a tsunami in nuclear energy · in this consider, goldemberg (2011) puts it: "with or without...

A TSUNAMI IN NUCLEAR ENERGY

Ricardo Moreira da Silva (UFPB)

[email protected]

Joao Luis Fonseca dos Santos (UFPB)

[email protected]

Marcelo Aires Moreira (UFCG)

[email protected]

Josilene Aires Moreira (UFPB)

[email protected]

The nuclear accident in Japan made the world be on alert. With the

imminent threat of contamination by radioactivity of thousands of

people, the world questions the safety of nuclear power projects as a

mass energy. To have a small idea of what this accident represents,

three days after the tsunami, Bowyer et.al. (2011) found in the U.S.

(over 7000 km from the site of the incident) the presence of 133Xe

issued by the reactor in Fukushima. It is not yet disclosed or measured

the size of the accident approach, however scholars have said that this

accident can be compared to the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.

Thus, this article discusses the need to rethink about the new (“old”)

uncertainties of nuclear energy use worldwide and in Brazil. To

achieve this goal, this article deals with security issues, environmental

impact, costs and use of nuclear energy in Brazil. On the Methodology,

it was used the table of sustainability Driving force-State-Responsive

(developed by the United Nations) for lifting the actions related to the

collection and use of nuclear fuel, testing and implementation of article

writing. We come to the conclusion that nuclear power is unsafe,

expensive and polluting, but it has the possibility of large-scale

production, voltage quality and recognized frequency and that is why

industrialized countries like Germany, France, Belgium and U.S.

cannot in short and medium time close its plants, but its use in Brazil is

dispensable.

Palavras-chaves: Nuclear; environmental, accident

XVII INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING AND OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT

Technological Innovation and Intellectual Property: Production Engineering Challenges in Brazil Consolidation in the World Economic Scenario.

Belo Horizonte, Brazil, 04 to 07 October – 2011


Technological Innovation and Intellectual Property: Production Engineering Challenges in Brazil Consolidation in the World Economic Scenario. Belo Horizonte, Brazil, 04 to 07 October – 2011

2

1. Introduction

Studies on nuclear energy modern dating from the late nineteenth century. Can be generated

by nuclear fission or fusion processes, and whose impacts are entirely distinct.

According to Knobel (2007) to "light atomic nuclei fuse (as hydrogen, deuterium and tritium)

is a huge release of energy, a process which is known as atomic fusion, a process that is

similar to what occurs inside the sun and other stars, where two protons was fuse into an alpha

particle (a helium nucleus), releasing two positrons, two neutrinos and energy.

Hydrogen is the element of nature less complex and more abundant in the universe (PUSZI,

2001). It is the key element of water, which covers over 60% of the planet's surface and

composes various substances in various forms of plants, animals, humans, fossil fuels and

other chemicals (SLOOP, 1978).

In another hand, the process of nuclear fission was discovered by Hahn, Meitner and

Strassman in 1938 and occurs when uranium is bombarded by neutrons, the nucleus breaks

into pieces, turning into lighter atoms, such as barium and krypton. "The energy

corresponding to the nuclear forces that united the pieces are released in the form of kinetic

energy (energy of motion) of the fragments." (BUYS, 2007).

Since ancient times, this power has promised clean energy, cheap, plentiful and so is of great

sweeping polemics (Pereira, 2001) and also because of the magnitude of potential energy

accumulated and "reduced" attack on enviromental, promises to be the energy source more

important for future generations.

In fact, the major aspects of nuclear energy are really the significant amount of CO2 ceased to

be placed in the atmosphere and the amount, the volume of MW can be produced (PEREIRA,

2001), which are positive differentials in the formation of an energy of any country.

According Lepecki (2011) Nuclear power currently provides 16% of electricity generation

worldwide and in countries like Germany, France, Belgium, Finland, Japan, Korea and others

where there are not other primary sources, their intensive use is not an option, is a strategic

decision, even considering their insecurities and challenges. In this regard, it is stated that "the

challenges are not good or bad, but to meet up with people affected by the insecurity, set out

as suspects and disbelieve in the direction of the future, by the intransigence of thinking to

blunt the argument of validity of the concept, which differentiates between stable and unstable

systems" (Santos, 2011). In Brazil represents only 2% of the energy matrix (Silva 2005).

