A Comparison between Fossil and Nuclear Power Plants Pollutions and Their Environmental Effects

7/30/2019 A Comparison between Fossil and Nuclear Power Plants Pollutions and Their Environmental Effects

1/10

Journal of Energy and Power Engineering 5 (2011) 811-820

A Comparison between Fossil and Nuclear Power Plants

Pollutions and Their Environmental Effects

F. Javidkia1, M. Hashemi-Tilehnoee2 and V. Zabihi3

1. Department of Nuclear Engineering, Shiraz University, Shiraz 71946-84471, Iran

2. Department of Engineering, Aliabad-Katul Branch, Islamic Azad University, Golestan 49417-93451, Iran

3.Department of Chemical Engineering, Dezful Branch, Islamic Azad University, Dezful 64616-45169, Iran

Received: August 05, 2010 / Accepted: January 10, 2011 / Published: September 30, 2011.

Abstract: New researches on serious public health problems such as respiratory disease, heart attacks, and premature deaths, show thethreat of air and environmental pollution on humans health. Exhausting greenhouse gases for electrical energy production in fossil

fueled power plants is one of the major reasons of environmental pollutions. Increasing energy demand has made global concerns about

the environmental pollutions of fossil power plants. In this article, fossil power plant productive pollutants such as Sulfur Dioxide,

Mercury, and Carbon Dioxide, are investigated. On the other hand, nuclear power plant and its produced waste are discussed as the

future power generation source. In this article, fossil and nuclear power plants are compared as power sources, pollutants, and their

environmental effects. First, investigations are made on fossil power plants and their effects on environment and climate changes. On

the other hand, nuclear power plants are discussed as a possible replacement for fossil power plants. In this part, effects of radiation on

human health and environment like important nuclear accidents are investigated. This paper summarizes several types of power plants

and it is deduced that the nuclear power plant is more clean energy producer in comparison to other power plants.

Key words: Nuclear power plant, fossil power plant, environmental pollutions, green energy.

1. Introduction

In most countries, fossil power plants are one of the

main sources of air pollution, fueling global warming

and causing other serious public health and

environmental problems. Global warming has already

disrupted the economy, environment, and quality of

life. Continued warming will magnify and extend these

problems to other regions. With research finding

adverse health effects from air pollution at levels onceconsidered safe, more people than ever live in areas

that fail to meet international health standards [1]. For

example, in the U.S., fossil power plants contribute 39

percent of the nations carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions,

the leading global warming pollutant, 67 percent of

soot-forming sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions, 22

Corresponding author: F. Javidkia, nuclear & electricalengineer, research fields: energy and environment, energysystems, nuclear reactor. E-mail: [email protected].

percent of smog-forming nitrogen oxide (NOx)

emissions, and 41 percent of mercury emissions [2, 3].

Comparable data are available for other developed

countries. Unfortunately, same information is not ready

for developing countries. Fossil fueled power plants as

an important producer of green house pollutions and

consumer of shall be replaced by a new accessible

energy source which is a low carbon and gas emitter,

and also is economically reasonable.

Nuclear power can be considered as a replacement

for fossil energy. All nuclear power applications have

resulted in an increase of at most only less than 1% in

overall radiation exposure, over previous natural

background radiation [4]. And this is just for the small

number of people living right next to nuclear power

plants. For the great majority of people, there is no

measurable radiation exposure from nuclear power.

Also of note is the fact that radiation exposure from


2/10

A Comparison between Fossil and Nuclear Power Plants Pollut ions and Their Environmental Ef fects812

coal plant emissions is 100 times higher than those of

nuclear plants; that along with a host of much more

serious pollutants from coal (due to isotope C14,

radioactive isotope of carbon) [5]. Therefore, nuclear

power plants could be studied as a clean, zero carbon

emitter and environment friendly energy source.

2. Reports of Pollutions Made by Fossil

Fueled Power Plants

After the industrial revolution, the exploitation of

natural energy resources by nations increased at a very

high speed. Fossil fuels are ever since the main source

of energy used to produce most of our needed energy.

However, as it takes millions of years for fossil fuels tobe created, being extracted and released to the

environment in such an alarming pace means that we

will sooner or later run it out and make the environment

being polluted more and more. The worlds power

demands are expected to rise 60% by 2030 [6]. With

the worldwide total of active fossil plants over 50,000

and rising [7], the International Energy Agency (IEA)

estimates that fossil fuels will account for 85% of the

energy market by 2030 [6]. European Environment

Agency (EEA) gives fuel-dependent emission factors

based on actual emissions from power plants in EU

which are presented in Table 1 [8].

