case study on nuclear power plant

Create an account

Create a free IEA account to download our reports or subcribe to a paid service.

Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System

About this report.

With nuclear power facing an uncertain future in many countries, the world risks a steep decline in its use in advanced economies that could result in billions of tonnes of additional carbon emissions. Some countries have opted out of nuclear power in light of concerns about safety and other issues. Many others, however, still see a role for nuclear in their energy transitions but are not doing enough to meet their goals.

The publication of the IEA's first report addressing nuclear power in nearly two decades brings this important topic back into the global energy debate.

Key findings

Nuclear power is the second-largest source of low-carbon electricity today.

Nuclear power is the second-largest source of low-carbon electricity today, with 452 operating reactors providing 2700 TWh of electricity in 2018, or 10% of global electricity supply.

In advanced economies, nuclear has long been the largest source of low-carbon electricity, providing 18% of supply in 2018. Yet nuclear is quickly losing ground. While 11.2 GW of new nuclear capacity was connected to power grids globally in 2018 – the highest total since 1990 – these additions were concentrated in China and Russia.

Global low-carbon power generation by source, 2018

Cumulative co2 emissions avoided by global nuclear power in selected countries, 1971-2018, an aging nuclear fleet.

In the absense of further lifetime extensions and new projects could result in an additional 4 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions, underlining the importance of the nuclear fleet to low-carbon energy transitions around the globe. In emerging and developing economies, particularly China, the nuclear fleet will provide low-carbon electricity for decades to come.

However the nuclear fleet in advanced economies is 35 years old on average and many plants are nearing the end of their designed lifetimes. Given their age, plants are beginning to close, with 25% of existing nuclear capacity in advanced economies expected to be shut down by 2025.

It is considerably cheaper to extend the life of a reactor than build a new plant, and costs of extensions are competitive with other clean energy options, including new solar PV and wind projects. Nevertheless they still represent a substantial capital investment. The estimated cost of extending the operational life of 1 GW of nuclear capacity for at least 10 years ranges from $500 million to just over $1 billion depending on the condition of the site.

However difficult market conditions are a barrier to lifetime extension investments. An extended period of low wholesale electricity prices in most advanced economies has sharply reduced or eliminated margins for many technologies, putting nuclear at risk of shutting down early if additional investments are needed. As such, the feasibility of extensions depends largely on domestic market conditions.

Age profile of nuclear power capacity in selected regions, 2019

United states, levelised cost of electricity in the united states, 2040, european union, levelised cost of electricity in the european union, 2040, levelised cost of electricity in japan, 2040, the nuclear fade case, nuclear capacity operating in selected advanced economies in the nuclear fade case, 2018-2040, wind and solar pv generation by scenario 2019-2040, policy recommendations.

In this context, countries that intend to retain the option of nuclear power should consider the following actions:

• Keep the option open:  Authorise lifetime extensions of existing nuclear plants for as long as safely possible. 
• Value dispatchability:  Design the electricity market in a way that properly values the system services needed to maintain electricity security, including capacity availability and frequency control services. Make sure that the providers of these services, including nuclear power plants, are compensated in a competitive and non-discriminatory manner.
• Value non-market benefits:  Establish a level playing field for nuclear power with other low-carbon energy sources in recognition of its environmental and energy security benefits and remunerate it accordingly.
• Update safety regulations:  Where necessary, update safety regulations in order to ensure the continued safe operation of nuclear plants. Where technically possible, this should include allowing flexible operation of nuclear power plants to supply ancillary services.
• Create a favourable financing framework:  Create risk management and financing frameworks that facilitate the mobilisation of capital for new and existing plants at an acceptable cost taking the risk profile and long time-horizons of nuclear projects into consideration.
• Support new construction:  Ensure that licensing processes do not lead to project delays and cost increases that are not justified by safety requirements.
• Support innovative new reactor designs:  Accelerate innovation in new reactor designs with lower capital costs and shorter lead times and technologies that improve the operating flexibility of nuclear power plants to facilitate the integration of growing wind and solar capacity into the electricity system.
• Maintain human capital:  Protect and develop the human capital and project management capabilities in nuclear engineering.

Executive summary

Nuclear power can play an important role in clean energy transitions.

Nuclear power today makes a significant contribution to electricity generation, providing 10% of global electricity supply in 2018.  In advanced economies 1 , nuclear power accounts for 18% of generation and is the largest low-carbon source of electricity. However, its share of global electricity supply has been declining in recent years. That has been driven by advanced economies, where nuclear fleets are ageing, additions of new capacity have dwindled to a trickle, and some plants built in the 1970s and 1980s have been retired. This has slowed the transition towards a clean electricity system. Despite the impressive growth of solar and wind power, the overall share of clean energy sources in total electricity supply in 2018, at 36%, was the same as it was 20 years earlier because of the decline in nuclear. Halting that slide will be vital to stepping up the pace of the decarbonisation of electricity supply.

A range of technologies, including nuclear power, will be needed for clean energy transitions around the world.  Global energy is increasingly based around electricity. That means the key to making energy systems clean is to turn the electricity sector from the largest producer of CO 2 emissions into a low-carbon source that reduces fossil fuel emissions in areas like transport, heating and industry. While renewables are expected to continue to lead, nuclear power can also play an important part along with fossil fuels using carbon capture, utilisation and storage. Countries envisaging a future role for nuclear account for the bulk of global energy demand and CO 2 emissions. But to achieve a trajectory consistent with sustainability targets – including international climate goals – the expansion of clean electricity would need to be three times faster than at present. It would require 85% of global electricity to come from clean sources by 2040, compared with just 36% today. Along with massive investments in efficiency and renewables, the trajectory would need an 80% increase in global nuclear power production by 2040.

Nuclear power plants contribute to electricity security in multiple ways.  Nuclear plants help to keep power grids stable. To a certain extent, they can adjust their operations to follow demand and supply shifts. As the share of variable renewables like wind and solar photovoltaics (PV) rises, the need for such services will increase. Nuclear plants can help to limit the impacts from seasonal fluctuations in output from renewables and bolster energy security by reducing dependence on imported fuels.

Lifetime extensions of nuclear power plants are crucial to getting the energy transition back on track

Policy and regulatory decisions remain critical to the fate of ageing reactors in advanced economies.  The average age of their nuclear fleets is 35 years. The European Union and the United States have the largest active nuclear fleets (over 100 gigawatts each), and they are also among the oldest: the average reactor is 35 years old in the European Union and 39 years old in the United States. The original design lifetime for operations was 40 years in most cases. Around one quarter of the current nuclear capacity in advanced economies is set to be shut down by 2025 – mainly because of policies to reduce nuclear’s role. The fate of the remaining capacity depends on decisions about lifetime extensions in the coming years. In the United States, for example, some 90 reactors have 60-year operating licenses, yet several have already been retired early and many more are at risk. In Europe, Japan and other advanced economies, extensions of plants’ lifetimes also face uncertain prospects.

Economic factors are also at play.  Lifetime extensions are considerably cheaper than new construction and are generally cost-competitive with other electricity generation technologies, including new wind and solar projects. However, they still need significant investment to replace and refurbish key components that enable plants to continue operating safely. Low wholesale electricity and carbon prices, together with new regulations on the use of water for cooling reactors, are making some plants in the United States financially unviable. In addition, markets and regulatory systems often penalise nuclear power by not pricing in its value as a clean energy source and its contribution to electricity security. As a result, most nuclear power plants in advanced economies are at risk of closing prematurely.

The hurdles to investment in new nuclear projects in advanced economies are daunting

What happens with plans to build new nuclear plants will significantly affect the chances of achieving clean energy transitions.  Preventing premature decommissioning and enabling longer extensions would reduce the need to ramp up renewables. But without new construction, nuclear power can only provide temporary support for the shift to cleaner energy systems. The biggest barrier to new nuclear construction is mobilising investment.  Plans to build new nuclear plants face concerns about competitiveness with other power generation technologies and the very large size of nuclear projects that require billions of dollars in upfront investment. Those doubts are especially strong in countries that have introduced competitive wholesale markets.

A number of challenges specific to the nature of nuclear power technology may prevent investment from going ahead.  The main obstacles relate to the sheer scale of investment and long lead times; the risk of construction problems, delays and cost overruns; and the possibility of future changes in policy or the electricity system itself. There have been long delays in completing advanced reactors that are still being built in Finland, France and the United States. They have turned out to cost far more than originally expected and dampened investor interest in new projects. For example, Korea has a much better record of completing construction of new projects on time and on budget, although the country plans to reduce its reliance on nuclear power.

Without nuclear investment, achieving a sustainable energy system will be much harder

A collapse in investment in existing and new nuclear plants in advanced economies would have implications for emissions, costs and energy security.  In the case where no further investments are made in advanced economies to extend the operating lifetime of existing nuclear power plants or to develop new projects, nuclear power capacity in those countries would decline by around two-thirds by 2040. Under the current policy ambitions of governments, while renewable investment would continue to grow, gas and, to a lesser extent, coal would play significant roles in replacing nuclear. This would further increase the importance of gas for countries’ electricity security. Cumulative CO 2 emissions would rise by 4 billion tonnes by 2040, adding to the already considerable difficulties of reaching emissions targets. Investment needs would increase by almost USD 340 billion as new power generation capacity and supporting grid infrastructure is built to offset retiring nuclear plants.

Achieving the clean energy transition with less nuclear power is possible but would require an extraordinary effort.  Policy makers and regulators would have to find ways to create the conditions to spur the necessary investment in other clean energy technologies. Advanced economies would face a sizeable shortfall of low-carbon electricity. Wind and solar PV would be the main sources called upon to replace nuclear, and their pace of growth would need to accelerate at an unprecedented rate. Over the past 20 years, wind and solar PV capacity has increased by about 580 GW in advanced economies. But in the next 20 years, nearly five times that much would need to be built to offset nuclear’s decline. For wind and solar PV to achieve that growth, various non-market barriers would need to be overcome such as public and social acceptance of the projects themselves and the associated expansion in network infrastructure. Nuclear power, meanwhile, can contribute to easing the technical difficulties of integrating renewables and lowering the cost of transforming the electricity system.

With nuclear power fading away, electricity systems become less flexible.  Options to offset this include new gas-fired power plants, increased storage (such as pumped storage, batteries or chemical technologies like hydrogen) and demand-side actions (in which consumers are encouraged to shift or lower their consumption in real time in response to price signals). Increasing interconnection with neighbouring systems would also provide additional flexibility, but its effectiveness diminishes when all systems in a region have very high shares of wind and solar PV.

Offsetting less nuclear power with more renewables would cost more

Taking nuclear out of the equation results in higher electricity prices for consumers.  A sharp decline in nuclear in advanced economies would mean a substantial increase in investment needs for other forms of power generation and the electricity network. Around USD 1.6 trillion in additional investment would be required in the electricity sector in advanced economies from 2018 to 2040. Despite recent declines in wind and solar costs, adding new renewable capacity requires considerably more capital investment than extending the lifetimes of existing nuclear reactors. The need to extend the transmission grid to connect new plants and upgrade existing lines to handle the extra power output also increases costs. The additional investment required in advanced economies would not be offset by savings in operational costs, as fuel costs for nuclear power are low, and operation and maintenance make up a minor portion of total electricity supply costs. Without widespread lifetime extensions or new projects, electricity supply costs would be close to USD 80 billion higher per year on average for advanced economies as a whole.

Strong policy support is needed to secure investment in existing and new nuclear plants

Countries that have kept the option of using nuclear power need to reform their policies to ensure competition on a level playing field.  They also need to address barriers to investment in lifetime extensions and new capacity. The focus should be on designing electricity markets in a way that values the clean energy and energy security attributes of low-carbon technologies, including nuclear power.

Securing investment in new nuclear plants would require more intrusive policy intervention given the very high cost of projects and unfavourable recent experiences in some countries.  Investment policies need to overcome financing barriers through a combination of long-term contracts, price guarantees and direct state investment.

Interest is rising in advanced nuclear technologies that suit private investment such as small modular reactors (SMRs).  This technology is still at the development stage. There is a case for governments to promote it through funding for research and development, public-private partnerships for venture capital and early deployment grants. Standardisation of reactor designs would be crucial to benefit from economies of scale in the manufacturing of SMRs.

Continued activity in the operation and development of nuclear technology is required to maintain skills and expertise.  The relatively slow pace of nuclear deployment in advanced economies in recent years means there is a risk of losing human capital and technical know-how. Maintaining human skills and industrial expertise should be a priority for countries that aim to continue relying on nuclear power.

The following recommendations are directed at countries that intend to retain the option of nuclear power. The IEA makes no recommendations to countries that have chosen not to use nuclear power in their clean energy transition and respects their choice to do so.

