Пути интенсификации развития необжитых регионов Российской Федерации

Walking the Wall

Introduction:Interest in nuclear power as a cleaner and alternative energy source is increasing in many countries. Despite the relative safety of nuclear power, large-scale disasters such as the Fukushima Daiichi (Japan) and Chernobyl (Ukraine) meltdowns are a reminder that emergency preparedness and safety should be a priority. In an emergency situation, there is a need to balance the tension between a rapid response, preventing harm, protecting communities, and safeguarding workers and responders. The first line of defense for workers and responders is personal protective equipment (PPE), but the needs vary by situation and location. Better understanding this is vital to inform PPE needs for workers and responders during nuclear and radiological power plant accidents and emergencies.Study Objective:The aim of this study was to identify and describe the PPE used by different categories of workers and responders during nuclear and radiological power plant accidents and emergencies.Methods:A systematic literature review format following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines was utilized. Databases SCOPUS, PubMed, EMBASE, INSPEC, and Web of Science were used to retrieve articles that examined the PPE recommended or utilized by responders to nuclear radiological disasters at nuclear power plants (NPPs).Results:The search terms yielded 6,682 publications. After removal of duplicates, 5,587 sources continued through the systematic review process. This yielded 23 total articles for review, and five articles were added manually for a total of 28 articles reviewed in this study. Plant workers, decontamination or decommissioning workers, paramedics, Emergency Medical Services (EMS), emergency medical technicians, military, and support staff were the categories of responders identified for this type of disaster. Literature revealed that protective suits were the most common item of PPE required or recommended, followed by respirators and gloves (among others). However, adherence issues, human errors, and physiological factors frequently emerged as hinderances to the efficacy of these equipment in preventing contamination or efficiency of these responders.Conclusion:If worn correctly and consistently, PPE will reduce exposure to ionizing radiation during a nuclear and radiological accident or disaster. For the best results, standardization of equipment recommendations, clear guidelines, and adequate training in its use is paramount. As fields related to nuclear power and nuclear medicine expand, responder safety should be at the forefront of emergency preparedness and response planning.

The utilization of the ship-propulsion nuclear power plant technology - for which there is a great deal of operating experience - in the national economy is now being actively discussed. In a climate of substantially increasing costs of fossil fuel and the cost of transporting it, especially to the remote eastern and northern regions of the country, the wave of the post-Chernobyl disenchantment with nuclear power industry is gradually being replaced by the realization that energy intensive fuel, such as nuclear fuel, has certain advantages. The ecological advantages of nuclear power plants for the vulnerable and virtually unrestorable environment of the northern parts of the country is also important. The present paper is a review of developments at NIKIt~T in this field of nuclear power in the period 1991-1994. The review is based on the results of previous and current investigations, which have shown that the industrial and social structure which has been erected in the main part of the territory of the regions of Russia mentioned above and the primitiveness of the roads and power linkages in these regions create a great demand for small nuclear power plants (mainly up to 30 MW(th)) which generate, as a rule, both electricity and heat. If nuclear power miniplants are considered as such sources, then the specific nature of the construction and operation of such plants determines the obvious basic properties which both the plants as a whole and their nuclear reactors must have: maximum factory assembly of all units of the nuclear power plant and minimum construction and assembly work at the plant site; ease of transport of the units to remote regions, both in delivering the units to the plant site and removing units after the plant ceases operation; high maneuverability of the characteristics of the nuclear reactor and complete automation of operation with a minimum number of skilled service personnel; possibility of operation of a nuclear power plant in regions with little or no water, including under conditions of large seasonal differences of the surrounding air temperature; operation of the plant over a long period of time without reloading the nuclear fuel; and, the nuclear fuel must be economically more advantageous than the traditional fuel. Of course, in addition to these properties, the power plants must meet current and the constantly improving safety standards. The experience, gained over many years of NIKIET in the field of nuclear power for ship propulsion and the principles, systematically developed by specialists at the institute in the course of these works, for increasing plant autonomy and plant safety, and especially the degree of plant integration, which has been implemented in recent years in designs of nuclear power plants with one-unit steam-generating plants, make it possible to propose, together with the long-term partner AO "Kaluga turbine plant", some of these designs as a basis for low-power nuclear power plants with capacities ranging from 0.5 to 12 MW(el). As one can see from Table 1, the nuclear power plants being proposed can be built on the basis of the nuclear power plants for which prototypes with a long history of operation are available or which have been designed using proven solutions to technological problems. This makes it possible to reduce to a minimum the testing and construction work and, as a result, to reduce the cost and construction period of the advance plant. The plants indicated in Table [ are similar in appearance, and they have similar schemes and configurations as well as similar safety approaches. It is helpful to examine these plants for the example of the "Uniterm" nuclear power plant with an electric capacity ranging from 1.5 to 6.5 MW. If the plant must be used for producing electricity as well as heat, the heat extraction could amount to 20-30% of the nominal thermal power.