According to Pereira (2001), it suit the context of globalization. His strength and visibility

become evident in the second world war in the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which until

today consternation humanity. Not only in war that nuclear energy shows its strength

comprehensive, because it is capital intensive, technologically complex, global and

environmental impact.

• Intensive in capital when it requires large initial investments to be transformed into

electricity. Moreover, the costs of its construction eventually involve not uncommon, most

investments were originally intended. Therefore, the property is always the state or expression

of financial groups worldwide.



3

• Technologically complex, it requires highly qualified staff, centralized power structure,

hierarchy, similar to the stricter organizations created for the control of society.

• Environmental and overall impact, it requires strict monitoring and free access by

supranational institutions charged with overseeing the productive chain of nuclear energy.

This globalized nature has strengthened the international body created to monitor its

development and control: The International Atomic Energy Agency.

Thus, nuclear power has nuances that must be addressed before its use, and this article deals

only three such issues: safety, environmental impact, costs and the use of nuclear energy in

Brazil.

2. Secure Energy?

We oppose the fate and release us from the common destiny of bounded rationality to avoid

the contradictions of the past. An earthquake and a tsunami caused a nuclear accident, ie,

without appropriating systems thinking, human being was in no way responsible. This is a

fatality, a destination built, through which several paths of knowledge are possible within a

realistic chance.

One learns that reversible processes are able to change fate, despite not being able to modify

the design that gives them time to identify the different realities of the transition from disorder

to order and vice versa. Every decision is taken, the future is being changed to the evolution

of sustainable development. The deterministic chaos is present, but it takes rationality to the

decision to use nuclear power.

Unpredictability is not the novelty, which leads to a new order. There are countless problems,

feats of identification to the rethinking of belief are necessary to re-understand the security

and the chaos associated with new branches that may interfere with protected environmental

assets of nuclear energy.

Because of Fukushima, Tanimoto et.al. (2011) argue that the nuclear power industry in Japan

is facing its worst crisis. Not only Japanese, but the whole world seems untrusting. Authorities

related Fukushima seem reluctant to admit the seriousness of the problem to protect the

reputation of the nuclear industry as much as possible. Duffield and Woodall (2011) already

state that the consequences of Fukushima can be compared to Three Mile Island (USA) and

Chernobyl (ex- USSR).

In fact, Saenko et.al. (2011) have studied the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear plant ranked

as the worst industrial accident of the last century where there was a radioactive

contamination of large areas in the vicinity, immediately affecting the health of nearly five

million people, one million children less than 15 years. The few predictions about Fukushima

estimate that the radiation may have reached 200 000 people directly.



4

Photos of the nuclear accident

Source: http://info.abril.com.br/noticias/tecnologias-verdes/nivel-de-radiacao-em-regiao-do-

japao-preocupa-20032011-3.shl

According to Marques (2011), Germany's first reaction was, in theory, leave this option

energy, closing two plants in operation. In an emergency meeting in Brussels, the Swiss

government suspended new licenses, which was accompanied by several European Union

countries, who placed in the portfolio revaluation of its primary energy supply (since Europe

has the most nuclear power plants on the planet).

Next to Japan, China, have slowed the construction of 28 plants. That occurs and ZHANG

ZHOU (2010) put it in that country, the limited resources of raw materials, the rising cost of

fossil energy and environmental problems in coal mining, nuclear power is making a strategic

choice inevitable, even aware of the problems of reactor safety, nuclear waste treatment and

the risk of proliferation of nuclear material.

Moreover, according to Pereira (2001), access to any of these amounts of plutonium, either by

unscrupulous individuals or followers of radical movements of society, can establish a

clandestine trade and / or spread terror on a global scale, not exactly by usable energy to the

element ends, but the destructive potential that concentrates.

In this consider, Goldemberg (2011) puts it: "with or without natural disasters, nuclear plants

have always been dangerous. Technology is not 100% secure. The accident in Japan

remembers the tale of Alice in Wonderland. The mirror shattered, security was illusory. Who

works with nuclear energy knows how bad it is, by their natural history. A reactor needs to be

refrigerated, must have water circulating inside it. If, for a failure, this fails to happen, it melts

and then we have a catastrophe, as happened at Three Mile Island, Chenobyl and Japan, "no

matter whether it was caused by natural events, a natural disaster (as in Fukushima) or just a

valve that fought in the american power plant.

