document_title: Nuclear power in the United States

question_text: when did the us start using nuclear energy

question_tokens: when did the us start using nuclear energy

root

text: Nuclear power in the United States

text: History[edit]

text: Emergence[edit]

text: Unexpectedly high costs in the Second World War nuclear weapons program created "...pressure on federal officials to develop a civilian nuclear power industry that could help justify the government's considerable expenditures".[14] Research into the peaceful uses of nuclear materials began in the United States under the auspices of the Atomic Energy Commission, created by the United States Atomic Energy Act of 1946. Medical scientists were interested in the effect of radiation upon the fast-growing cells of cancer, and materials were given to them, while the military services led research into other peaceful uses.

tag: p

text: The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 encouraged private corporations to build nuclear reactors and a significant learning phase followed with many early partial core meltdowns and accidents at experimental reactors and research facilities.[15] This led to the introduction of the Price-Anderson Act in 1957, which was "...an implicit admission that nuclear power provided risks that producers were unwilling to assume without federal backing."[15] The Price-Anderson Act "...shields nuclear utilities, vendors and suppliers against liability claims in the event of a catastrophic accident by imposing an upper limit on private sector liability." Without such protection, private companies were unwilling to become involved. No other technology in the history of American industry has enjoyed such continuing blanket protection.[14]

text: Power reactor research[edit]

text: Argonne National Laboratory was assigned by the United States Atomic Energy Commission the lead role in developing commercial nuclear energy beginning in the 1940s. Between then and the turn of the 21st century, Argonne designed, built, and operated fourteen reactors[16] at its site southwest of Chicago, and another fourteen reactors[16] at the National Reactors Testing Station in Idaho.[17] These reactors included initial experiments and test reactors that were the progenitors of today’s pressurized water reactors (including naval reactors), boiling water reactors, heavy water reactors, graphite-moderated reactors, and liquid-metal cooled fast reactors, one of which[18] was the first reactor in the world to generate electricity. Argonne and a number of other AEC contractors built a total of 52 reactors at the National Reactor Testing Station. Two were never operated; except for the Neutron Radiography Facility, all the other reactors were shut down by 2000.

text: In the early afternoon of December 20, 1951, Argonne director Walter Zinn and fifteen other Argonne staff members witnessed a row of four light bulbs light up in a nondescript brick building in the eastern Idaho desert. Electricity from a generator connected to Experimental Breeder Reactor I (EBR-I) flowed through them. This was the first time that a usable amount of electrical power had ever been generated from nuclear fission. Only days afterward, the reactor produced all the electricity needed for the entire EBR complex.[19] One ton of natural uranium can produce more than 40 gigawatt-hours of electricity — this is equivalent to burning 16,000 tons of coal or 80,000 barrels of oil.[20] More central to EBR-I’s purpose than just generating electricity, however, was its role in proving that a reactor could create more nuclear fuel as a byproduct than it consumed during operation. In 1953, tests verified that this was the case.[21]

text: The US Navy took the lead, seeing the opportunity to have ships that could steam around the world at high speeds without refueling as being necessary for several decades, and the possibility of turning submarines into true full-time underwater vehicles. So, the Navy sent their "man in Engineering", then Captain Hyman Rickover, well known for his great technical talents in electrical engineering and propulsion systems in addition to his skill in project management, to the AEC to start the Naval Reactors project. Rickover's work with the AEC led to the development of the Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR), the first naval model of which was installed in the submarine USS Nautilus. This made the boat capable of operating under water full-time – demonstrating this ability by reaching the North Pole and surfacing through the Polar ice cap.

text: Start of commercial nuclear power[edit]

text: From the successful naval reactor program, plans were quickly developed for the use of reactors to generate steam to drive turbines turning generators. In April 1957, the SM-1 Nuclear Reactor in Fort Belvoir, Virginia was the first atomic power generator to go online and produce electrical energy to the U.S. power grid. On May 26, 1958 the first commercial nuclear power plant in the United States, Shippingport Atomic Power Station, was opened by President Dwight D. Eisenhower as part of his Atoms for Peace program. As nuclear power continued to grow throughout the 1960s, the Atomic Energy Commission anticipated that more than 1,000 reactors would be operating in the United States by 2000.[22] As the industry continued to expand, the Atomic Energy Commission's development and regulatory functions were separated in 1974; the Department of Energy absorbed research and development, while the regulatory branch was spun off and turned into an independent commission known as the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC or simply NRC).

