Lentis/Nuclear Meltdown: Is Nuclear Energy Socially Viable Following the 2011 Japanese Earthquake?

From Wikibooks, open books for an open world
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Introduction[edit]

On March 11, 2011, an 8.9 magnitude earthquake struck just off the coast of Japan. The tsunami wave, which was over 130 feet tall at its peak, compounded the destruction caused by the earthquake. 15,839 residents were killed, and thousands more were left injured or homeless[1]. The earthquake also caused instability and potential meltdown of the Fukushima nuclear reactors. The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear facility is a compound of six reactors owned and maintained by Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO). It is located only 150 miles outside of Tokyo, Japan, making the potential of a nuclear meltdown even more threatening. A fifteen meter tall tsunami wave caused by the earthquake struck the Fukushima power plant flooding all six reactors and causing a series of operational failures. Despite warnings that tsunami could occur, TEPCO decided to not improve the sea wall on site[2]. Following the tsunami, TEPCO workers struggled to repair the nuclear reactors as the water flooding the plants contained radioactive waste in toxic concentrations. Unable to repair the reactors, nuclear meltdown occurred as the fuel rods were exposed, which released nuclear particles into the air. The International Nuclear Event Scales (INES) rated the Fukushima nuclear disaster a seven. A rating of seven is the worst possible rating as it is indicative of widespread contamination that is likely to have long term effects on both human health and the environment. As of 2019 over 40,000 residents have been unable to return. [3]

Technical Success[edit]

The ability to generate power through a self-sustaining nuclear fission reaction was demonstrated when the world's first nuclear reactor, Chicago Pile-1, came on-line at the University of Chicago in 1942. Since 1942, the technology has continued to improve. In 1956, Calder Hall came on-line in England as the first commercial nuclear power plant. The number of nuclear reactors continued to grow rapidly until the first nuclear reactor scare in 1979. In Pennsylvania, the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor had a meltdown of the nuclear core in one of its units. While the meltdown did not release significant levels of radioactive material into the atmosphere, this incident did spark citizen concern over the possibility of a more dangerous nuclear incident. In 1986, a much worse nuclear disaster struck in the Ukraine. The nuclear power plant Chernobyl experienced a complete loss of containment, causing approximately one million premature deaths because of the nuclear particles released into the air[4]. The disaster at Chernobyl is considered the worst nuclear power incident in world history and is ranked a seven on the INES. Figure 1 illustrates how following the Chernobyl incident many nations halted the construction of new nuclear power plants, although they continued to rely on those already constructed[5].

Figure 1: History of the use of nuclear power (top) and the number of active nuclear power plants (bottom).

In addition to safety considerations, cost is a key factor in a government's decision to build and use a nuclear power plant. As illustrated in Figure 2, a series of studies from 2004 to 2008 show that nuclear power is a more expensive form of energy than coal or gas.

Figure 2: Cost comparison of nuclear, coal, and gas power.

However, these studies did not account for the additional costs of energy dependence, pollution, or health impacts as a result of each energy source. While nuclear power is not as cheap as coal or oil, it is more affordable than many other alternative and sustainable energy options. Nuclear energy costs about $0.04 per kWh, which is more affordable than wind ($0.08), natural gas ($0.11), or solar ($0.22) energy. [6]

Technological developments in nuclear power are helping to reduce the costs of energy generation as well as decrease safety concerns. Prior to the Fukushima Meltdown there were 436 nuclear power plants operating worldwide, which were responsible for supplying approximately 15% of the world's electricity [7]. Many of these plants were built over 20 years ago, with outdated containment technologies. The designs for new nuclear power plants, known as Generation III and the hypothetical Generation IV designs, have the potential to address many of the safety hazards due to old plants and poor designs[8]. However, nuclear power has never been defined by its technical capabilities alone. Japan's earthquake drew attention to the potential hazards of a nuclear meltdown and caused many nations to evaluate their positions on nuclear power.