The question that is now present in all who study energy management is whether Japan,

which was one of the most technologically prepared to manage atomic plants, it experienced

the "insecurity" because of a nuclear event of nature, which the chances of a nuclear disaster

intercontinental proportions, in the case of a plant's process similar to Fukushima?. It is

mathematically impossible to answer, but are probabilistically possible and meaningful.



5

Thus the arguments must follow their destiny and be imbued with the laws of nature. We must

observe the safety convictions are more dangerous than the lies, knowing that the half-

knowing that probation is more argumentative knowing full deterministic. So many beliefs are

devoid of real moments, but conscious that in the context of disagreement they will be

ostracized, by time and experience. Opt for caution, by study, must be a maximum when

dealing with nuclear energy. One of the precepts engraved in the temple of Delphi was "Know

Itself." Platão says through Socrates - a character of his writings - that "it seems ridiculous,

because I still do not possess this knowledge, they put me to consider things that do not

concern me."

3. Clean Energy?

Nuclear power emits no CO2 to the atmosphere. And actually this part was responsible for the

"illusion" of nuclear energy is clean, even considering the collapses. Lovelock (2006) even

states that nuclear power is "the" source of energy capable of meeting the expectations of

being human.

In this regard Pereira (2001) states that "Although the incident with the Soviet reactor in 1986

has shown that the amplitude can acquire a nuclear accident, other concerns regarding the

environmental health of the planet being disseminated worldwide at the time. The greenhouse

effect and destruction of the ozone layer were being blamed for systemically predictable

changes in Earth's climate. "

In fact, even considering the severity of the accidents cited, the world saw the accident just as

local and global warming is recognized, therefore, CO2 does not play by itself, would be a

"good" reason for their use. Indeed, the production process of nuclear power releases no

greenhouse gas in appreciable quantities, or sulfur or nitrogen and this can not be overlooked.

To get an idea what it represents, a study by the IAEA (1999) shows that the 436 reactors in

operation in 1999 were replaced by coal-fired thermal power plants of similar power would

add another 8% to 5.5 billion tonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere. Pereira (2001) adds that

research conducted in Germany and the USA report that all the activities involved in

generating electricity by nuclear power emits only between 0.5 to 4% of the CO2 released by

coal-fired thermal power plant of the same power.

Along these lines, the following table built by Greyvenstein et al (2008) provides the

composition of global CO2 emissions by sectors and add that "nuclear energy is currently

only used in generating electricity, but could also play a significant role in the sector

industrial and transport to provide process heat." The use of nuclear heat in industries could

reduce by 25% of global CO2 emissions.

Table 1. – Global Emissions of CO2 by energy sector

ORIGEM %

Eletricity 33

Industrial 25

Transport 24

Refineries 13

Others 5



6

Source: Greyvenstein et al.(2008)

However, according to the cited author, for use, all logistics choice of siting the plant, should

be done, or logistics "transportation" of energy in hydrogen cells.

Accept nuclear energy as clean energy requires some abstraction, or even ignorance. It

produces radioactive waste in nature, (which do not contribute to the greenhouse effect), but

contribute to increased risk of technological, environmental and human. In any event, the

nuclear industry needs to solve at least two problems arising from waste releases: The nuclear

waste and plutonium stocks.

Pereira (2001) puts radioactive material and nuclear waste are present in all activities of the

nuclear fuel chain and the intensity of radiation that a material continues to emit into the

environment allows to classify it as waste with high or low degree. The high degree of tailings

are those that emit large amounts of ionizing radiation (iodo-128/25 minutes of estrôncio-

90/28 césio-137/30 years and years). Since the low-grade tailings are generated by nuclides of

long half-life (uranium-238 / 4.5 million years).

Therefore, a series of restrictions to be eliminated by studying and understanding, confirming

or invalidating the predictions of nuclear-electric power. The first is what it says it cannot

change the argument of open and participatory approach, but we need the reversal of certain

habits and even trends of a "sustainable society".

