Running head: NUCLEAR POWER AND SAFETY

Nuclear Power and Safety:

An analysis
Chance Rabun
Old Dominion University

Abstract
Nuclear power has generated tremendous amounts of energy used the world over since its
initial implementation. It still stands today as one of most complex and advanced energy
production methods. The economics of nuclear power are unique and complex as well. The
application of nuclear power exceeds simple commercial power generation as is made clear by
navies around the world applying nuclear power to their fleets. The complexity of a nuclear
reactor requires a high degree of vigilance and standards that must be adhered to. The
consequences for negligence in nuclear power are far too great to bear, as the Chernobyl and
Fukushima incidents have shown. It is this reason that nuclear power and safety are one in the
same. The pros for nuclear power are numerous and substantial while the cons are negatively so.
Nuclear power can be utilized in a safe manner and with effort, time and knowledge; it can be the
power of the future.

Since the development of nuclear power, the ability for humans to critically damage our
planet and each other has never been more evident. Our understanding of the universe has truly
shown its strength by means of splitting an atom and harnessing its immense power. The
question is: Is this power being used properly, and is it being handled with the caution that it
requires? Since the development of nuclear power, the world has witnessed numerous occasions
in which ecosystems have been destroyed, uncountable people have been killed or harmed, and
large areas have been made uninhabitable. These catastrophes have served as wake up calls,
alerting us to the level of respect this kind of power demands. Regulation and safety protocols
have developed and are always being fine-tuned. They are not perfect yet, but in time we will
master this tool, just as we have mastered every other tool we utilize.
Nuclear power has a multitude of application in our society. The United States, as of 2011
has 38 nuclear power plants providing clean, emission-free electricity to millions of people
(Global Nuclear Energy Report, 2011, p. 150). Nuclear power, unlike most other power
generation technologies, produces no greenhouse gas emissions. This is not to say nuclear power
is without its faults and dangers, but in a society that must take climate change seriously, this is a
point that cannot be excluded.
A brief overview of how nuclear power plants operate will help shed light on the subject.
A nuclear power plant can be simplified down to a complex steam power plant. The ultimate goal
is to generate a high pressure steam that will be used to spin a turbine which is connected to a
generator which will create electricity. There are various methods of using the nuclear chain
reaction to generate the steam, but the most common is using a pressurized water reactor (World
Nuclear Association, 2013). In almost all the nuclear reactors, you have an isotope of Uranium,
U-235. If an isotope of U-235 is bombarded by a stray neutron, it will absorb it and for a brief

instant of time the isotope will become U-236, which is very unstable. This will cause the
unstable isotope to split into two fission products, smaller isotopes of different elements, a few
free neutrons and energy. As you can see the generation of these free neutrons in an environment
surrounded by U-235 will cause a chain reaction of fissions, if this is not controlled you will
have an unchecked chain reaction and a nuclear detonation. This is where the reactor technology
comes in. The U-235 is normal shaped into housings with openings for the control rods to be
inserted and for the coolant to flow. The most essential part of the reactor vessel is the
moderation of the chain fission reaction. This is accomplished by two sources, the coolant and
the control rods. The coolant in most reactors is pure deionized water. The water is under large
pressure and is able to maintain a solid state at temperatures exceeding 300 degrees Celsius
(USNRC Technical Training Center, 2003). The coolant can slow down many of the neutrons,
leaving them with sufficient energy levels to be absorbed by the U-235 and continue the fission
process; this is referred to as moderation. The control rods are made up of different materials but
they all exhibit a high affinity for free neutrons and in this way they help to control the number
of fissions occurring in the core. The coolant also serves another vital function in the reactor; it is
the primary heat transfer method. As the chain reactions are occurring they release heat, as it is
an exothermic reaction. This coolant is then led to a steam generator. The steam generator
separates the reactor coolant from the secondary side so that the two systems of water never
physically come into contact. The steam generator does allow for the heat transfer and the
secondary system leaves at a much higher temperature than when it went in. This is then used to
spin a turbine that generates electricity.
Nuclear power has tremendous effects in all sectors of society, commercially, industrially
and residentially. As our society moves towards greater integration with digital systems and

