosphere. All radioac-tive nuclei contained in the waste will decaywith time to stable nuclei. Different nuclidesin radioactive waste, if ingested or inhaled,pose a different threat to living beings de-pending on their decay properties, decayrates and retention time. This threat can bequantified as radiotoxicity, a measure of hownoxious the radioactive waste is. Examplesof nuclides with a high radiotoxicity are thelong-lived isotopes of plutonium and theminor actinides (MA), mainly neptunium,americium, and curium, while the generallyshorter-lived fission products are less radio-

11

toxic and their radiotoxicity diminishes ra-pidly with time. Radioactive waste originatesnot only from the operation and decommis-sioning of nuclear power plants but alsofrom nuclear medicine and scientific re-search laboratories. The storage of this low-and medium-activity waste in suitable repo-sitories is not of major concern and is cur-rently practiced by several countries. Itshould be noted that all European countriesthat operate nuclear power plants (see Table1) and others that make use of radioactivematerial or ionising radiation have signedthe “Joint Convention on the Safety ofSpent Fuel Management and on the Safetyof Radioactive Waste Management” of theIAEA [33].

However, the handling of spent fuel in thelong-run is a major concern. In the short-run,the handling of spent fuel has been practicedsafely since the earliest days of nuclear reac-tors. After discharging a reactor, the spent fuelis temporarily stored on site under water toallow short-lived radioactive nuclei to decay.Afterwards, the spent fuel is either reproces-sed so that uranium and plutonium are che-mically removed and reused as reactor fuel, or,in the once-through cycle, packaged (mainlyby vitrification) for future long-term storage indeep underground repositories. In the once-through cycle spent fuel has to be stored for atleast 170,000 years to reach the radiotoxicitylevel of the uranium from which it originated.Removing 99.9% of the plutonium and ura-nium reduces the storage time to about 16,000years and future advanced recycling technolo-gies, which also remove the minor actinides(MA) would reduce the safe storage time ofthe remaining fission products to a little morethan 300 years [34]. The MA recovered needto be transmuted into shorter-lived fissionproducts or incinerated in dedicated facilities,which will be discussed later.

The long-term exclusion of water is themain problem to be dealt with in deep un-derground repositories. Possible sites for suchrepositories have been identified in severalcountries and their long-term geological sa-fety has been investigated in detail (cf. hand-ling of spent fuel of the Finnish reactor underconstruction at Olkiluoto [35]).This kind ofstorage solves the waste problem, at leasttemporarily, and in some cases does not pre-clude retrieving this material for future re-processing [35], [36].

Proliferation and extremists’ threat

The non-peaceful use of fissile material is amatter of utmost concern; see [37].When dis-cussing this issue one should distinguish bet-ween the fabrication of nuclear warheads bythe nuclear powers on the one hand and thatof simple bombs by extremists on the otherhand. Nuclear warheads are built by the nu-clear powers from highly enriched uranium(HEU) or from weapons grade plutonium; thelatter is not produced in reactors of nuclearpower plants but in special purpose reactors,that are tailored to yield mainly Pu-239 [38].Low-enriched uranium (LEU), as used as fuelin nuclear power plants, is not suitable for anexplosive device. Plutonium extracted fromspent nuclear fuel does not have the right iso-topic composition for convenient and efficientwarhead production. It must be stressed, the-refore, that the output of plutonium from nu-clear power plants is not useful for theproduction of nuclear warheads. The possibi-lity for a given country to develop a nuclearweapons programme does not depend simplyon the presence of nuclear power plants in thatcountry but also on the availability of repro-cessing and/or enrichment facilities.