To overcome these constraints and take the field fecundity of shares without changing the

pains of development, the result is a series of economic and environmental changes and a

confirmation core-electric in particular, under the necessity of efficiency even with an

approach marked by objectivity and sustainability.

Indeed, nuclear energy has strong environmental impacts, not only in cases of accidents cited,

but in its normal operation, which produces a nuclear waste that currently does not have any

effective treatment.

Therefore, the target can be modified and the use of nuclear power has that power, both

socially and physically. The change must be managed by those who understand, that it should

become to construct images of the energy planning without the tragic figure of the thing

environmentally incorrect, even rethought the probability of change for sustainable

development of energy resources.

According to Pereira (2001) there is an accumulation of many radioactive materials that must

be accommodated in permanent repositories. This waste can be buried underground in

buildings that have deep excavations (as in Sweden) or in excavation areas in tectonically

stable areas of granites. Fact is that a target needs to be given to the garbage and it has very

high costs.

In this case, the future is no longer a fact of reality is socially constructed, is a physical reality

that disturbs the order of certainty. We must build a new destination of sustainable energy

development. No idea differently or opposite to the enhancement can bring us to construct a

problem that part of the day by the integration of environmental costs and physical security.



7

Thus, it is said that nuclear energy is considered clean because of the non-issuance of CO2 in

the atmosphere, because it really does not contribute to global warming, but often in the

environmental account to explain the rationality of the players in the development of action is

"forgotten" the passive left via nuclear waste, and thus only aspect of CO2 emissions "is little

significant to ensure a clean energy, ie the non-issuance of itself is not sufficient to justify its

use, especially in relation to accidents (Three Miles Islands, in 1976, Chernobyl, ten years and

in Fukushima in 2011), and besides, there are uncertainties about the fate of nuclear wastes.

4. Low Cost Energy Production

The expected low cost of production does not exist because the cost of MW produced via

nuclear energy is one of the highest among the known sources. Pereira (2001) shows that in

the early 90's the cost of nuclear MW installed was around U.S. $ 2000.00 while the natural

gas plants even reach $ 1,000 per KW installed. When compared with traditional

technologies, the costs in nuclear plants require double the capital investment. Therefore, in

countries where the electricity sector was privatized energy companies refuse to take nuclear

power generators in its parks.

Goldemberg (2011b) suggests that the high costs of nuclear energy are associated with three

risks: economic, strategic and physical burden that the ultimate amount of MW produced.

a) The economic risks: It has to do with the production of electricity itself. Concerns about the

safety of nuclear reactors greatly increase its cost, so the electricity produced by them has

difficulty competing with electricity generated from other sources such as coal, gas and

hydroelectricity. Furthermore, more often interrupt the functioning of nuclear reactors than in

non-nuclear plants and delays in construction of power plants which greatly increases their

cost of capital due to interest.

b) Strategic risks: In this case we consider the question of the possibility of using the products

used in nuclear fuel cycle (uranium enrichment) or the products formed by the operation of

nuclear reactors (plutonium) for nuclear weapons. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

adopted in 1967 aimed to take possession of nuclear weapons only to the United States,

Soviet Union, Britain, France and China (which had already developed). In practice, India,

Pakistan, Israel also known to have developed nuclear weapons. In addition, there are rumors

that some procedure in Iraq, South Africa, Libya, Iran and North Korea.

c) The physical risks are considered those that result from production and use of large

amounts of radioactivity, which is inherent in the use of nuclear energy. They include the

production of nuclear fuel (enriched uranium), its use in nuclear reactors, where accidents can

happen to release radioactivity into the environment, and storage of highly radioactive waste.

About 400 reactors in the world uses "enriched uranium" and the nuclear explosion (inside or

outside the reactor) produce an immense radioactivity that is active thousands of years. The

problem is, therefore, to prevent her escape from nuclear reactors in operation, and storing the

"nuclear waste" and this has costs.

The alluded author also to other forms of energy also have risks, but not on the scale of

nuclear energy, hydroelectric dams have collapsed, inundating vast areas and causing deaths,

but those accidents were located. Power plants that use gas have been stalled due to political



8

problems related to supply (as happened in Ukraine, when Russia cut off gas supplies) but

were more related to the price of gas than with strategic problems. With nuclear energy, all

these problems and risks associated acquired a much greater seriousness. The U.S. became

involved in a costly war with Iraq because of suspicions that the country was developing

nuclear weapons. The situation with Iran and North Korea is also not reassuring in this regard.