In April 2014, I attended the ASME Small Modular Reactor (SMR) Symposium in Washington, DC. It was an excellent meeting with a very positive vision of the future of SMRs. However, there was little emphasis given to the urgency for the revival of nuclear energy in the United States. As an ASME Fellow Member, I am concerned that we are running out of time for building new nuclear power plants including inherently safe SMRs.Figure 1 shows the past and potential future of the U.S. nuclear power generation [1]. In the 1970s to 1990s, we were building nuclear power plants and reached roughly 19% nuclear power of the entire electric power demand. If this trend had not been stopped, today we would have produced about 25% of the total power demand in nuclear power plants, and if this trend would have continued, we would have reached 39% in 2040. This is still much less than roughly 80% nuclear power presently provided of the total electric power demand in France. No wonder that the carbon dioxide discharge per person in France is half of ours in the U.S.Since the early 2000s to about 2020, the nuclear power supply is expected to remain at 19% of total power production. If we do not wake up, old nuclear power plants will be retired and if no new nuclear plants are built, the remaining plants in the U.S. will only provide about 8% of our total electricity demand by 2040. If we start building nuclear plants now in a trend like in the 1970s to 1990s, we could reach 29% of our demand; however, this also requires the additional replacement of the old nuclear power plants. The loss of roughly 11% power generation by the shutdown of old nuclear power plants would be a large loss of green carbon-dioxide-free power generation, since nuclear power plants provide more than the half of all our green electricity.In the past, especially during the Cold War, more small nuclear reactors for submarines, aircraft carriers, icebreakers, and other ships were built than large reactors for power plants. These small reactors went all over the globe, even underneath the ice at the North Pole. Ships with nuclear reactors are in harbors and shipyards; they have to be maintained, repaired, and the reactors refueled. Such small reactors or modifications of them, if inherently safe, could also be used to generate electric power, especially for remote locations, to avoid high fuel supply and electricity transmission costs.SMRs should also be specifically used by industrial users, which currently use a large amount of fossil fuels for providing not just electric power but high-temperature heat. Most industrial processes could be clean by switching to SMRs for supplying process heat and electric power. An example is shown in Fig. 2, where a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTR 250) provides heat at a temperature of 950°C (1740°F) and steam for an extraction turbine. The 65 kg/s (0.52 Mil.lb/h) helium can be used in a heat exchanger or steam reformer. The helium discharge temperature of 680°C (1200°F) can provide 50 kg/s (0.4 Mil.lb/h) main steam at 140 bar/540°C (2000 psi/1000°F) to the turbine. The turbine generator can provide a maximum of 50 MW if no steam is used for a specific application. However, main and/or extraction steam can be provided specifically for a high-temperature hydrogen production process or any other chemical processes [2].Combinations of the inherently safe HTRs with any specific industrial processes can be developed. Detailed designs of such combinations should be finalized and could become available now, because of the experience already gained with the HTR design. In 1984, a combination of an HTR 200 with a coal-to-gasoline conversion system was designed and ready to start the permitting procedures, but was stopped because of the antinuclear trend in Germany after Chernobyl. However, in China at present, two HTR 250 units are in their start-up phase.As we have seen in Fig. 1, we have only limited time to revitalize the nuclear power industry within the next couple of years. We cannot just wait and witness nuclear power generation rapidly decreasing in the U.S.