A separate issue is the use of fissile mate-rial by extremists. A discussion of this threat

Energy

fort

hefuture

-the

nucle

arop

tion

12

can, for example, be found in [39].The fissilematerial chemically extracted from spent nu-clear fuel can, in principle, be used by extre-mists to build a nuclear device which has arelatively low explosive yield, maybe as muchas a few kilo tonnes of TNT equivalent [40],but releases copious amounts of radioactivedebris into the environment (cf. [41]). It isalso conceivable that a conventional bombcould be used to vapourise a rod of spent fueland disperse its radioactive material. To pre-vent such acts, the whereabouts of fissile ma-terial are tightly monitored by internationalagencies like the International AtomicEnergy Agency (IAEA), see also [42]. Sincereprocessing of nuclear fuel requires a majorindustrial plant the process can indeed betightly safe-guarded and thus diversion ofmaterial can be impeded effectively. In the fo-reseeable future, some Generation IV reactorswill produce far less plutonium comparedwith current reactors (see section 5) [43].

Another threat which cannot be ignoredlies in the possibility that extremist groupsmight acquire nuclear weapons directly fromthe dismantling of nuclear weapons arsenals.It is clear that in this case the extremist threathas no connection with the peaceful use ofnuclear technology.

4. Fuel cycles

Most of the reactors in use today are based onthe fission of U-235,which occurs when bom-barded with thermal (slow) neutrons; hencethe term thermal reactors. The same processoccurs for Pu-239 and U-233, which are bredin thermal reactors via neutron capture by U-238 and thorium-232 (Th-232), respectively.In contrast, the nuclear chain reaction in fastreactors is sustained with fast (energetic) neu-trons. Other thermal reactors include theMolten Salt Reactor (see chapter 5) and thoseof CANDU type. The latter are cooled andmoderated with heavy water and able to runwith natural uranium.Both can breed enoughU-233 to keep running, although fission pro-ducts have to be removed at regular intervals.Fast reactors can even breed more fuel (plu-tonium) than they consume (fast breeder reac-tors). In addition to this classification, twodifferent types of reactors can be distinguishedwith respect to their fuel cycles: the once-through cycle (mainly used in the USA) andthe closed-cycle (adopted, e.g., in France).These two will be discussed separately as eachhas its specific problems and advantages. Atfirst, however, the uranium ore reserves needto be adressed.

Uranium ore reserves

Conventional uranium resources are estima-ted to be 14.8 million tonnes. Among theseare about 4.7 million tonnes of identified re-sources. These are readily accessible and re-coverable at a cost of less than $130/kg ofuranium [44, 45]. The balance of about 10million tonnes is an estimate from detailedinvestigation and exploration and geologicalknowledge pointing to likely geographicalareas. This figure is probably an underesti-mate as only 43 countries have reported inthis category.

13

As any energy source nuclear energy gene-ration is not free of hazards. The safety of nu-clear power plants, disposal of waste, possibleproliferation and extremists’ threats are all mat-ters of serious concern. How far the associatedrisks can be considered acceptable is a matter ofjudgement which must take into account thespecific risks of alternative energy sources. Thisjudgement must be made rationally on the basisof scientific findings and on open discussion ofevidence and in comparison with the hazards ofother energy sources.

Other resources include unconventionaluranium resources (very low grade uranium)and other potential nuclear fuels (e.g. tho-rium). Most unconventional resources are as-sociated with uranium in phosphates (about22 million tonnes), but other potentialsources exist, for instance, seawater and blackshale.These resources are likely to be exploi-ted if the price of uranium increases.Thoriumis abundant, amounting to more than 4.5 mil-lion tonnes [46], although this figure missesdata from many countries with possible tho-rium deposits.

The figure of 4.7 million tones of identifiedresources needs to be compared with world an-nual uranium requirements of about 67 kilotonnes in 2005 [19].World reactor-related ura-nium requirements are projected to increase upto between 82 kilo tonnes and 101 kilo tonnesby the year 2025. The requirements of theNorth American and Western European re-gions are expected either to remain fairlyconstant or decline slightly, whereas require-ments will increase in the rest of the world [44].From these estimates it follows that there is en-ough uranium from identified resources to fuelnuclear reactors in a once-through cycle foranother 50 years. Taking into account theconventional (about 10 million tonnes) and un-conventional (about 22 million tonnes) re-sources, which are likely to be exploited if thereis a demand, uranium ore reserves will last forseveral hundred years even if uranium is used ina once-through cycle. If a closed fuel cycle isused, the supply of uranium suffices for thou-sands of years (see below).