• Keep the option open:  Authorise lifetime extensions of existing nuclear plants for as long as safely possible.
• Value non-market benefits:  Establish a level playing field for nuclear power with other low carbon energy sources in recognition of its environmental and energy security benefits and remunerate it accordingly.
• Create an attractive financing framework:  Set up risk management and financing frameworks that can help mobilise capital for new and existing plants at an acceptable cost, taking the risk profile and long time horizons of nuclear projects into consideration.
• Support new construction:  Ensure that licensing processes do not lead to project delays and cost increases that are not justified by safety requirements. Support standardisation and enable learning-by-doing across the industry.
• Support innovative new reactor designs:  Accelerate innovation in new reactor designs, such as small modular reactors (SMRs), with lower capital costs and shorter lead times and technologies that improve the operating flexibility of nuclear power plants to facilitate the integration of growing wind and solar capacity into the electricity system.

Advanced economies consist of Australia, Canada, Chile, the 28 members of the European Union, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey and the United States.

Reference 1

Cite report.

IEA (2019), Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System , IEA, Paris https://www.iea.org/reports/nuclear-power-in-a-clean-energy-system, Licence: CC BY 4.0

Share this report

• Share on Twitter Twitter
• Share on Facebook Facebook
• Share on LinkedIn LinkedIn
• Share on Email Email
• Share on Print Print

Subscription successful

Thank you for subscribing. You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link at the bottom of any IEA newsletter.

Intelligent insights & conversations with global power industry professionals

Generation Professionals Group

The Generation Professionals Group is for utility professionals who work in biomass, coal, gas/oil, hydro, natural gas, or nuclear power generation fields. 

The Bataan Nuclear Power Plant in the Philippines: A Nuclear Plant, and a Dream, Fizzles

Nuclear Power Plant Engineer. In my study at KEPCO International Nuclear Graduate School in which I specialized in Project Management in Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) Construction, my team and I...

• Member since 2020
• 19 items added with 69,030 views
• Comment (2)
• Jun 18, 2020 Jun 18, 2020 11:49 am GMT
• 38890 views

A case study conducted by Mark Gino Aliperio and Byeonghui Song.

In many ways, the Philippines is a good case study of the effect of public perception and response to the establishment of a nuclear power program. The country’s first and only attempt at nuclear power development was the 621-MW Philippine Nuclear Power Plant in August 1977. It was supposed to be the first of two nuclear plants to be built in the northern province of Bataan. It was also the first nuclear power plant in Southeast Asia, and deemed as a promising solution to the 1973 oil crisis that had adversely affected the global economy, including the Philippines.

Unexpectedly, the Chernobyl accident happened turning optimism quickly into skepticism. This was followed by political events rapidly unfolding in the Philippines and the 21-year rule of President Marcos, crumbled in the face of the People Power revolution that catapulted Mrs. Corazon Aquino to the presidency. Almost everything associated with Marcos was rejected, invariably including the completed and fully constructed and equipped Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP). Thus, 1986 saw the first nuclear power plant in the Philippines and in Southeast Asia mothballed, because of an unfortunate association with an unlamented regime overthrown by the people. From thereon, the power plant was placed on ‘preservation mode’. But then, clamor for the reopening of BNPP was revived during the power crisis in the 90s and the skyrocketing of oil prices in 2007.

During these periods, the Department of Energy (DOE) actually came close to reconsidering nuclear power as a potential energy source for the country. An Inter-Agency Core Group on Nuclear Energy composed of the Department of Energy, the Department of Science and Technology and the NPC Power was organized to do the evaluation. But then the Fukushima nuclear plant incident happened in 2011, creating global panic and concerns about the safety and integrity of nuclear plants. Meanwhile, in the Philippines, the incident virtually led to an undeclared moratorium on all plans to go nuclear for power generation. If these weren't enough, adding to these various setbacks, the emergence of natural gas, wind and solar energy pushed nuclear power deeper into dormancy.

As public perception of nuclear technology has been tainted as a result of few but sensational incidents, Government has a clear role in regaining public trust. Government plays a key role in ensuring public participation and involvement which is critical at every stage of a nuclear power program. This case study takes into account the failure of public involvement and acceptance towards BNPP as it faced allegations of corruption and anomaly. Moreover, two surveys conducted by the Inter-Agency Core Group regarding nuclear energy utilization and awareness were analyzed.

Controversy and Timeline of Construction

Two proposals were submitted by reputable energy companies — General Electric and Westinghouse Electric. General Electric submitted a proposal containing detailed specifications of the nuclear plant and estimated it to cost US$700 million. On the other hand, Westinghouse submitted a lower cost estimate of US$500 million, but the proposal did not contain any detail or specification.

The presidential committee tasked to oversee the project preferred General Electric's proposal, but this was overruled by Marcos in June 1974 who signed a letter of intent awarding the project to Westinghouse, despite the absence of any specifications on their proposal. By March 1975, Westinghouse's cost estimate ballooned to US$1.2 billion without much explanation. The National Power Corporation would later construct only one nuclear reactor plant for US$1.1 billion. It would soon be discovered that Westinghouse sold the similar technology to other countries for only a fraction of the project cost it billed the Philippines.

Construction on the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant began in 1976. Following the 1979 Three Mile Island accident in the United States, construction on the BNPP was stopped, and a subsequent safety inquiry into the plant revealed over 4,000 defects. Among the issues raised was that it was built near a major geological fault line and close to the then dormant Mount Pinatubo.

By 1984, when the BNPP was nearly complete, its cost had reached $US2.3 billion. Equipped with a Westinghouse light water reactor, it was designed to produce 621 megawatts of electricity. President Ferdinand Marcos was overthrown by the People Power Revolution in 1986. Days after the April 1986 Chernobyl disaster, the succeeding administration of President Corazon Aquino decided not to operate the plant. Among other considerations taken were the strong position from Bataan residents and Philippine citizens as well as concern over the integrity of the construction.

The government sued Westinghouse for alleged overpricing and bribery but was ultimately rejected by a United States court. Debt repayment on the plant became the country's biggest single obligation. While successive governments have looked at several proposals to convert the plant into an oil, coal, or gas-fired power station, these options have all been deemed less economically attractive in the long term than simply constructing new power stations.

Anti-Nuclear Movement in the Philippines

The anti-nuclear movement in the Philippines aimed to stop the construction of nuclear power facilities and terminate the presence of American military bases, which were believed to house nuclear weapons on Philippine soil. Anti-nuclear demonstrations were led by groups such as the Nuclear-Free Philippines Coalition and No Nukes Philippines. A focal point for protests in the late 1970s and 1980s was the proposed Bataan Nuclear Power Plant, which was built but never operated. The project was criticized for being a potential threat to public health, especially since the plant was located in an earthquake zone.

The demand of the anti-nuclear movement for the removal of military bases culminated in a 1991 Philippine Senate decision to stop extending the tenure of US facilities in the Philippines. Tons of toxic wastes were left behind after the US withdrawal and anti-nuclear and other groups worked to provide assistance for the bases' cleanup.

Observations

In 2010, the Inter-Agency Core Group, led by the Philippine Department of Energy, the Department of Science and Technology, and the National Power Corporation, conducted a public perception survey to gauge the public’s appreciation of, as well as apprehensions towards, nuclear energy. This was part of an overall information and education campaign mandated by the Philippine Energy Plan 2009-2030.

The results of the survey indicated that there was a largely positive view with regard to the use of nuclear energy in the Philippines. These favorable views towards nuclear power generation were attributed to the escalating electricity rates during the period. The survey also surfaced the need to further improve the public’s perception of the application of nuclear energy by highlighting the benefits of nuclear power plants, and by focusing on the safety requirements/ guidelines and management of nuclear power plants.

In 2011, the nationwide Household Energy Consumption Survey, for the first time, included questions related to nuclear power. The survey aimed at determining awareness and perception of households on major energy issues, including nuclear energy, surfaced the following:

• Regardless of whether a household is aware or unaware of nuclear energy, one in every three households expressed their willingness to support nuclear energy as a viable and long-term option for electricity generation. Almost half of the total households (47%) remained undecided on the question of harnessing nuclear energy.

On the other hand, the bulk of households (79 percent) that belonged to the highest income group were cognizant about nuclear energy and its uses. However, the proportion of households with knowledge about this particular energy source dropped to 22.3 percent at the lowest income group.

• The National Capital Region (NCR) was the only region where at least half of the total household population was aware of nuclear energy, while the rest of the regions registered lower percentages.
• The results imply that income had a positive effect on a household’s awareness of nuclear energy – since households with higher income tended to have more access to various sources of information about nuclear energy, such as those obtained online and from the internet.

But before any further plans of the Core Group could come to fruition, the Fukushima incident in 2011 again turned receptivity into skepticism. The incident was a game changer – creating widespread concern about nuclear power plants, and invariably leading to their undeclared moratorium in the Philippines. The political issues associated with the Bataan nuclear power plant, the external catastrophes involving nuclear power plants in other countries, juxtaposed against the availability of cheaper sources of energy, such as natural gas, and the generally favorable reputation of other forms of renewable energy for power generation, consequently put nuclear power in the back burner.

Analysis and Conclusion

Public perception of nuclear technology has been tainted as a result of few but sensational incidents. These have not only eroded trust in the technology, but also in the ability to balance the need for safety and the need for an economically viable operation of nuclear power plants. Once nuclear power plant lose the trust, it is difficult to regain the confidence. The public contemn government corruptions and are terrified at nuclear incidents. Chernobyl and Fukushima incidents erased utilization of nuclear technology energy from people in the Philippines. Even the public perception survey and household energy consumption survey indicated that there was a largely positive view with regard to the use of nuclear energy, the BNPP being unsafe sat close to inactive volcano Mt. Natib has been causing an incredibly serious problem which people mistrust nuclear technology.

With a view to re-establishing public relations, NPP stakeholders and government has to evaluate BNPP and inform the public of the results. Fukushima was designed for a seismic acceleration of 0.18g, while the Bataan plant had a higher threshold of 0.4g. On the basis of these technical information, NPP stakeholders have to build relationship and two-way communication channel to improve public perception and awareness.

Regaining pubic trust is a prerequisite for a successful energy program and it involves two major aspects. On the one hand, educating the stakeholders, whether the general public, NGOs or other involved parties, not just on the benefits of nuclear technologies, but also in the many ways that technology has progressed. From the vast improvements in safety mechanisms to what the latest generations of reactor types can bring to the table. Both in terms of safety and in terms of efficiency of operations, there is much to talk about. Given the complexities of increasing grid capacities in countries like the Philippines – consisting of about 7.700 islands – small modular reactors may be special interest. As a country that is afflicted by earthquakes at regular intervals, new passive safety features are definitely of interest as well. But it also the trust in the state that needs to be affirmed. All decisions, from the initial stages through siting, safety and environmental issues, require public input, not just education. The trust of the public in the institutions tasked with establishing a nuclear power program has to be earned.

This case study of the Philippine's unsuccessful communication and public acceptance in the nuclear power industry, has been conducted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the course EA201 Stakeholder Management and Public Acceptance.

References:

[1] Valdez-Fabros, Corazon, "The continuing struggle for a nuclear-free Philippines". WISE News Communique. (1998-10-16); [2] Magno, Alex R., “Kasaysayan: The Story of the Filipino People” Asia Publishing Co. Vol. 9, ISBN 962-258-232, pp. 204–205 (1998); [3] ABS-CBN News. (2007). ABS-CBN Interactive Retrieved 2007-06-13.; [4] Lee Yok-shiu, Jeff So, Alvin Y., (October 1999). Asia's Environmental Movements: Comparative Perspectives (Asia and the Pacific). M E Sharpe Inc. ISBN 978-1-56324-909-9; [5] Goodno, James. (1993-07-24). Fossil fuel plans for nuclear station. New Scientist

• clean-power
• communications-&-pr
• policy,-regulatory-&-legal
• public-power

Discussions

Sign in to participate.

Regaining pubic trust is a prerequisite for a successful energy program and it involves two major aspects. On the one hand, educating the stakeholders, whether the general public, NGOs or other involved parties, not just on the benefits of nuclear technologies, but also in the many ways that technology has progressed. 

This seems to be a universal need when it comes to nuclear projects-- do any countries/regions come to mind as having been particularly successful in this regard? What are some best practices that might be learned from those successes (if they exist)?

• Sign in or Register to post comments

This is an excellent example of what has happened with nuclear.  The public is, on the one hand, often too fickle to make informed decisions which require the long term commitment that nuclear requires. On the other hand, cost escalations and nuclear disasters undermine any chance of achieving long term public trust. The "shifting sands" of successive authoritarian governments exacerbate the situation.