United States safeguards for local air quality, such as

the New Source Review (NSR) program, require each

and every power plant to meet specific emissions

standards. The NSR program requires that, plants to

use the best available control technologies (BACT) if

they are located in areas without air quality problems

and more aggressive lowest achievable emission

rates (LAER) in areas that violate national air quality

standards. In 1977, when US Congress created the NSR

program, it allowed existing facilities to meet the laws

new plant-by-plant requirements when the facility

made a modification, since it would be less costly to

install pollution controls when a plant was already

undergoing construction [9]. However, nearly three

decades after Congress enacted the NSR program,

many power plants built prior to 1977 have avoided

installing modern pollution controls to meet BACT or

LAER standards [10]. These are the power plants that

are responsible for the vast majority of the USs power

plant pollution. In 1990, Congress established the Acid

Rain Program to cap SO2 emissions from theelectricity-generating sector. As the USs first

cap-and-trade program, the program allows dirtier

plants to forego cleanup by buying pollution credits

from cleaner facilities [11]. Regional initiatives

adopted in the 1990s also seek to reduce NOx emissions

from power plants, largely using the cap-and-trade

approach [12]. In some respects, the Acid Rain

Program and these regional initiatives have been a

success, helping to cut power plant SO2 emissions by

10 percent and NOx emissions by 29 percent since 1995.

However, the caps are not tight enough to protect

public health or the environment, and some of the

nations dirtiest plants continue to increase their

emissions, leaving local and downwind communities

exposed to high levels of pollution. In addition, the

Bush administration has firmly rejected mandatory

limits on CO2emissions. In early 2001, President Bush

broke his first-term campaign promise to cap CO2

emissions from power plants [13]. The administrations

Table 1 Fuel-dependent emission factors from power plants in EU.

Pollutant Hard coal Brown coal Fuel oil Other oil Gas

CO2 (g/GJ ) 94600 101000 77400 74100 56100

SO2 (g/GJ ) 765 1361 1350 228 0.68

NOx (g/GJ ) 292 183 195 129 93.3

CO (g/GJ) 89.1 89.1 15.7 15.7 14.5

Non methane organic compounds (g/GJ ) 4.92 7.78 3.70 3.24 1.58

Particulate matter (g/GJ ) 1203 3254 16 1.91 0.1

Flue gas volume total (m3/GJ) 360 444 279 276 272


3/10

A Comparison between Fossil and Nuclear Power Plants Pollut ions and Their Environmental Ef fects 813

voluntary, economy-wide program sets the goal of

reducing greenhouse gas intensity, emissions per

unit of economic output, by 18 percent from 2002 to

2012. In the 1990s, greenhouse gas intensity fell by 16percent, while actual emissions grew by 14 percent in

the US [14]. The administrations voluntary program

keeps the nation on the same path of intensity

reductions and emissions increases, despite the critical

need for swift action to minimize the effects of global

warming. The studies examine trends in power plant

pollution since 1995, the first year the Acid Rain

Program capped SO2 emissions from the

electricity-generating sector [15, 16].

3. Environmental and Public Health Effects

of Fossil Power Plant Pollution

3.1 Global Warming

Human activities over the last century particularly

the burning of fossil fuels have changed the

composition of the atmosphere in ways that threaten to

dramatically alter the global climate in the years to

come. Global warming is caused by the greenhouseeffect, a natural phenomenon in which gases in the

Earths atmosphere, including water vapor and carbon

dioxide, trap heat from the sun near the planets surface.

Without a natural greenhouse effect, temperatures on

Earth would be too cold for life to survive.

Over the last century, however, the chemical

makeup of the Earths atmosphere has been changing

largely, as a result of humans burning fossil fuels,

which releases large amounts of carbon dioxide and

other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Since the

industrial revolution, atmospheric concentrations of

CO2 have increased by 31 percent [17].