computer processing, our analysis of how we generate the power to run these advanced
technologies must become more pertinent. The economics of our power generation must be
assessed as well. The overall cost of nuclear power can be broken down into three distinct
categories by the World Nuclear Association, Capital costs, plant operating costs and external
costs (2012). The capital cost manifests itself as the cost of the ingredients of the reactor, such
as the concrete, the steel, the uranium, and the construction of the plant itself. This requires a
tremendous effort because the complexity of a nuclear reactor is quite high and for good reason.
The measurement unit used to analyze this cost is a ratio of dollar to kilowatt of energy
produced. The Nuclear Energy Agencys (NEA) calculation for a nuclear plants overnight cost
in an OCED (Organization for economic development and co-operation) country increased from
about US$ 1,900/kWe by the end of the 1990s to US$ 3,850/kWe at 2009 (World Nuclear
Association, 2013). This is significantly higher than the overnight costs for coal and other fossil
fuel based power plants due to increased safety features and specialized equipment, but for
nuclear power this is where most of the money is required.
The plant operating cost encompasses the costs of fueling and refueling, operational
costs, maintenance costs and the cost of decommissioning, which for nuclear power plants
includes the cost of waste disposal. The cost of enriching and processing the uranium is included
and typically makes up about 50% of the cost (World Nuclear Association, 2013). Below, Table 1
gives a breakdown of the costs from taking Uranium ore in the form of U3O8, converting it into
raw Uranium ore, U, enriching the raw Uranium ore and then finally the cost of fabricating it.

Table 1
Approximate USD amount for 1 kilogram of UO2 reactor fuel

Uranium:
Conversion:
Enrichment:
Fuel fabrication:
Total, approx:

8.9 kg U3O8 x $130

7.5 kg U x $11
7.3 SWU x $120
per kg

US$ 1160
US$ 83
US$ 880
US$ 240
US$ 2360

Note. The data on Uranium enrichment costs are adapted from The economics of nuclear
power by The World Nuclear Association, 2013.
a

At 45,000 MWd/t burn-up this gives 360,000 kWh electrical per kg, hence fuel

cost: 0.66 c/kWh.

This cost when compared to that of a fossil fuel plant is quite minimal. The Nuclear
Energy Institute estimates the cost of fueling for a coal plant is about 78% of the total cost and
nearly 89% for a gas-fueled plant, while the cost of uranium is only at 14% (Nuclear Energy
Institute, 2013). The running costs for a nuclear power plant are minimal when compared to
fossil fuel power plants and because the plant requires minimal refueling, uranium cost is not as
subject to price fluctuation as fossil fuels are (Nuclear Energy Institute, 2013). The
decommissioning costs of the power plant only account for approximately 9-15% of the initial
capital costs and in the United States it accounts for only 0.1-0.2 cent/kWh, which is less than
5% of the cost to produce the electricity (Nuclear Energy Institute, 2013).

The external cost of a power plant is not paid by the consumer or the plant creators, but is
paid typically by the society as it is a measure of environmental and health costs. For nuclear
power, these costs are relatively small, but could include the cost of a nuclear power plant
disaster. Due to regulations, the cost and method of disposing the fuel waste must be provided
before the plants construction and is thus included into the capital costs (World Nuclear
Association, 2013). The risk of accidents with nuclear power is factored in with the radiological
damages from mining the uranium ore and nuclear energy is calculated to have an average cost
of 0.4 cents/kWh, which is almost identical to hydroelectric, coal is more than 4.0 cents (4.17.3), gas has a range from 1.3-2.3 cents and nuclear is only beaten out by wind power, at 0.10.2 cents/kWh average (European Commission, 1995).
Through the data presented, it can be seen how nuclear power has distinct advantages
over typical fossil fuel power generation. The upfront costs account for a majority of the plants
expenditures which can be a deterrent to their construction. The running costs of the power plant
are minimalized when compared to other non-renewable power generation methods as they
accumulate most of the plant expenditures in fuel. The external costs are very small and are
comparable to a hydroelectric power plant, which is a renewable resource even accounting for
the risk of accidents. In terms of economics, nuclear power has clear advantages.
Virginia has a unique relationship with nuclear power. The state of Virginia itself
generates 35% of its electricity from nuclear power, which is 15% more than the United States
average of 20% (United States Power Report, 2013). Virginia is also home to the largest naval
base in the world, Naval Station Norfolk which is the homeport for a large number of nuclear
powered vessels. The United States also operates the worlds largest nuclear navy. The United

