<jupyter_start><jupyter_text>Environmental EffectsAs we have studied the various steps of the nuclear fuel cycle, we have mentioned the environmental consequences of each. Learning Objectives- Recognize agencies with authority over environmental impacts in the nuclear fuel cycle- Name stakeholders in nuclear fuel cycle environmental impacts- List the types of environmental impacts involved in the nuclear fuel cycle- Match the steps of the fuel cycle with the environmental impacts for which they are responsible- Calculate Energy Return on Investment  Environmental Policy History- 0-1970 : Public land management. Public Refuse Act of 1899. (see: [Bubbly Creek](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubbly_Creek))- 1960s: Wilderness protection. Stemming population growth.- 1970: Earth Day, NEPA, Impact Statements, Clean Air Act. Large scale wilderness dedications.- 1980s: Reagan. Budget cutbacks, but ideologically committed appoitees in EPA, Dept. of Ag., Department of Interior, etc. Public backlash.- 1990s: Bush I, regulations 'put americans out of work'. Clinton pushed env. friendly appointees. Bush II withdrawal from Kyoto.- 2010s: Obama era, renewed involvment in international climate talks.- 2015-2016: US signs Paris agreement on climate change, no legal force.- 2017: Trump declares intent to withdraw the United States from the Paris agreement - 2019: Trump officially withdraws from Paris Agreement (to take effect November 2020).  Kyoto ProtocolA map of the parties to the Kyoto Protocol    &nbsp;Annex B parties with binding targets in the second period    &nbsp;Annex B parties with binding targets in the first period but not the second    &nbsp;non-Annex B parties without binding targets    &nbsp;Annex B parties with binding targets in the first period but which withdrew from the Protocol    &nbsp;Signatories to the Protocol that have not ratified    &nbsp;Other UN member states and observers that are not party to the Protocol![https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Kyoto_Parties_with_first_period_%282008-2012%29_greenhouse_gas_emissions_limitations_targets_and_the_percentage_change_in_their_carbon_dioxide_emissions_from_fuel_combustion_between_1990_and_2009.png](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Kyoto_Parties_with_first_period_%282008-2012%29_greenhouse_gas_emissions_limitations_targets_and_the_percentage_change_in_their_carbon_dioxide_emissions_from_fuel_combustion_between_1990_and_2009.png)  Paris AgreementBy L.tak - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, Link&nbsp;Parties  &nbsp; Signatories  &nbsp;    Parties also covered by European Union ratification         By This panel, “Emission Pathways”, is an adapted figure provided by J<NAME>. The original figure is found in: <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, and <NAME>, 2015: Can Paris pledges avert severe climate change? Science, 350 6266,1168-1169. The figure version presented here was adapted from the original as follows: For panel 1; The faint lines representing the emissions trajectories were removed. For panel 2; The Illustrative 50% likelihood projection was removed from the bottom of the chart. - The source for the diagram given in the report is U.S. Global Change Research Program: Climate Science Special Report, Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4), Volume I, chapter 14.2.https://science2017.globalchange.gov/, Public Domain, Link  EPA and the environmentThe EPA's ability to regulate is mostly controlled by its available budget. [https://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/budget](https://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/budget) NRC  and the environment![http://www.nrc.gov/images/reading-rm/doc-collections/maps/nrc-regions-text.png](http://www.nrc.gov/images/reading-rm/doc-collections/maps/nrc-regions-text.png) State Level NRC![https://scp.nrc.gov/includes/usmapAS.gif](https://scp.nrc.gov/includes/usmapAS.gif)Agreement states, non-agreement states, and letter of intent states.  Energy Return on Investment\begin{align}EROI =\frac{\mbox{energy generated}}{\mbox{energy required to generate that energy}}\end{align}<jupyter_code>from IPython.display import IFrame
IFrame(src="https://embed.polleverywhere.com/free_text_polls/n8QhU2s2gia0Qu6?controls=none&short_poll=true", width="100%", height="700", frameBorder="0")<jupyter_output><empty_output><jupyter_text>Very cool whitepaper on nuclear power plant material use:    [http://fhr.nuc.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/05-001-A_Material_input.pdf](http://fhr.nuc.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/05-001-A_Material_input.pdf)    > In nuclear energy systems, the major construction inputs are steel and concrete, which compriseover 95% of the material energy inputs. The evaluation of construction material inputs is central to lifecycleassessments for environmental impacts for nuclear and other non-fossil energy systems, and canprovide a useful, if only qualitative, plausibility check for economics claims. This paper compares steeland concrete inputs for several nuclear power plants: a 1970's Generation II PWR and BWR, theGeneration III EPR and ABWR, the Generation III+ ESBWR, and the Generation IV GT-MHR, PBMR(vertical), and AHTR. The steel and concrete input estimates for the Generation III, III+, and IVsystems are based on available arrangement drawings, and on scaling laws, and thus are approximate.However, they show that the evolutionary Generation III plants—EPR and ABWR—use approximately25% more steel and 70% more concrete than 1970’s LWRs. This may explain, in part, the relativelylarge capital costs that have been observed for these plants. In contrast, the passive Generation III+LWRs that have been selected for new construction in the United States by Nustart—ESBWR and AP-1000—achieve substantial reductions in steel and concrete inputs. For example, analysis presentedhere suggests that the ESBWR uses 73% of the steel, and 50% of the concrete required to construct anABWR. This suggests that new Generation III+ nuclear power construction in the U.S. will havesubstantially lower capital costs than was found with Generation III LWRs. This study also shows thatthe advanced gas-Brayton cycle technology that will be demonstrated by the Next Generation NuclearPlant (NGNP) has the potential to achieve comparable material inputs to LWRs at much smaller unitcapacities, and when extrapolated to larger reactors, to further reductions in steel and concrete input  Carbon Emissions![./carbon_eia.png](./carbon_eia.png)<jupyter_code>IFrame(src="https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=74&t=11", width="100%", height="700")

IFrame(src="https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_a_03.html", width="100%", height=1000)
IFrame(src="http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_02.html", width="100%", height=700)<jupyter_output><empty_output>
{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.07831677381648158, 'fraction_numerical': 0.030829924021040327, 'mean_word_length': 5.704211557296768, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 25, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 26, 'https://': 11, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 7, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
{'chain_length': '2', 'dir': 'jupyter-structured-clean-dedup', 'id': '172249', 'license': 'CC-BY-4.0', 'n_tokens_mistral': 2040, 'n_tokens_neox': 1811, 'n_words': 744, 'path': 'environmental-effects/environmental-effects.ipynb', 'repo_name': 'abachma2/npre412', 'size': '6909'}