text: Opposition to nuclear power[edit]

text: There has been considerable opposition to the use of nuclear power in the U.S. The first U.S. reactor to face public opposition was Enrico Fermi Nuclear Generating Station in 1957. It was built approximately 30 miles from Detroit and there was opposition from the United Auto Workers Union.[23] Pacific Gas & Electric planned to build the first commercially viable nuclear power plant in the USA at Bodega Bay, north of San Francisco. The proposal was controversial and conflict with local citizens began in 1958.[24] The conflict ended in 1964, with the forced abandonment of plans for the power plant. Historian Thomas Wellock traces the birth of the anti-nuclear movement to the controversy over Bodega Bay.[24] Attempts to build a nuclear power plant in Malibu were similar to those at Bodega Bay and were also abandoned.[24]

text: Nuclear accidents continued into the 1960s with a small test reactor exploding at the Stationary Low-Power Reactor Number One in Idaho Falls in January 1961 and a partial meltdown at the Enrico Fermi Nuclear Generating Station in Michigan in 1966.[25] In his 1963 book Change, Hope and the Bomb, David Lilienthal criticized nuclear developments, particularly the nuclear industry's failure to address the nuclear waste question.[26] J. Samuel Walker, in his book Three Mile Island: A Nuclear Crisis in Historical Perspective, explains that the growth of the nuclear industry in the U.S. occurred in the 1970s as the environmental movement was being formed. Environmentalists saw the advantages of nuclear power in reducing air pollution, but were critical of nuclear technology on other grounds.[27] They were concerned about nuclear accidents, nuclear proliferation, high cost of nuclear power plants, nuclear terrorism and radioactive waste disposal.[28]

text: There were many anti-nuclear protests in the United States which captured national public attention during the 1970s and 1980s. These included the well-known Clamshell Alliance protests at Seabrook Station Nuclear Power Plant and the Abalone Alliance protests at Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, where thousands of protesters were arrested. Other large protests followed the 1979 Three Mile Island accident.[29]

text: In New York City on September 23, 1979, almost 200,000 people attended a protest against nuclear power.[30] Anti-nuclear power protests preceded the shutdown of the Shoreham, Yankee Rowe, Rancho Seco, Maine Yankee, and about a dozen other nuclear power plants.[31]

text: Over-commitment and cancellations[edit]

text: By the mid-1970s it became clear that nuclear power would not grow nearly as quickly as once believed. Cost overruns were sometimes a factor of ten above original industry estimates, and became a major problem. For the 75 nuclear power reactors built from 1966 to 1977, cost overruns averaged 207 percent. Opposition and problems were galvanized by the Three Mile Island accident in 1979.[32]

text: Over-commitment to nuclear power brought about the financial collapse of the Washington Public Power Supply System, a public agency which undertook to build five large nuclear power plants in the 1970s. By 1983, cost overruns and delays, along with a slowing of electricity demand growth, led to cancellation of two WPPSS plants and a construction halt on two others. Moreover, WPPSS defaulted on $2.25 billion of municipal bonds, which is one of the largest municipal bond defaults in U.S. history. The court case that followed took nearly a decade to resolve.[33][34][35]

text: Eventually, more than 120 reactor orders were cancelled,[36] and the construction of new reactors ground to a halt. Al Gore has commented on the historical record and reliability of nuclear power in the United States:

text: Of the 253 nuclear power reactors originally ordered in the United States from 1953 to 2008, 48 percent were canceled, 11 percent were prematurely shut down, 14 percent experienced at least a one-year-or-more outage, and 27 percent are operating without having a year-plus outage. Thus, only about one fourth of those ordered, or about half of those completed, are still operating and have proved relatively reliable.[37]

text: Amory Lovins has also commented on the historical record of nuclear power in the United States:

text: Of all 132 U.S. nuclear plants built (52% of the 253 originally ordered), 21% were permanently and prematurely closed due to reliability or cost problems, while another 27% have completely failed for a year or more at least once. The surviving U.S. nuclear plants produce ~90% of their full-time full-load potential, but even they are not fully dependable. Even reliably operating nuclear plants must shut down, on average, for 39 days every 17 months for refueling and maintenance, and unexpected failures do occur too.[38]

text: A cover story in the February 11, 1985, issue of Forbes magazine commented on the overall management of the nuclear power program in the United States:

text: The failure of the U.S. nuclear power program ranks as the largest managerial disaster in business history, a disaster on a monumental scale … only the blind, or the biased, can now think that the money has been well spent. It is a defeat for the U.S. consumer and for the competitiveness of U.S. industry, for the utilities that undertook the program and for the private enterprise system that made it possible.[39]

text: Three Mile Island and after[edit]