Concentrations of other greenhouse gases have

increased as well. These atmospheric changes have

intensified the greenhouse effect, allowing less of the

suns heat to escape the Earths atmosphere. Global

average temperatures increased during the 20th century

by more than 0.6 (1 F), with the rate of change for

the period since 1976 roughly three times that for the

past 100 years as a whole [18]. According to the

United Nations World Meteorological Organization,

2004 was the fourth hottest year ever recorded, and the1990s were the warmest decade since measurements

began in 1861 [19]. If current trends continue,

temperatures could rise by an additional 1.4 to

5.8 from 1990 to 2100 [20]. The consequences of

the increase in global temperatures will vary from place

to place because the Earths climate is extraordinarily

complex. According to the United Nations

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the most

authoritative source on global warming, among the

changes that could occur include sea level rise of up to

three feet by 2100, heat waves, drought, increasingly

intense tropical storms, loss of plant and animal species,

decreased crop yields, decreased water availability, and

the spread of infectious diseases [17]. The first signs of

global warming are already evident in the U.S. and

worldwide. For instance, in Montanas Glacier

National Park, the largest glaciers are only about

one-third the size they were in 1850, and many small

mountain glaciers have disappeared completely. Thearea of the park covered by glaciers declined by 73

percent from 1850 to 1993, and scientists estimate that

the parks glaciers will disappear entirely by 2030.

Meanwhile, average summer temperatures in the park

have increased by about 1.8 F since 1900 [20]. Along

the Atlantic coast, nine hurricanes struck the U.S. in

2004, causing extensive damage estimated at more than

$43 billion [21]. According to the National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration, the intensity of

hurricanes increases as levels of atmospheric carbon

dioxide increase [22]. Across the Atlantic, a landmark

study recently found that human influences on the

climate system more than doubled the risk of a heat

wave like the one that killed 22,000 to 35,000

Europeans in 2003 [23].

Rapid climate changes in the Arctic provide an

early indication of the environmental and societal

significance of global warming, according a major


4/10


2004 international report commissioned by the U.S.

and seven other nations with Arctic territory [24]. The

already extensive melting of glaciers and sea ice,

thawing of permafrost, and shifts in ocean and

atmospheric conditions will have profound effects on

native communities, wildlife, and local economies. For

instance, the average extent of sea-ice cover in the

summer has declined by 15 to 20 percent in the last 30

years. Among other impacts, the reduction in sea ice

will drastically shrink marine habitat for polar bears,

ice-inhabiting seals, and some seabirds, pushing some

species to extinction [24]. The report concludes that

some continued warming is inevitable given the

buildup of carbon dioxide but says that the speed andamount of warming can be minimized by substantially

reducing future emissions [24].

3.2 Acid Rain and Haze Remain Major Problem

When SO2and NOx contact water in the atmosphere,

they form acids that deposit in soil and surface waters

and can damage forests, lakes, streams, and

ecosystems.

Acid rain has contributed to the decline of red spruce

trees throughout the eastern U.S. and sugar maple trees

in central and western Pennsylvania [25]. For instance,

since the 1960s, more than half of the large canopy red

spruce trees in New Yorks Adirondack Mountains and

Vermonts Green Mountains have died. Acid rain also

has reduced species diversity and the abundance of

aquatic life in many lakes and streams. Nearly 25

percent of surveyed lakes in the Adirondacks, for

example, do not support any fish, and 30 percent of

trout streams in Virginia are marginal or unsuitable forbrook trout [26].

Recent studies show that deeper cuts in power plant

emissionsup to 80 percent beyond 1990 Clean Air Act

Amendment requirementsare needed to allow forests,

lakes, and ecosystems to recover [25].

Particle pollution from power plants also scatters

natural light, forming the haze the obscures city

skylines and scenic vistas. Poor air quality in some

national parks and wilderness areas rivals that in major

U.S. cities. Regional haze has reduced annual average

visibility in our national parks to about one-third to

one-quarter of natural conditions in the west and east,

respectively. For example, the average natural visual

range in Virginias Shenandoah National Park and in

the Great Smoky Mountains of Tennessee and North

Carolina is about 80-90 miles, while average

summertime visibility has been reduced to just 12 miles

[27].

In addition to the health effects mentioned above, air

pollution is associated with pre-term birth, low birth

weight, birth defects, and infant mortality.