Already Kessides (2010) analyzes the costs and benefits of nuclear energy in relation to

investments in basic technologies of alternative and concludes that:

i. The costs of nuclear generation are quite insensitive to the price of oil, gas and carbon,

because only in plant construction costs, (particularly those related to steel and concrete) there

is a relationship with the rising prices of fossil fuels. However, this does not reflect the costs

of operating the plant because the cost is absorbed quickly and once incurred, makes no

impact on the final cost;

ii. No study is able to accurately predict the costs of nuclear energy with respect to risks

related to human health and environmental impacts of radioactive emissions from routine

operations of a plant, beyond what would occur in accidents and so the positive side of

nuclear power (not affecting the climate) should be carefully evaluated.

iii. The standardization of the reactors (mainly using the small-scale) can lower costs,

however this is not an option for countries that do not have large numbers of plants, ie not an

option for most countries.

In this direction there is also the construction costs of nuclear waste deposits. The costs are

very high and should be incorporated into the cost of energy production. Sweden, for

example, created a system of "award for green credits" to provide for the payment of a fee by

generating units that somehow affect the nature, as is the case of nuclear energy. With this

green tax, managed to build shelter for their nuclear waste.

The SKB (Svensk Kärnbränslehantering AB / Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management

Company) installed in the Oskarshamn region, is a haven for all the nuclear waste from its

plants over the next 60 years, which has planned the final cost of 3 billion euros and can be

seen in the photos below.



9

Main door

Cutaway view of nuclear depository

Galery of acess

Capsule of depository

Source: Pacini (2009)

Pacini (2009) states that the weight of the capsule is about 20 tons and the individual cost is

around 200 000 euros. To depository the nuclear waste, Sweden plans to build 6.700 capsules

of Cu, which will be sealed in case of high welding technology, forgotten and covered with

betonita for 100.000 years.

Thus, observing only the aspect of production costs, nuclear power is an option for use only in

France, Finland, Japan, Korea and other countries where there are no other primary sources.

(Lepecki, 2011), but it is clear that the "demand for security systems more efficient and a rise

in the price of insurance tend to exaggerate further nuclear electricity" (COSTA, 2011).

Santos (2011) states that "the arguments dark always weigh things in a distorted way

misunderstood, so there is bad faith under the circumstances surrounding the decision-making



10

nuclear energy, because though expensive, there are always possibilities for new sets of mass

energies ". So the high costs are tolerated and masked, in the words and actions that are

generated by hiding the end of certainties and use their weaknesses, gaps, and biases as

fertilizers, disguise the economic chaos of nuclear energy.

5. Nuclear Power in Brazil

According to Marques (2011) in Brazil, the accident led the Japanese president ask for a

review of the Ten Year Energy Plan, which provided for completion of Three Creek and

investment in four other similar plants - two in the Northeast and two in the South The author

alluded to, Goldemberg (2011B), Pereira (2001), BEN (2010) ensure that Brazil can maintain

its energy without the use of nuclear energy for some time.

Initially, Brazil for its energy, never needed the MW produced by the Angra plants. Indeed,

the deployment of such technology carries in its core aspirations, much more than the amount

of MW produced, it is also the question of exercising power (power in organizations by

Pagès, 2006 and perspective of consumption and power by Portillo, 2005). The military

government at the time of contracting the Angra project counteracted the technical indications

of the use of uranium in natural abundant in Brazil to use enriched fuel. The purpose was to

empower the government to master the technology for uranium enrichment (Silva 2005).

Santos (2011) posits that the use of nuclear energy (unless the scale of mass production) in no

way can be defended in Brazil. Its stability is overcome by the nature of energy production

and weakens the argument that keeping it is not to identify the structures desiccants for the

acts and omissions of their initial conditions.

Thus, according to Marques (2011) returns to Brazil the interest of scientific and alternative

sources of energy, not to lose the train of modernity and of falling behind in relation to other

countries that had already adopted this path. On this issue it has is in privileged position of

being able to use abundant and cheaper alternatives such as hydroelectric plants, wind and

biomass.