text: The NRC reported "(...the Three Mile Island accident...) was the most serious in U.S. commercial nuclear power plant operating history, even though it led to no deaths or injuries to plant workers or members of the nearby community."[40] The World Nuclear Association reports that "...more than a dozen major, independent studies have assessed the radiation releases and possible effects on the people and the environment around TMI since the 1979 accident at TMI-2. The most recent was a 13-year study on 32,000 people. None has found any adverse health effects such as cancers which might be linked to the accident."[41] Other nuclear power incidents within the US (defined as safety-related events in civil nuclear power facilities between INES Levels 1 and 3[42] include those at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant, which was the source of two of the top five highest conditional core damage frequency nuclear incidents in the United States since 1979, according to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.[43]

text: Despite the concerns which arose among the public after the Three Mile Island incident, the accident highlights the success of the reactor's safety systems. The radioactivity released as a result of the accident was almost entirely confined within the reinforced concrete containment structure. These containment structures, found at all nuclear power plants, were designed to successfully trap radioactive material in the event of a melt down or accident. At Three Mile Island, the containment structures operated exactly as it was designed to do, emerging successful in containing any radioactive energy. The low levels of radioactivity released post incident is considered harmless, resulting in zero injuries and deaths of residents living in proximity to the plant.

text: Despite many technical studies which asserted that the probability of a severe nuclear accident was low, numerous surveys showed that the public remained "very deeply distrustful and uneasy about nuclear power".[44] Some commentators have suggested that the public's consistently negative ratings of nuclear power are reflective of the industry's unique connection with nuclear weapons:[45]

text: [One] reason why nuclear power is seen differently to other technologies lies in its parentage and birth. Nuclear energy was conceived in secrecy, born of war, and first revealed to the world in horror. No matter how many proponents try to separate the peaceful atom from the weapon's atom, the connection is firmly embedded in the mind of the public.[45]

text: Several US nuclear power plants closed well before their design lifetimes, due to successful campaigns by anti-nuclear activist groups.[46] These include Rancho Seco in 1989 in California and Trojan in 1992 in Oregon. Humboldt Bay in California closed in 1976, 13 years after geologists discovered it was built on a fault (the Little Salmon Fault). Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant was completed but never operated commercially as an authorized Emergency Evacuation Plan could not be agreed on due the political climate after the Three Mile Island accident and Chernobyl disaster. The last permanent closure of a US nuclear power plant was in 1997.[47]

text: US nuclear reactors were originally licensed to operate for 40-year periods. In the 1980s, the NRC determined that there were no technical issues that would preclude longer service.[48] Over half of US nuclear reactors are over 30 years old and almost all are over twenty years old.[49] As of 2011[update], more than 60 reactors have received 20-year extensions to their licensed lifetimes.[50] The average capacity factor for all US reactors has improved from below 60% in the 1970s and 1980s, to 92% in 2007,[51][52]

text: After the Three Mile Island accident, NRC-issued reactor construction permits, which had averaged more than 12 per year from 1967 through 1978, came to an abrupt halt; no permits were issued between 1979 and 2012 (in 2012, four planned new reactors received construction permits). Many permitted reactors were never built, or the projects were abandoned. Those that were completed after Three Mile island experienced a much longer time lag from construction permit to starting of operations. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission itself described its regulatory oversight of the long-delayed Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant as "a paradigm of fragmented and uncoordinated government decision making," and "a system strangling itself and the economy in red tape."[53] The number of operating power reactors in the US peaked at 112 in 1991, far fewer than the 177 that received construction permits. By 1998 the number of working reactors declined to 104, where it remains as of 2013. The loss of electrical generation from the eight fewer reactors since 1991 has been offset by power uprates of generating capacity at existing reactors.[54]

text: Despite the problems following Three Mile Island, output of nuclear-generated electricity in the US grew steadily, more than tripling over the next three decades: from 255 billion kilowatt-hours in 1979 (the year of the Three Mile Island accident), to 806 billion kilowatt-hours in 2007.[55] Part of the increase was due to the greater number of operating reactors, which increased by 51%: from 69 reactors in 1979, to 104 in 2007. Another cause was a large increase in the capacity factor over that period. In 1978, nuclear power plants generated electricity at only 64% of their rated output capacity. Performance suffered even further during and after Three Mile Island, as a series of new safety regulations from 1979 through the mid-1980s forced operators to repeatedly shut down reactors for required retrofits.[56] It was not until 1990 that the average capacity factor of US nuclear plants returned to the level of 1978. The capacity factor continued to rise, until 2001. Since 2001, US nuclear power plants have consistently delivered electric power at about 90% of their rated capacity.[57] In 2016, the number of power plants was at 100 with 4 under construction.