3.3 Heart Attacks, Lung Disease, and Early Death

The fine particles in soot are so small that they can

bypass the bodys natural defenses and penetrate some

of the most fragile parts of the lung, causing serious

respiratory and cardiovascular problems. Both

short-term (few hours or days) and chronic exposure to

particle pollution are associated with heart and lung

disease and death [28]. Fine particle pollution from the

nations power plants alone causes an estimated 38,200

non-fatal heart attacks and 23,600 premature deaths,

including 2,800 from lung cancer, every year [29].

EPA estimates that particle pollution takes an average

of 14 years off the lives of people who die prematurely

from particle exposure.

In the largest study to date on the long-term health

effects of air pollution, a 2002 study found that

long-term exposure to fine particle pollution increases

the risk of dying from lung cancer and heart disease

[30]. Over many years, the danger is comparable to thehealth risks associated with long-term exposure to

second-hand smoke.The study is a follow up to the

landmark 1995 American Cancer Society study, which

helped to establish the link between long-term particle

exposure and premature death. The new study expands

the previous work by analyzing data from 500,000

adults who were followed from 1982 to 1998 and lived

in all 50 states. The relationship between fine particles


5/10


and adverse health effects was linear and without a

discernible lower safe threshold [30].

Another major study, which also is an extension of

the 1995 American Cancer Society study, found in

2004 that long-term exposure to fine particle pollution

increases the risk of dying from ischemic heart disease

(heart failure resulting from decreased oxygen supply

to the heart muscle), arrhythmias, heart failure, and

cardiac arrest. Previous studies linked long-term fine

particle exposure to cardiopulmonary mortality but not

to specific diseases.

In addition, new evidence links short-term exposure

to ozone with increases in premature deaths. A

landmark 2004 study of 95 large urban areas covering40 percent of the nations population from 1987 to

2000 found that increases in ozone were associated

with increases in premature deaths, including deaths

from heart and lung diseases [31]. The study followed

on the heels of a large European study that found

similar effects.

Evidence also is mounting as to the adverse

cardiovascular effects of exposure to mercury, another

power plant pollutant. Elevated mercury levels have

been associated with an increased risk of heart attacks,

leading researchers to conclude that high mercury

content may diminish the cardio protective effect of

fish intake.

3.4 Learning Disabilities

Mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants and

other industrial sources deposit in soil and surface

waters, where bacteria convert the mercury to a highly

toxic form that bioaccumulates in fish, including tunaand other commonly eaten fish. Mercury is a

neurotoxin and is particularly damaging to the

developing brain. EPA scientists estimate that one in

six women of childbearing age has levels of mercury in

her blood that are sufficiently high to put 630,000 of

the four million babies born each year at risk of

learning disabilities as well as developmental delays,

difficulty with fine motor coordination, and other

problems [32].

In a 2000 review of the health effects of mercury, the

National Academy of Sciences Committee on the

Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury concluded

that mercury exposure among women who consume

large amounts of fish and seafood during pregnancy is

likely to be sufficient to result in an increase in the

number of children who have to struggle to keep up in

school and who might require remedial classes or

special education [33].

4. Pollution Made by Nuclear Power Plants

Causes Public Concerns

Worldwide emissions of CO2 from burning fossilfuels total about 25 billion tonnes per year. About 38%

of this is from coal and about 43% from oil. Every 1000

MWe power station running on black coal produces

CO2 emissions of about 7 million tonnes per year. If

brown coal is used, the amount is about 9 million tones

[34]. Nuclear fission does not produce CO2, while

emissions from other parts of the fuel cycle (e.g.

uranium mining and enrichment) amount to about 2%

of those from using coal and oil. Popular concerns on

nuclear power production increased after two major

nuclear power plant accidents.

4.1 Chernobyl Accident

In 1990, four years after the Chernobyl accident, an

increase in thyroid cancer occurred in children exposed

to fallout from the accident. Two years later the first

report in the Western literature of an increase in

childhood thyroid cancer (CTC). The causative agent,131

I, was detected in many European countries with asyet unknown effects.

Notation can be learnt from the Chernobyl

experience? Chernobyl was the first major accident

affected from the structure of the nuclear power plant

that released huge amounts of radioactive isotopes into

the environment thus the structural components of NPP

should be studied more and more to prevent the

radioactive materials release to environment.


6/10


4.2 The Accident at the Three Mile Island Power Plant

Much has been written to account the events that

happen on March 28, 1979. While no lives were lost

and relatively little radiation released offsite, theaccident resulted in a total loss of the three month old

plant; thus, costing the utility billions in its investment,

cleanup and, eventually, the complete decontamination

and decommissioning.