There are several risk-sensitive industries-like air traffic, nuclear power generation, dangerous chemical processes, etc. The technical solutions used are usually well approved and widely known; the occasional problems usually originate from the not-careful-enough design, the insufficient risk assessment, the unsatisfactory training and mismanagement. With proper operation and waste management the nuclear fission power is one of the clearest and cheapest energy sources: no gases are emitted during the energy generation and other related preparatory etc. processes. The upcoming nuclear-fusion-based power plants are even more promising; all contamination in these plants will be decayed practically to nil in less than 100 years. Renewable energy sources can play an important, but only a supplementary role, at least for the foreseeable future. Due to historical reasons, the public approval of the fission-based nuclear power is rather low in many countries. On the other hand, we still have to wait for the appearance of significant fusion power at least several decades; and closing this gap the construction of a new generation of NPPs (nuclear power plants) seems to be unavoidable. Construction on the large scale of carbon dioxide emitting conventional power plants operating on fossil fuel seems to be the worst solution, anyway. Even ignoring the CO 2 -related problems, the growing energy needs of the developing Asian countries cannot be satisfied alone with the oil or gas available on the markets. Therefore there are several NPPs already under construction and more contracts are to come. Meanwhile, all over in the USA and Europe the operation of old NPPs are going to be prolonged for another 20-30 years. Slowly, even in Europe the construction of new nuclear power plants are considered, too. The first such Generation 3+ NPP is already under construction in Finland. In all cases, simulation studies and the use of simulators is essential. It is a well known fact and it is widely approved by many scientists and engineers that direct evaluation of different technical designs above a certain complexity level is unthinkable. Careful modelling, model integration, verification and validation is necessary to build the simulation tools and computer codes for the design and real-time simulators are even better for testing and validation of complex industrial processes. The average lifetime of a big nuclear or other power plant exceeds that of its instrumentation and control (I&C) systems several times. Computer based such systems are prone to even faster moral exhaustion.Without extensive simulation the replacement of such systems would cause long-lasting outages resulting in great financial losses. In the paper first I would like to give a survey on the present state of energy production and consumption in the world and after that I would like to summarize the results and practice we used at Paks NPP in Hungary: first in the evaluation of safety studies, then in the working-out of new state-of-art operational procedures, and finally, during reconstruction of the reactor safety system and other I&C Systems, the replacement of which-thanks to the extensive testing and tuning performed using the full-scope replica simulator-was completed during the regular re-fuelling outage of the NPP units.

Railway Research Institute (JSC VNIIZhT) is the principal agency to develop technologies and regulatory documents concerning special projects for transportation of Super-OOG and Super-Heavy Cargoes using specially designed rolling stock. All relevant regulatory documents existing in the Russian Federation and CIS states has been developed by the scientists and experts of our Institute. At the present stage the demand for such technologies has increased in relation to arrival of the period to modernize and renew the national energy production facilities, which requires to supply newly-built up-to-date equipment to thermal and nuclear electric power stations - and to deliver it as an assembled unit, which normally is Super-OOG and Super-Heavy. This article considers methodological issues of transporting Super-OOG equipment with specific references to recent deliveries of Super-OOG steam generators to nuclear power stations as well as deliveries of turbines, generators and transformers to thermal electric power stations. In cases of demand to arrange deliveries of similar equipment to electric power stations, one may use details of specific transportation of Super-OOG and Super-Heavy cargo units mentioned in this article.

Biographical data on the life and activities of the academician of the USSR Academy of Sciences V.I. Subbotin, presented and analyzed are the key areas of activity of the scientific school ″Heat and Mass Transfer, Physical Chemistry and Technology of Heat Transfer Fluids in Energy Systems″, which he created, which he was the head of. During the years 1953-1975 V.I. Subbotin led the research in the field of thermal physics at the Physics and Energy Institute (Obninsk). During this period, as a result of a large complex of experimental and computational studies of heat and mass transfer, physical chemistry and technology of water and liquid metals (sodium, eutectic alloys of sodiumpotassium and lead-bismuth, lithium, lead), the scientific foundations were created in the nuclear power plant under his leadership the use of liquid metal coolants in nuclear energy. The fundamental physicochemical and thermohydraulic laws of the coolant - impurities - structural materials - protective gas system were studied. The results of these studies made it possible, together with the institutes and the OKBM of the country performing the development of nuclear power and power plants cooled by water and liquid metals, to scientifically substantiate the thermohydraulic parameters and highly efficient technological processes, to develop and practically implement apparatuses and systems, ensured the successful operation of fundamentally new nuclear power plants with original scientific and technical solutions that had no analogue in world practice. In 1975, V.I. Subbotin was transferred to work in Moscow as director of the newly created wide-profile organization NPO ″Energia″ of the USSR Ministry of Energy and Electrification. While in this position, he put a lot of effort into creating a fundamentally new institute in the nuclear energy industry - VNIIAES, and also was the initiator and achieved the creation of a new institute for the nuclear industry - VNIIAM. In 1977-1988, V.I. Subbotin worked as the head of the Department of Thermophysics at MEPhI. During his work in this position, the composition of the department grew from 39 to 120 people; three collaborators defended doctoral dissertations, more than 30 defended doctoral dissertations. In 1968, he was elected a corresponding member of the USSR Academy of Sciences, and in 1987 a full member of the USSR Academy of Sciences. In 1988, Valery Ivanovich transferred to work at the USSR Academy of Sciences. The traditions of the scientific school are currently preserved and developed by the students, associates and followers of V.I. Subbotin.