Is France the only exception? But, even there faith in nuclear is waning.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309228697_The_future_of_nuclear_power_in_France_an_analysis_of_the_costs_of_phasing-out

• Advanced Welding Techniques for Nuclear Power Plant Construction
• Reactor Containment Building Liner Plate Modularization: Advanced Construction Technology for Nuclear Power Plants
• Open Top Method: Advanced Construction Technology for Nuclear Power Plants
• Data-centric Integration and Automation Technology for Nuclear Power Plant Management System

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network® is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

Start a Post »                  Learn more about posting on Energy Central »

• Start a Post

Lead Protection & Control Engineer Blue Ridge Power Asheville, North Carolina

Energy Resource Planning Analyst Central Electric Power Cooperative Inc Columbia, South Carolina

System Operations Trainer Chelan Public Utility District Wenatchee, Washington

Telecommunications Engineer I-III (DOQ) Snohomish County PUD Everett, Washington

Principal Account Manager (Energy/Electrical/Technical) Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA-Texas) Austin, Texas

Electric System Operator City of Tallahassee Tallahassee, Florida

Senior Energy Market Analyst Denton Municipal Electric Denton, Texas

Analyst, Wholesale Energy Services, Mid-Continent Customized Energy Solutions Mid-Continent States, Remote

Chief Executive Officer Baldwin EMC Summerdale, Alabama

Sponsors & Partners

Plant Vogtle Reactors 3 and 4: A Case Study in Challenges for US Nuclear Construction

Cameron van de graaf march 21, 2017, submitted as coursework for ph241 , stanford university, winter 2017, plant origins and expansion planning, cost overruns, regulatory hurdles, and public opposition.

At the end of the day, many of the problems experienced in the construction at Vogtle are due to a vicious cycle; namely, that since few nuclear plants have been built recently in the US, everything from manufacturing to supply chains to regulation has to be done on an ad-hoc basis. Without the economies of scale from frequent construction of these sorts of projects, contractors like Westinghouse must bear the high fixed costs of getting spun up in addition to more insidious costs, like a lack of trained personnel and institutional knowledge atrophy. On the regulatory side, the NRC and state authorities err on the side of caution as few in these agencies have been around for new nuclear plant construction. Unfortunately, until such a time as the economic incentives (both market-based and subsidy-driven) align more favorably for nuclear power, it seems unlikely that the industry will break out of this cycle.

© Cameron Van de Graaf. The author grants permission to copy, distribute and display this work in unaltered form, with attribution to the author, for noncommercial purposes only. All other rights, including commercial rights, are reserved to the author.

[1] S. Lam, " Plant Vogtle: The Beginning of a Nuclear Renaissance? ,"Physics 241, Stanford University, Winter 2012.

[2] D. Biello, " Nuclear Reactor Approved in U.S. for First Time Since 1978 ," Scientific American, 9 Feb 2012.

[3] P. Barrett, " What Killed America's Climate-Saving Nuclear Renaissance? ," Bloomberg Businessweek, 27 Oct. 2015.

[4] E. Crooks and K. Inagaki, " Toshiba Brought To Its Knees By Two US Nuclear Plants ," Financial Times, 16 Feb. 2017.

[5] " Vogtle Nuclear Plant Expansion: Big Risks and Even Bigger Costs for Georgia's Residents ," Union of Concerned Scientists, January 2012.

Brought to you by:

The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster: Causes, Consequences, and Implications

By: Jochen Reb, Yoshisuke Iinuma, Havovi Joshi

This case study discusses the causes, consequences and implications of the nuclear disaster at Tokyo Electric Power Company's (TEPCO's) Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant that was triggered by a…

• Length: 11 page(s)
• Publication Date: Oct 25, 2012
• Discipline: General Management
• Product #: SMU103-PDF-ENG

What's included:

• Teaching Note
• Educator Copy

$4.95 per student

degree granting course

$8.95 per student

non-degree granting course

Get access to this material, plus much more with a free Educator Account:

• Access to world-famous HBS cases
• Up to 60% off materials for your students
• Resources for teaching online
• Tips and reviews from other Educators

Already registered? Sign in

• Student Registration
• Non-Academic Registration
• Included Materials

This case study discusses the causes, consequences and implications of the nuclear disaster at Tokyo Electric Power Company's (TEPCO's) Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant that was triggered by a massive 9.0 magnitude earthquake and subsequent tsunami waves on March 11, 2011. There are two essential questions: First, "How could it have come so far?" Japan is rightfully considered a technologically advanced nation and is known for its diligence and high-quality products. While the combined earthquake/tsunami triggered the catastrophe, there are a number of deeper underlying causes that are described in the first section of the case. Second, "What next?" While the plant technically achieved cold shutdown with all damaged reactors reaching temperatures below 100°C, this did not mean that the Fukushima disaster was over. Instead, numerous consequences and implications extend into the future.

Learning Objectives

Students will become more aware of the psychological, interpersonal, organisational, and institutional contributors to crises. They will learn to recognise the development, characteristics, and negative consequences of groupthink; and understand the crucial role of communications during crisis management. Students will also discuss broader implications such as the future of nuclear energy and the responsibility of organisations in catastrophes.

Oct 25, 2012

Discipline:

General Management

Geographies:

Industries:

Energy and natural resources sector

Singapore Management University

SMU103-PDF-ENG

We use cookies to understand how you use our site and to improve your experience, including personalizing content. Learn More . By continuing to use our site, you accept our use of cookies and revised Privacy Policy .

Social and environmental impact of nuclear power plant: A case study of Kaiga generating station in Karwar, Karnataka, India

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data
• Peer Review
• Reprints and Permissions
• Cite Icon Cite
• Search Site

Suresh D. Mane , Rahul Shanbag , Pramod Madival; Social and environmental impact of nuclear power plant: A case study of Kaiga generating station in Karwar, Karnataka, India. AIP Conf. Proc. 27 November 2018; 2039 (1): 020053. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5079012

Download citation file:

• Ris (Zotero)
• Reference Manager

India has vast reserves of uranium which is a nuclear fuel. The population of nation has reached 1.3 billion and yet 71 years post independence many a villages are not connected to the electrical grid. Power quality is a perennial issue and India faces energy shortage to meet the base load as well as peak load demand. Considering the vast strides made by India in harnessing renewable energy sources like wind and solar the only green option left to exploit is that of nuclear energy. Globally as on April 2017, 30 nations are producing electricity through nuclear route employing 449 reactors which amount to 11% of electricity produced coming from nuclear power. Even 70 years after independence the nuclear energy share is less than 5 % in India and hence scope exists for enhancing its share. The nation has few scattered nuclear power plants and one of them is at Kaiga in Uttar Kannada district of Karnataka. Kaiga is located at 14.8661° N longitude and 74.4394° E latitude. This Nuclear Power Corporation of India unit was established in 2000 with two units of 220 MW capacity and expanded to four units by adding two more units of 220 MW each in 2007 and 2011. All four units are small CANDU units using natural uranium as fuel and heavy water as moderator. The unit basically is a pressurized heavy water reactor plant. The plant is successfully operating for the past 17 years without any major issues with a plant load factor exceeding 90%. This study entails designing a questionnaire and administering the same to 510 individuals covering 5% of the total population of 10 villages in 30 km radius of the plant. The results do not reveal any adverse effect of the 17 years operation of the plant on the flora and fauna of the region. The villagers and their families stand to be benefitted by the CSR activities of NPCIL over these years in the field of education, infrastructure, healthcare and transportation.

Sign in via your Institution

Citing articles via, publish with us - request a quote.

Sign up for alerts

• Online ISSN 1551-7616
• Print ISSN 0094-243X
• For Researchers
• For Librarians
• For Advertisers
• Our Publishing Partners  
• Physics Today
• Conference Proceedings
• Special Topics

pubs.aip.org

• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use

Connect with AIP Publishing

This feature is available to subscribers only.

Sign In or Create an Account

Suggestions or feedback?

MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology

• Machine learning
• Social justice
• Black holes
• Classes and programs

Departments

• Aeronautics and Astronautics
• Brain and Cognitive Sciences
• Architecture
• Political Science
• Mechanical Engineering

Centers, Labs, & Programs

• Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL)
• Picower Institute for Learning and Memory
• Lincoln Laboratory
• School of Architecture + Planning
• School of Engineering
• School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences
• Sloan School of Management
• School of Science
• MIT Schwarzman College of Computing

MIT Energy Initiative study reports on the future of nuclear energy

Press contact :.

Previous image Next image

How can the world achieve the deep carbon emissions reductions that are necessary to slow or reverse the impacts of climate change? The authors of a new MIT study say that unless nuclear energy is meaningfully incorporated into the global mix of low-carbon energy technologies, the challenge of climate change will be much more difficult and costly to solve. For nuclear energy to take its place as a major low-carbon energy source, however, issues of cost and policy need to be addressed.

In " The Future of Nuclear Energy in a Carbon-Constrained World ," released by the MIT Energy Initiative (MITEI) on Sept. 3, the authors analyze the reasons for the current global stall of nuclear energy capacity — which currently accounts for only 5 percent of global primary energy production — and discuss measures that could be taken to arrest and reverse that trend.

The study group, led by MIT researchers in collaboration with colleagues from Idaho National Laboratory and the University of Wisconsin at Madison, is presenting its findings and recommendations at events in London, Paris, and Brussels this week, followed by events on Sept. 25 in Washington, and on Oct. 9 in Tokyo. MIT graduate and undergraduate students and postdocs, as well as faculty from Harvard University and members of various think tanks, also contributed to the study as members of the research team.

“Our analysis demonstrates that realizing nuclear energy’s potential is essential to achieving a deeply decarbonized energy future in many regions of the world,” says study co-chair Jacopo Buongiorno, the TEPCO Professor and associate department head of the Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering at MIT. He adds, “Incorporating new policy and business models, as well as innovations in construction that may make deployment of cost-effective nuclear power plants more affordable, could enable nuclear energy to help meet the growing global demand for energy generation while decreasing emissions to address climate change.”

The study team notes that the electricity sector in particular is a prime candidate for deep decarbonization. Global electricity consumption is on track to grow 45 percent by 2040, and the team’s analysis shows that the exclusion of nuclear from low-carbon scenarios could cause the average cost of electricity to escalate dramatically.

“Understanding the opportunities and challenges facing the nuclear energy industry requires a comprehensive analysis of technical, commercial, and policy dimensions,” says Robert Armstrong, director of MITEI and the Chevron Professor of Chemical Engineering. “Over the past two years, this team has examined each issue, and the resulting report contains guidance policymakers and industry leaders may find valuable as they evaluate options for the future.”

The report discusses recommendations for nuclear plant construction, current and future reactor technologies, business models and policies, and reactor safety regulation and licensing. The researchers find that changes in reactor construction are needed to usher in an era of safer, more cost-effective reactors, including proven construction management practices that can keep nuclear projects on time and on budget.

“A shift towards serial manufacturing of standardized plants, including more aggressive use of fabrication in factories and shipyards, can be a viable cost-reduction strategy in countries where the productivity of the traditional construction sector is low,” says MIT visiting research scientist David Petti, study executive director and Laboratory Fellow at the Idaho National Laboratory. “Future projects should also incorporate reactor designs with inherent and passive safety features.”

These safety features could include core materials with high chemical and physical stability and engineered safety systems that require limited or no emergency AC power and minimal external intervention. Features like these can reduce the probability of severe accidents occurring and mitigate offsite consequences in the event of an incident. Such designs can also ease the licensing of new plants and accelerate their global deployment.

“The role of government will be critical if we are to take advantage of the economic opportunity and low-carbon potential that nuclear has to offer,” says John Parsons, study co-chair and senior lecturer at MIT’s Sloan School of Management. “If this future is to be realized, government officials must create new decarbonization policies that put all low-carbon energy technologies (i.e. renewables, nuclear, fossil fuels with carbon capture) on an equal footing, while also exploring options that spur private investment in nuclear advancement.”

The study lays out detailed options for government support of nuclear. For example, the authors recommend that policymakers should avoid premature closures of existing plants, which undermine efforts to reduce emissions and increase the cost of achieving emission reduction targets. One way to avoid these closures is the implementation of zero-emissions credits — payments made to electricity producers where electricity is generated without greenhouse gas emissions — which the researchers note are currently in place in New York, Illinois, and New Jersey.

Another suggestion from the study is that the government support development and demonstration of new nuclear technologies through the use of four “levers”: funding to share regulatory licensing costs; funding to share research and development costs; funding for the achievement of specific technical milestones; and funding for production credits to reward successful demonstration of new designs.

The study includes an examination of the current nuclear regulatory climate, both in the United States and internationally. While the authors note that significant social, political, and cultural differences may exist among many of the countries in the nuclear energy community, they say that the fundamental basis for assessing the safety of nuclear reactor programs is fairly uniform, and should be reflected in a series of basic aligned regulatory principles. They recommend regulatory requirements for advanced reactors be coordinated and aligned internationally to enable international deployment of commercial reactor designs, and to standardize and ensure a high level of safety worldwide.