The accident at TMI-2 didnt have to happen. In fact,

a very similar accident occurred at a sister plant 18

months earlier. The primary difference in the earlier

accident was that the plant was operating at a very low

power. In response to the accident at Three Mile Island,

the NRC re-examined the adequacy of its safety

requirements and, consequently, imposed new

regulations to correct deficiencies. The absence of a

containment structure was especially important.

Analyses indicated that if there had been a good

containment, none of the radioactivity would have

escaped, and there would have been no injuries or

deaths.

4.3 Todays Nuclear Power Plants Safety and

Environmental Aspects

Currently nuclear energy saves the emission of 2.3

billion tonnes of CO2 relative to coal. For every 22

tonnes of uranium used, one million tonnes of CO2

emissions is averted. Energy inputs to nuclear power

produce only a few (e.g. 2-5) percent of the CO2

emissions saved [35].

After more than twenty years from the two major

nuclear power plant accidents, Professor Forrest J .

Remick, member of US Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC), says: Nuclear plants are very

safe, comparing their safety record with that of other

major industries. In 2005, the industrial accident rate

for nuclear power plant workers was 0.24 per 200,000

worker hours, compared with 3.5 accidents per

200,000 worker hours for all manufacturing industries

(14.6 times greater).

Nuclear fission creates no air pollution, but it does

create radioactive by-products. Opponents of nuclear

energy believe a nuclear power plant accident would

cause toxic radioactive nuclear material to be released

into the environment. Fear of exposure to nuclear

radiation has created public opposition to nuclear

energy. In Table 2, main sources of energy are

compared [36]. It is obvious that nuclear power plants

are the safest among the investigated power sources

and have the lowest fatal events.

5. How Toxic Is Nuclear Radiation?

5.1 Toxicity of Nuclear Radiations

In 1899, Ernest Rutherford discovered that uranium

compounds produce three different kinds of radiation.

He separated the radiations according to their

penetrating abilities and named them alpha, beta, and

gamma radiation, after the first three letters of the Greek

alphabet. The alpha radiation can be stopped by a sheet

of paper. Rutherford later showed that an alpha particle

is the nucleus of a helium atom, 4He. Beta particles were

later identified as high speed electrons. Six millimeters

of aluminum are needed to stop most beta particles.

Several millimeters of lead are needed to stop gammarays, which proved to be high energy photons. Alpha

particles and gamma rays are emitted with a specific

energy that depends on the radioactive isotope. Beta

particles, however, are emitted with a continuous range

of energies from zero up to the maximum allowed for

by the particular isotope.Curies are a measure of how

many radioactive decays are occurring each second, and

the rate at which energetic particles (alphas, betas,

gammas, or neutrons) are being emitted within the

material. The dose (in Rem, or milliRem) is a measure

of biological damage to the body from such particles.

More specifically, it is a measure of energy deposited in

human tissue, which biological damage is roughly

proportional to. The dose rate refers to the rate at

which dose is received, or the amount of dose received

over a given period of time (e.g., per hour or per year,

etc.). For doses above a certain (very high) threshold,

radiation sickness or perhaps even death occurs. At a


7/10


Table 2 A safety comparison between the sources of electrical energy.

Energysource

Number ofevents withfatalities

Causes InstallationImmediatefatalities perevent

Totalimmediatefatalities

Immediatefatalities perGW(e)/year

Coal 62 Mine disasters Coal mines 70 3900 0.4Oil 160 Fire-explosion transformation

accidentRefineries platform tankers

40 6200 0.3

Gas 80 Fire-explosion-earthquake Gas wells and distribution 50 3100 0.4

Hydro 20 Overtopping failure Dams 300 5200 2

Nuclear 1 Design and operation Chernobyl 31 31 Lower than 0.01

lower (medium) levels, cancer risk, in proportion to the

dose received, may result. Whether or not low levels of

radiation dose, within the range of natural background,

have any health effects at all (cancer risk increase, etc.)

is the subject of hot debate. Regulatory bodies assume

that the linear risk-vs.-dose function applies all the way

down to zero, even though there has never been any

evidence to date showing a correlation between

radiation dose and cancer risk, for dose rates within the

range of background (i.e., ~1 Rem per year or less). In

short, public health risk is proportional to dose (or dose

rate), not curies. It should also be noted that the total

amount of curies in the radioactive materials naturally

occurring in the earths crust is orders upon orders of

magnitude greater than the curie content of all nuclearwaste materials. Not only that, much of these natural

materials are less isolated from human contact than are

the nuclear waste materials (inside nuclear plants or in

other nuclear waste repositories), a greater fraction of

their emitted particles will contact human flesh,

resulting in dose absorption [5].