Environmental Opinion[edit]

Nuclear energy continues to be subject to debate among environmental groups. Although nuclear energy is efficient and does not produce greenhouse gases, it is not truly renewable and remains a potential safety hazard.

Greenpeace opposes all further development of nuclear energy because of the potential risks that it poses to the environment. They cite the lack of procedure for dealing with nuclear waste as a major issue and think that money spent on developing nuclear energy would not have as great an impact on the environment as investing in truly renewable sources. According to MIT, 1000 new nuclear reactors would have to be built to have a significant impact on global warming which will not happen with the current growth of 4% in the nuclear energy sector [9]. The Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) asserts that every dollar spent on nuclear energy is a dollar not spent on renewable energy sources[10]

Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy (EFN) describes nuclear energy as "The only clean, safe energy source capable of ensuring the continuation of our industrial civilization while protecting the environment" [11]. Nuclear energy uses less construction materials per kWh than wind and solar making it greener to build. As vehicles become more dependent on electricity, nuclear energy is the only available energy source that will be able to supply the additional power required without emitting greenhouse gasses. Because nuclear energy is the only massively available energy source, EFN supports the rapid deployment of nuclear reactors to move away from dependency on fossil fuels. EFN also cites the Three Mile Island incident as a success story for the safety of nuclear energy, because, despite a meltdown, the safety equipment at the reactor contained almost all of the radiation and there were no serious injuries or deaths.

Nuclear Terrorism[edit]

The Fukushima disaster raised the point of vulnerability in nuclear plants from natural disasters. What also has to be considered is the threat of terrorism. Within the United States the NRC is tasked with setting the security guidelines for nuclear power plants. Globally, the IAEA sets recommended standards for nuclear plants[12]. These guidelines are just the bare minimum though, and are not comprehensive enough to be applied blindly to all plants. Nuclear reactors are protected by a number of measures including security guards, motion sensors, and multiple nested barriers[13]. Constant patrols are used to deter and detect anyone who tries to unlawfully gain access to the plant. Large car barriers and walls are used to physically prevent anyone from entering the plant premises. In the event of an explosion within the reactor, safeguards would automatically trigger a shutdown of the reactor[13] . These measures are designed to protect from both an invasion and a failure from within the plant. Mock raids are also conducted on plants across the United States and globally in an attempt to prepare personnel from attacks by land and sea[13] When an attack is successful plants must reevaluate and improve their preparation plan. Following the attacks of 9/11 security measures were greatly expanded in the United States. More patrols and larger barriers were erected to protect further from terrorism[14].

These preparations have mostly ignored the growing threat of attack by drones. In an attempt to draw attention to the issue, Greenpeace was able to fly a drone into restricted airspace around a nuclear plant in Lyon, France[15]. The drone was eventually crashed into a spent fuel rod building causing no damage. Had this been more than a publicity stunt the damage could have been very serious. The NRC must continue to change its security measures to protect from the constantly changing threats nuclear plants face. Security measures must also be expanded globally.

Fallout Spreads Across Europe[edit]

In 2009, Germany produced over 125 billion kilowatt hours of power at its nuclear plants [16]. Just two years later Germany's Chancellor, Angela Merkel, has pledged to phase out all dependence on nuclear energy by 2022 [17]. This will require decommissioning all seventeen of the country's nuclear plants and finding alternative energy sources to power the nation. This abrupt change in nuclear policy is a direct result of the Japanese nuclear scare[18]. As described by German journalist, Elmer Jehn, "Since Japan, every sensible person knows that nuclear energy is dead" [19]. While there has always been some opposition in Germany to nuclear power, the voice of the opposition has grown stronger since the Fukushima disaster. On March 25th, over 200,000 people gathered in an anti-nuclear protest[20].