Compounding the argument of the use of nuclear energy, Costa (2011) states that the

financing conditions of Angra 3 is controversial, since Eletronuclear assumed rate of return on

investment from 8% to 10% - far below those practiced by market, ranging from 12% to 18%.

Thus we can say that government subsidies will be hidden in disguised bills.

According to the alluded author to, the costs of Angra 3, which was $ 7.2 billion in 2008,

increased to $ 10.4 billion in 2010, not counting the $ 1.5 billion already employed in the

construction and the U.S. $ 20 million spent annually to maintain the plant. Since 2008, the

installation cost per kW of this power plant has risen 44%, from $ to $ 5.330/kW 7.700/kW.

Even with the "masked" R $ 138.14 / MWh announced by the federal government said the

plant is much larger than the energy of the Santo Antonio dam, which was trading at a price of

$ 79/MWh and the hydroelectric Jirau of £ 91/MWh (both in Rio Madeira).

Thus the need and desire are signs of Brazilian culture; indicate that we need to infuse

creativity, to finish games the development of electricity in a sustainable way, which should

show the study, growth and application of alternative energy sources.



11

6. Conclusion

Experts as Lepecki (2011); Goldemberg (2011B) and Costa (2011) argue that nuclear power

is dangerous and expensive. In Fukushima, nuclear energy is offering one more show their

insecurity and their destructive power. Since the accident at Chernobyl have not seen such

strong reactions to its use.

About inexhaustibility, the expected use of the raw material is 500 years. Pereira (2001)

posited that "countries that have long been shown unfavorable to the nuclear option as

Belgium, today presented 60% of its energy from fissile source, and Sweden 46.2% ...

Germany 31.8%, and still a very large degree depend on it to meet its energy demands as a

whole and particularly electricity. "

Even with the accident in Japan, in practice, no country can ignore immediately said this form

of energy generation, including Germany, where it invests heavily in wind farms.

In Sweden there was an even more surprising fact: There was a plebiscite in 2006, where over

80% of the vote, ordered the closure of all nuclear plants. It happens that the government

announced then that he could not attend the plebiscite, but vowed not to open new plants. It

happens that in February 2009, the Swedish government announced that the country would

need more energy, and therefore need to build five new nuclear plants.

Pereira (2001) questioned why the position of these countries does not eliminate nuclear and

answered himself saying it was absolutely impossible in the short to medium horizon to

replace the amount of energy currently generated by sources fissile.

Thus, it is extremely concerned with security that require nuclear facilities, it is prudent to

follow the same outputs for less risky. Global health officials, before the disaster in

Fukushima, reached a unanimous conclusion and alarming: no nuclear power plant on the

planet is safe from earthquakes, tsunamis or other manifestations of nature's fury as it swept

through Japan Perhaps for this reason are becoming convinced that it was time to reveal new

sources of power or opting for smaller-scale plants as an alternative.

Thus, even expensive and polluting nuclear power quality voltage and frequency and has no

recognized problem of scale in production. So what industrialized country is willing to give

that measure of reliability? Why nuclear energy is the alternative electricity supply in large

scale for a country means power (Portillo, 2005).

Unlike this case is Brazil, where Goldemberg (2011) claims to be nuclear power, expendable.

According to the author alluded to "this type of generation should be the last of options,

restricted to countries that have no other option, as France. Angra 3 When finished, the power

generated will be less than the potential energy production from sugar cane bagasse, which

only in Sao Paulo is 2000MW. It is the energy of two nuclear reactors. We must rely more on

biomass and hydropower, there is still much potential to be tapped. "

It is possible that the fear of identifying the central representation of operators of nuclear

energy, electric, like anarchy derives from the fact that they think that all rules of

sustainability of nuclear power are weak. The real issue is not thinking, a Pandora's box which

imprisons the intelligence must be open, in the context of a future that is in perpetual

construction.



12

The volume of the activity of nuclear energy is the movement of energy caring for the

environment and not otherwise. Needed is a balance of energy resources in the context that is

not identified for sure. It is necessary to abandon the inertia and hopelessness, to build a new

energy future.

References

BEN Balanço Energético Nacional. Relatório Anual Brasília. Brasil. 2010.