The direct radiation effect is the one thing that is

different about nuclear material, as compared to other

toxins, which may be the source of some of the fear

and mystique. All other toxins require ingestion or

inhalation for harm to occur. Radioactive material is

the only toxin that can strike from a distance. This is

because chemical toxins need to be in the body to

cause chemical changes that harm cells and biological

processes, whereas radioactive material emits high

energy particles that can travel over distances. The

effects would come from dispersal of radioisotopes

onto the land, air, and water, and the subsequent

ingestion or inhalation of those isotopes. In all cases,

the concentrations of radioisotopes would be far too

small for the soil, water, or air in question to cause a

significant direct radiation dose to a nearby person.

5.2 Does a Nuclear Power Plant Play a Major Role inPublic Annual Radiation Exposure?

The replacement of coal power plants with nuclear

power plants would reduce atmospheric CO2 emissions

by about 30% and only increases a negligible percentage

of absorbed radiation exposure. However, if the

radioactive isotopes are ingested or inhaled, and they

then spend a significant residence time in the body, they

will cause the adverse health effects that the public fears.

Fig. 1 shows approximate percentage of publicannual radiation dose from all potentially significant

radiation sources [4]. It could be illustrated from the

figure that consumable industrial radiation plus nuclear

power plants and their radioactive wastes are producers

of negligible percentage (less than 1% for all nuclear

energy applications) of annual absorbed dose in

comparison with natural background (82%) and

medical radiation (15%) exposures. The amount of

radioactivity in nuclear waste is tiny compared to the

total radioactivity on earth (i.e., in the earths crust).

Thus, it does not appreciably add to overall

radioactivity level. However, as stated above, the mere

presence of radioactive material is irrelevant, since

only materials that enter human bodies has any effect.

It is more a question of how much nuclear waste

material gets inside humans, as compared to natural

radioactive material. In other words, what is important

is the comparison of dose, i.e., of collective exposure.


8/10


Fig. 1 Sources of public annual radiation exposure in the U.S.

Table 3 Atmospheric pollution and solid waste comparing from worldwide energy use (millions of tons ).

Source SO2 NOX Particulates CO CO2 Solid waste

Coal 100 over than 20 500 3 9000 over than 300

Gas lower than 0.5 2 lower than 0.5 5 4000 minor

Oil 40 10 2 200 9000 15

Wood 0.2 3 100 200 5000 50

Hydro 0 0 0 0 0 0

Nuclear 0 0 0 0 0 0.04

Here, the results are even clearer. Doses from nuclear

energy are one thousandth of those from natural sources,

even for the most exposed people. For the average

person, it is more like a million times smaller [5].

The increase in overall collective exposure to

radiation for the worlds population from nuclear energy

is absolutely negligible compared to the doses that they

get from other sources, mostly Mother Nature. And it

will always be this way, as no set of events or

circumstances (i.e., hypothetical meltdowns, repository

failures, etc.) will ever come even close to changing thissituation. Table 3 shows the pollutants and wastes

produced by the various energy sources. Hydro and

nuclear are the most clean energy sources from the table.

A 2003 Massachusetts Institute of Technology study

recommended vast expansion of nuclear power to make

a dent in the climate-change problem. One University

of Wisconsin life-cycle emissions study in 2003 found

even lower carbon emissions for nuclear than for most

renewable energies. We found wind and nuclear

fission to have the lowest greenhouse-gas emissions

over their life-cycle, says Paul Meier, director of the

energy institute at the university. Princeton researchers

also cited it as an option, although they acknowledged

concerns about terror threats and potential accidents.

As a zero-carbon energy source, nuclear power must

be part of our energy mix as we work toward energy

independence and meeting the challenge of global

warming., Nobel physicist Steven Chu, U.S. secretary

of energy (2009) said.