The once-through, or open, cycle

After mining, the uranium ore is convertedinto uranium hexafluoride, UF6. The UF6 isisotopically enriched to increase the concen-tration of fissile U-235 nuclei to as much as

4.6%.The concentration of U-235 in naturaluranium, 0.72%, is too low for use in mostreactors except for the CANDU-type reac-tors, which can run with natural uranium.The fluoride form is next converted into en-riched uranium oxide, UO2, from which pel-lets are manufactured and assembled intorods. These rods stay in the reactor up toabout four years while the controlled chainreaction of nuclear fission continuously re-leases energy that is transformed into electri-city. Each stage of the production is acomplete industrial process in itself.

Because the spent fuel rods are not repro-cessed, all minor actinides and, in particular,the plutonium remain in the fuel rods in aform which cannot be used for convenientand effective weapon production. This inhe-rent safety regarding proliferation is themajor advantage of the once-through fuelcycle. Further advantages of this mode ofoperation can be found in [47].

The major disadvantage of this process isthat it produces radioactive waste that has tobe stored for hundreds of thousands of yearsin order to reduce its level of radiotoxicity tothat of natural ore.This cycle wastes uraniumand fissile plutonium. For example, in cur-rently running light water reactors the initialenrichment of U-235 is 3.3% and, in spentfuel, is still 0.86% [48]; the U-235 abundancein natural uranium is 0.72%.

The closed cycle

Processes in a closed-cycle reactor to a largeextent follow the same steps as in the once-through cycle.The main difference is that thespent fuel is chemically processed (Pluto-nium-Uranium Recovery by Extraction,PUREX), and plutonium and uranium are re-covered for further use as mixed oxide

Energy

fort

hefuture

-the

nucle

arop

tion

14

(MOX) fuel [49]. Extraction of uranium andplutonium from spent nuclear fuel is doneroutinely at La Hague (France), Sellafield(UK), Rokkasho ( Japan), and Mayak (Rus-sia). MA are not extracted and are the mainconstituents of the long-lived radioactivewaste which must be safely stored (see above:Waste) or incinerated/transmuted (see below:Future perspectives of handling of spent fuel).Of course, partitioning is a large-scale pro-cess, the associated risks of which have beenaddressed above (see: Proliferation and extre-mists’ threat). In facilities currently runningthe separated isotopes are strictly monitoredby inter- national bodies to keep records oftheir whereabouts.

An advantage of the closed fuel cycle isthat there is a much smaller demand for ura-nium ore. The recycled material can be usedin fast breeder reactors, which are a hundred-fold more efficient. With the currentlyknown supply of uranium ore fission reactorscould operate for 5,000 years instead of seve-ral hundreds of years with the once-throughcycle. The smaller demand for uranium orewill reduce the environmental impact of mi-ning and in addition ease geo-political and

economic conflicts over uranium ore supplies.Another possible closed fuel cycle is based onthorium [50] which is 3 – 4 times moreabundant than uranium.

Future perspectives for the handlingof spent fuel

The alternative to very long-time storage ofspent fuel is to incinerate (burn) it in dedicatedreactors ([43], see below) or transmute long-lived isotopes into short-lived ones by accelera-tor driven systems (ADS). Both processesrequire the effective partitioning of not onlyU/Pu but alsoMAs.The efficiency of parti- tio-ning is as high as 99.9%; that of incinera-tion/transmutation, however, is expected to bearound 20%. Hence several cycles of partitio-ning and incineration/ transmutation are nee-ded to significantly reduce the amount oflong-lived radioactive material [34].Then, aftera little more than three hundred years, a periodfor which safe storage is easily conceivable, theradiotoxicity of spent fuel is below that of theuranium from which the fuel originally came.

15

GFR Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor Efficient actinide management; closed fuel cycle.Delivers electricity, hydrogen, or heat.

LFR Lead-Cooled Fast Reactor Small factory-built plant; closed cycle with very long refuelling interval (15-20years). Transportable towhere needed for production of distributed energy,drinkable water, hydrogen. Also larger LFRs are under consideration.