text: Effects of Fukushima[edit]

text: Following the 2011 Japanese nuclear accidents, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has announced it will launch a comprehensive safety review of the 104 nuclear power reactors across the United States, at the request of President Obama. A total of 45 groups and individuals had formally asked the NRC to suspend all licensing and other activities at 21 proposed nuclear reactor projects in 15 states until the NRC had completed a thorough post-Fukushima reactor crisis examination. The petitioners also asked the NRC to supplement its own investigation by establishing an independent commission comparable to that set up in the wake of the serious, though less severe, 1979 Three Mile Island accident.[58][59]

text: An industry observer noted that post-Fukushima costs were likely to go up for both current and new nuclear power plants, due to increased requirements for on-site spent fuel management and elevated design basis threats.[60][61] License extensions for existing reactors will face additional scrutiny, with outcomes depending on plants meeting new requirements, and some extensions already granted for more than 60 of the 100 operating U.S. reactors could be revisited. On-site storage, consolidated long-term storage, and geological disposal of spent fuel is "likely to be reevaluated in a new light because of the Fukushima storage pool experience".[60] Mark Cooper suggested that the cost of nuclear power, which already had risen sharply in 2010 and 2011, could "climb another 50 percent due to tighter safety oversight and regulatory delays in the wake of the reactor calamity in Japan".[62]

text: In 2011, London-based bank HSBC said: "With Three Mile Island and Fukushima as a backdrop, the US public may find it difficult to support major nuclear new build and we expect that no new plant extensions will be granted either. Thus we expect the clean energy standard under discussion in US legislative chambers will see a far greater emphasis on gas and renewables plus efficiency".[63]

text: The Obama administration "continues to support the expansion of nuclear power in the United States, despite the crisis in Japan".[64]

text: Competitiveness problems[edit]

text: In May 2015, a senior vice president of General Atomics stated that the U.S. nuclear industry was struggling due low U.S. fossil fuel prices, partly due to the rapid development of shale gas, and high financing costs for nuclear plants.[65]

text: In July 2016 Toshiba withdrew the U.S. design certification renewal for its Advanced Boiling Water Reactor because "it has become increasingly clear that energy price declines in the US prevent Toshiba from expecting additional opportunities for ABWR construction projects".[66]

text: In 2016, Governor of New York Andrew Cuomo directed the New York Public Service Commission to consider ratepayer-financed subsidies similar to those for renewable sources to keep nuclear power stations profitable in the competition against natural gas.[67][68]

text: Westinghouse Chapter 11 bankruptcy[edit]

text: On March 29, 2017, parent company Toshiba placed Westinghouse Electric Company in Chapter 11 bankruptcy because of $9 billion of losses from its nuclear reactor construction projects. The projects responsible for this loss are mostly the construction of four AP1000 reactors at Vogtle in Georgia and V. C. Summer in South Carolina.[69] The U.S. government had given $8.3 billion of loan guarantees on the financing of the four nuclear reactors being built in the U.S., and it is expected a way forward to completing the plants can be agreed.[70] Peter A. Bradford, former Nuclear Regulatory Commission member, commented "They placed a big bet on this hallucination of a nuclear renaissance".[71]

text: The other U.S. new nuclear supplier, General Electric, had already scaled back its nuclear operations as it was concerned about the economic viability of new nuclear.[72]

text: Safety and accidents[edit]

text: Regulation of nuclear power plants in the United States is done by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which divides the nation into 4 administrative divisions.

text: On March 28, 1979, equipment failures and operator error contributed to loss of coolant and a partial core meltdown at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant in Pennsylvania. The mechanical failures were compounded by the initial failure of plant operators to recognize the situation as a loss-of-coolant accident due to inadequate training and human factors, such as human-computer interaction design oversights relating to ambiguous control room indicators in the power plant's user interface.[73] The scope and complexity of the accident became clear over the course of five days, as employees of Met Ed, Pennsylvania state officials, and members of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) tried to understand the problem, communicate the situation to the press and local community, decide whether the accident required an emergency evacuation, and ultimately end the crisis. The NRC's authorization of the release of 40,000 gallons of radioactive waste water directly in the Susquehanna River led to a loss of credibility with the press and community.[73]

text: The Three Mile Island accident inspired Perrow's book Normal Accidents, where a nuclear accident occurs, resulting from an unanticipated interaction of multiple failures in a complex system. TMI was an example of a normal accident because it was "unexpected, incomprehensible, uncontrollable and unavoidable".[74] The World Nuclear Association has stated that cleanup of the damaged nuclear reactor system at TMI-2 took nearly 12 years and cost approximately US $973 million.[75] Benjamin K. Sovacool, in his 2007 preliminary assessment of major energy accidents, estimated that the TMI accident caused a total of $2.4 billion in property damages.[76] The health effects of the Three Mile Island accident are widely, but not universally, agreed to be very low level.[75][77] The accident triggered protests around the world.[78]