As Germany scales down its nuclear programs, Switzerland follow its example, also pledging to reevaluate and limit the nation's use of nuclear reactors[21]. Britain, France, and Poland have not followed the actions of Germany, and plan to continue or even expand their use of nuclear power[22][23][24]. In Great Britain, public support for nuclear power has grown since Fukushima with support over the last year rising by 3%. In 2010, 38% of Britons believed the benefits of nuclear power were greater than the risks, and in August of 2011, this number had grown to 41% [25]. Across Europe there is little consensus about whether nuclear power presents a clean sustainable alternative to coal and oil, or a deadly threat.

United States of America[edit]

The battle over nuclear energy continues in the United States, arguments nearly unchanged by the nuclear disaster in Japan [26]. Groups such as the Environmental Defense Fund argue that the earthquake illustrates the need for sound regulations and building codes, but should not be a deterrent from building new nuclear plants so long as companies and regulators take the right precautions [27]. Others argue on the grounds of America's need to sustain our competitive advantage. As India and China continue to pursue alternative energy, proponents believe that we cannot fall behind.

Public opinion about nuclear energy in the United States has been on an upward trend since the 1980's. The most recent poll conducted by the Nuclear Energy Institute in June 2010, found that 74% of Americans favor nuclear energy. The NEI also found that those who strongly favor nuclear energy outnumber those who strongly oppose it about three to one [28]. However, after the Japanese earthquake in 2011, public opinion has started to swing back. In polling done one week after the earthquake, CNN found that only 54% of Americans favored nuclear power as an energy source. Although two-thirds of Americans oppose building new nuclear reactors (a number that was unchanged by the earthquake) 60% of Americans oppose reducing dependency on nuclear energy if it would result in higher electric costs [29].

South Texas Project[edit]

In contrast to the Fukushima Daiichi plant, which failed in the face of natural disaster, the South Texas Project outside Houston, and just 10 miles from the gulf, was operating at full capacity during category four Hurricane Harvey [30]. Despite calls from anti-nuclear groups, including Beyond Nuclear, to place the reactors in ‘cold shutdown’, the 200 operators who weathered the storm away from their families at the plant followed the emergency response plan, and kept the reactors safely in check. Their reaction and conduct throughout the hurricane was exemplary, and displays the project’s competence and preparedness for undesirable conditions [31].

It is clear in this case that the responsible agents have evaluated the risks of operating the power plant, and have extensively addressed each of them. The company also has a meticulously thought out emergency action to manage operators during a disaster, including shift organization to monitor the reactors around the clock, and the provision of dormitories on site to ensure operators don’t have to travel through inclement weather [32]. They also have a series of concrete thresholds to determine when the plant should be shut down, one of which is when winds exceed 73 miles per hour [33]. In 2011, the management of the plant decided to open a joint information center “where representatives from local, state, and federal agencies would come together to handle emergency situations” [34]. Furthermore, the South Texas Project has three back up power systems, more than any other plant in the US, which makes it extremely unlikely that the plant ever loses the ability to control its radioactive energy sources [30]. The facility is also resistant to water levels up to an elevation of 41 feet, making it almost completely invulnerable to flooding [34]. These features exemplify the project’s dedication to safety and the public, and how the managers of the project are fully aware of the fact that they are beholden to the people, and must keep them safe and updated if disaster ever strikes.

In the days preceding Harvey’s impact, “Sustainable Energy & Economic Development coalition (SEED), the South Texas Association for Responsible Energy, and Beyond Nuclear… urged politicians, the owners, and regulators to shut down the plant,” requests that were promptly ignored by the government and the project [32]. If something had gone wrong, the South Texas Project could easily have been considered to be negligent; their confidence in their systems could be viewed as arrogance and a false evaluation of the circumstances, causing unnecessary harm to local residents. In more concrete terms, if something had gone wrong at the South Texas Project, a 2500 square mile evacuation zone would have been established, only adding to the catastrophe of the storm [33]. Luckily, this was not the case, and even if things had gotten worse, operators would have continued to follow the plan, and the plant would have safely shut down. To conclude, the South Texas Project demonstrates responsibility in its operation as well as accountability to its customers and the surrounding population; they anticipated all possible outcomes, created a plan for each, and executed that plan with precision.