MSR Molten Salt Reactor Tailored to an efficient burn up of Pu and MA; liquid fuel avoids need forfuel fabrication; inherently safe.

Ranked highest in sustainability; best suited for the thorium cycle.

SFR Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor Efficient actinide management; conversion of fertile U; closed cycle.

SCWR Super Critical Water-Cooled Reactor Efficient electricity production; option for actinide management; once-through uranium cycle in the most simple form; closed cycle also possible.

VHTR Very-High Temperature Reactor Once-through uranium cycle; electricity production and heat for petro-chemical industry, thermo-chemical production of hydrogen.

# Table 2:GenIV reactors and some of their speci#c proper-ties, extracted from [43]

Promising transmutation schemes basedon accelerator driven systems (ADS) havebeen studied in the last decades [51]. Thisnew concept is being pursued in Europe aswell as in Asia. The basic idea is to use a hy-brid reactor combining a fission reactor witha high-current, high-energy proton accelera-tor. The latter is used to produce a very in-tensive neutron flux which induces fission ina target of uranium, plutonium and MA.Theneutrons are needed to start and maintain thefission process and no self-sustaining chain-reaction is involved. In principle, such a hy-brid system could transmute radioactivewastes into short-lived fission products andsimultaneously produce energy.

A project in the 6th Framework Pro-gramme of the European Commission waslaunched which will design the first experi-mental facility to demonstrate the feasibilityof transmutation with ADS. A conceptualdesign is being developed in parallel for amodular industrial-level realisation [52].These studies must also encompass studieson reliability and economic competitiveness.Such hybrid systems have, besides the bur-ning of waste, also the potential to contri-bute substantially to large-scale energyproduction beyond 2020. ADS are in strongcompetition with Generation IV reactorsthat are also designed for effective burningof MAs (for Generation IV reactors see nextchapter).

5. Nuclear power generation inthe future

Advanced nuclear reactors

The energy scenarios for the next 50 yearsshow that it is vital to keep open the nu-clear option for electricity generation. Ho-wever, current reactor technologies andtheir associated fuel cycles based on U-235produce a large amount of potentially dan-gerous waste while for some types of reac-tors the risk of a catastrophic event isunacceptably high. As a result of these sa-fety problems and the association of nu-clear energy with the Chernobyl accidentand with nuclear weapons, the nuclear in-dustry is facing strong opposition in someEuropean countries.

In response, Generation III (GenIII)reactors have been developed, such as theEuropean Pressurised Reactor (EPR) pre-sently under construction at Olkiluoto,Finland, which presents a step forward insafety technology [35]. It features advancedaccident prevention to even further reducethe probability of reactor-core damage. Im-proved accident control will ensure that inthe extremely unlikely event of a reactor-core meltdown all radioactive material isretained inside the containment system andthat the consequences of such an accidentremain restricted to the plant itself. Therewill also be an improved resistance to directimpact by aircraft, including large commer-cial jetliners.

In 2001, over 100 experts from Argen-tina, Brazil, Canada, France, Japan, Korea,South Africa, Switzerland, the UnitedKingdom, the United States, the Interna-tional Atomic Energy Agency, and theOECD Nuclear Energy Agency began

Energy

fort

hefuture

-the

nucle

arop

tion

16

Open- and closed-cycle nuclear reactorsboth generate energy by neutron-induced fis-sion with heavy nuclei as fuel, but treat the wasteproduced in different ways. The open-cycle sys-tem is attractive from the point of view of secu-rity. Closed-cycle systems recover useable fuelfrom the waste and hence have a substantiallysmaller demand for uranium ore.

work on defining the goals for new sys-tems, identifying the most promisingconcepts, and evaluating them, and defi-ning the required research and develop-ment (R&D) efforts. By the end of 2002,the work resulted in a description of sixsystems and their associated R&D needs[43]. In the development of the Genera-tion IV (GenIV) reactors strong emphasisis placed on safety. A key requirement isthe exclusion of an accident like Cherno-byl. Additionally, these reactors will im-prove the economics of electricityproduction, reduce the amounts of nuclearwaste needing disposal, increase the resis-tance to proliferation, and introduce newfeatures such as hydrogen production fortransportation applications [cf. Table 2].There is also a possibility of using the tho-rium-uranium cycle. Its advantages – forinstance, the impossibility, as follows fromthe laws of physics, to produce plutoniumand/or minor actinides and, thus, the re-duction of the radiotoxicity of the wasteby a factor of about 1000 in comparison tothe once-through uranium cycle - was dis-cussed in a recent article [53].