The study concludes with an emphasis on the urgent need for both cost-cutting advancements and forward-thinking policymaking to make the future of nuclear energy a reality.

"The Future of Nuclear Energy in a Carbon-Constrained World" is the eighth in the "Future of…" series of studies that are intended to serve as guides to researchers, policymakers, and industry. Each report explores the role of technologies that might contribute at scale in meeting rapidly growing global energy demand in a carbon-constrained world. Nuclear power was the subject of the first of these interdisciplinary studies, with the 2003 "Future of Nuclear Power " report (an update was published in 2009). The series has also included a study on the future of the nuclear fuel cycle. Other reports in the series have focused on carbon dioxide sequestration, natural gas, the electric grid, and solar power. These comprehensive reports are written by multidisciplinary teams of researchers. The research is informed by a distinguished external advisory committee.

Share this news article on:

Press mentions, national geographic.

Prof. Jacopo Buongiorno speaks with National Geographic reporter Lois Parshley about the future of nuclear energy in the U.S. and western Europe. “Our analysis shows a big share of nuclear, a big share of renewables, and some storage is the best mix that is low-carbon, reliable, and at the lowest cost,” says Buongiorno of an MIT report showing the most cost-efficient, reliable grid comes from an energy mix.  

Marketplace

Prof. Jacopo Buongiorno speaks with Marketplace reporter Sabri Ben-Achour about MITEI’s study showing the potential impact of nuclear power in addressing climate change. Buongiorno noted that if costs can be reduced and more supportive policies enacted, nuclear power has the “potential to decarbonize the power sector on a global scale.”

Forbes contributor Jeff McMahon writes that a new study by MIT researchers finds that nuclear reactors “cost so much in the West because of poor construction management practices.” The study’s authors suggest several ways to reduce the cost of constructing a nuclear plant, including standardizing multi-unit sites, seismic isolation, and modular construction.

A recent study from the MIT Energy Initiative finds that the cost of nuclear reactors can be twice as high in the U.S. and Europe compared to Asian countries. The researchers found that costs were “bundled up in the site preparation, the building construction, [and] the civil works,” rather than the reactor itself, writes Jeff McMahon for Forbes .

The Wall Street Journal

Wall Street Journal reporter Neanda Salvaterra writes about a new MITEI study showing how nuclear power can help reduce carbon emissions. Nuclear power, says MITEI Director Robert Armstrong, “has been demonstrated historically as capable of delivering energy on demand over decades with zero carbon footprint so it’s an option we need to keep in our quiver.”

Axios reporter Ben Geman writes that a MIT Energy Initiative study shows that while nuclear power is critical to cutting carbon emissions, expanding the industry will be difficult without supportive policies and project cost reductions. The report’s authors explain that the increasing cost of nuclear power undermines its "potential contribution and increases the cost of achieving deep decarbonization."

A new MIT Energy Initiative study details how nuclear power could help fight climate change, reports Jonathan Tirone for Bloomberg News. The study’s authors explain that U.S. policy makers could support the nuclear industry by putting a “price on emissions, either through direct taxation or carbon-trading markets. That would give atomic operators more room to compete against cheap gas, wind and solar.”

Previous item Next item

Related Links

• Report: "The Future of Nuclear Energy in a Carbon-Constrained World"
• Jacopo Buongiorno
• Center for Advanced Nuclear Energy Systems
• MIT Energy Initiative
• Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering

Related Topics

• Alternative energy
• Nuclear power and reactors
• Nuclear science and engineering
• Renewable energy
• Climate change
• Sustainability

Related Articles

3 Questions: The future of nuclear energy

Jacopo Buongiorno named associate head of Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering

More mit news.

Elaine Liu: Charging ahead

Read full story →

Scientists use generative AI to answer complex questions in physics

New tool empowers users to fight online misinformation

2024 MIT Supply Chain Excellence Awards given to 35 undergraduates

Faces of MIT: Reimi Hicks

John Joannopoulos receives 2024-2025 Killian Award

• More news on MIT News homepage →

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA, USA

• Map (opens in new window)
• Events (opens in new window)
• People (opens in new window)
• Careers (opens in new window)
• Accessibility
• Social Media Hub
• MIT on Facebook
• MIT on YouTube
• MIT on Instagram

• Future Energy Systems Center
• Studies and reports
• Funding opportunities
• Carbon Management
• Electric Power
• Energy storage
• Low-carbon Fuels
• Transportation
• Undergraduate education
• Graduate & postdoctoral
• Online education
• Education research
• Current members
• Energy Futures
• In the media
• Affiliations

Building nuclear power plants

Why do costs exceed projections.

An MIT team has revealed why, in the field of nuclear power, experience with a given technology doesn’t always lower costs. When it comes to building a nuclear power plant in the United States—even of a well-known design—the total bill is often three times as high as expected. Using a new analytical approach, the researchers delved into the cost overrun from non-hardware-related activities such as engineering services and labor supervision. Tightening safety regulations were responsible for some of the cost increase, but declining labor productivity also played a significant role. Analyses of possible cost-reduction strategies show potential gains from technology development to reduce materials use and to automate some construction tasks. Cost overruns continue to be left out of nuclear industry projections and overlooked in the design process in the United States, but the researchers’ approach could help solve those problems. Their new tool should prove valuable to design engineers, developers, and investors in any field with demanding and changeable regulatory and site-specific requirements.

Nuclear power is frequently cited as a critical component in the portfolio of technologies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But rising construction costs and project delays have hampered efforts to expand nuclear capacity in the United States since the 1970s. At plants begun after 1970, the average cost of construction has typically been far higher than the initial cost estimate.

Nevertheless, the nuclear industry, government, and research agencies continue to forecast cost reductions in nuclear plant construction. A key assumption in such projections is that costs will decline as the industry gains experience with a given reactor design. “It’s often included in models, with huge impacts on the outcomes of projected energy supply mixes,” says Jessika E. Trancik , an associate professor of energy studies in the MIT Institute for Data, Systems, and Society (IDSS).

That expectation is based on an assumption typically expressed in terms of the “learning rate” for a given technology, which represents the percent cost reduction associated with a doubling of cumulative production. Nuclear industry cost-estimating guidelines as well as widely used climate models and global energy scenarios often rely on learning rates that significantly reduce costs as installed nuclear capacity increases. Yet empirical evidence shows that in the case of nuclear plants, learning rates are negative. Costs just keep rising.

To investigate, Trancik and her team—co-first authors Philip Eash-Gates SM ’19 and IDSS postdoc Magdalena M. Klemun PhD ’19; IDSS postdoc Gökşin Kavlak; former IDSS research scientist James McNerney; and TEPCO Professor of Nuclear Science and Engineering Jacopo Buongiorno —began by looking at industry data on the cost of construction (excluding financing costs) over five decades from 107 nuclear plants across the United States. They estimated a negative learning rate consistent with a doubling of construction costs with each doubling of cumulative U.S. capacity.

That result is based on average costs across nuclear plants of all types. One explanation is that the rise in average costs hides trends of decreasing costs in particular reactor designs. So the researchers examined the cost trajectories of four standard plant designs installed in the United States that reached a cumulative built capacity of 8 gigawatts-electric. Their results appear below. They found that construction costs for each of the four designs rose as more plants were built. In fact, the first one built was the least expensive in three of the four cases and was among the least expensive plants in the fourth.

“We’ve confirmed that costs have risen even for plants of the same design class,” says Trancik. “That outcome defies engineering expectations.” She notes that a common view is that more stringent safety regulations have increased the cost of nuclear power plant construction. But is that the full explanation, or are other factors at work as well?

Source of increasing cost

To find out, the researchers examined cost data from 1976 to 1987 in the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Economic Data Base. (After 1987 the DOE database was no longer updated.) They looked at the contributions to overall cost increases of 61 “cost accounts” representing individual plant components and the services needed to install them.

They found that the overall trend was an increase in costs. Many accounts contribute to the total cost escalation, so the researchers couldn’t easily identify one source. But they could group the accounts into two categories: direct costs and indirect costs. Direct costs are costs of materials and labor needed for physical components such as reactor equipment and control and monitoring systems. Indirect costs are construction support activities such as engineering, administration, and construction supervision. The figure below shows their results.

The researchers concluded that between 1976 and 1987, indirect costs—those external to hardware—caused 72% of the cost increase. “Most aren’t hardware-related but rather are what we call soft costs,” says Trancik. “Examples include rising expenditures on engineering services, on-site job supervision, and temporary construction facilities.”

To determine which aspects of the technology were most responsible for the rise in indirect expenses, they delved further into the DOE dataset and attributed the indirect expenses to the specific plant components that incurred them. The analysis revealed that three components were most influential in causing the indirect cost change: the nuclear steam supply system, the turbine generator, and the containment building. All three also contributed heavily to the direct cost increase.

A case study

For further insight, the researchers undertook a case study focusing on the containment building. This airtight, steel-and-concrete structure forms the outermost layer of a nuclear reactor and is designed to prevent the escape of radioactive materials as well as to protect the plant from aircraft impact, missile attack, and other threats. As such, it is one of the most expensive components and one with significant safety requirements.

Based on historical and recent design drawings, the researchers extended their analysis from the 1976–1987 period to the year 2017. Data on indirect costs aren’t available for 2017, so they focused on the direct cost of the containment building. Their goal was to break down cost changes into underlying engineering choices and productivity trends.

They began by developing a standard cost equation that could calculate the cost of the containment building based on a set of underlying variables—from wall thickness to laborer wages to the prices of materials. To track the effects of labor productivity trends on cost, they included variables representing steel and concrete “deployment rates,” defined as the ratio of material volumes to the amount of labor (in person-hours) required to deploy them during construction.

A cost equation can be used to calculate how a change in one variable will affect overall cost. But when multiple variables are changing at the same time, adding up the individual impacts won’t work because they interact. Trancik and her team therefore turned to a novel methodology they developed in 2018 to examine what caused the cost of solar photovoltaic modules to drop so much in recent decades. Based on their cost equation for the containment building and following their 2018 methodology, they derived a “cost change equation” that can quantify how a change in each variable contributes to the change in overall cost when the variables are all changing at once.

Their results, summarized in the right-hand panel of the figure below, show that the major contributors to the rising cost of the containment building between 1976 and 2017 were changes in the thickness of the structure and in the materials deployment rates. Changes to other plant geometries and to prices of materials brought costs down but not enough to offset those increases.

Percentage contribution of variables to increases in containment building costs These panels summarize types of variables that caused costs to increase between 1976 and 2017. In the first time period (left panel), the major contributor was a drop in the rate at which materials were deployed during construction. In the second period (middle panel), the containment building was redesigned for improved safety during possible emergencies, and the required increase in wall thickness pushed up costs. Overall, from 1976 to 2017 (right panel), the cost of a containment building more than doubled.

As the left and center panels above show, the importance of those mechanisms changed over time. Between 1976 and 1987, the cost increase was caused primarily by declining deployment rates; in other words, productivity dropped. Between 1987 and 2017, the containment building was redesigned for passive cooling, reducing the need for operator intervention during emergencies. The new design required that the steel shell be approximately five times thicker in 2017 than it had been in 1987—a change that caused 80% of the cost increase over the 1976–2017 period.

Overall, the researchers found that the cost of the reactor containment building more than doubled between 1976 and 2017. Most of that cost increase was due to increasing materials use and declining on-site labor productivity—not all of which could be clearly attributed to safety regulations. Labor productivity has been declining in the construction industry at large, but at nuclear plants it has dropped far more rapidly. “Material deployment rates at recent U.S. ‘new builds’ have been up to 13 times lower than those assumed by the industry for cost estimation purposes,” says Trancik. “That disparity between projections and actual experience has contributed significantly to cost overruns.”

Discussion so far has focused on what the researchers call “low-level mechanisms” of cost change—that is, cost change that arises from changes in the variables in their cost model, such as materials deployment rates and containment wall thickness. In many cases, those changes have been driven by “high-level mechanisms” such as human activities, strategies, regulations, and economies of scale.

The researchers identified four high-level mechanisms that could have driven the low-level changes. The first three are “R&D,” which can lead to requirements for significant modifications to the containment building design and construction process; “process interference, safety,” which includes the impacts of on-site safety-related personnel on the construction process; and “worsening despite doing,” which refers to decreases in the performance of construction workers, possibly due to falling morale and other changes. The fourth mechanism— “other”—includes changes that originate outside the nuclear industry, such as wage or commodity price changes. Following their 2018 methodology, the team assigned each low-level cost increase to the high-level mechanism or set of mechanisms that caused it.