Worldwide Reactions[edit]

After the Fukushima disaster, international governments and peoples have mixed feelings about the future of nuclear energy. In a international poll of twelve countries that currently use nuclear reactors there is mixed opinion about the nuclear energy. Four of the twelve countries, Germany, Mexico, Spain and Russia, support shutting down nuclear reactors, while seven, China, Pakistan, US, UK, Brazil, France, Japan, favor continued support of nuclear energy. India was evenly split[35]. China and India plan to add a combined 80 new nuclear reactors over the next two decades. The countries slowed construction to ensure they met safety standards, but were generally unfazed by the disaster [36]. In addition, Bangladesh has made significant progress in opening its first nuclear power plant and has undergone an international review by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The government of Bangladesh has been working with Russia to purchase the components for the Rooppur Nuclear Power Plant project [37]. Despite the Russian government's interest in selling nuclear technologies, the 43% of Russians now favor the immediate shut down of all nuclear reactors. This number has more than doubled since 2005.

Waste Disposal[edit]

Nuclear rods which are used to fuel the reactor remain dangerous to humans for tens of thousands of years[38]. In order for nuclear power to be viable there must be a long term permanent storage solution for waste. Currently, nuclear waste is placed in pools of water that are cooled using pumps. While this solution prevents radiation from escaping, during a power failure the water can boil off and release radiation into the surrounding area. Additionally, nuclear power plants do not have unlimited space to store rods in these pools so a temporary dry storage solution has been created, steel casks [39]. These casks can be placed outside of the nuclear facility and provide leak tight confinement of the spent fuel. These casks also serve as the transport container for nuclear waste [40]. Unfortunately, these casks will not last forever and can also be destroyed in natural disasters so more permanent storage facilities are currently being built.

Some research has explored the idea of disposing nuclear waste in space. Surface disposal poses many issues due to the earth's constantly shifting crust. Extraterrestrial disposal would eliminate the chance of polluting Earth’s environment once wasted had reached its destination. If desired the sun could offer a location for endless disposal. Many of the problems with this method come from transporting the waste. During the 1970’s and 1980’s NASA came to the conclusion that such a method would be infeasible[41] due to two big issues[42]. The risk of pollution during space disposal would be solely during the transportation phase. Rockets are not the most reliable source of transportation. If a rocket containing nuclear waste were to fail at any point during flight the environmental impact would be large. Packaging of the waste would be crucial to ensure that failure of the rocket would not result in a massive pollution. Transporting nuclear waste into space would also be extremely costly, with costs averaging $2,000-10,000(USD) a pound[42]. With around 90,000 metric tons of nuclear waste currently in existence the cost of launching this waste just into orbit would be enormous.

The Onkalo Spent Nuclear Repository in Finland is currently being built as a permanent storage facility for nuclear waste. This location was chosen as Finland historically has had extremely few natural disasters, with the worst being earthquakes peaking at 4.5 on the Richter Scale [43]. While having favorable weather conditions is helpful, the support of the surrounding population is essential for a storage facility to be built. Nuclear Researcher Matti Kojo states "Unlike in the US, where there is broad opposition to using Yucca Mountain in Nevada for long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel, the project in Finland has widespread support"[44]. In this facility a center tunnel will go down 520 meters and nuclear waste will be buried in other tunnels branching out from the center. After the nuclear waste is buried the tunnel will be backfilled to prevent further access. Using this strategy the nuclear waste should be protected for over 100,000 years [44].

As the nuclear waste stored in permanent facilities is dangerous for tens of thousands of years, future generations must be informed of the danger of the nuclear waste. The following message is planned to be placed at permanent storage facilities translated in all UN languages.