Although research is still required,some of these systems are expected to beoperational by 2030.With the most advan-ced fuel cycles, combined with recycling, alarge fraction of the long-lived fissile ma-terial is incinerated, so that isolation requi-rements for the waste are reduced to a fewhundred years instead of hundreds of thou-sands of years.

It is too early to finally judge the relativemerits of ADS and GenIV reactors as energyproducing and waste incinerating/transmu-ting systems, but the overall favourable pro-perties of both are obvious. For a comparativestudy see [54].

Nuclear fusion reactors

A further option for nuclear energy gene-ration without fuel-related CO2 emissionis the nuclear fusion process. In 2005, animportant step towards its realisation wastaken by the decision to build the Interna-tional Thermonuclear Experimental Reac-tor, ITER, [55] in Cadarache, France. Inthis reactor deuterium and tritium arefused to form helium-4 and a neutron thatcarries 80% of the energy set f ree. He-lium-4 is the “non-radioactive ash” of thefusion process. Once in operation, such areactor breeds the tritium needed as fuelf rom lithium. Deuterium is a heavy iso-tope of hydrogen and available in naturein virtually unlimited quantity. The worldresources of lithium are estimated to be 12million tonnes [56], enough to considernuclear fusion as an energy source forsome considerable time. The constructionof a fusion power plant is going to use ma-terials for which, after the unavoidable ac-tivation by neutrons, the activity decaysrelatively quickly to the hands-on level wi-thin a hundred years. Thereafter, the ma-terial can safely be handled on aworkbench. Experience in handling ra-dioactive tritium justifies the assertionthat the fusion energy source is very safe.However, nuclear fusion might become asubstantial energy supplier at the earliestin the second half of this century becausethe technology of fusion reactors needsconsiderable further elaboration.

17

New reactor concepts (GenIV) will meetstringent criteria for sustainability and reliabilityof energy production, and those for safety andnon-proliferation. Nuclear fission and fusion havethe potential to make a substantial contributionto meeting future electricity needs.

6. Conclusion

Our considerations have led to the followingconclusions:

• No one source of energy will be able to fillthe needs of future generations.

• Nuclear power can and should make an im-portant contribution to a portfolio of electri-city sources.

• Modern nuclear reactors based on proventechnology and using advanced accidentprevention, including passive safety sys-tems, will make a Chernobyl-type acci-dent with all its consequences practicallyimpossible.

• Extensive and long-term research, develop-ment and demonstration programmes(RD&D), including all possible options fora sustainable energy generation, must beinitiated or continued. RD&D for a speci-fic option should be directed to the realisa-tion and evaluation of a functioningdemonstration system, for instance, onebased on a Generation IV reactor.

• Waste transmutation using the promising ac-celerator-driven (ADS) or GenIV reactorsshould be pursued; again, the necessary nextsteps are engineering development and de-monstration plants.

• The possibility of extending the life-timeof existing reactors should also be studied.

• The nuclear option should mean considera-tion of energy production by both fission andfusion processes.

• In view of the long period between de-monstration and realisation of any propo-sed scheme, the potential of the nuclearoption for the period beyond 2020 can onlybe judged on the basis of considerably in-

tensified and expanded RD&D efforts.Such efforts need the concerted efforts ofscientists and politicians in order to assessthe long-term safety and economic aspectsof energy generation.

• The May 2006 proposal of the EuropeanCommission for a common European energypolicy must be realised. This policy aims atenabling Europe to face the energy supplychallenges of the future and the effects thesewill have on growth and the environment[57], and follows an EC-Green Paper onEuropean strategy for the security of energysupply [58].