text: The 1979 Three Mile Island accident was a pivotal event that led to questions about U.S. nuclear safety.[79] Earlier events had a similar effect, including a 1975 fire at Browns Ferry, the 1976 testimonials of three concerned GE nuclear engineers, the GE Three. In 1981, workers inadvertently reversed pipe restraints at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant reactors, compromising seismic protection systems, which further undermined confidence in nuclear safety. All of these well-publicised events, undermined public support for the U.S. nuclear industry in the 1970s and the 1980s.[79]

text: On March 5, 2002, maintenance workers discovered that corrosion had eaten a football-sized hole into the reactor vessel head of the Davis-Besse plant. Although the corrosion did not lead to an accident, this was considered to be a serious nuclear safety incident.[80][81] The Nuclear Regulatory Commission kept Davis-Besse shut down until March 2004, so that FirstEnergy was able to perform all the necessary maintenance for safe operations. The NRC imposed its largest fine ever—more than $5 million—against FirstEnergy for the actions that led to the corrosion. The company paid an additional $28 million in fines under a settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice.[80]

text: The nuclear industry in the United States has maintained one of the best industrial safety records in the world with respect to all kinds of accidents. For 2008, the industry hit a new low of 0.13 industrial accidents per 200,000 worker-hours.[82] This is improved over 0.24 in 2005, which was still a factor of 14.6 less than the 3.5 number for all manufacturing industries.[83] However, more than a quarter of U.S. nuclear plant operators "have failed to properly tell regulators about equipment defects that could imperil reactor safety", according to a Nuclear Regulatory Commission report.[84]

text: As of February 2009, the NRC requires that the design of new power plants ensures that the reactor containment would remain intact, cooling systems would continue to operate, and spent fuel pools would be protected, in the event of an aircraft crash. This is an issue that has gained attention since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The regulation does not apply to the 100 commercial reactors now operating.[85] However, the containment structures of nuclear power plants are among the strongest structures ever built by mankind; independent studies have shown that existing plants would easily survive the impact of a large commercial jetliner without loss of structural integrity.[86]

text: Recent concerns have been expressed about safety issues affecting a large part of the nuclear fleet of reactors. In 2012, the Union of Concerned Scientists, which tracks ongoing safety issues at operating nuclear plants, found that "leakage of radioactive materials is a pervasive problem at almost 90 percent of all reactors, as are issues that pose a risk of nuclear accidents".[87] The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission reports that radioactive tritium has leaked from 48 of the 65 nuclear sites in the United States.[88]

text: Following the Japanese Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, according to Black & Veatch’s annual utility survey that took place after the disaster, of the 700 executives from the US electric utility industry that were surveyed, nuclear safety was the top concern.[89] There are likely to be increased requirements for on-site spent fuel management and elevated design basis threats at nuclear power plants.[60][61] License extensions for existing reactors will face additional scrutiny, with outcomes depending on the degree to which plants can meet new requirements, and some extensions already granted for more than 60 of the 104 operating U.S. reactors could be revisited. On-site storage, consolidated long-term storage, and geological disposal of spent fuel is "likely to be reevaluated in a new light because of the Fukushima storage pool experience".[60] In March 2011, nuclear experts told Congress that spent-fuel pools at US nuclear power plants are too full. They say the entire US spent-fuel policy should be overhauled in light of the Fukushima I nuclear accidents.[90]

text: David Lochbaum, chief nuclear safety officer with the Union of Concerned Scientists, has repeatedly questioned the safety of the Fukushima I Plant's General Electric Mark 1 reactor design, which is used in almost a quarter of the United States' nuclear fleet.[91]

text: About one third of reactors in the US are boiling water reactors, the same technology which was involved in the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in Japan. There are also eight nuclear power plants located along the seismically active West coast. Twelve of the American reactors that are of the same vintage as the Fukushima Daiichi plant are in seismically active areas.[92] Earthquake risk is often measured by "Peak Ground Acceleration", or PGA, and the following nuclear power plants have a two percent or greater chance of having PGA over 0.15g in the next 50 years: Diablo Canyon, Calif.; San Onofre, Calif.; Sequoyah, Tenn.; H.B. Robinson, SC.; Watts Bar, Tenn.; Virgil C. Summer, SC.; Vogtle, GA.; Indian Point, NY.; Oconee, SC.; and Seabrook, NH.[92]

text: In 2013 the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station was permanently retired when premature wear was found in the Steam Generators which had been replaced in 2010–2011.