This place is a message... and part of a system of messages ...pay attention to it!
Sending this message was important to us. We considered ourselves to be a powerful culture.
This place is not a place of honor ... no highly esteemed deed is commemorated here... nothing valued is here.
What is here was dangerous and repulsive to us. This message is a warning about danger.
The danger is in a particular location... it increases towards a center... the center of danger is here... of a particular size and shape, and below us.
The danger is still present, in your time, as it was in ours.
The danger is to the body, and it can kill.
The form of the danger is an emanation of energy.
The danger is unleashed only if you substantially disturb this place physically. This place is best shunned and left uninhabited [45].

Since it is not guaranteed that any UN language will survive thousands of years, various landscapes have been proposed to be built to show danger without using language. One such design is referred to as forbidding blocks, "a proposal involving house-sized, stone-and-concrete blocks dyed black. The blocks are set in a deliberately irregular square grid, with narrow ‘streets’ running between them. The streets are hot and ominous, lead nowhere, and are too confining to live in, farm in, or even meet in. It is a massive effort to deny use of the space, intentionally chaotic, forbidding and uncomfortable"[46].

Generalizable Lesson[edit]

The success or failure of nuclear energy depends on a variety of factors including political climate, public opinions, natural resources, and energy needs. Each country makes its own decisions about nuclear power and the response it makes to a nuclear disaster. Following the meltdown of the Fukushima reactor, many countries began to reevaluate their nuclear policies. Though most would view any disaster as a deterrent, most country's nuclear programs remain unchanged with some continuing to grow.

An additional factor that must be considered is the small number of deaths associated with the Fukushima disaster. As only two deaths were reported to be caused by the nuclear meltdown, the perceived safety of nuclear energy will likely not be diminished as much as a larger scale disaster such as Chernobyl.

In contrast to Fukushima, the South Texas Project exemplifies how a nuclear power plant should operate in the event of a disaster. In order for nuclear power to remain a viable energy source, facility managers need to keep a constant link to the public and have a comprehensive emergency action plan. The first of these two qualities is essential in projects that have the potential to negatively impact the wellbeing of the public—-the executive organization should keep the people aware of their operations to ensure that they are conducting their work safely. The South Texas Project demonstrates the standard for nuclear power plants, while the Daiichi plant in Fukushima is an example of what should be avoided; being prepared for all possibilities, both in conduct and in structural design, are essential qualities of a successful nuclear power plant.

Germany's reaction, however, shows that a single event can be a tipping point in nuclear policy. As public support for nuclear energy waned, Chancellor Merkel used the Fukushima disaster to spark her move to decommission all of Germany's reactors by 2022.

The Russian government continues to support nuclear energy despite a doubling in opposition over the last five years. The support comes from the governments goal to reduce the nations dependency on natural gas, though it is the worlds largest natural gas exporter. Russia also has the world's second largest coal reserves and is the largest non OPEC producer of petroleum. Following the Fukushima disaster, Russia continues plans to build 28 new reactors, and will perform tests on all current reactors to determine their ability to withstand a major earthquake. The response in Russia is an example of the government acting against the will of its people despite sitting on abundant energy resources[47].

China and India continue to rapidly expand their nuclear programs because of the high projections for energy consumption that they face. Both countries believe that nuclear energy is the only way to cheaply power their nations in the coming years, though have reevaluated the safety requirements following the Fukushima disaster.

Any event, large or small, can have an effect on policy, but it is not solely the event that determines the effect. Each country's reaction can be seen as the country acting in its own interests. As show, a major event can cause a rapid change in a country's policies or it can simply result in slight reevaluation of policy and procedure. This effect is similar to that of the response to the rise of graffiti. Some localities simply tried to ban the sale of spray paint, while others embraced graffiti as an art form and opened up walls for the artists to paint. Both measures attempted to solve the problem of vandalism, just like any policy made after the Fukushima disaster will try to solve the problem of safely providing energy to a nation.