The analysis showed that R&D-related activities contributed roughly 30% to cost increases, and on-site procedural changes contributed roughly 70%. Safety-related mechanisms caused about half of the direct cost increase over the 1976 to 2017 period. If all the productivity decline were attributed to safety, then 90% of the overall cost increase could be linked to safety. But historical evidence points to the existence of construction management and worker morale issues that cannot be clearly linked to safety requirements.

Lessons for the future

The researchers next used their models in a prospective study of approaches that might help to reduce nuclear plant construction costs in the future. In particular, they examined whether the variables representing the low-level mechanisms at work in the past could be addressed through innovation. They looked at three scenarios, each of which assumes a set of changes to the variables in the cost model relative to their values in 2017.

In the first scenario, they assume that cost improvement occurs broadly. Specifically, all variables change by 20% in a cost-reducing direction. While they note that such across-the-board changes are meant to represent a hypothetical and not a realistic scenario, the analysis shows that reductions in the use of rebar (the steel bars in reinforced concrete) and in steelworker wages are most influential, together causing 40% of the overall reduction in direct costs.

In the second scenario, they assume that on-site productivity increases due to the adoption of advanced manufacturing and construction management techniques. Scenario 2 reduces costs by 34% relative to estimated 2017 costs, primarily due to increased automation and improved management of construction activities, including automated concrete deployment and optimized rebar delivery. However, costs are still 30% above 1976 costs.

The third scenario focuses on advanced construction materials such as high-strength steel and ultra-high-performance concrete, which have been shown to reduce commodity use and improve on-site workflows. This scenario reduces cost by only 37% relative to 2017 levels, in part due to the high cost of the materials involved. And the cost is still higher than it was in 1976.

Decreases in containment building costs due to four high-level mechanisms under three innovation strategies Scenario 1 assumes a 20% improvement in all variables; Scenario 2 increases on-site material deployment rates by using advanced manufacturing and construction management techniques; and Scenario 3 involves use of advanced, high-strength construction materials. All three strategies would require significant R&D investment, but the importance of the other high-level mechanisms varies. For example, “learning-by-doing” is important in Scenario 2 because assumed improvements such as increased automation will require some on-site optimization of robot operation. In Scenario 3, the use of advanced materials is assumed to require changes in building design and workflows, but those changes can be planned off-site, so are assigned to R&D and “knowledge spillovers.”

To figure out the high-level mechanisms that influenced those outcomes, the researchers again assigned the low-level mechanisms to high-level mechanisms, in this case including “learning-by-doing” as well as “knowledge spillovers,” which accounts for the transfer of external innovations to the nuclear industry. As shown above, the importance of the mechanisms varies from scenario to scenario. But in all three, R&D would have to play a far more significant role in affecting costs than it has in the past.

Analysis of the scenarios suggests that technology development to reduce commodity usage and to automate construction could significantly reduce costs and increase resilience to changes in regulatory requirements and on-site conditions. But the results also demonstrate the challenges in any effort to reduce nuclear plant construction costs. The cost of materials is highly influential, yet it is one of the variables most constrained by safety standards, and—in general—materials-related cost reductions are limited by the large-scale dimensions and labor intensity of nuclear structures.

Nevertheless, there are reasons to be encouraged by the results of the analyses. They help explain the constant cost overruns in nuclear construction projects and also demonstrate new tools that engineers can use to predict how design changes will affect both hardware- and non-hardware-related costs in this and other technologies. In addition, the work has produced new insights into the process of technology development and innovation. “Using our approach, researchers can explore scenarios and new concepts, such as microreactors and small modular reactors,” says Trancik. “And it may help in the engineering design of other technologies with demanding and changeable on-site construction and performance requirements.” Finally, the new technique can help guide R&D investment to target areas that can deliver real-world cost reductions and further the development and deployment of various technologies, including nuclear power and others that can help in the transition to a low-carbon energy future.

This research was supported by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation and the MIT Energy Initiative. Philip Eash-Gates SM ’19 is now a senior associate at Synapse Energy Economics. James McNerney is a research associate in the Center for International Development at Harvard University. Further information about this research and the earlier study of photovoltaic technology can be found in:

P. Eash-Gates, M.M. Klemun, G. Kavlak, J. McNerney, J. Buongiorno, and J.E. Trancik. “Sources of cost overrun in nuclear power plant construction call for a new approach to engineering design.” Joule , November 2020. Online: doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2020.10.001

G. Kavlak, J. McNerney, J.E. Trancik. “Evaluating the causes of cost reduction in photovoltaic modules.” Energy Policy , vol. 123, pp. 700–710, 2018. Online: doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.08.015

This article appears in the Autumn 2020 issue of Energy Futures .

Press inquiries: [email protected]

The case for nuclear power – despite the risks

Professor of Nuclear Engineering and Radiological Sciences, University of Michigan

Disclosure statement

Gary Was does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

University of Michigan provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation US.

View all partners

This article is part of The Conversation’s worldwide series on the Future of Nuclear. You can read the rest of the series here , and a counterpoint to the views expressed in this article here .

Nuclear power is likely the least well-understood energy source in the United States. Just 99 nuclear power plants spread over 30 states provide one-fifth of America’s electricity. These plants have provided reliable, affordable and clean energy for decades. They also carry risk - to the public, to the environment and to the financial solvency of utilities.

Risk is the product of the probability of an occurrence and its consequence. The probability of dying in a car accident is actually quite high compared to other daily events, but such accidents usually claim few individuals at a time, and so the risk is low. The reason nuclear energy attracts so much attention is that while the probability of a catastrophic event is extremely low, the consequence is often perceived to be extremely high.

Nuclear power and public risk

In the US, commercial nuclear plants have been operating since the late 1960s. If you add up the plants’ years in operation, they average about 30 years each, totaling about 3,000 reactor years of operating experience. There have been no fatalities to any member of the public due to the operation of a commercial nuclear power plant in the US. Our risk in human terms is vanishingly low.

Nuclear power’s safety record is laudable, considering that nuclear plants are running full-tilt. The average capacity factor of these plants exceeds 90%; that means 99 plants are generating full power over 90% of the time.

If you compare that to any other energy form, there’s a huge gap. Coal is a mainstay of electricity generation in this country and has a capacity factor of around 65%. Gas is about the same; wind’s capacity factor is around is 30%, and solar is at 25%.

While the probability of a nuclear catastrophe is extremely low, it is only part of the risk calculation. The other part of risk is consequence. The world has been host to three major nuclear power generation accidents: Three Mile Island in 1979, Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011. To the best of our knowledge , Three Mile Island, while terribly frightening, resulted in no health consequences to the public.

Chernobyl was an unmitigated disaster in which the reactor vessel – the place where the nuclear fuel produces heat – was ruptured and the graphite moderator in the reactor ignited, causing an open-air fire and large releases of radioactive material. This reactor design would never have been licensed to operate in the Western world because it lacked a containment.

The scientific consensus on the effects of the disaster as developed by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) has identified 66 deaths from trauma, acute radiation poisoning and cases of thyroid cancer . Additional deaths may occur over time, as understanding the causes of death is a statistical rather than a deterministic process. Considering that the authorities didn’t alert the neighboring communities for many hours, the long-term health consequences of that reactor accident are surprisingly small.

And then there was Fukushima Daiichi. At least three of the reactors have sustained core damage, and there is potentially damage to the reactor vessel as well. At this time, no deaths have been attributed to radiation release at Fukushima, but an estimated 1,600 people died as a result of evacuation, and land contamination was widespread.

So if you look at these cases together, in Chernobyl, you had a reactor core on fire and open to the air; in Fukushima, three reactors lost all power during full operation and sustained major core damage, resulting in substantial radioactivity release in one of the most densely populated countries in the world.

These accidents had serious, lasting consequences that aren’t to be trivialized, but the consequences are nothing like what has been feared and glorified in movies over the past 50 years. What we’ve learned about public risk during that time is that the forecasted nightmares resulting from nuclear accidents, even in serious accidents, simply haven’t come to fruition. At the same time, as a society, we’ve come to accept - or at least look the other way from - thousands of traffic- or coal-related deaths every year in the US alone.

Waste containment: risk and storage

The production of energy in any form alters the environment. Coal and natural gas generate particulates, greenhouse gases and the like. In 2012, coal plants in the US generated 110 million tons of coal ash . Nuclear waste created by power generation is in solid form, and the volume is minuscule in comparison, but extremely toxic. Even the production of wind and solar energy generates waste.

Fuel for nuclear plants is in the form of fuel assemblies or bundles, each containing tubes of a zirconium alloy that hold hundreds of ceramic pellets of uranium oxide.

Each fuel assembly provides power for four to five years before it is removed. After removal, the fuel is considered to be waste and must be safely stored, as its radiotoxicity level is extremely high. Unprocessed, it takes about 300,000 years for the radiation level of the waste inside an assembly to return to background levels, at which point it is benign.

Due to the cancellation of the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada, there is no place designated for long-term nuclear waste storage in the US, and utilities have resorted to constructing on-site storage at their plants. These storage containers were not designed to be permanent, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is now licensing these temporary facilities for up to 100 years.

Many cheered when the Yucca Mountain project was shuttered , but waste still must be stored, and clearly it is safer to store the waste in a single, permanent depository than in 99 separate and temporary structures.

Monitored, retrievable storage is the safest approach to nuclear waste storage. Waste sites could be centralized and continuously monitored, and built in such a way that waste canisters could be retrieved if, for example, storage technology improves, or if it becomes economical to reprocess the waste to recover the remaining uranium and plutonium created during operation.

If we are to keep using nuclear power even at the present rate, our risks related to waste will increase every year until storage is addressed thoughtfully and thoroughly.

Infrastructure: same plant, different century

At the dawn of commercial nuclear power, the prospect of cheap, plentiful energy produced forecasts that nuclear energy would be too cheap to meter - we’d all be ripping the meters off our houses. But as plant designs evolved, it became clear that ensuring safety would increase the cost of the energy produced.

Every accident taught us something, and with every accident the NRC unveiled a new set of regulations, resulting in a system of plants that are, from the perspective of a few decades ago, much safer. Such tight regulatory oversight, while needed, drives up cost and means that utilities undertake significant financial risk with each nuclear plant they build.

Decades ago, the idea that the NRC would be granting 20-year license extensions to power plants was unheard of. Today, 75% of plants have received them. Now there’s talk about a second round of license extensions, and the NRC, the US Department of Energy and the industry are engaged in talking about what it would take to get a third. We’re talking about 80 or even 100 years of operation, in which case a plant would outlive the Earth’s population at the time it was built.

In the shorter term, life extension makes sense. Most of the plants in the United States are Generation 2 plants, but Generation 3 is being built all over the world. Gen 2 plants are proving very robust, and existing plants are quite economical to operate. Gen 3 plants, like Vogtle now being built in Georgia, boast better safety systems, better structural components and better design.

Would I rather have one of those than the one I have now? Absolutely. The risk of operating such a facility is simply lower. At US$4.5 billion to $10 billion , Gen 3 plants are very expensive to build, but we must either accept that capital outlay or find another source of electricity that has all the benefits of nuclear energy.

How much risk do we accept?

As a society, we accepted over 32,000 traffic accident deaths in 2013, and no one stopped driving as a result.

I think most people would be surprised to know that in 2012, seven million people globally died from health complications due to air pollution and that an estimated 13,000 US deaths were directly attributable to fossil-fired plants.

US deaths from coal represent an annual catastrophe that exceeds that of all nuclear accidents over all time. In fact, nuclear power has prevented an estimated 1.84 million air-pollution related deaths worldwide. Natural gas plants, increasingly being constructed around the country, are highly subject to price volatility and, while cleaner than coal, they still account for 22% of carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation in the US. This is not to mention the illogical use of this precious resource for electricity generation versus uses for which it is more uniquely suited, such as heating homes or powering vehicles.

And until the capacity factor for renewables increases dramatically, the cost drops and large-scale storage is developed, they are simply not equipped to handle the bulk of US energy needs nor to provide electricity on demand.

Through the NRC’s oversight and the work of researchers all over the world, we have applied lessons from every global nuclear event to every American nuclear plant. The risk inherent in nuclear plant operation will always be present, but it is one of the world’s most rigorously monitored activities, and its proven performance in delivering zero-carbon electricity is one that shouldn’t be dismissed out of fear.

• Renewable energy
• Nuclear power
• Future of Nuclear series
• Nuclear power plants

Want to write?

Write an article and join a growing community of more than 183,600 academics and researchers from 4,958 institutions.

Register now

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• BMJ Paediatr Open
• v.6(1); 2022

Radioactive releases from the nuclear power sector and implications for child health

Cindy folkers.

Beyond Nuclear, Takoma Park, Maryland, USA

Linda Pentz Gunter

Associated data.