• An RD&D programme for the nuclear op-tion also requires support for basic researchon nuclear and relevant material science,since only in that way will the expertiseneeded to find novel technological solu-tions be obtained.

• Europe needs to stay abreast of develop-ments in reactor design independently ofany decision about their construction inEurope. This is an important subsidiaryreason for investment in nuclear reactorRD&D and is essential if Europe is to beable to follow programmes in rapidly de-veloping countries like China and India,who are committed to building nuclearpower plants, and to help ensure their sa-fety, for instance, through active participa-tion in the IAEA.

• RD&D needs to be performed on a globalscale. Problems connected with sustainableand large-scale nuclear energy productionsuch as waste deposition, safety, non-prolife-ration and public acceptance go well beyondnational borders.

• Policy makers decision must realise the ur-gent need to solve the green house problemwithin a well defined energy strategy, by sti-

Energy

fort

hefuture

-the

nucle

arop

tion

18

19

mulating and funding RD&D including thenuclear energy option.The European Com-mission has already taken on board this fun-damental concept [59].

• In order to obtain public acceptance andsupport a responsible and unbiased infor-mation programme on all aspects of nu-clear energy production is needed,supported by a public awareness pro-gramme which helps the general public tobetter appreciate and judge technologicalrisks and risk assessments in an industria-lised economy. Great efforts are needed toinform the general public of the short-termand long-term safety aspects and the eco-logical impact of the various technologiesthat contribute to highly industrialised re-gions in Europe. If nuclear technology is tocontribute to meeting Europe’s futureenergy needs and help to ameliorate the se-vere environmental effects of other energysources, it is essential to obtain public ac-ceptance. Otherwise, innovative develop-ments could be hindered and even stoppedby public opinion.

References (internet adresses e!ective1November2007)

[1]World Commission on Environment and Development, Our CommonFuture (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987)

[2] StatisticalOffice of theEuropeanCommunities http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.euSeealso:Europe in figures,eurostat yearbook 2006-07,ISBN92-79-02489-2,Electronic version:http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-CD-06-001-ENERGY/EN/KS-CD-06-001-ENERGY-EN.PDF

[3] Helmut Geipel, Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Arbeit, Berlin,Germany, at Greenpeace Workshop on “Klimaschutz durch CO2-Speicherung Möglichkeiten und Risiken“ (in German),www.greenpeace.de/fileadmin/gpd/user_upload/themen/energie/Geipel_BMWA_CCS_50926.pdf

[4] Externalities of Energy. A Research Project of the European Commis-sion, www.externe.info

[5] Uranium Information Centre Ltd.,GPO Box 1649N,Melbourne, Aus-tralia, www.uic.com.au/nip100.htm

[6] Öko-Institut e.V. (Institute for Applied Ecology) Postfach 50 02 40,79028 Freiburg,Germany, www.oeko.de/service/gemis/en/index.htm

[7] World Information Service on Energy (WISE), P.O. Box 59636, 1040LC Amsterdam,The Netherlands www.nirs.org/mononline/nukescli-matechangereport.pdf

[8] see also: Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (October2006,No. 268): Carbon Footprint of Electricity Generation, www.par-liament.uk/documents/upload/postpn268.pdf

[9] http://auto.ihs.com/news/2006/eu-en-auto-emissions.htm?wbc_purpose=Ba[10] International Panel on Climate Change, IPCC-report 2007,Working

group I, www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf[11] Gesellschaft für ökologische Forschung e.V.,Frohschammerstr.14,80807

München,www.gletscherarchiv.de/202006past1.htm, (in German)[12] International Panel on Climate Change, IPCC-report 2007,WG III

www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf[13] Kyoto-Protocol, http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/ kpeng.html[14] Energy to 2050: Scenarios for a Sustainable Future (2003), Interna-

tional Energy Agency (IEA/OECD) Paris, France,www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2000/2050_2003.pdf

[15] The Role of Nuclear Power in Europe,World Energy Council, 2007,www.cna.ca/english/Studies/WEC_Nuclear_Full_Report.pdf

[16] World Energy Outlook, International Energy Agency, 9 rue de laFédération, 75015 Paris, France, www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2004/weo2004.pdf