6. Costs of Nuclear Power Are Comparable

with Gas andCoal-Fired Energy

The first experimental and exhaustive study

examining the economic competitiveness of nuclear

power has been completed by the University of

Chicago and it shows that the future cost associated

with nuclear power production is comparable with gas


9/10


and coal-based energy generation. The principal

findings of the study demonstrate that future nuclear

power plants in the United States can be competitive

with either natural gas or coal. Whereas the levelized

cost of electricity (LCOE) for coal is $33 to $41 per

MWh and $35 to $45 per MWh for gas-fired

production, new nuclear plants would have costs of $31

to $46 per MWh once early plant costs are absorbed.

Nuclear energy can replace power plants that burn coal,

gas or oil. The volume of the entire worlds spent

nuclear fuel (air spaces, shielding and cladding

removed) for a year assuming a specific gravity of

about 8 is less than 2,000 cubic meters, which is about

the internal volume of a modest home (10 meters by 20by 10) [37].

7. Conclusions

Eventually, nuclear energy should be judged as a

replacement for fossil fuel. As a conclusion of this

article, there is no doubt that nuclear power is the only

feasible green and economic solution for todays

increasing energy demand. New generations of nuclear

power plants are much safer. They produce energy

from nuclear fission and are the most clean, safe and

environment friendly source of energy among the

investigated power resources. Also fusion energy, the

authors believe, produces no troublesome emissions, is

safe, and has few, if any, proliferation concerns. It

creates no long-lived waste and runs on fuel readily

available to all nations. In other words it brings energy

of stars to the earth. Thus, fission and fusion energies

should be studied and developed by pioneer countries

and companies, because nuclear energy promises tocreate an inexhaustible source of safe and clean energy.

References

[1] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), The greenbook nonattainment areas for criteria pollutants, 2008,

available online at: www.epa.gov/oaqps001/greenbk/.

[2] P. Amar, Mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants,Coordinated Air Use and Management for Northeast

States, USA, 2003, available online at:

www.nescaum.org/documents/rpt031104mercury.pdf.

[3] B. Wu, Lethal Legacy: A comprehensive look at americasdirtiest power plants, U.S. PIRG, 2003, available online at:

http://www.studentpirgs.org/uploads/58/30/58306294aafb

aa2f59c0b04026776a0c/Lethal_Legacy.pdf.

[4] Fact sheet on biological effects of radiation, US NRC,2004, available online at:

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheet

s/bio-effects-radiation.html.

[5] J . Hopf, Nuclear radiation, how toxic is it?, AmericanEnergy Independence, Nov. 2004, available online at:

www.americanenergyindependence.com/radiation.aspx.

[6] F. Birol, World energy outlook 2004, The InternationalEnergy Agency (IEA), Paris, 2004.

[7] Carbon dioxide emissions from power plants ratedworldwide, Science Daily News, 2007, available online at:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/07111416

3448.htm. (accessed on Jan. 29, 2008)

[8] T. Pulles, W. Appelman, Air pollution fromelectricity-generating large combustion plants, EEA

Technical Report, Copenhagen, 2008.

[9] CRS legislative history, H.R. Report. No. 95-294, vol. 185,1977.

[10] D. Kettl, A breath of fresh air: reviving the new sourcereview program, National Academy of Public

Administration, 2003, available online at:

www.ciaonet.org/wps/ked01/index.html.

[11] EPA, Acid Rain Program: 2003 Progress Report, 2004,available online at: www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progress/

arp03.html.

[12] EPA, NOx budget trading program: 2003 Progress andcompliance report, available online at:

www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progress/docs/noxreport03.pdf.

[13] CNN inside politics, Groups blast Bush for reversingposition on emissions reductions, 2001, available online at:

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/03/14/bush.c

arbon.dioxide/index.html.

[14] E. Claussen, An effective approach to climate change, PewCenter on Global Climate Change 306 (5697) (2004) 816.

[15] U.S. Department of Justice & EPA, US sues electricutilities in unprecedented action to enforce the clean air act,

1999, available online at:www.justice.gov/opa/pr/1999/November/524enr.htm.

[16] B. Barcott, Up in smoke: The bush administration, the bigpower companies, and the undoing of 30 years of clean-air

policy, New York Times Magazine, 2004, available online

at: www.nytimes.com/2004/04/04/magazine/

04BUSH.html?pagewanted=all.