States nuclear propulsion program began in 1955 with the completion of the first nuclear
powered submarine, the USS Nautilus, since then around 240 naval nuclear reactors have been
built and approximately 50 have been successfully decommissioned by Naval Reactors, a joint
program between the Department of the Navy and the Department of Energy (Crawford &
Krahn, 1998, p.59-60). The development of nuclear submarines gave any navy possessing them
many advantages over a conventional diesel-electric submarine. A diesel-electric submarine first
and foremost must be refueled and its operational capacity is limited directly by the dieselelectric power plant. An advantage of a submarine lies in its ability to navigate below the surface
of the water, the limitations on how long a submarine can stay submerged is the crew and their
oxygen requirements. A diesel electric submarine must turn off its diesel power plant and operate
only on the electric power plant because the combustion process requires oxygen, which will
take away from the crews supply and it produces a toxic exhaust. The electric plant provides less
power than diesel, thereby limiting your operational capacity. The nuclear submarine on the other
hand can operate at full power submerged and is only limited by the crews oxygen supply.
Another significant advantage of a nuclear submarine is its operational range and lifetime. The
range of a nuclear submarine is indefinite and is limited by the crews supplies, while a
conventional submarine is limited by the fuel onboard. Through the lifetime of a nuclear
submarine, approximately 33 years, there is no refueling necessary while a conventional
submarine will require frequent refueling and constant access to supply lines making them poor
behind enemy lines reconnaissance vessels (Withington, 2010, p. 30).
The United States Navy sports the largest fleet of aircraft carriers, 10 Nimitz class nuclear
supercarriers. These behemoths can house upwards of 5,000 sailors and air crew personnel, 8090 aircraft of all types or 130 F/A-18 super hornet fighter jets. The immense capabilities of these

ships are unmatched and are a result of the onboard nuclear power plant. The main goal of an
aircraft carrier is to have a mobile aircraft deployment structure which can put planes in the sky
as quickly as possible. The method used by US aircraft carriers to launch aircraft into the sky is a
steam powered catapult which accelerates the aircraft to take off speeds in a short distance. The
steam used in the catapult is directly from the secondary side of the reactor and because the
reactor is always generating heat, steam supply is never low. Aiding the operational capacity of
the nuclear carrier is its unlimited range, its ability to stay on site indefinitely without refueling,
and the lack of fuel storage compartments which frees up room aboard the ship for other
necessities (Polmar, 2007, p. 86). As fuel prices continue to rise, the nuclear option for the Navy
becomes more attractive, as with the commercial nuclear power plants, the upfront costs are the
most significant money expenditure, but over its lifetime, the lack of fuel required to run it can
make up for the large initial investment. Table 2 shows the Department of Defenses oil usage:
Table 2
DOD Oil Usage in 2005

Air
Ground
Sea
Installations

73%
15%
8%
4%

Note. The data on DOD oil usage is adapted from Carrier Aviation on the Move by N. Polmar,
2007, U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, 133, pp. 86-87.
As can be seen from table 2, aircraft warrant the most fossil fuel consumption by a large
percentage. Trailing ground fuel consumption is the naval vessel consumption which is almost

10

half of the former. The naval nuclear vessels help save on both fueling costs and on greenhouse
emissions, reducing the dependency on foreign oil.
Nuclear power in the past has come under much fire for various nuclear accidents and
disasters that have occurred around the world. Nuclear power has the potential to generate very
clean and efficient electrical energy, but it also has the potential to devastate the immediate
environment in a way no fossil fuel ever could. The International Nuclear and Radiological
Event scale rates nuclear events on a scale from 0-7, increasing in severity and only two events
in history have warranted a rating of 7, the Chernobyl incident and the Fukushima incident
(International Atomic Energy Agency, 2011). These two events will be reviewed to assess what
went wrong and how it can be prevented in the future.
The Chernobyl nuclear incident occurred on April 26, 1986 in Ukraine, 120 kilometers
north of Kiev. Unit 4 was an RBMK-1000, a pressure-tube reactor built and designed by the
Soviet Union, utilizing minimally enriched (only 2% U-235) uranium dioxide fuel. It was a
boiling light water reactor, it therefore had no steam generator or heat exchanger and the loops
fed steam directly to the turbines. As water was pumped up the fuel channels, it begins to boil as
it is fed through the pressure tubes creating steam that powered two 500 MW turbines (Hgberg,
2013, p. 277). A very unique characteristic of the RBMK reactor is its 'positive void coefficient',
which results in an increase in core reactivity with an increase in steam bubbles or voids; the
neutrons that would have been stopped by the denser water now go on to produce increased
fission in the core as steam production in the channels increase (Kortov & Ustyantsev, 2013, p.
5514). On April 25, the operators at unit 4 initiated a test to ascertain the length of time the steam
turbines would supply power to the main coolant pumps if there ever was a loss of power from
the main electrical grid. A routine shutdown was scheduled for the morning of April 26 and when