[17] Institute of Physics Report: The Role of Physics in Renewable Energy,RD&D, 2005

[18] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2007/com2007_0002en01.pdf

[19] World Nuclear Association, 22a St James's Square, London SW1Y4JH,United Kingdom,www.world-nuclear.org

[20] Paul Scherrer Institut (PSI), 5332 Villigen, Schweiz,TechnologyAssessment/ GaBE, http://gabe.web.psi.ch/research/ra/

[21] WorldHealthOrganisation,AvenueAppia 20,CH-1211Geneva27,Switzer-land, www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/index.html

No one source will be able to fill the needof future generations for energy. The nuclearoption, incorporating recent major advancesin technology and safety, should serve as oneof the main components of future energy sup-ply. There is a clear need for long-term re-search, development and demonstrationprogrammes as well as basic research into bothnuclear fission and fusion and methods ofwaste incineration, transmutation and storage.Ways must be found to inform the general pu-blic on how to assess relative risks rationally.Everybody participating in the decision ma-king process needs to be well informed aboutenergy issues. It is an important task of Euro-pean science and research to ensure this.

[22] Bernard L.Cohen: Before it’s too late; Springer 1983, ISBN-13: 978-0306414251, and www.ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/Bernard.Cohen.rankRisks.htm

[23] Mineral Information Institute, 505 Violet Street,Golden CO 80401,USA,www.mii.org/Minerals/photothorium.html

[24] Deutsche Zentrale für Biologische Information,www.biologie.de/biowiki/Uran (in German)

[25] Martin Volkmer, Radioaktivität und Strahlenschutz (in German),Courier Druckhaus, Ingolstadt, 2003, ISBN 3-926956-45-3, new edi-tion (in German),www.ktg.org/r2/documentpool/de/Gut_zu_wissen/Materialen/Down-loads/013radioaktivitaet_strahlenschutz2005.pdf

[26] Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit,Alexanderstraße 3, 10178 Berlin,Germany, www.bmu.de/files/pdfs/allgemein/application/pdf/anhang_a.pdf (in German)

[27] Niedersächsisches Umweltministerium; Archivstraße 2, 30169 Han-nover, Germany, www.umwelt.niedersachsen.de/master/C24150382_N23066970_L20_D0_I598.html

[28] Zur Geochemie und Lagerstättenkunde des Urans, (in German)Gebrüder Borntraeger, Berlin Nikolassse, 1962, ISBN 3-443-12001-6

[29] Strahlenschutzkommission,Geschäftsstelle beim Bundesamt fürStrahlenschutz, Postfach 12 06 29, 53048 Bonn,Germany,www.ssk.de/werke/volltext/1981/ssk8102.pdf (in German)

[30] Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum, Im Neuenheimer Feld 280,69120Heidelberg,Germany,http://web.archive.org/web/20050430173258/http://www.dkfz.de/epi/Home_d/Programm/AG/Praevent/Krebshom/texte/englisch/204.htm

[31] R.Neth: Radioaktivität und Leukämie,Deutsches Ärzteblatt 95, Aus-gabe 27, 03.07.1998, S. A-1740 / B-1494 / C-1386 (in German),www.aerzteblatt.de/v4/archiv/artikeldruck.asp?id=12227

[32] www.iaea.org/About/Policy/GC/GC51/GC51InfDocuments/ Eng-lish/gc51inf-3_en.pdf

[33] www-ns.iaea.org/conventions/waste-jointconvention.htm[34] A.Geist et al.: Reduzierung der Radiotoxizität abgebrannter Kern-

brennstoffe durch Abtrennung und Transmutation von Actiniden:Partitioning,NACHRICHTEN-Forschungszentrum KarlsruheJahrgang 36(2004) p. 97-102,http://bibliothek.fzk.de/zb/veroeff/58263.pdf

[35] Posiva Oy, 27160 Olkiluota, Finland, www.posiva.fi[36] The Long Term Storage of Radioactive Waste: Safety and Sustainabili-

ty; A Position Paper of International Experts, IAEA 2003,www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/LTS-RW_web.pdf