text:
Nuclear power plant accidents in the U.S. with more than US$140 million in property damage[93][94]

Date
Plant
Location
Description
Cost
(in millions
2006 $)

000000001979-03-28-0000March 28, 1979
Three Mile Island
Londonderry Township, Pennsylvania
Loss of coolant and partial core meltdown, see Three Mile Island accident and Three Mile Island accident health effects
7003240000000000000♠ US$2,400

000000001985-03-09-0000March 9, 1985
Browns Ferry
Athens, Alabama
Instrumentation systems malfunction during startup, which led to suspension of operations at all three Units
7003183000000000000♠ US$1,830

000000001986-04-11-0000April 11, 1986
Pilgrim
Plymouth, Massachusetts
Recurring equipment problems force emergency shutdown of Boston Edison’s plant
7003100100000000000♠ US$1,001

000000001987-03-31-0000March 31, 1987
Peach Bottom
Delta, Pennsylvania
Units 2 and 3 shutdown due to cooling malfunctions and unexplained equipment problems
7002400000000000000♠ US$400

000000001987-12-19-0000December 19, 1987
Nine Mile Point
Scriba, New York
Malfunctions force Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation to shut down Unit 1
7002150000000000000♠ US$150

000000001996-02-20-0000February 20, 1996
Millstone
Waterford, Connecticut
Leaking valve forces shutdown of Units 1 and 2, multiple equipment failures found
7002254000000000000♠ US$254

000000001996-09-02-0000September 2, 1996
Crystal River
Crystal River, Florida
Balance-of-plant equipment malfunction forces shutdown and extensive repairs
7002384000000000000♠ US$384

000000002010-02-01-0000February 1, 2010
Vermont Yankee
Vernon, Vermont
Deteriorating underground pipes leak radioactive tritium into groundwater supplies
7002700000000000000♠ US$700

tag: table

text: Security and deliberate attacks[edit]

text: The United States 9/11 Commission has said that nuclear power plants were potential targets originally considered for the September 11, 2001 attacks. If terrorist groups could sufficiently damage safety systems to cause a core meltdown at a nuclear power plant, and/or sufficiently damage spent fuel pools, such an attack could lead to widespread radioactive contamination. The research scientist Harold Feiveson has written that nuclear facilities should be made extremely safe from attacks that could release massive quantities of radioactivity into the community. New reactor designs have features of passive nuclear safety, which may help. In the United States, the NRC carries out "Force on Force" (FOF) exercises at all Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) sites at least once every three years.[32]

text: Uranium supply[edit]

text: A 2012 report by the International Atomic Energy Agency concluded: “The currently defined uranium resource base is more than adequate to meet high-case requirements through 2035 and well into the foreseeable future.”[95]

text: At the start of 2013, the identified remaining worldwide uranium resources stood at 5.90 million tons, enough to supply the world's reactors at current consumption rates for more than 120 years, even if no additional uranium deposits are discovered in the meantime. Undiscovered uranium resources as of 2013 were estimated to be 7.7 million tons. Doubling the price of uranium would increase the identified reserves as of 2013 to 7.64 million tons.[96] Over the decade 2003–2013, the identified reserves of uranium (at the same price of US$130/kg) rose from 4.59 million tons in 2003 to 5.90 million tons in 2013, a increase of 28%.[97]

text: Fuel cycle[edit]

text: Uranium mining[edit]

text: The United States has the 4th largest uranium reserves in the world.[98] The U.S. has its most prominent uranium reserves in New Mexico, Texas, and Wyoming. The U.S. Department of Energy has approximated there to be at least 300 million pounds of uranium in these areas.[99] Domestic production increased until 1980, after which it declined sharply due to low uranium prices. In 2012 the United States mined 17% of the uranium consumed by its nuclear power plants. The remainder was imported, principally from Canada, Russia and Australia.[98] Uranium is mined using several methods including open-pit mining, underground mining, and in-situ leaching.[100]

text: Uranium enrichment[edit]

text: There is one gas centrifuge enrichment plant currently in commercial operation in the US. The National Enrichment Facility, operated by URENCO east of Eunice, New Mexico, was the first uranium enrichment plant in 30 years to be built in the US. The plant started enriching uranium in 2010.[101] Two additional gas centrifuge plants have been licensed by the NRC, but are not operating. The American Centrifuge Plant in Piketown, Ohio broke ground in 2007, but stopped construction in 2009. The Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility in Bonneville County, Idaho was licensed in 2011, but construction is on hold.[102]