One of America’s best kept secrets is the success of its nuclear electric power industry. This paper presents data which support the construction and operating successes enjoyed by energy companies that operate nuclear power plants in the US. The result—the US nuclear industry is alive and well. Perhaps it’s time to start anew the building of nuclear power plants. Let’s take the wraps off the major successes achieved in the nuclear power industry. Over 20% of the electricity generated in the United States comes from nuclear power plants. An adequate, reliable supply of reasonably priced electric energy is not a consequence of an expanding economy and gross national product; it is an absolute necessity before such expansion can occur. It is hard to imagine any aspect of our business or personal lives not, in some way, dependent upon electricity. All over the world (in 34 countries) nuclear power is a low-cost, secure, safe, dependable, and environmentally friendly form of electric power generation. Nuclear plants in these countries are built in six to eight years using technology developed in the US, with good performance and safety records. This treatise addresses the success experienced by the US nuclear industry over the last 40 years, and makes the case that this reliable, cost-competitive source of electric power can help support the economic engine of the country and help prevent experiences like the recent crisis in California. Traditionally, the evaluation of electric power generation facility performance has focused on the ability of plants to produce at design capacity for high percentages of the time. Successful operation of nuclear facilities is determined by examining capacity or load factors. Load factor is the percentage of design generating capacity that a power plant actually produces over the course of a year’s operation. This paper makes the case that these operating performance indicators warrant renewed consideration of the nuclear option. Usage of electricity in the US now approaches total generating capacity. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has pre-approved construction and operating licenses for several nuclear plant designs. State public service commissions are beginning to understand that dramatic reform is required. The economy is recovering and inflation is minimal. It’s time, once more, to turn to the safe, reliable, environmentally friendly nuclear power alternative.

One of America’s best kept secrets is the success of its nuclear electric power industry. This paper presents data which support the construction and operating successes enjoyed by energy companies that operate nuclear power plants in the US. The result—the US nuclear industry is alive and well. Perhaps it’s time to start anew the building of nuclear power plants. Let’s take the wraps off the major successes achieved in the nuclear power industry. Over 20% of the electricity generated in the United States comes from nuclear power plants. An adequate, reliable supply of reasonably priced electric energy is not a consequence of an expanding economy and gross national product; it is an absolute necessity before such expansion can occur. It is hard to imagine any aspect of our business or personal lives not, in some way, dependent upon electricity. All over the world (in over 30 countries) nuclear power is a low-cost, secure, safe, dependable, and environmentally friendly form of electric power generation. Nuclear plants in these countries are built in six to eight years using technology developed in the US, with good performance and safety records. This treatise addresses the success experienced by the US nuclear industry over the last 40 years, and makes the case that this reliable, cost-competitive source of electric power can help support the economic engine of the country and help prevent experiences like the recent crises in California and the Northeast. Traditionally, the evaluation of electric power generation facility performance has focused on the ability of plants to produce at design capacity for high percentages of the time. Successful operation of nuclear facilities is determined by examining capacity or load factors. Load factor is the percentage of design generating capacity that a power plant actually produces over the course of a year’s operation. This paper makes the case that these operating performance indicators warrant renewed consideration of the nuclear option. Usage of electricity in the US now approaches total generating capacity. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has pre-approved construction and operating licenses for several nuclear plant designs. State public service commissions are beginning to understand that dramatic reform is required. The economy is recovering and inflation is minimal. It’s time, once more, to turn to the safe, reliable, environmentally friendly nuclear power alternative.Copyright © 2004 by ASME