[17]T. Taniguchi, D. Zhou, R. Bradley, P. Crabb, O.Edenhofer, B. Hare, et al, Intergovernmental panel on

climate change: IPCC third assessment report, 2001,

available online at: www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/

ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter1.pdf.


10/10


[18] WMO statement on the status of the global climate in 2004:Global temperature in 2004 fourth warmest (press release),

2004, available online at:

http://www.bcn.cl/carpeta_temas/temas_portada.2005-10-

27.5531339183/pdf/Estadoclima2004.pdf.

[19]J . Hansen, R. Ruedy, M. Sato, K. Lo, GISS surfacetemperature analysis, NASA Goddard Institute and

Columbia University Earth Institute, 2005, available

online at: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/.

[20] Global warming impacts: Western mountains (fact sheet),US EPA, 2005, available online at:

http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming.nsf/content/

ImpactsMountains.html.

[21] World meteorological organization WMO No.719, UnitedNations, 2005, available online at:

http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/sat/Techdocuments.html.

[22]T.R. Knutson, R.E. Tuleya, Impact of CO2-inducedwarming on simulated hurricane intensity and

precipitation: Sensitivity to the choice of climate model

and convective parameterization, Journal of Climate 17

(18) (2004) 3477-3495.

[23] P.A. Stott, D.A. Stone, M.R. Allen, Human contribution tothe European heatwave of 2003, Nature 432 (2004)

610-614.

[24] S.J . Hassol, The Arctic Council, Impacts of a WarmingArctic: Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, Cambridge

University Press, 2004, pp. 8-10.

[25] C.T. Driscoll, G.B. Lawrence, A.J . Bulger, T.J. Butler,C.S. Cronan, C. Eagar, Acid raid revisited: Advances in

scientific understanding since the passage of the 1970 and

1990, Hubbard Brook Research Foundation, Science

Links Publication, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2001.

[26] A.J. Bulger, B.J. Cosby, J.R. Webb, Current, reconstructedpast, and projected future status of brook trout streams in

Virginia, Canadian Journal of Fish and Aquatic Sciences

57 (2000) 1515-1523.

[27] Clean Air Task Force, Haze in our national parks, USA,2000, available online at:

http://www.net.org/relatives/4213.pdf.

[28] EPA, EPAs revised particulate matter standards (factsheet), 1997, available online at:

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/naaqsfin/pmfact.html.

[29] C. Schneider, Power Plant Emissions: Particulatematter-related health damages and the benefits of

alternative emission reduction scenarios, Abt Associates

Inc, 2004, section 5-4.

[30] A. Pope, R.T. Burnett, M. Thun, E.E. Calle, D. Krewski, K.Ito, et al, Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and

long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution, JAMA

287 (9) (2002) 1132-1141.

[31] A. Pope, R.T. Burnett, M.J. Thun, E.E. Calle, D. Krewski,K. Ito, et al., Cardiovascular mortality and long-term

exposure to particulate air pollution: Epidemiological

evidence of general pathophysiological pathways of

disease, Circulation 109 (2004) 71-77.

[32] K.R. Mahaffey, R.P. Clickner, C.C. Bodurow, Bloodorganic mercury and dietary mercury intake: National

health and nutrition examination survey, Environmental

Health Perspectives 112 (2000) 562-570.

[33]Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury, NationalAcademy of Sciences, National Academy Press,

Washington DC, 2000, available online at:

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=9899.

[34] Management of recyclable fissile and fertile materials,OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, 2007, available online at:

http://www.oecd-nea.org/tools/publication?div=NDD&pe

riod=100y&sort=title&filter=1#p6107.

[35]The nuclear debate: Nuclear issues briefing paper 43,Uranium Information Centre, 2005, available online at:

http://www.uic.com.au/nip43.htm.

[36] Comparing deaths/TWh for all energy sources, Next BigFuture, 2008, available online at: http://nextbigfuture.com/

2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html.

[37] G.S. Tolley, D.W. Jones, The Economic Future of NuclearPower, A Study Conducted at The University of Chicago,

2004, available online at:

www.ne.doe.gov/np2010/reports/NuclIndustryStudN-Su

mmary.pdf.

A Comparison between Fossil and Nuclear Power Plants Pollutions and Their Environmental Effects

Documents

Transcript of A Comparison between Fossil and Nuclear Power Plants Pollutions and Their Environmental Effects