text: Previously (2008), demonstration activities were underway in Oak Ridge, Tennessee for a future centrifugal enrichment plant. The new plant would have been called the American Centrifuge Plant, at an estimated cost of 2.3 billion USD.[103]

text: As of September 30, 2015, the DOE is ending its contract with the American Centrifuge Project and has stopped funding the project.[104]

text: Reprocessing[edit]

text: Nuclear reprocessing has been politically controversial because of the potential to contribute to nuclear proliferation, the potential vulnerability to nuclear terrorism, the political challenges of repository siting, and because of its high cost compared to the once-through fuel cycle.[105] The Obama administration has disallowed reprocessing of nuclear waste, citing nuclear proliferation concerns.[106] Critics of reprocessing worry that the recycled materials will be used for weapons. However, it is unlikely that reprocessed plutonium would be used for nuclear weapons, because it is not weapons-grade.[107] Nonetheless, it is possible that terrorists could steal these materials, because the reprocessed plutonium is less radiotoxic than spent fuel and therefore much easier to steal. Nuclear power plants may not even notice if plutonium was stolen. It is difficult for plants to measure within even tens of kilograms, because making measurements at that accuracy is very time-consuming; consequently, it is likely that smaller amounts of plutonium could be stolen without detection.[108] Additionally, reprocessing is more expensive when compared with spent fuel storage. One study by the Boston Consulting Group estimated that reprocessing is six percent more expensive than spent fuel storage while another study by the Kennedy School of Government stated that reprocessing is 100 percent more expensive.[109]

text: Waste disposal[edit]

text: Recently, as plants continue to age, many on-site spent fuel pools have come near capacity, prompting creation of dry cask storage facilities as well. Several lawsuits between utilities and the government have transpired over the cost of these facilities, because by law the government is required to foot the bill for actions that go beyond the spent fuel pool.

text: There are some 65,000 tons of nuclear waste now in temporary storage throughout the U.S.[110] Since 1987, Yucca Mountain, in Nevada, had been the proposed site for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, but the project was shelved in 2009 following years of controversy and legal wrangling.[110][111] An alternative plan has not been proffered.[112]

text: At places like Maine Yankee, Connecticut Yankee and Rancho Seco, reactors no longer operate, but the spent fuel remains in small concrete-and-steel silos that require maintenance and monitoring by a guard force. Sometimes the presence of nuclear waste prevents re-use of the sites by industry.[113]

text: Without a long-term solution to store nuclear waste, a nuclear renaissance in the U.S. remains unlikely. Nine states have "explicit moratoria on new nuclear power until a storage solution emerges".[114][115]

text: Some nuclear power advocates argue that the United States should develop factories and reactors that will recycle some spent fuel. But the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future said in 2012 that "no existing technology was adequate for that purpose, given cost considerations and the risk of nuclear proliferation".[115]

text: There is an "international consensus on the advisability of storing nuclear waste in deep underground repositories",[116] but no country in the world has yet opened such a site.[116][117][118][119][120][121] The Obama administration has disallowed reprocessing of nuclear waste, citing nuclear proliferation concerns.[106]

text: Water use in nuclear power production[edit]

text: A 2011 NREL study of water use in electricity generation concluded that the median nuclear plant with cooling towers consumed 672 gallons per megawatt-hour (gal/MWh), a usage similar to that of coal plants, but more than other generating technologies, except hydroelectricity (median reservoir evaporation loss of 4,491 gal/MWh) and concentrating solar power (786 gal/MWh for power tower designs, and 865 for trough). Nuclear plants with once-through cooling systems consume only 269 gal/MWh, but require withdrawal of 44,350 gal/MWh. This makes nuclear plants with once-through cooling susceptible to drought.[123]

text: Once-through cooling systems, while once common, have come under attack for the possibility of damage to the environment. Wildlife can become trapped inside the cooling systems and killed, and the increased water temperature of the returning water can impact local ecosystems. US EPA regulations favors recirculating systems, even forcing some older power plants to replace existing once-through cooling systems with new recirculating systems.[citation needed]

text: A 2008 study by the Associated Press found that of the 104 nuclear reactors in the U.S., "... 24 are in areas experiencing the most severe levels of drought. All but two are built on the shores of lakes and rivers and rely on submerged intake pipes to draw billions of gallons of water for use in cooling and condensing steam after it has turned the plants’ turbines,"[124] much like all Rankine cycle power plants. During the 2008 southeast drought, reactor output was reduced to lower operating power or forced to shut down for safety.[124]

text: The Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station is located in a desert and purchases reclaimed wastewater for cooling.[125]

text: Plant decommissioning[edit]