References[edit]

  1. National Police Agency of Japan. (December 2, 2011). Damage situation and police countermeasures associated with 2011 Tohoku district - off the Pacific Ocean earthquake. From: http://www.npa.go.jp/archive/keibi/biki/higaijokyo_e.pdf
  2. McCurry, Justin. (November 29, 2011). "Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant operator 'ignored tsunami warning'". From https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/nov/29/fukushima-daiichi-operator-tsunami-warning
  3. World Nuclear News. (April 10, 2019). "Evacuation order lifted in Fukushima host town". From https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Evacuation-order-lifted-in-Fukushima-host-town
  4. Alexey V. Yablokov; Vassily B. Nesterenko; Alexey V. Nesterenko (2009). Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences) (paperback ed.). Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-1573317573.
  5. Johnson, T. (September 23, 2011). Nuclear Power Safety Concerns. Council on Foreign Relations. From: http://www.cfr.org/europerussia/nuclear-power-safety-concerns/p10534
  6. Morgan, J. (April 20, 2010). Comparing Energy Costs of Nuclear, Coal, Gas, Wind, and Solar. Nuclear Fissionary. From: http://nuclearfissionary.com/2010/04/02/comparing-energy-costs-of-nuclear-coal-gas-wind-and-solar/
  7. Joskow, P., Parsons, J. (2009). The economic future of nuclear power. Daedalus. From: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/daed.2009.138.4.45
  8. Office of Nuclear Energy. (2006). Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative. U.S. Department of Energy. From: http://www.ne.doe.gov/pdfFiles/GENIV.pdf
  9. Climate Change-Nuclear not the Answer. Greenpeace. From: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/PageFiles/24507/briefing-nuclear-not-answer-apr07.pdf
  10. A simple statement on nuclear energy. From: http://www.nirs.org/petition2/index.php?r=sb
  11. Bruno Comby (Unknown) Benifits of Nuclear Energy. From: http://www.ecolo.org/base/baseen.htm
  12. International Atomic Energy Agency.(n.d.) Nuclear Security Series. From: https://www.iaea.org/resources/nuclear-security-series
  13. a b c Brookings.(March 1, 2002).Terrorism and Nuclear Energy: Understanding the Risks. From: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/terrorism-and-nuclear-energy-understanding-the-risks/
  14. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (n.d.). Backgrounder on Nuclear Security. From: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/security-enhancements.html
  15. AFP.(July 3, 2018). Greenpeace activists 'crash' drone into French nuclear plant. From: https://www.yahoo.com/news/greenpeace-activists-crash-drone-french-nuclear-plant-134507827.html
  16. Independent Statistics and Analysis. (2009). International Energy Statistics. U.S. Energy Information Administration. From: http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=2&pid=27&aid=12&cid=GM,&syid=2005&eyid=2009&unit=BKWH
  17. Dempsey, J., Ewing, J. (May 30, 2011). Germany, in Reversal, Will Close Nuclear Plants by 2022. The New York Times. From: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/world/europe/31germany.html
  18. Unknown. (March 14, 2011). Germany to Reconsider Nuclear Policy: Merkel Sets Three-Month 'Moratorium' on Extension of Lifespans. Spiegel Online. From: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,750916,00.html
  19. Harding, L. (March 15, 2011). Angela Merkel switches off seven nuclear power plants. The Guardian. From: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/15/germany-merkel-switches-nuclear-power-off
  20. Brown, S. (March 27, 2011). Anti-nuclear Germans protest on eve of state vote. Reuters. From: http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/03/26/germany-nuclear-idINLDE72P0FG20110326
  21. Unknown. (March 25, 2011). Impact of Fukushima event on nuclear power sector: Preliminary assessment. AREVA. From: http://www.npcil.nic.in/pdf/presentation_08apr2011_01.pdf
  22. Office for Nuclear Regulation. (September 2011). Japanese earthquake and tsunami: Implications for the UK nuclear industry. Health and Safety Executive. From: http://www.hse.gov.uk/nuclear/fukushima/final-report.pdf