11

the operator attempted the shutdown the reactor was already in a very unstable state. The
interaction of very hot fuel with the cooling water led to fuel fragmentation as the coolant being
introduced to the reactor was too cold for how hot the reactor was. The coolants density was
greater and now slowed down an excessive amount of neutrons increasing the number of
fissions. The tremendous increase in reactor power caused the over pressurized steam and gases
to blow the 1000 ton lid off and the control rods out of the core (Hgberg, 2013, p. 277). A
secondary explosion occurred very soon after, it is speculated this was the result of hydrogen gas
combustion and 70 tons of nuclear fuel was ejected from the explosions, while another 50 tons
remained in the destroyed reactor (Kortov & Ustyantsev, 2013, p. 5514). The effects of
Chernobyl are vast and severe, 30 people died as a direct result of the incident, two in the
explosion and 28 due to radiation exposure. It is also estimated that around 600,000 people were
exposed to a significant dose of radiation (above 20 millisievert) and incurring a cost of
approximately 18 billion rubles, which at the time severely damaged the Soviet economy
(Hgberg, 2013, p. 278). The main causes of the incident were poor design and operator error.
The RBMK reactors were unstable at low power and did not have the adequate control
mechanisms to squelch any trend towards runaway chain reaction as almost all reactors currently
have. The positive void coefficient was a very poor design as the conditions of a runaway chain
reaction will result in more fissions. The human error lies in the operators allowing the reactor to
run at low power for a test and then allowing the routine shutdown to occur, but their training
was insufficient and instructions were minimal (Hgberg, 2013, p. 277).
The only other level 7 nuclear disaster besides Chernobyl was the Fukushima Daiichi
Nuclear disaster. It occurred on March 11, 2011 following the Thoku earthquake and tsunami.
The Fukushima Daiichi 1 nuclear power plant was comprised of 6 nuclear reactors. At the time

12

of the earthquake, reactors 4, 5 and 6 were shut down while reactors 1, 2 and 3 were operating.
As a result of the shockwaves, the reactors began to automatically shut down or SCRAM, while
cooling systems began the shutdown procedure to remove decay heat, but the earthquake had
knocked out the electrical grid so the emergency diesel generators were turned on to supply
power to the cooling system (Su'ud & Anshari, 2012, p. 316). After about an hour, the tsunami
waves, exceeding 40 feet in height struck the facility which had a seawall only 19 feet in height
(Hgberg, 2013, p. 280). This flooded the lower levels of the reactor, damaging the emergency
diesel generators in units 1-4 and many other electrical instrumentation and control equipment.
Units 5 and 6 were somewhat higher up than the other units and maintained one working diesel
generator which cooled them down sufficiently. Farber (2012) states that the reactor operators
had to struggle in darkness with almost no instrumentation and control systems to secure the
safety of six reactors, six nuclear fuel pools, a common fuel pool and dry cask storage facilities.
As the reactors continued to react uncooled, they began overheating. On March 12, the buildup
of hydrogen gas culminated in explosions at units 1-4 which exposed the environment to
radioactive fission byproducts and the fuel rods (Farber, 2012). Significant efforts were made in
the following months to cool the reactors even going so far as to circulate seawater over the fuel
rods to cool them, this effectively destroyed them. It wasnt until the end of 2011 that the
situation had stabilized with cooling water circulating over the cores and core temperatures not
exceeding 100 degrees Celsius (Hgberg, 2013, p. 281).
The severity of this accident is huge, cleanup has begun, but it is estimated it will take
approximately 30-50 years to complete (Hgberg, 2013, p. 281). Because the fission byproducts
escaped and were leaked out into the containment vessel, it is estimated by the Japanese that
around 150,000 TBq (Terabecqurels) of the isotope I-131, 12,000 TBq of Cs-137 were released

13

to the air and about 4,000 TBq of Cs-137 were released into the water just in the first month, but
the French place the contamination estimates much higher (Hgberg, 2013, p. 282). Unlike the
Chernobyl incident, there were no casualties from either the plant explosions or from acute
radiation exposure which represents a significant improvement in how a nuclear incident is
handled. Another consequence of the Fukushima incident is the public and political opinion of
nuclear power. As of 2012, 13 countries were constructing nuclear plants which is two countries
less than in the year 2011 and 59 plants were in construction, which can be compared to peak
world nuclear plant construction of 234 units in 1979 (Schneider & Froggatt, 2012). The main
cause of this accident was undoubtedly the combination of the electrical grid failure caused by
the earthquake and the subsequent tsunami damaging the emergency diesel generators. These are
natural disasters and we have no control over them, but we do have the ability to assess risk.
While the Japanese reactors were designed to handle the earthquake, they were overwhelmingly
unprepared for the tsunami wave despite the fact that tsunami waves exceeding 10-20 meters in
height have occurred multiple times in the past couple hundred years on Japanese shores
(Hgberg, 2013, p. 283).
Nuclear power has tremendous potential in applications of vast importance. Nuclear
power presents large up front, capital costs, but over its lifetime requires minimal expenditures,
especially when compared to fossil fuel power plants. The external impact of nuclear reactors is
nearly identical to that of a hydroelectric dam, which is a tenth of the impact in cents/kWh of a
coal power plant and this factors in the risk of nuclear accidents. Commercial power generation
is not the only applicable application of nuclear power, the military benefits greatly from
incorporating nuclear power plants onboard in lieu of a fossil fuel power plant by increasing
operational range and capacity. The two worst nuclear incidents in history give us a glimpse into

