Nuclear power reconsidered/Bibliography: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎The Renewables Only debate: add Heard 2017 to list)
(→‎The Renewables Only debate: change citations to Citizendium's preferred style)
Line 7: Line 7:


== The Renewables Only debate ==
== The Renewables Only debate ==
*Derek Abbott, [https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=6021978 ''Is Nuclear Power Globally Scalable?''] Proceedings of the IEEE, October 2011, pp.1611-17. A paper frequently quoted by anti-nuclear advocates, alleging fifteen "fundamental engineering and resource scaling limits that make the notion of a nuclear utopia somewhat impractical".
*Derek Abbott (2011) Is Nuclear Power Globally Scalable? [https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=6021978 ''Proceedings of the IEEE'' 99:1611-17] [http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2011.2161806 dx.doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2011.2161806]  A paper frequently quoted by anti-nuclear advocates, alleging fifteen "fundamental engineering and resource scaling limits that make the notion of a nuclear utopia somewhat impractical".
 
*{{cite book|author=Mark Z. Jacobson|title=100% Clean, Renewable Energy and Storage for Everything|edition=|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=2020|id=ISBN 1108790836}}
*{{cite book|author=Mark Z. Jacobson|title=100% Clean, Renewable Energy and Storage for Everything|edition=|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=2020|id=ISBN 1108790836}}
**Christopher Clack's critique of Jacobson's 100% Renewables Proposal [https://www.pnas.org/content/114/26/6722.full Proc. National Academy of Sciences 2017 114 (26) 6722-6727].
**Christopher Clack ''et al.'' (2017) critique of Jacobson's 100% Renewables Proposal [https://www.pnas.org/content/114/26/6722.full ''Proc. National Academy of Sciences'' 114(26):6722-27].
**[http://www.roadmaptonowhere.com Roadmap to Nowhere] Mike Conley’s website critique of Jacobson’s Roadmap
**Mike Conley, Tim Maloney (2017) [http://www.roadmaptonowhere.com Roadmap to Nowhere] critique of Jacobson’s Roadmap.
 
*Heard BP ''et al.'' (2017) Burden of proof: A comprehensive review of the feasibility of 100% renewable-electricity systems ''Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews'' 76:1122–33 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.03.114 dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.03.114]
*Heard BP ''et al.'' (2017) Burden of proof: A comprehensive review of the feasibility of 100% renewable-electricity systems ''Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews'' 76:1122–33 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.03.114 dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.03.114]
*Edwin Lyman, Union of Concerned Scientists, March 2021, [https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2021-05/ucs-rpt-AR-3.21-web_Mayrev.pdf Advanced Isn’t Always Better] "Assessing the Safety, Security, and Environmental Impacts of Non-Light-Water Nuclear Reactors".
 
**Kurt Smithpeters' critique of Lyman’s UCS paper [https://ses1sez.substack.com/p/advanced-nuclear-reactors ses1sez.substack.com], 07 June 2022.
*Edwin Lyman, Union of Concerned Scientists (2021) [https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2021-05/ucs-rpt-AR-3.21-web_Mayrev.pdf ''Advanced Isn’t Always Better''] ''Assessing the Safety, Security, and Environmental Impacts of Non-Light-Water Nuclear Reactors''.
*L.M. Krall, et.al., [https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2111833119 Nuclear waste from small modular reactors] Proc. National Academy of Sciences, vol.119, No.23, 31 May 2022.
**Kurt Smithpeters (2022) critique of Lyman’s UCS paper [https://ses1sez.substack.com/p/advanced-nuclear-reactors ses1sez.substack.com].
**Dan Yurman's critique of [https://neutronbytes.com/2022/05/31/stanfords-questionable-study-on-spent-nuclear-fuel-for-smrs/ Stanford's Questionable Study on Spent Nuclear Fuel for SMRs] 31 May 2022.
 
*Charles McCombie, et.al., [https://neimagazine.com ''SMRs: a big game changer?''] Nuclear Engineering International, April 2022, pp.19-23. - A discussion of the political barriers to acceptance of the new reactors.
*Krall LM ''et al.'' (2022) Nuclear waste from small modular reactors [https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2111833119 ''Proc. National Academy of Sciences'' 119(23):e2111833119] [https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2111833119 doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2111833119].
**Dan Yurman (2022) Stanford's Questionable Study on Spent Nuclear Fuel for SMRs, [https://neutronbytes.com/2022/05/31/stanfords-questionable-study-on-spent-nuclear-fuel-for-smrs neutronbytes.com/2022/05/31].
 
*Charles McCombie ''et al.'' (2022) SMRs: a big game changer? [https://www.neimagazine.com/features/featuresmrs-a-big-game-changer-9694455 ''Nuclear Engineering International'', April 2022, pp.19-23.A discussion of the political barriers to acceptance of the new reactors.
 
*Iida Ruishalme, [https://thoughtscapism.com/climate-and-energy/ Thoughtscapism - Climate and Energy] excellent science, excellent graphics, and excellent writing.
*Iida Ruishalme, [https://thoughtscapism.com/climate-and-energy/ Thoughtscapism - Climate and Energy] excellent science, excellent graphics, and excellent writing.



Revision as of 07:05, 1 January 2023

This article is developed but not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
Debate Guide [?]
 
A list of key readings about Nuclear power reconsidered.
Please sort and annotate in a user-friendly manner. For formatting, consider using automated reference wikification.

General References

The Renewables Only debate

  • Heard BP et al. (2017) Burden of proof: A comprehensive review of the feasibility of 100% renewable-electricity systems Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 76:1122–33 dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.03.114
  • Edwin Lyman, Union of Concerned Scientists (2021) Advanced Isn’t Always Better Assessing the Safety, Security, and Environmental Impacts of Non-Light-Water Nuclear Reactors.

Videos

Safety

Waste Management

Weapon Proliferation

  • Kryuchkov et.al. (2011) 'Isotopic Uranium and Plutonium Denaturing as an Effective Method for Nuclear Fuel Proliferation Protection in Open and Closed Fuel Cycles' https://www.doi.org/10.5772/17822 How nuclear fuel can be made useless for bombs by denaturing (diluting fissile isotopes with hard-to-separate non-fissile, e.g. diluting U-235 with U-238) and by adding a radiation barrier (isotopes that will make stolen fuel easy to detect, hard to handle, and make a bomb fizzle, not detonate).

Cost

Reactor Designs