At the end of 2003 there were 440 nuclear power units operating worldwide. Together, they supply about 16% of the world’s electricity. That percentage has remained relatively steady for almost 20 years — meaning that nuclear electricity generation has grown at essentially the same rate as Total Electricity use worldwide.Nuclear electricity generation is concentrated in developed countries. More than half of the world’s reactors are in North America and Western Europe, and fewer than 10% are situated in developing countries — which is nonetheless where this century’s greatest growth in energy demand will likely occur. In addition to Belgium and France, which I already mentioned, many developed countries generate substantial portions of their electricity from nuclear fission: including Russia, at 16%; Germany, at 30%; or Japan, at 35% By contrast, for large developing countries such as Brazil, India and China, the percentages are only 4%, 3.7% and 1.4%, respectively.
Current expansion and growth prospects for nuclear power are centered in Asia. Of the 31 units under construction worldwide, 18 are located in India, Japan, South Korea and China — including Taiwan. Twenty of the last 29 reactors to be connected to the grid are also in the Far East and South Asia. Europe does not face the dual pressures of population growth and the need for economic development that are present in some parts of Asia. With two-fifths of the world’s population, China and India are among those countries that face enormous energy demands, driven by the need to combat poverty and hunger with extremely fast economic development in last 10 years. The future of Asian Energy Consumption would be intimidating.
Nuclear power emits virtually no Greenhouse Gases. The complete nuclear power chain, from uranium mining to waste disposal, and including reactor and facility construction, emits only 2–6 grams of carbon per kilowatt-hour. This is about the same as wind and solar power, and two orders of magnitude below Coal, Oil and even Natural Gas. Worldwide, if the 440 nuclear power plants were shut down and replaced with a proportionate mix of non-nuclear sources, the result would be an increase of 600 million tons of carbon per year. That is approximately twice the total amount that we estimate will be avoided by the Kyoto Protocol in 2010, assuming Russian ratification.
What about safety and public health? The accident at Chernobyl in 1986 prompted the creation of the World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO), and revolutionized the IAEA approach to nuclear power plant safety. For nuclear power, significant health impacts arise only from major accidents, of which there has been just one — Chernobyl — caused by serious design flaws coupled with serious operator mistakes. Chernobyl was an RBMK reactor, and there are still 15 RBMK reactors operating in Russia, plus two in Lithuania that are scheduled for closure in 2005 and 2009, according to accession agreements. Due to improvements made since 1986, none of these reactors poses the threat of Chernobyl, nor are more RBMKs being built. The result is that existing well-run nuclear power plants have become increasingly valuable assets. Although the front-loaded cost structure of a nuclear plant is high, the operating costs have become relatively low and stable.
Nonetheless, the public remains skeptical — and nuclear waste disposal will likely remain controversial, possibly until the first geological repositories are operational and the disposal technologies fully demonstrated. Plutonium is highly radioactive and has a half-life of 25,000 years (Bullen and McCormick 682). This means that plutonium takes approximately 25,000 years to decay to half of its original potency. The immediate and long-term threats of radioactivity include causing cancer or genetic damage in humans and animals; large amounts lead directly to radiation sickness and death. Also, any form of plutonium may be fashioned into a very potent nuclear weapon; this poses a threat to the safety of humanity (if this nuclear waste were to fall into the wrong hands).
After the first two nuclear bombs detonated in Hiroshima, Japan, the rates of leukemia sky rocketed in the regions while high rates of cancer were common in the region still. Oddly enough, while most people in medical fields are in self denial in believing there is a cure for cancer, the rate of cancer proliferation is similar to the rate of plutonium and uranium proliferation on earth. The earth’s lower stratum is trapping heat with excessive amount of carbon energy combined with huge amounts of radiation output and ozone depletion.
While the stockpile of nuclear-grade plutonium continues to grow as the use of nuclear energy in its various forms is proliferated, the non-proliferation regime is under growing stress. This is visible in the failed operation of the export control regime, as evidenced by the recently discovered black market of nuclear material and equipment. It is also evident in the perilous spread of fuel cycle technology.
Now the real question would be how long would it take different countries with nuclear facilities transfer nuclear technology for an expensive fee all around the world for mutual cheaper energy sharing. In the next 10 years, when Asia increases energy consumption with excessive petrol and nuclear power demands in 60% of the population on earth, the friction between West and East will become insurmountable. Which countries are allowed to have nuclear energy become world's largest debatable issues. Some of the frictions might induce economic sanctions and possible wars. Politically nobody knows who is right or wrong; scientifically although we know nuclear energy damages Global Health in long term, short term wise the profits from nuclear power plants are excellent especially when everyone is crazy about carbon dioxide emission rates.