Although radioactivity is released routinely at every stage of nuclear power generation, the regulation of these releases has never taken into account those potentially most sensitive—women, especially when pregnant, and children. From uranium mining and milling, to fuel manufacture, electricity generation and radioactive waste management, children in frontline and Indigenous communities can be disproportionately harmed due to often increased sensitivity of developing systems to toxic exposures, the lack of resources and racial and class discrimination. The reasons for the greater susceptibility of women and children to harm from radiation exposure is not fully understood. Regulatory practices, particularly in the establishment of protective exposure standards, have failed to take this difference into account. Anecdotal evidence within communities around nuclear facilities suggests an association between radiation exposure and increases in birth defects, miscarriages and childhood cancers. A significant number of academic studies tend to ascribe causality to other factors related to diet and lifestyle and dismiss these health indicators as statistically insignificant. In the case of a major release of radiation due to a serious nuclear accident, children are again on the frontlines, with a noted susceptibility to thyroid cancer, which has been found in significant numbers among children exposed both by the 1986 Chornobyl nuclear accident in Ukraine and the 2011 Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear disaster in Japan. The response among authorities in Japan is to blame increased testing or to reduce testing. More independent studies are needed focused on children, especially those in vulnerable frontline and Indigenous communities. In conducting such studies, greater consideration must be applied to culturally significant traditions and habits in these communities.

Introduction

Radioactivity is released at every stage of nuclear power production, from uranium mining to electricity generation to radioactive waste production. In some of these phases, toxic heavy metals are also released into the environment.

Children, women and particularly pregnant women living near nuclear production facilities appear to be at disproportionately higher risk of harm from exposure to these releases. Children in poorer often Non-White and Indigenous communities with fewer resources and reduced access to healthcare are even more vulnerable—an impact compounded by discrimination, socioeconomic and cultural factors.

Nevertheless, pregnancy, children and women are underprotected by current regulatory standards that are based on ‘allowable’ or ‘permissible’ doses for a ‘Reference Man’. Early in the nuclear weapons era, a ‘permissible dose’ was more aptly recognised as an ‘acceptable injury limit,’ but that language has since been sanitised. 1 Permissible does not mean safe. Reference Man is defined as ‘…a nuclear industry worker 20–30 years of age, [who] weighs 70 kg (154 pounds), is 170 cm (67 inches) tall…is a Caucasian and is a Western European or North American in habitat and custom’. 2

Very early research conducted in the USA in 1945 and 1946 indicated higher susceptibility of pregnancy to radiation exposure. Pregnant dogs injected with radiostrontium had defects in their offspring and yet, complete results of these studies were not made public until 1969. 3

By 1960 however, U.S. experts were clearly aware that research indicated higher susceptibility of children, when the Federal Radiation Council (FRC) (established in 1959 by President Eisenhower) briefly considered a definition for ‘Standard Child’—which they subsequently abandoned in favour of maintaining a Standard Man definition, 1 later renamed Reference Man. The 1960 report also recognised hormones as a radiation ‘co-carcinogen’, which evokes later research indicating that radiation impacts the oestrogenic pathway, although the mechanism is not understood and has been poorly investigated. 4

And while the current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) toxic exposure guidance recognises an enhanced early lifecycle susceptibility to a number of mutagens, 5 recommending a risk factor increase of 10 after birth and before the age of two for some of these toxics, 6 radiation exposure standards are still based on Reference Man.

Differing impacts based on gender occur for a range of chemicals and various exposure scenarios. In some cases, males are more susceptible than females, while the reverse is also seen. 7 For ionising radiation in particular, data from the survivors of the atomic bombings in Japan show ‘women from the same age-at-exposure cohort (26–30 years) suffered 50% more cancer…compared to the males’. 8 The latest data from the atomic bombing survivor cohorts in Japan associate radiation exposure in utero with solid cancer mortality for adult females, but not males. 9

Since female cumulative baseline rates for most cancer types are lower than male, 10 11 exposure to radiation may be erasing a woman’s potential natural cancer resistance, while also increasing her risk relative to a man’s. However, not enough research has been done in this area to be sure.

Current U.S. regulations allow a radiation dose to the public (100 mrem per year) which poses a lifetime cancer risk to the Reference Man model of 1 person in 143. This is despite the EPA’s acceptable risk range for lifetime cancer risk from toxics being 1 person in 1 million to 1 person in 10 000. 12 As noted by the EPA, this gives radiation a ‘privileged pollutant’ status. 13 Additionally, biokinetic models for radioisotopes are not sex-specific. A male model is still used for females. The models are also not fully age-dependent. 14 Radiation damage models also fail to account for a whole host of childhood and pregnancy damage. 1

There are known ‘windows of susceptibility’ in a lifetime, ‘includ[ing] periods of active cell differentiation and growth in the womb and in early childhood as well as adolescence, when the brain is continuing to develop’ during which ‘[c]hemicals can act like hormones and drugs to disrupt the control of development and function at very low doses…[i]n some cases, a susceptibility to disease also can persist long after the initial insult or exposure has ended’. 15

Women and children in underserved communities are at still greater risk because of unique exposure pathways and systemic inequities. Traditional lifestyle and cultural patterns can also lead to increases in exposure. In the case of some Native Americans, exposure to toxics and radiation has been multigenerational, enduring over a period of 150 years. 16

In an exploration of the studies, we find a notable lack of in-depth, independent research looking specifically at children as well as the wider population in Indigenous or minority communities. Uncertainties caused by this lack of study are used by officials to underprotect those most at risk.

We also find a marked contrast between the conclusions of some of the studies and the anecdotal evidence on the ground.

Most of the primary research that has focused on the susceptibilities of women and children has consistently indicated disproportionate impacts, even among those possibly exposed to lower radiation doses. Impacts can include increases in childhood cancers, particularly leukaemia and central nervous system cancers, 17 neurological disorders, respiratory difficulties, cardiovascular dysfunction, immune dysfunction, perinatal mortality 18 and birth defects. 19 20 Rapid cell division is among the development processes thought to account for some of this susceptibility.

However, many studies are unable to link these adverse outcomes to radioactivity because the studies’ authors tend to use several faulty assumptions:

• ‘doses will be too low to create an effect’ —a beginning assumption ensuring poor hypothesis formation and study design. 21 Therefore, when an effect is found, radioactivity has been predetermined not to have an association with the effect. This exclusion often leads to an inability to find an alternate associated disease agent;
• ‘small negative findings matter’ —In fact, what matters are positive findings or very large negative findings; 22
• ‘statistical non-significance means a lack of association between radiation exposure and disease’ — a usage a number of scientists in various disciplines now call ‘ludicrous’ 23 ;
• ‘potential bias or confounding factors are reasons to dismiss low dose studies’ —In fact, when assessing low dose impacts, researchers should take care not to dismiss studies with these issues and researchers should minimise use of quality score ranking. 24

Consequently, we examine and reference studies even if they contain such faulty assumptions because they still indicate increases in certain diseases, such as some leukaemias, known to be caused by radiation exposure. Additionally, few alternative explanations were offered in the conclusions of these studies, meaning radiation exposure might still have been the cause.

Uranium mining and racial discrimination

Uranium mining contributes significantly to the wide dispersal of radioactive waste streams into the air, water and soil. Uranium mining also leaves behind a massive debris field of discarded radioactive residues, rocks and heavy metals, known as tailings.

Heavy metals are also released by uranium mining and these can be as toxic, if not more so, than the radioactive elements. The 1960 FRC report recognised radiation as a cocarcinogen with hormones and viruses and chemicals, indicating synergistic impacts that have rarely been investigated. One study looking at medical impacts of the 1986 Chornobyl nuclear power plant disaster in Ukraine found that multiple congenital malformations were much higher in areas of combined contamination, suggesting an additive and potentially synergistic effect between radioactive and chemical pollutants. 20

In the USA, Native American communities have constituted the majority of the uranium mining workforce. In the American Southwest, Navajo Nation community members have experienced increases in a number of diseases, 25 26 and lingering internal contamination from uranium mine waste among neonates and children. 27 28 Native Americans also present with chronic ailments—such as kidney disease and hypertension—linked with living near and contact with uranium mine waste.

Additionally, comparing uranium mining health data from one race to another should be done with caution as ‘[t]he increased toxicity [of mining exposure] to Native miners underscores the potential for unique sensitivities to toxicants within the Native community as compared with all races results, questioning the derivation of standards on the basis of data collected from other populations’. 28

It is also worth noting that some Native American communities are living with a 150-year health legacy of potential exposure to radioactive and heavy metal mine waste. Research on humans, 20 and additional studies on radioactivity and animals, 29 30 indicate that legacy exposures such as these result in a cumulative impact over generations and can leave descendants of a community more susceptible to damage from future exposures than their parents were. 31

An examination of Navajo babies born between 1964 and 1981 showed that congenital anomalies, developmental disorders and other adverse birth outcomes were associated with the mother living near uranium mines and wastes. 32 The results of this study, published in 1992, were not followed up until 2010 with the establishment of the Navajo Birth Cohort study, a community-based and community-driven initiative that examines the impact of chronic exposure to mine wastes on birth outcomes. 28

Historic and recent official research has, on the whole, been systemically racist by failing to account for culturally-specific exposure scenarios to Navajo. These include frequent contact with contaminated lands, waters and, in some cases, a nearly 100% reliance on locally grown and sourced foods, 28 33 as well as failure to consider doses to Navajo Nation community members from the Trinity explosion—the first detonation of an atomic device. 34 Some research teams have attempted to address systemic racism by partnering with local community members and integrating local knowledge. 33

In Jadugoda, India, where six uranium mines operate, the first opening in 1957, those affected are Indigenous peoples from the Santhal, Munda and Ho tribes. A local organisation, Jharkhandi Organisation Against Radiation, has been documenting strange health anomalies in the community for years, including deformities and birth defects.

Their observations were supported by an independent study of the Jadugoda community, conducted in 2007 by Indian Doctors for Peace and Development, which found that the offspring of mothers living near uranium mining operations showed a significant increase in congenital deformities (4.49% vs 2.49%) ( figure 1 ).

Congenital deformities among babies from mothers who lived near the Jadugoda uranium mining operations.

In addition to deformities, deaths were higher. Among mothers who lost their children after birth, 9.25% of mothers in the study villages reported congenital deformities as the cause of death of their children as compared with only 1.70% of mothers in the reference villages.

The authors concluded that the finding of the study confirms the hypotheses that the health of Indigenous people around uranium mining is more vulnerable to certain health problems. 35

However, other studies contradict these conclusions. A 2013 study, 36 concluded that the water was safe for people to drink. And, a study by scientists from India’s Bhabha Atomic Research Centre 37 came to a similar conclusion. However, these studies are deficient in many ways, limiting their research to dose reconstruction rather than health outcomes and failing to consider inhalation or ingestion of radionuclides, other than from drinking water. Furthermore, the association with the Atomic Research Centre raises questions about conflict of interest.

People living in the town of Arlit in Niger, and those working in the huge majority French-owned uranium mine nearby, are exposed on a daily basis to levels of radioactivity higher than those found in the Chornobyl exclusion zone. Independent studies in Arlit, 38 beginning in 2003, found radioactively contaminated metals discarded from the mine routinely used in households, where children were exposed.

An independent study commissioned by the European Parliament and published in 2010, looked at health and environmental legacy conditions around uranium mines in both Gabon and Niger and found, in the case of Niger, that waste dumps and related processing facilities posed a severe environmental and health hazard to the local population. It also found evidence of radioactive contamination of local water supplies, and contaminated dust, and that contaminated construction materials had been sold in markets and used to build dwellings in local towns. 39 However, despite observations of the risks from multiple scientific sources, there is a paucity of actual health studies. The health outcomes are largely recorded anecdotally, by activists on the ground such as the Arlit-based NGO, Aghirin’ Man. 40

In Australia, uranium contaminates drinking water around uranium mine sites at rates far higher than recommended. Aboriginal communities, most likely to inhabit land around these facilities, suffer from increases in cancers and stillbirths according to the findings described below.

A 2019 Australian government study found increases in low birth weight, fetal death and cancers, but a ‘lack of evidence’ that radiation was the cause, suggesting that alcohol and tobacco use, and a high-fat diet, could explain the increase in diseases. 41 Radiation, which could have been a responsible agent, was eliminated because the researchers considered that the doses were too low to explain the remaining disease increases not attributable to non-radiation exposure factors. This was despite the known connection between radiation exposure and low birth weight and cancers. This conclusion left the community with unexplained disease increases, a pattern seen all too often in radiation health studies.

In her analysis, Rosalie Schultz states that ‘We owe it to Aboriginal people living near mines to understand and overcome what’s making them sick’, 42 and further points out that ‘ Development of the Ranger mine entailed nullification of veto rights, disempowering Aboriginal communities and threatening their livelihoods. With mining came royalty money, expensive commodities, money‐hunger and alcohol’.