BUYS Bruno. Domínio da energia nuclear vem de teorias do século XIX. Revista Eletronica Energia Nuclear –

Custos de uma alternativa. SBPC/Labjor site: http://www.comciencia.br/reportagens/nuclear/nuclear12.htm

acessado em 11/2007.

COSTA, Heitor Scalambrini. Eletricidade nuclear e as tarifas. Acerto de Contas. UFPE. 2011.

BOWYER, T.W., BIEGALSKI S.R., COOPER, M., ESLINGER P.W., HASS D., HAYES J.C.,MILEY

H.S., STROM D.J., WOODS V. Elevated Radioxenon Detected Remotely Following the Fukushima Nuclear

Accident. PII: S0265-931X(11)00081-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvrad.2011.04.009. JENR 3868. Journal of

Environmental Radioactivity. 2011.

DUFFIELD, J.S., WOODALL, B., Japan’s new basic energy plan. Energy Policy (2011), doi:10.1016/

j.enpol.2011.04.002. 2011.

SANTOS, João Luiz Fonseca. Os desafios da insegurança da energia nuclear. Relatório PIBIC. UFPB. João

Pessoa. PB. 2011.

GREYVENSTEIN,R., CORREIA,M., KRIEL,W., South Africa’s opportunity to maximize the role of nuclear

power in global hydrogen economy, Nuclear Engineering and Design 238 3031-3040. 2008.

GOLDEMBERG, José. O acidente nuclear no Japão. Revista Exame – versão eletrônica. Disponível em

http://exame.abril.com.br/economia/meio-ambiente-e-energia/noticias/seguranca-da-energia-nuclear-e-ilusoria-

diz-jose-goldemberg?page=2&slug_name=seguranca-da-energia-nuclear-e-ilusoria-diz-jose-goldemberg. 2011.

GOLDEMBERG, José. Os riscos da energia nuclear. Revista eletrônica de jornalismo.científico disponível em

http://www.comciencia.br/comciencia/?section=8&edicao=41&id=493 2011b.

IAEA – International Newsbriefs. Energy and Sustanable Development. IAEA Bulletin vol.41, no4, December,

1999.

KESSIDES, Ioannis N. n1. Nuclear power:Understanding the economic risks and uncertainties. The

WorldBank. Energy Policy 38. 3849–3864. 2010.

KNOBEL, Marcelo. Fusion: Alternative for the future? American magazine Nuclear Energy / Labjor site:

http://www.comciencia.br/reportagens/nuclear/nuclear01.htm accessed in 11/2007.

LEPECKI, W. A Energia Nuclear e a Economia do Hidrogênio. Revista INEE. 26 de janeiro de 2011.

LOVELOCK, James. A vingança de Gaia. Intrínseca. Rio de Janeiro. 2006.

MARQUES, Carlos José. O Fim da Era Nuclear? IstoÉ independente (online) N° Edição: 2158/ 18.Mar.2011,

disponível em http://www.istoe.com.br/assuntos. 2011.

PACINI, Henrique Silva. FIELD VISIT REPORT. Visit to SKB (Svensk Kärnbränslehantering AB/Swedish

Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Company) installations in Oskarshamn. KTH Energy and Climate Studies.

Stockholm, Sweden. 2009.

PAGÈS, Max; BONETTI, Michel; GAULEJAC, Vicent de; DESCENDRE, Daniel. O Poder das

Organizações. Atlas. São Paulo. 2006.

PEREIRA, Newton Müller. Energia Nuclear: Da energia inesgotável à energia limpa. Revista Brasileira de

Energia. Vol. 8 | No 2. Sociedade Brasileira de Planejamento Energético. 2001.



13

PORTILHO, Fátima. Sustentabilidade Ambiental, Consumo e Cidadania. Ed. Cortez São Paulo. 2005.

PUSZ J. Alternative energy sources. Disponível em: http://www.fuelcells.prv.pl. 2001. p. 57–8. 2001.

SAENKO, V. IVANOV, Y. TSYBY, A. BOGDANOVA, T. TRONKO, Z. DEMIDCHIK, Yu.

YAMASHITA. S. The Chernobyl Accident and its Consequences. Clinical Oncology 23. 234 e 243. 2011.

