The future of nuclear energy

MAR 01, 1981

A major commitment to nuclear power is possible only if the probability of a plant‐disabling accident can be further reduced and the public is able to accept relatively remote risks to health.

DOI: 10.1063/1.2914469

Alvin M. Weinberg

In many ways nuclear energy is a fantastic success: a completely new source of energy now producing, or soon scheduled to produce, about 20 exajoules per year or almost 10 percent of all the energy man now produces. This energy will come from approximately 500 large reactors in 36 countries (see figure 1). These reactors, if replaced by oil‐fired power plants, would require about $10^{7}$ barrels of oil per day—that is, about one‐seventh of all the oil produced in the world. Were the output of these plants used for electric resistive heating, in principle ${5×10}^{6}$ barrels of oil per heating day could be displaced; if used to recharge electric vehicles, perhaps ${10×10}^{6}$ barrels.

This article is only available in PDF format

References

1. M. Rotty, G. Marland, “Constraints on Fossil Fuel Use,” in Proc. Energy/Climate Interactions Workshop, Münster, West Germany, March 3–8, 1980 (in press).
2. Wolf Haefele, Energy in a Finite World, Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria, (1980).
3. Reactor Safety Study: An Assessment of Accident Risks in U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, WASH‐1400 NUREG‐75/014, October 1975.
4. Transactions of the American Nuclear Society 35, 12 (1980).
5. B. K. O. Lundberg, Speed and Safety in Civil Aviation, Report 95, Aeronautical Research Institute of Sweden, Stockholm (1963).
6. Paul Slovic, Images of Disaster: Perception and Acceptance of Risks from Nuclear Power, Proc. Fifteenth Ann. Mtg., Nat. Counc on Radiation Protection and Measurement, Washington, D.C., March 14–15, 1979.
7. N. C. Rasmussen, “Methods of Hazards Analysis and Nuclear Safety Engineering,” in Proc. N.Y. Acad. Sci. Conf. Three Mile Island Nuclear Accident: Lessons and Implications, New York, N.Y., April 8–10, 1980 (in press).
8. P. C. Roberts, Energy and Society, Commission of the European Communities Energy Systems Analysis Int. Conf., Dublin, Ireland, October 9–11, 1979.
9. A. M. Weinberg, “Social Institutions and Nuclear Energy,” Science 177, 27 (1972).https://doi.org/SCIEAS
10. P. Cappuro, Clinical Toxicology 14, 325 (1979).
11. Risk Assessment Review Group Report to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR‐0400 (1978).
12. D. Okrent, in “Comment on Societal Risk,” Science, 208, 372 (1980).
13. Environmental Aspects of Commercial Radioactive Waste Management, DOE/ET‐0029, May 1979.
14. Rev. Mod. Phys. 47, Supplement 1, (1975).
15. H. G. MacPherson, J. R. Trotter, “Do Childhood Cancers Result from Prenatal X‐rays?”Health Physics (in press).
See also J. R. Trotter, Proc. of the Nat. Acad. of Sci. USA 77, 1763 (1980).
16. W. C. Clark, “Witches, Floods and Wonder Drugs: Historical Perspectives on Risk Management,” General Motors Symposium on Societal Risk A ment: How Safe is Safe Enough Warren, Michigan, October 7–9, 1979.
17. H. H. Rossi, in “The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation” (BEIR), National Academy of Sciences, (1980) page 320.

More about the Authors

Alvin M. Weinberg. Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.