14

how vigilant we must be when dealing with the complexities of controlled nuclear fission
reactions. The accidents show that our reactors must be immensely complex and versatile, able to
handle a vast multitude of emergency situations or component failures for nuclear power to be a
viable option to replace fossil fuels. Given the necessary safety regulations, control and robust
design nuclear power is a very viable option for future power generation.

15

References
Nuclear power utilities. (2011). Global Nuclear Energy Report, 150-166.
World Nuclear Association. (2013). How a nuclear reactor makes electricity. Retrieved from
http://www.world-nuclear.org/Nuclear-Basics/How-does-a-nuclear-reactor-make-electricity-/
USNRC Technical Training Center. (2003, July). Nuclear power for electrical generation.
Retrieved from http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/teachers/01.pdf
World Nuclear Association. (2013, October). The economics of nuclear power. Retrieved from
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Economic-Aspects/Economics-of-Nuclear-Power/
Nuclear Energy Institute. (2013). Costs: fuel, operation, waste disposal & life cycle. Retrieved
from http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/Costs-Fuel,-Operation,Waste-Disposal-Life-Cycle
European Commission. (1995). ExternE: Externalities of energy. Summary, 1, 1-179. Retrieved
from https://www.google.com/url?
sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDAQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F
%2Fbookshop.europa.eu%2Fen%2Fexterne-externalities-of-energy.-vol.1-summarypbCGNA16520%2Fdownloads%2FCG-NA-16-520-EN-C
%2FCGNA16520ENC_001.pdf%3Bpgid
%3Dy8dIS7GUWMdSR0EAlMEUUsWb0000fgPpuhSh%3Bsid
%3DQKg_1NQXAVM_yIWx1C-hc7YyR3s5B9PERns%3D%3FFileName

16

%3DCGNA16520ENC_001.pdf%26SKU%3DCGNA16520ENC_PDF
%26CatalogueNumber%3DCG-NA-16-520-EN-C&ei=SuKLUpPZDsrKigKsICIDA&usg=AFQjCNFvvwAM71JdHwV8yTSxhpn_z_jfw&sig2=PPrxCoFS5vT_Mcx2NJffcw
United States Power Report. (2013). United States Power Report, (3), 1-98.
Crawford, J. W., & Krahn, S. L. (1998). The Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program: A brief case
study in institutional constancy. Public Administration Review, 58(2), 159-166.
Withington, T. (2010). The Nuclear Option. Sea Power, 53(12), 28.
Polmar, N. (2007). Carrier Aviation on the Move. U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, 133(7), 8687.
International Atomic Energy Agency. (2011). The international nuclear and radiological event
scale. Retrieved from http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Factsheets/English/ines.pdf
Kortov, V. V., & Ustyantsev, Y. u. (2013). Chernobyl accident: Causes, consequences and
problems of radiation measurements. Radiation Measurements, 5512-16.
doi:10.1016/j.radmeas.2012.05.015
Hgberg, L. (2013). Root Causes and Impacts of Severe Accidents at Large Nuclear Power
Plants. AMBIO - A Journal Of The Human Environment, 42(3), 267-284.
doi:10.1007/s13280-013-0382-x
Su'ud, Z., & Anshari, R. (2012). Preliminary analysis of loss-of-coolant accident in fukushima
nuclear accident. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1448(1), 315-327. doi:10.1063/1.4725470

17

Farber, D. (2012). Introduction: Legal scholarship, the disaster cycle, and the fukushima
accident. Duke Environmental Law and Policy Forum, 23(1), Retrieved from
http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1237&context=delpf
Schneider, M., & Froggatt, A. (2012). 20112012 World nuclear industry status report. Bulletin
Of The Atomic Scientists, 68(5), 8-22. doi:10.1177/0096340212459126