These examples serve to highlight the tension between the often strong anecdotal evidence and the common failure to attribute the causal factor to a potential exposure source already linked to the outcome of interest in other populations.

Routine radioactive releases from nuclear power plants

Nuclear power plants routinely release radioactivity as part of daily operation. In 2008, a landmark case-control study was published in Germany, 43 known as the KiKK study.

It revealed an unsettling 1.6-fold increase in all cancers and a 2.2-fold increase in leukaemias among children under 5 years old living within 5 km of operating nuclear power plants.

In general, the incidences were higher the closer the children lived to the nuclear plant. The KiKK findings were backed up by other studies 44 and a meta-analysis. 45

However, the authors concluded that their findings were ‘unexplainable’ because the doses were assumed to be too low to cause cancer. But UK radiation researcher, Dr. Ian Fairlie, hypothesises that sudden large spikes in radiation releases during reactor refuelling resulted in higher doses. These could account for higher rates of leukaemia among children. 46 Fairlie further posits that the observed high rates of infant leukaemias may be a teratogenic effect from radionuclides, particularly tritium, incorporated during pregnancy ( figure 2 ). 47

Selected radioisotopes: where they travel and primarily collect in the body.

Other studies of natural and manmade background radiation associate childhood cancers with doses that are much lower than these spikes, but delivered continuously. 17 48 Taken together, these studies indicate that unique sensitivity to adverse effects of radiation exposure exists during pregnancy.

Catastrophic radioactive waste releases

There have been at least three catastrophic releases of radioactivity from civilian nuclear reactors due to meltdowns: the 1979 Three Mile Island (TMI) disaster in the USA; the 1986 Chornobyl disaster in Ukraine and the 2011 Fukushima, Japan nuclear disaster.

During the TMI crisis, there were 24 spontaneous abortions or stillbirths among pregnant women who were living within five miles of the nuclear facility and in their first 4 months of pregnancy. The expected number should be closer to 12. The researchers of a study examining this posit that this may be due to stress (measured by number of evacuation days), but live births had equivalent evacuation days to abortions or stillbirths. 49

Radiation from the TMI catastrophe was also associated with childhood leukaemia, although the study found only a small number of cases. Interestingly, the study authors note an association with radiation exposure and all childhood cancers was also present before the catastrophe, although with wide confidence intervals. The authors recognise this increase, particularly leukaemia, as compatible with increases reported near some other nuclear installations, but eliminated radiation as a likely cause because the exposures were low. 50 Yet, the authors cite seven additional studies that found this effect. An alternative explanation has yet to be revealed even as more recent studies have indicated increases of childhood leukaemias around operating nuclear facilities and in levels of higher background radiation (see above).

Outcomes in the Former Soviet States (FSS) from initial exposure to Chornobyl radioactive fallout include thyroid cancers (predominantly among those exposed during childhood) and significant increases in leukaemia among children who were in utero or who were under 6 years of age at the time of the Chornobyl catastrophe. 51 Also found were increases in radiation-induced organic mental disorders. 52

Among those continuing to live in Chornobyl-contaminated areas in the FSS, we see increases in cardiovascular disorders, 53 54 decreased lung function, 55 56 defects of the lens of the eye 57 and significantly increased rates of conjoined twins, teratomas, neural tube defects, microcephaly and microphthalmia. 19 Further, research indicates significantly higher birth defects—some de novo—in the Chornobyl-contaminated Bryansk region. Projections indicate that certain birth defects will increase in the next few years. 20

The Chornobyl disaster produced a phenomenon known as ‘Chornobyl heart’, where children were born with multiple heart defects—now being observed among children exposed as a result of the Fukushima catastrophe. 58 Some of these impacts occur at low, chronic doses.

Outside of the FSS, children born in regions of Sweden with higher Chornobyl fallout performed worse in secondary school—particularly in maths—and had more behavioural problems. 59 Similarly, in Norway, in utero exposure to Chornobyl radiation is associated with significantly lower verbal IQ, verbal working memory and executive functioning. 60 61

In Central Europe, studies observed a statistically significant increase in childhood leukaemias. 62 Perinatal mortality increased in European and FSS countries after the Chornobyl catastrophe, and increases in trisomy 21 were found in Berlin and Belarus in 1987/1988. The cases coincided with exposure to Chornobyl fallout. 63 64

Perinatal mortality rates increased significantly in Fukushima and six neighbouring prefectures after the Fukushima nuclear disaster began, although researchers debate the magnitude of the increase and further study is needed to associate increases with radiation from the catastrophe. 65 66

After Fukushima, the International Commission on Radiological Protection made public its report encouraging the growing and eating of contaminated food to protect economic interests, while they also made recommendations for how much radiation people should be exposed to. 67 Yet, their models do not fully account for being a child, female or pregnant.

Thyroid cancers among those exposed to Fukushima radiation as children have increased 20 times the expected rate, with about 80% metastasizing 68 —indicating increased severity of the cancer and suggesting screening and surgery was necessary.

Despite this, SHAMISEN, a project funded by the European Commission, has recommended against systematic thyroid screening after nuclear catastrophes, claiming over-diagnosis and psychosocial impact can result. 69

Although it is correct that in some countries apparently high levels of undiagnosed thyroid anomalies exist without clinical symptoms, banning thyroid screening altogether after nuclear disasters such as Fukushima denies those exposed the essential medical treatment that could catch aggressive cancers early.

The suggestion that medical examinations are psychologically scarring has sometimes been proffered as a justification for avoiding looking for health impacts from radiation exposure after a nuclear accident. 70 Fewer tests have led to fewer findings in some of the more recent studies.

Some advocates of reduced screening point to studies from South Korea that blame an ‘epidemic’ of thyroid cancers on increased screening. But data from Japan should not be compared with data from the South Korean study because the latter study excluded participants younger than 20 years, with only 2% in the 20–29 age range. 71 Conversely, the Fukushima health management survey (FHMS) is examining those who were under 18 years of age at exposure. 72

Researchers also claim that any increasing thyroid cancer incidence rates in Japan are not due to radiation exposure because the age pattern of thyroid cancers arising in Japan after Fukushima differs from that arising after Chornobyl in the former USSR countries. 73

Five years after the Chornobyl disaster began, Belarus data indeed show a large increase in thyroid cancer diagnoses in those aged 0–4 at time of exposure (AE), 74 unlike the Fukushima data. However, the pattern in Ukraine and Russia is similar to the Fukushima data, which show increasing disease among younger age groups as more years pass. Ukraine and Russia, as with the Fukushima data, only demonstrated a high thyroid cancer incidence in age group 0–4 AE beginning 12 years after the disaster, 75 with this increase beginning in Ukraine about 8 years later. 76 This effect is indicated despite smaller overall subject participation numbers in the FMU study (40% decrease since the programme began), possibly due in part to pressure to opt out of FHMS thyroid screening. 77

Comparisons between the Chornobyl data sets (which differ even between the FSS) and Fukushima data should consider, in particular, the various exposure rates . For instance, the health data indicate that rates differed substantially between Belarus (high rates) and Ukraine and Russia (lower rates).

In addition, research found an excess of thyroid cancer that is unlikely to be explained by an increase in screening. 78 This conclusion is supported by a study published very recently that linked external radiation doses linearly to increases in thyroid cancers. 75 Coupled with these dose findings, thyroid cancer metastasis, aggressive growth and recurrence, it seems enhanced screenings are entirely appropriate as many of these cancers are clinically relevant. 79

Reprocessing: the dirty end of the nuclear fuel chain

Reprocessing—the cutting up of irradiated reactor fuel rods in a chemical bath to extract plutonium and fissile uranium—involves the annual discharge of tens of millions of gallons of radioactively contaminated liquids and the release of radioactive gases such as krypton, xenon and carbon-14. 80

A 1990 UK study of the Sellafield reprocessing facility found higher incidences of leukaemia, particularly non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, among children near the site. 81 It concluded that this might be associated with the fathers working at the plant and external doses of whole body penetrating radiation before conception. This would explain statistically the observed geographical excess. The study suggested that one effect of ionising radiation on the fathers could in turn be leukaemogenic in their offspring.

There have been challenges to this hypothesis and also challenges to those studies that contradict his paper. Gardner’s most notable opponent was the epidemiologist, Doll, 82 who testified on behalf of Sellafield owners, British Nuclear Fuels, Limited, in a 1994 court case won by BNFL challenging Gardner’s paternal occupational exposure conclusion.

Kinlen, since the early 1990s the lead proponent of population mixing and a viral cause, 83 continues to uphold this theory, as do others, including Draper et al , 84 who viewed the observed associations as potentially chance findings or possibly other infectious sources. Kinlen, however, concedes that such a virus has not been specifically identified.

Other research has rejected the Kinlen hypothesis, including an investigation by Dickinson et al , 85 who concluded that ‘Children of radiation workers had a higher risk of leukaemia/non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma than other children [rate ratio (RR)=1.9, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.0 to 3.1, p=0.05]’. The researchers used a cohort rather than a case-control design, with wider temporal and geographic boundaries, and confirmed the statistical association between father’s preconceptional irradiation and child’s risk of leukaemia/non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and concluded that paternal preconceptional irradiation could be a possible risk factor for leukaemia and/or non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and that such outcomes might be found beyond the local worker town of Seascale.

Law et al , also dismissed the population mixing hypothesis. 86 His work discovered increased risks of acute lymphoblastic leukaemias in areas with few outsiders or migrants as well as for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in areas with low numbers of child migrants. Law concluded that his findings therefore do not support the Kinlen population mixing hypothesis.

A 1993 study similarly found elevated rates of childhood leukaemia around the La Hague reprocessing site in France. 87 A second paper the following year had similar findings. 88

The main by-product of nuclear power: radioactive waste

The selection of a deep geological repository—the option favoured by most nuclear countries for the management of irradiated reactor fuel—involves ethical as well as scientific challenges.

In the USA, the selection of the now abandoned Yucca Mountain high-level radioactive waste repository site in Nevada violated the treaty rights of the Western Shoshone on whose tribal land it is located. It also ignored the inevitable contamination of groundwater sources beneath the mountain, which would subsequently harm tribal and agricultural populations downstream. 89

The Western Shoshone are particularly acutely attuned to the risks of radiation exposure, having lived downwind of the Nevada atomic test site, making them, as Ian Zabarte, Principle Man of the Western Bands of the Shoshone Nation of Indians, describes it, ‘the most bombed nation on Earth’. Further, in addition to the harm to health, Western Shoshone culture believes that ‘rocks, water, plants and animals matter as much as people do’. Western Shoshone elder, Pauline Esteves describes it this way: ‘I believe the land and everything that lives on it are there to do good, not for radioactive materials’.

By mischaracterising the Yucca Mountain site as a remote and uninhabited desert, the U.S. government discriminated against a culture and heritage stewarded by the Western Shoshone, whose experiences dealing with radioactive exposures, like those of other Indigenous and minority communities of colour, cannot be equated to the guidelines of Reference Man.

The USA has now turned to ‘Consolidated Interim Storage’ for the ‘temporary’ accommodation of high-level radioactive reactor waste, identifying two largely Hispanic communities in Texas and New Mexico as host sites. 90 The approval process, which was not voluntary, has been challenged in court. However, given their increased sensitivity, any disposal of radioactive wastes in such parking lot-style facilities will put children in the host community at heightened risk of harm.

Elsewhere, the search for a radioactive waste management plan continues, with only Finland currently building a deep geological repository. The question about harm to future generations remains unresolved, given the challenge of identifying the lethality of the repository contents to populations potentially a hundred thousand years or more into the future.

Despite the numerous observations globally, linking radiation exposures to increased risks for children, pregnant and non-pregnant women and the well-demonstrated sensitivity to other toxicants during these life stages, exposure standards in the USA remain based on a Reference Man—a model that does not fully account for sex and age differences.

In addition, faulty research assumptions, unique exposure pathways, systemic inequities and legacy exposures to both heavy metals and radioactivity from mining wastes add to the risks for women and children, especially those in underserved communities. Socioeconomic factors that drive higher deprivation of services in non-homogenous low-income communities of colour also put non-White children at higher risk of negative health outcomes when exposed to radioactive releases, than their White counterparts.

A first and essential step is to acknowledge the connection between radiation, heavy metal and chemical exposures from industries and the negative health impacts observed among children, so that early diagnosis and treatment can be provided. Measures should then be taken to protect communities from further exposures, including a prompt phaseout of nuclear power and its supporting industries.

Studies are also urgently needed where there are none, and the findings of independent doctors, scientists and laboratories should be given equal attention and credence as those conducted by industry or government-controlled bodies, whose vested and policy interests could compromise both their methodologies and conclusions.