  23. Unknown. (March 25, 2011). Impact of Fukushima event on nuclear power sector: Preliminary assessment. AREVA. From: http://www.npcil.nic.in/pdf/presentation_08apr2011_01.pdf
  24. Unknown. (May 30, 2011). France expands nuclear plans despite Fukushima. BBC. From: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13595455
  25. Jha, A. (September 8, 2011). UK public confidence in nuclear remains steady despite Fukushima. The Guardain. From: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/sep/09/nuclear-power-popular-in-uk
  26. Steve Hargreaves (5 April 2011) Climate hawks still support nuclear power. From: http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/05/news/economy/nuclear_japan_support/index.htm
  27. Environmental Defense Fund (25 July 2011) Summer 2011 Talk Back. From: http://solutions.edf.org/2011/07/12/summer-2011-talk-back/
  28. Perspective on Public Opinion (June 2010) NEI. From: http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/publications/perspectiveonpublicopinion/perspective-on-public-opinion-june-2010/
  29. PollingReport.com. From: http://www.pollingreport.com/energy.htm
  30. a b Davies, D. M. (2017, October 6). How Did The South Texas Project Nuclear Power Plant Weather Harvey? Retrieved from http://www.tpr.org/post/how-did-south-texas-project-nuclear-power-plant-weather-harvey>
  31. Henriques, S. (2014, March 20). Learning to Manage a Severe Nuclear Accident. Retrieved from https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/learning-manage-severe-nuclear-accident>
  32. a b Conca, J. (2017, September 04). Hurricane Harvey Makes The Case For Nuclear Power. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/09/01/hurricane-harvey-makes-the-case-for-nuclear-power/#279803ea3625>
  33. a b Emergency Response. (2017, September 14). Retrieved from http://www.beyondnuclear.org/emergency-response/>
  34. a b Siegle, W. (2011, March 21). South Texas Nuclear Company Opens Brand New Emergency Response Center. Retrieved from https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/2011/03/21/26491/south-texas-nuclear-company-opens-brand-new-emergency-response-center/>
  35. World Nuclear News (25 November 2011) Patchy global support for nuclear new-build. From: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP_Patchy_global_support_for_nuclear_new_build_2511111.html
  36. Jim Hoagland (6 October 2011) Nuclear energy after Fukushima. From: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/nuclear-energy-after-fukushima/2011/10/05/gIQAbxIFRL_story.html
  37. Bangladesh Progresses Toward Nuclear Power, IAED. From: http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2011/bangladeshprog.html
  38. B. Madres, "Storage and 'Disposal' of Nuclear Waste," Physics 241, Stanford University, Winter 2011
  39. Dry Cask Storage. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/dry-cask-storage.html
  40. Nuclear Connect. (n.d.). Transporting Nuclear Waste. Retrieved from http://nuclearconnect.org/know-nuclear/technology/nuclear-waste.
  41. Burns, R.E. Causey, W.E. Galloway, W.E. Nelson, R.W. (May 1978). Retrieved from https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19780015628.pdf
  42. a b Coopersmith, Jonathan (1992). Retrieved from https://space.nss.org/media/Space-Manufacturing-conference-12-111-Disposal-Of-High-Level-Nuclear-Waste-In-Space.pdf
  43. Unknown. (2016, May 29). Finland Natural Disasters. Retrieved from http://geologynaturaldisasters.blogspot.com/2016/05/finland-natural-disasters.html
  44. a b PRI. (n.d.). Finland's solution to nuclear waste storage may set an example for the world. Retrieved from https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-07-31/finlands-solution-nuclear-waste-storage-may-set-example-world
  45. Trauth, K.M., Hora, S.C., & Guzowski, R.V. Expert judgment on markers to deter inadvertent human intrusion into the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. United States. doi:10.2172/10117359.
  46. W. T. W. (n.d.). A Message to the Future. Retrieved from https://worksthatwork.com/3/message-to-the-future/share/e8758f8c69f28bb2a0a1ff8d8a91196e.
  47. Nuclear power in Russia, Wikipedia. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Russia