SILVA, Ricardo Moreira da. Arranjo Institucional do Setor Elétrico Brasileiro: da gestão pública à privada.

Tese de doutorado. Programa de Pós-Graduação em Engenharia de Produção. UFPB. 2005.

SLOOP L J. Liquid hydrogen as a propulsion fuel. The NASA History Series, Washington (DC); 1978.

TANIMOTO, Tetsuya. UCHIDA, Naoyuki. KODAMA, Yuko. TESHIMA, Takanori. TANIGUCHI,

Shuichi. Safety of workers at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. Published Online. April 15, 2011.

DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60519-9. 2011.

ZHOU, Sheng. ZHANG, Xiliang. Nuclear energy development in China: A study of opportunities and

challenges. Energy 35, 4282–4288. 2010.

Photo in WWW: http://info.abril.com.br/noticias/tecnologias-verdes/nivel-de-radiacao-em-

regiao-do-japao-preocupa-20032011-3.shl

Attachments

Nuclear Driving force State Responsive

Economic

Extraction and transport of radioactive material

change system of

employment and

local income

Need to reorganize the system of local income

and employment (trade and services)

changes in rural (4)

Organization of rural areas (equipment and

machinery for the extraction of material).

Reorganization of the management system

(training for material extraction)

Construction of warehouses for storage. (2,8)

Organization for transportation (3)

Transportation costs (3)

Raw material available in nature for the next

500 years (5.6)

Transformation of

radioactive material

into heat and

electricity (2,3)

Use of steam

generation (2,3)

Cost of nuclear plant construction (2,8,9)

Organizing logistics for the plant. (2.3)

High production costs (when compared to

other sources) (1,2,9).

Delayed return of capital (1)

Large production capacity (1.2)

Thermo use (1,2,4) Average efficiency in electricity production (7)

High production scale (4.5)

Consumption of

nuclear energy

Power plant

installation (6)

You can install the plant at or near the

extraction or consumption, facilitating the use

or nonuse of transmission lines. (6.7)

Environmental

Extraction and

transport of


(2)

Clean Production

(2)

Not emiss of CO2 (2,7)

Land and water use

Need for monitoring and treatment of water to

avoid contaminating the soil and groundwater

(7).

Transformation of


Waste management

(2,7,8)

Need for monitoring nuclear waste (4,7,8,9)

Need to build shelter for nuclear waste (8)



14

into heat and

electricity (1,2,3)

Need seeking strict controls to prevent

involuntary loss of nuclear waste.

Monitoring of groundwater.

Risk of catastrophe

(7,8)

Dust / particulate fugitive (7.8)

Noise

Risk of fire (8)

Radiation risk (7.8)

reduction of

greenhouse (3) Not emiss of CO2 (2,3)

Consumption of

nuclear energy Carefull into area

Risk of fires.

Monitoring of flora and fauna in the vicinity.

Social

Extraction and

transport of


Change system of

employment and

local income

Reorganization of the rural countryside

(deposit extraction).

Monitoring of cultural change.

Transformation of


into heat and

electricity (1,2,3)

Implementation of

power plants (7,8)

Creation of employment and income in nuclear

power plants

Need more training and education (5.7)

Sanitary effluents Should be treated avoiding radioactive

contamination

Health (7,8) Carefull of radioactive (7,8)

Consumption of

nuclear energy

Information

management (7) Need of Marketing about nuclear energy (7)

Institucional

Political decision by

the use of nuclear

energy

(4)

Establishment of

public policies (8)

Generation of employment and local income.

Policy of social (education, health, sanitation).

Need for agreements with local (4)

Income of public

services (4)

Increase the capacity of public service

Regional planning (4)

Facilitates the

decentralization of

power (6)

Facilitates the generation in remote areas (7)

Increases the universal energy (4)

Table DSR

Source: made by the authors from: [1] Pereira(2001); [2] Lepecki (2011); [3] Greyvenstein et

al (2008); [4] Energy in Sweden (2007) [5] Knobel (2007); [6] Silva (2005); [7] Goldemberg

(2011); [8] Goldemberg (2011b); [9] Costa (2011)

a tsunami in nuclear energy · in this consider, goldemberg (2011) puts it: "with or without...

Documents