Finally, in the face of uncertainty, particularly at lower and chronic radiation doses, precaution is paramount. This means listening to, and taking seriously, the evidence provided by those living close to operating or closed nuclear facilities, rather than dismissing their fears by using faulty research assumptions and uncertainties in the science to deny health impacts and prevent protective and corrective actions.

Supplementary Material

Contributors: Cindy Folkers, co-author, was the principal author of sections addressing the historical inequities in radiation damage assessments and inadequacies of current research. She was also lead author on sections regarding the impacts of uranium mines in the USA, and the health impacts of routine and catastrophic radioactive releases. She contributed to the introduction and conclusion, made editorial revisions to all sections of the article and approved the final version for publication. Linda Pentz Gunter, co-author, contributed to the research, outline and content of this article. She was lead author on the sections dealing with the impacts of non-US uranium mines, reprocessing and radioactive waste, and co-author of the introduction and conclusion. She contributed editorial revisions to all sections of the article and approved the final version for publication. The listed authors are solely responsible for the content of this article.

Funding: The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interests: None declared.

Provenance and peer review: Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Ethics statements

Patient consent for publication.

Not applicable.

Ethics approval

Significance of Acoustic and Electrical Logging Studies at Nuclear Power Plants

• Conference paper
• First Online: 14 May 2024
• Cite this conference paper

• Govind.A. Panvalkar 15 &
• Amol. D. Chunade 15  

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering ((LNCE,volume 476))

Included in the following conference series:

• Indian Geotechnical Conference

Extensive geotechnical investigations are carried out for designing crucial structures of a nuclear power plant (NPP). As these structures enforce heavy loads on the foundation, it is imperative to evaluate the properties of subsurface rocks up to sufficient depth to ensure the plant’s safety. A primary requirement for design of nuclear power plants is they withstand dynamic loads up to a predefined intensity of ground motion, without endangering their safety. The properties of foundation materials are therefore of paramount importance as they can affect the structural safety. It is here, where in addition to surface geophysical techniques, electrical and acoustic borehole geophysical logging techniques play a major role in assessing the suitability of foundation. The subsurface parameters evaluated from these studies include electrical resistivity, primary and shear wave velocities, and dynamic moduli of elasticity which form the basis of deriving the input design values for the structure. Additionally, these methods also determine the location of weak zones. This paper highlights the importance of borehole geophysical logging in assessing the foundation for NPP with two CWPRS case studies, where suitability of foundation critical structures was determined.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

International atomic energy agency (IAEA) (2004) Geotechnical aspects of site evaluation and foundations for nuclear power plants. NS-G-3.6

Google Scholar  

Boominathan A (2004) Seismic site characterization for nuclear structures and power plants. Curr Sci 87(10):1388–1397

Akintorinwa OJ, Adesoji JI (2009) Application of geophysical and geotechnical investigations in engineering site evaluation. Int J Phys Sci 4(8):443–454, August 2009

Ravi P, Visalkshi G, Prabhakar G, Jain DK, Garg RP, Verman USP (2007) NPCIL, Mumbai significance of geo-technical and geophysical investigations for a nuclear power plant site conference on geotechnical engineering experiences and practices. New Delhi May 2007

Keys WS (1990) Borehole geophysics applied to water-resources investigations: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water Resources Investigations. book 2, E2, 150

Benson RC (1991) Remote sensing and geophysical methods for evaluation of subsurface conditions. In: David MN (ed), Practical handbook of groundwater monitoring. Lewis Publishers Inc., Chelsea, Michigan, pp 143–194

Kamble RK, Rani CK, Ghosh N, Panvalkar GA (2012) Acoustic and electrical logging for evaluation of resistivity and shear and compressional wave velocities of foundation of Kakrapar nuclar power plant. J Geophy 33(4) October 2012

Telford WM, Geldart LT, Sheriff RE, Keys DD (1976) Applied geophysics. Cambridge University Press, pp 450–454

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Director, CWPRS, Pune, for his guidance, encouragement, and permission to publish this paper. The authors are obliged to the motivation and valuable guidance by Dr. Prabhat Chandra, Additional Director, and Shri B. Suresh Kumar, Scientist-D. The authors are also indebted to all the retired officers for their valuable contribution at the time of conducting the studies. Facilities and cooperation provided by the authorities of Kakrapar Atomic Power Project (KAPP), Gujarat, and Rajasthan Atomic Power Project (RAPP), Rajasthan, India, are acknowledged with thanks.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Central Water and Power Research Station, Pune, 411 024, India

Govind.A. Panvalkar & Amol. D. Chunade

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Govind.A. Panvalkar .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Cochin University of Science and Technology, Kochi, Kerala, India

Babu T. Jose

Dipak Kumar Sahoo

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Incheon National University, Incheon City, Korea (Republic of)

Eun Chul Shin

Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Deepankar Choudhury

Geotechnical and Structural Consultant, Geostructurals Pvt Ltd, Ernakulam, Kerala, India

Anil Joseph

Civil Engineering Department, SCMS School of Engineering & Technology, Ernakulam, India

Rahul R. Pai

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this paper

Cite this paper.

Panvalkar, G., Chunade, A.D. (2024). Significance of Acoustic and Electrical Logging Studies at Nuclear Power Plants. In: Jose, B.T., Sahoo, D.K., Shin, E.C., Choudhury, D., Joseph, A., Pai, R.R. (eds) Proceedings of the Indian Geotechnical Conference 2022 Volume 1. IGC 2022. Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering, vol 476. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-1737-8_19

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-1737-8_19

Published : 14 May 2024

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-97-1736-1

Online ISBN : 978-981-97-1737-8

eBook Packages : Engineering Engineering (R0)

Share this paper

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Bill Gates To Be In Kemmerer For Groundbreaking Of TerraPower's Nuclear Plant

Billionaire Bill Gates plans to visit Kemmerer next month for the groundbreaking ceremony of TerraPower's nuclear reactor project, the company’s president said Wednesday. Gates has spent more than $1 billion of his own money on the project so far.

May 08, 2024 4 min read

Billionaire Bill Gates, who is among the richest people in the world, plans to visit Kemmerer next month for a groundbreaking ceremony for one of his largest investment projects that could reshape the landscape of nuclear energy development in America for decades to come.

TerraPower President and CEO Chris Levesque, a former naval submarine officer and now top executive with the Bellevue, Washington, nuclear reactor company, said that Gates would visit Kemmerer on June 10 to mark the beginning of construction on the multibillion-dollar project that his company is spending roughly $2 million daily on.

That clip of daily spending involves roughly $1 million from Gates with the rest from the U.S. Department of Energy, which has kicked in upward of $2 billion on the demonstration plant, Levesque said.

Gates has forked out $1 billion on the project so far.

Levesque made his remarks Wednesday before the Rotary Club of Cheyenne at the Little America Hotel and Resort where about 100 business and civic leaders were in attendance.

‘It’s A Win-Win’

Levesque described Kemmerer as a very “energy literate” community with a rich history in coal mining and people who work in the nearby Naughton coal-fired power plant, many of whom will be tapped to work at TerraPower’s plant once operational in 2030.

“It’s a win-win with the workforce,” said Levesque of the job creation possibilities of transitioning workers from the 60-year-old Naughton plant to the nuclear reactor.

This assumes that everything goes as planned with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), which is expected to approve the construction permit application sometime in the next few years on the nuclear reactor portion of the project.

And while a technical review of TerraPower’s novel nuclear reactor design will get intense review by the NRC, construction on some of the nonnuclear elements is expected to begin by the end of this month.

The workforce demands are immense.

Levesque said that the community is handling the expected infusion of up to 1,600 workers on the construction project over the next several years, including the provision of housing and improvements to the area’s sewage and water infrastructure .

Additionally, more than 1,000 engineers from TerraPower are working on the project, he said.

Gates Has Been There Before

On March 29, TerraPower filed a 3,400-page construction permit application with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build the nuclear reactor in Kemmerer, the first commercial nuclear reactor to be built in the United States in more than a dozen years.

Gates is not unfamiliar with Kemmerer, which had beat out rival communities Glenrock, Rock Springs and coal town Gillette for the nuclear reactor project, Levesque said.

Gates, who also is chairman of TerraPower, last visited Kemmerer a year ago and is “looking forward to coming back to Kemmerer next month for the groundbreaking,” Levesque said.

A TerraPower spokeswoman downplayed the visit, noting that the billionaire hasn’t yet confirmed the visit after Levesque’s speech to the Rotary crowd.

“We are going to build more than one Natrium reactor in Wyoming,” said Levesque, who met privately Tuesday with Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon to get an update on the Natrium reactor project.

Already Moving

Wyoming companies are already getting involved, with Gillette-based Earth Work Solutions set to begin dirt work this month.

TerraPower has largely been financed by Gates with a private investment of $250 million from diversified conglomerate SK Inc. of South Korea.

The nuclear fleet in the United States stands at 94 commercial reactors. But TerraPower will add to that mix its 345-megawatt Kemmerer Unit 1, though Levesque said the land bought in southwestern Wyoming is big enough for Kemmerer Unit 2, which is now on the drawing board.

The Natrium nuclear plant proposed for Kemmerer could be a game-changer for the nuclear power industry.

The Natrium plant will use liquid sodium as a cooling agent instead of water. Sodium has several safety advantages over water. A higher boiling point means it can soak up more heat than water with less risk of explosion.

Pat Maio can be reached at [email protected] .

In case you missed it

Pat Maio is a veteran journalist who covers energy for Cowboy State Daily.

More in Energy

Wyoming's Rare Earths Industry May See Boost from Chinese Tariffs On Imports

Pat Maio May 14, 2024

Combined HF Sinclair Reports 7% Revenue Drop In First Quarter Since Merger

Pat Maio May 13, 2024

Australia Company Targets 85 Million Pounds Of Uranium In Northeast Wyoming

Massive $1.2 Billion Panel Solar Farm Planned For South Cheyenne

Pat Maio May 11, 2024

Unified Security and Safety Risk Assessment - A Case Study on Nuclear Power Plant

Ieee account.

• Change Username/Password
• Update Address

Purchase Details

• Payment Options
• Order History
• View Purchased Documents

Profile Information

• Communications Preferences
• Profession and Education
• Technical Interests
• US & Canada: +1 800 678 4333
• Worldwide: +1 732 981 0060
• Contact & Support
• About IEEE Xplore
• Accessibility
• Terms of Use
• Nondiscrimination Policy
• Privacy & Opting Out of Cookies

A not-for-profit organization, IEEE is the world's largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity. © Copyright 2024 IEEE - All rights reserved. Use of this web site signifies your agreement to the terms and conditions.

• COVID-19 Full Coverage
• Cover Stories
• Ulat Filipino
• Special Reports
• Personal Finance
• Other sports
• Pinoy Achievers
• Immigration Guide
• Science and Research
• Technology, Gadgets and Gaming
• Chika Minute
• Showbiz Abroad
• Family and Relationships
• Art and Culture
• Health and Wellness
• Shopping and Fashion
• Hobbies and Activities
• News Hardcore
• Walang Pasok
• Transportation
• Missing Persons
• Community Bulletin Board
• GMA Public Affairs
• State of the Nation
• Unang Balita
• Balitanghali
• News TV Live

Labrador, Pangasinan open to nuclear power plant; scientific study pushed

The local government of Labrador, Pangasinan is considering plans of building a nuclear power plant in the town.

The importance of building a nuclear power plant has been discussed widely, particularly with Representative Mark Cojuangco of the 2nd District of Pangasinan who had advocated for nuclear energy for quite some time.

Cojuangco argues that more than just a conventional power plant like the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant should be constructed.

Labrador Mayor Ernesto Acain believes that the town has great potential to host a nuclear power plant due to its favorable location. 

“Kinakailangan kasi ng huge body ng water, mayroong beach na pagkukuhanan ng cooling system at pagkukunan para sa nuclear reactor. Marami [din] kaming mountain area para sa nuclear reactor,” Acain said. (We would need a huge body of water, there is also a beach that could help with the cooling system and a source for the nuclear reactor. We also have plenty of mountain area for a nuclear reactor.)

Despite this, some residents remain unconvinced.

“‘Di pwede na itayo sa lugar na malapit sa karamihan ng tao kasi ‘yung kalusugan ng tao at kalikasan, nakakaapekto ‘yun,” a resident said. (They can 't construct near plenty of people since this would affect everyone's health and the environment.)

However, according to the local government, 65 percent of the town's voting population supports the project.

Other mayors in the Second District, like Binmaley Mayor Pedro Merrera III, said that there is a need for a scientific study before proceeding with the nuclear energy project. 

“Scientific approach kung paano nila magagawan ng paraan in case there is malfunction of this nuclear power plant. Otherwise, [in] a matter of seconds — wala na tayo,” Merrera said. — GMA Regional TV