[37] Gerald E.Marsh and George S. Stanford: Bombs, Reprocessing, andReactor Grade Plutonium; Forum on Physics and Society of theAmerican Physical Society, April 2006,Vol. 35,No. 2http://units.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/2006/april/article2.cfm

[38] Management and Disposition of Excess Weapons Plutonium,NationalAcademy of Sciences (U.S.), Panel on Reactor-Related Options, 1995,www.ccnr.org/reactor_plute.html

[39] NuclearFiles.org, A Project of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation,1187 Coast Village Road, Santa Barbara CA 93108-2794, USA,www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/keyissues/nuclear-weapons/issues/terror-ism/introduction.htm

[40] J. Carson Mark, Science & Global Security, 1993,Vol. 4, pp 111-128www.fissilematerials.org/ipfm/site_down/ sgs04mark.pdf

[41] Making the Nation Safer - The Role of Science and Technology inCountering Terrorism. In: The National Academy Press (WashingtonDC,USA) 2002; http://books.nap.edu/ catalog.php?record_id=10415

[42] nuclearfiles.org, A Project of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 1187Coast Village Road, Santa Barbara CA 93108-2794,USA,www.nuclearfiles.org/ menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/issues/proliferation/fuel-cycle/index.htm

[43] A Technology Roadmap for Generation IV Nuclear Energy System,issued by the U.S.DOE Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Commit-tee and the Generation IV International Forum,Decembre 2002,www.gen-4.org/Technology/roadmap.htm

[44] Resources, Production and Demand,A Joint Report by the OECDNuclear Energy Agency and the International Atomic Energy Agency(“Red Book”, 21st edition) www.nea.fr/html/ndd/reports/2006/urani-um2005-english.pdf

[45] International Atomic Energy Agency, P.O. Box 100,WagramerStrasse 5 A-1400 Vienna, Austria, www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/ State-ments/DDGs/2006/sokolov01062006.html

[46] The 2005 IAEA-NEA "Red Book", quoted in www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html

[47] Frank N. von Hippel: Plutonium and Reprocessing of Spent NuclearFuel; Science, 293 (2001) 2397-2398,www.princeton.edu/~globsec/publications/pdf/Sciencev293n5539.pdf

[48] Martin Volkmer,Kernenergie Basiswissen (in German),Courier Druck-haus, Ingolstadt, 2003, ISBN 3-926956-44-5,new edition (in German),http://lbs.hh.schule.de/klima/energie/kernenergie/ basiswissen2004.pdf

[49] AREVA Head Office, 27 – 29 rue Le Peltier, 75433 Paris cedex ,France, www.arevaresources.com/nuclear_energy/datagb/cycle/indexREP.htm

[50] Shaping the Third Stage of Indian Nuclear Power Programme,Gov-ernment of India,Department of Energy,www.dae.gov.in/publ/3rdstage.pdf

[51] http://cdsagenda5.ictp.trieste.it/askArchive.php?base=agenda&categ=a04210&id=a04210s122t8/lecture_notes

[52] http://nuklear-server.ka.fzk.de/eurotrans/[53] S.David et al. in Europhysicsnews 2007,Vol. 38, no.2, p. 24[54] OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, Le Seine Saint-Germain12, boule-

vard des Îles, F-92130 Issy-les-Moulineaux, France,www.nea.fr/html/ndd/reports/2002/nea3109.html

[55] www.iter.org[56] Mineral Information Institute,505 Violet Steet,Golden CO 80401,

USA,www.mii.org/Minerals/photolith.html[57] SCADPlus: Green Paper: A European strategy for sustainable, com-

petitive and secure energyhttp://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l27062.htm

[58] http://ec.europa.eu/energy/green-paper-energy-supply/doc/green_paper_energy_supply_en.pdf

[59] http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/doc/brusselsfdemay2002.pdf

Energy

fort

hefuture

-the

nucle

arop

tion

20

European Physical Society

6,rue des Frères Lumière • BP 2136 • 68060 MulhouseCedex • Francetel: +33 389 32 94 42 • fax: +33 389 32 94 49website:www.eps.org