One of America’s best kept secrets is the success of its nuclear electric power industry. This paper presents data which support the construction and operating successes enjoyed by energy companies that operate nuclear power plants in the US. The result—the US nuclear industry is alive and well. Perhaps it’s time to start anew the building of nuclear power plants. Let’s take the wraps off the major successes achieved in the nuclear power industry. Over 20% of the electricity generated in the United States comes from nuclear power plants. An adequate, reliable supply of reasonably priced electric energy is not a consequence of an expanding economy and gross national product; it is an absolute necessity before such expansion can occur. It is hard to imagine any aspect of our business or personal lives not, in some way, dependent upon electricity. All over the world (in over 30 countries) nuclear power is a low-cost, secure, safe, dependable, and environmentally friendly form of electric power generation. Nuclear plants in these countries are built in six to eight years using technology developed in the US, with good performance and safety records. This treatise addresses the success experienced by the US nuclear industry over the last 40 years, and makes the case that this reliable, cost-competitive source of electric power can help support the economic engine of the country and help prevent experiences like the recent crises in California and the Northeast. Traditionally, the evaluation of electric power generation facility performance has focused on the ability of plants to produce at design capacity for high percentages of the time. Successful operation of nuclear facilities is determined by examining capacity or load factors. Load factor is the percentage of design generating capacity that a power plant actually produces over the course of a year’s operation. This paper makes the case that these operating performance indicators warrant renewed consideration of the nuclear option. Usage of electricity in the US now approaches total generating capacity. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has pre-approved construction and operating licenses for several nuclear plant designs. State public service commissions are beginning to understand that dramatic reform is required. The economy is recovering and inflation is minimal. It’s time, once more, to turn to the safe, reliable, environmentally friendly nuclear power alternative.

Objective To investigate the public's perception and attitudes on the development of nuclear power, assess their knowledge about nuclear power and radiation, and to build a database on the public's perception for the purpose of providing better public health service, associate technical support and give suggestions for decision-makers. Methods In total of 1 440 local residents who live within 30 kilometers of a proposed nuclear power were chosen for in-person interviews. Questionnaires comprised of 49 questions designed to assess the public's knowledge of radiation and nuclear power, their attitudes to the development of nuclear power, their evaluation of local government and their informational environment. ANOVA was used to compare the influence of different factors on cognitive level. Multivariate linear regression was used to analyze the main factors affecting the level of public awareness. Comparison among groups (respondents in this survey vs. other comparable surveys) was conducted using χ2 test. Results Of the respondents, 29.7% and 39.5% of respondents knew about nuclear power and radiation, respectively, 24.2% supported the construction of a nuclear power plant in their own area, which was lower than the average national support for construction of nuclear power plants (29.0%) (χ2=8.71, P<0.05). When queried about safety cncerns 36.8% of respondents worried about the safety of nuclear power plant and 78.5% of respondents were afraid of the damage to their health, while 34.1% of respondents held the belief that the nuclear power plant could bring harmful effect even under normal operation. Regarding the informational environment, 90.0% of the respondents could not or barely got access to knowledge on nuclear power plants, 71.1% hoped to acquire the knowledge on nuclear power plants, 48.4% hoped to acquire this knowledge by television programs, and 62.4% mostly trusted information given by experts from universities or institutes. In comparison to other findings acquired in similar surveys on the Tianwan and Qinshan nuclear power plants before the Fukushima accident, the findings indicated that safety assessment of nuclear power plant were lower (χ2=20.49, 56.96, P<0.05). Conclusions The public's knowledge level on nuclear power and radiation directly influenced their attitude on nuclear power. The related agencies should strengthen publicity and education in order to increase the public's knowledge on nuclear power and radiation. The communication platform between the related agencies and the public should be established. Active and continued risk communication should be carried out to increase public acceptance of nuclear power. Key words: Nuclear power plant; Nuclear power; Radiation; Perception; Risk communication

