IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/appene/v65y2000i1-4p211-229.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Nuclear power and the environment: comparative assessment of environmental and health impacts of electricity-generating systems

Author

Listed:
  • Rashad, S. M.
  • Hammad, F. H.

Abstract

This paper deals with comparative assessment of the environmental and health impacts of nuclear and other electricity-generation systems. The study includes normal operations and accidents in the full energy chain analysis. The comparison of environmental impacts arising from the waste-management cycles associated with non-emission waste are also discussed. Nuclear power, while economically feasible and meeting 17% of the world's demand for electricity, is almost free of the air polluting gases that threaten the global climate. Comparing nuclear power with other sources for electricity generation in terms of their associated environmental releases of pollutant such as SO2, NOX, CO2, CH4 and radioisotopes, taking into account the full fuel chains of supply option, nuclear power will help to reduce environmental degradation due to electricity generation activities. In view of CO2 emission, the ranking order commences with hydro, followed by nuclear, wind and photovoltaic power plants. CO2 emissions from a nuclear power plant are by two orders of magnitude lower than those of fossil-fuelled power plants. A consequent risk comparison between different energy sources has to include all phases of the whole energy cycle. Coal mine accidents have resulted in several 1000 acute deaths over the years. Then came hydropower, also resulting in many catastrophes and loss of human lives, followed by the oil and gas energy industries, last in the list is commercial nuclear energy, which has had a "bad" press because of the Chernobyl accident, resulting officially in 31 acute fatalities, and at least 145 latent fatalities. The paper offers some findings and conclusions on the role of nuclear power in protecting the global environment.

Suggested Citation

  • Rashad, S. M. & Hammad, F. H., 2000. "Nuclear power and the environment: comparative assessment of environmental and health impacts of electricity-generating systems," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 65(1-4), pages 211-229, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:65:y:2000:i:1-4:p:211-229
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306-2619(99)00069-0
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kiriyama, Eriko & Kajikawa, Yuya & Fujita, Katsuhide & Iwata, Shuichi, 2013. "A lead for transvaluation of global nuclear energy research and funded projects in Japan," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 145-153.
    2. Sheldon, Seth & Hadian, Saeed & Zik, Ory, 2015. "Beyond carbon: Quantifying environmental externalities as energy for hydroelectric and nuclear power," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 36-44.
    3. Moreira, João M.L. & Cesaretti, Marcos A. & Carajilescov, Pedro & Maiorino, José R., 2015. "Sustainability deterioration of electricity generation in Brazil," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 334-346.
    4. Hong, Sanghyun & Bradshaw, Corey J.A. & Brook, Barry W., 2014. "Nuclear power can reduce emissions and maintain a strong economy: Rating Australia’s optimal future electricity-generation mix by technologies and policies," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 712-725.
    5. Sofia Dahlgren & Jonas Ammenberg, 2021. "Sustainability Assessment of Public Transport, Part II—Applying a Multi-Criteria Assessment Method to Compare Different Bus Technologies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-30, January.
    6. Takahashi, Tomoki & Sato, Toru, 2015. "Inclusive environmental impact assessment indices with consideration of public acceptance: Application to power generation technologies in Japan," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 64-72.
    7. Bohdanowicz, Zbigniew & Łopaciuk-Gonczaryk, Beata & Gajda, Paweł & Rajewski, Adam, 2023. "Support for nuclear power and proenvironmental attitudes: The cases of Germany and Poland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    8. Kone, Aylin Cigdem & Buke, Tayfun, 2007. "An Analytical Network Process (ANP) evaluation of alternative fuels for electricity generation in Turkey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 5220-5228, October.
    9. Carless, Travis S. & Talabi, Sola M. & Fischbeck, Paul S., 2019. "Risk and regulatory considerations for small modular reactor emergency planning zones based on passive decontamination potential," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 740-756.
    10. Nian, Victor & Chou, S.K. & Su, Bin & Bauly, John, 2014. "Life cycle analysis on carbon emissions from power generation – The nuclear energy example," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 68-82.
    11. Sovacool, Benjamin K., 2008. "Valuing the greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power: A critical survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 2940-2953, August.
    12. Köne, Aylin Çigdem & Büke, Tayfun, 2010. "Forecasting of CO2 emissions from fuel combustion using trend analysis," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 14(9), pages 2906-2915, December.
    13. Felder, Frank A., 2009. "A critical assessment of energy accident studies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(12), pages 5744-5751, December.
    14. Akhil Kadiyala & Raghava Kommalapati & Ziaul Huque, 2016. "Quantification of the Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Nuclear Power Generation Systems," Energies, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-13, October.
    15. Bishop, Justin D.K. & Amaratunga, Gehan A.J. & Rodriguez, Cuauhtemoc, 2008. "Using strong sustainability to optimize electricity generation fuel mixes," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 971-980, March.
    16. Hirschberg, Stefan & Bauer, Christian & Burgherr, Peter & Cazzoli, Eric & Heck, Thomas & Spada, Matteo & Treyer, Karin, 2016. "Health effects of technologies for power generation: Contributions from normal operation, severe accidents and terrorist threat," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 373-387.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:65:y:2000:i:1-4:p:211-229. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/405891/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.