Problem statement. Due to Russia's ongoing terrorist attacks on Ukraine's energy facilities, the energy system was damaged, resulting in blackouts and rolling blackouts across the country. The destruction of power capacities resulted in the unstable operation of certain critical infrastructure units for electricity generation at thermal, nuclear and hydroelectric power plants and the introduction of forced hourly blackout schedules. Seizure of the Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant, occupation and full control of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant and the Zaporizhzhia Thermal Power Plant (TPP). Complete destruction of the Kakhovka hydroelectric power station (HPP), partial destruction of the Dnipro HPP, Dniester HPP and Kaniv HPP. During the hostilities, Kryvyi Rih and Prydniprovia TPPs were damaged, Luhansk TPP (90–100 %), Vuhlehirsk TPP (90–100 %), Zmiiv TPP (up to 90 %) were completely destroyed, Burshtyn TPP (80–90 %) and Ladyzhyn TPP (70–95 %) were almost completely destroyed. The purpose of the article is to identify and analyse the damage to Ukrainian TPPs, HPPs and NPPs caused by the Russian military actions against Ukraine and to determine possible consequences for the nuclear fuel cycle of our country and possible prospects for the transition to new nuclear reactors of European and global fuel cell manufacturers, to improve equipment and stabilise the energy market in the context of military operations. Conclusion. In the course of the analysis of potential hazards at radiation hazardous facilities (RHF) in Ukraine, it was determined that the main threat is accidents at RHF with release of radiation into the atmosphere, lithosphere and hydrosphere. In the light of recent events regarding the military seizure of the Chornobyl NPP and Zaporizhzhya NPP, measurements using standard methods of research, screening and monitoring are not possible, and access of IAEA representatives is limited, which is why the latest measurement methods should be used with the use of autonomous remote-controlled ground, surface and air drones in automatic object or sample measurement of radiation parameters at RNS. It is the use of autonomous vehicles (drones) that is currently the most pressing issue of radiation safety not only in the nuclear power industry but also in the entire nuclear fuel cycle as part of the environmental safety of Ukraine. In case of seizure of a nuclear facility or limited access to it, research methods should be changed. If the facility is partially seized or access is available, then express methods of radiation contamination registration or sampling can be used and the method of laboratory research can be used in the future. However, if a nuclear power plant or a facility that is part of the nuclear fuel cycle of Ukraine is captured and access to it is impossible, then only methods of remote measurement of the radiation situation at and around nuclear facilities using ground and airborne autonomous vehicles remain. For further research, it is necessary to identify technical possibilities for using Ukraine's own mineral resources and switching from Soviet RBMK-1000, VVER-440 and VVER-1000 reactors with fuel elements supplied to us from the Russian Federation to newer types of European and American reactors with appropriate fuel elements.

Korea has been achieving the world best safety and economic performance of nuclear power plants through continuous technology development and asset management optimization since its first nuclear power reactor was introduced in the late 1970s. While most countries have stopped building new nuclear power plants since the severe accident in TMI nuclear plant in 1979, Korea has been steadily developing its own reactor models and constructing new nuclear plants. In addition, Korea won recent new nuclear plant project of United Arab Emirates (UAE) as a result of these efforts. A nuclear power plant consists of a great variety of complex equipment having state-of-the-art technologies, and the highest nuclear safety and equipment reliability are required. Therefore, the most sophisticated systematic engineering asset management is essential to the nuclear power plant. As a responsible company of operating and constructing all nuclear power plants in Korea, Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power Co. (KHNP) has developed its own asset management model for the nuclear power plants in operation and expanded the model into the new plants under construction. Since the asset management model was developed for the various equipment types in the nuclear power plant, it can be easily utilized in other industries as a highly effective asset management model. This paper presents new and innovative methods to refine and improve existing asset management practices in general plants by diagnosing KHNP’s physical asset management model. It contributes to the development and improvement of an advanced asset management model for general plant industries and utilities to meet the objectives of securing a clean environment, improved public health and safety, and general community well being.

Each week seems to bring further evidence that the Earth is warming at a faster rate than previously estimated. Pressure is building to replace power sources that emit carbon dioxide with those tha...

This paper addresses three questions concerning the economics of and prospects for nuclear power in the USA: (1) What is the long-term economic future of nuclear energy? (2) Is the inability to resolve the nuclear waste issue a factor that will limit new nuclear plant development? (3) Are the new designs for nuclear plants an advance over current designs? With respect to the first question, we find that the long-term economic future of nuclear energy is uncertain, at best. Despite recent interest in a 'nuclear renaissance', objective, rigorous studies have concluded that at present, new nuclear power plants are not economically competitive with coal or natural gas for electricity generation and will not be for the foreseeable future. With respect to the second question, we find that the inability to resolve the nuclear waste issue will likely limit new nuclear plant development. Nuclear waste disposal poses a serious, seemingly intractable problem for the future of nuclear power and the waste issue could be a showstopper for new nuclear plants. With respect to the third question, the new designs for nuclear plants are an advance over current designs, but only marginally. Thus, while some new nuclear power plants will likely be built in the USA over the next two decades, a major 'nuclear renaissance' is unlikely.