text: The price of energy inputs and the environmental costs of every nuclear power plant continue long after the facility has finished generating its last useful electricity. Both nuclear reactors and uranium enrichment facilities must be decommissioned, returning the facility and its parts to a safe enough level to be entrusted for other uses. After a cooling-off period that may last as long as a century, reactors must be dismantled and cut into small pieces to be packed in containers for final disposal. The process is very expensive, time-consuming, dangerous for workers, hazardous to the natural environment, and presents new opportunities for human error, accidents or sabotage.[126]

text: The total energy required for decommissioning can be as much as 50% more than the energy needed for the original construction. In most cases, the decommissioning process costs between US $300 million to US$5.6 billion. Decommissioning at nuclear sites which have experienced a serious accident are the most expensive and time-consuming. In the U.S. there are 13 reactors that have permanently shut down and are in some phase of decommissioning, but none of them have completed the process.[126]

text: New methods for decommissioning have been developed in order to minimize the usual high decommissioning costs. One of these methods is in situ decommissioning (ISD), which was implemented at the U.S. Department of Energy Savannah River Site in South Carolina for the closures of the P and R Reactors. With this tactic, the cost of decommissioning both reactors was $73 million. In comparison, the decommissioning of each reactor using traditional methods would have been an estimated $250 million. This results in a 71% decrease in cost by using ISD.[127]

text: The number of nuclear power reactors are shrinking as they near the end of their life. It is expected that by 2025 many of the reactors will have been shut down due to their age. Because the costs associated with the constructions of nuclear reactors are also continuously increasing, this is expected to be problematic for the provision of energy in the country.[128] When reactors are shut down, stakeholders in the energy sector are not replacing them with renewable energy resources but rather with coal and natural gas. This is because unlike the renewable energy sources such as wind and solar, coal and natural gas can be used to generate electricity on a 24-hour basis. In other words, the coal and natural gas seems to be convenient solutions for the energy problem that is encountered in the US.[129]

text: Organizations[edit]

text: Fuel vendors[edit]

text: The following companies have active Nuclear fuel fabrication facilities in the United States.[130] These are all light water fuel fabrication facilities because only LWRs are operating in the US. The US currently has no MOX fuel fabrication facilities, though Duke Energy has expressed intent of building one of a relatively small capacity.[131]

text: Areva

tag: ul

text: Westinghouse Electric Company

text: General Electric

text: KazAtomProm

text: Industry and academic[edit]

text: The American Nuclear Society (ANS) scientific and educational organization has both academic and industry members. The organization publishes a large amount of literature on nuclear technology in several journals. The ANS also has some offshoot organizations such as North American Young Generation in Nuclear (NA-YGN).

text: The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) is an industry group whose activities include lobbying, experience sharing between companies and plants, and provides data on the industry to a number of outfits.

text: Anti-nuclear power groups[edit]

text: Some sixty anti-nuclear power groups are operating, or have operated, in the United States. These include: Abalone Alliance, Clamshell Alliance, Greenpeace USA, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, Musicians United for Safe Energy, Nuclear Control Institute, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Public Citizen Energy Program, Shad Alliance, and the Sierra Club.

text: In 1992, the chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said that "his agency had been pushed in the right direction on safety issues because of the pleas and protests of nuclear watchdog groups".[135]

text: Debate about nuclear power in the U.S.[edit]

text: There has been considerable public and scientific debate about the use of nuclear power in the United States, mainly from the 1960s to the late 1980s, but also since about 2001 when talk of a nuclear renaissance began. There has been debate about issues such as nuclear accidents, radioactive waste disposal, nuclear proliferation, nuclear economics, and nuclear terrorism.[28]

text: Some scientists and engineers have expressed reservations about nuclear power, including: Barry Commoner, S. David Freeman, John Gofman, Arnold Gundersen, Mark Z. Jacobson, Amory Lovins, Arjun Makhijani, Gregory Minor, and Joseph Romm. Mark Z. Jacobson, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University, has said: "If our nation wants to reduce global warming, air pollution and energy instability, we should invest only in the best energy options. Nuclear energy isn't one of them".[136] Arnold Gundersen, chief engineer of Fairewinds Associates and a former nuclear power industry executive, has questioned the safety of the Westinghouse AP1000, a proposed third-generation nuclear reactor.[137] John Gofman, a nuclear chemist and doctor, raised concerns about exposure to low-level radiation in the 1960s and argued against commercial nuclear power in the U.S.[138] In “Nuclear Power: Climate Fix or Folly,” Amory Lovins, a physicist with the Rocky Mountain Institute, argued that expanded nuclear power "does not represent a cost-effective solution to global warming and that investors would shun it were it not for generous government subsidies lubricated by intensive lobbying efforts".[139]

text: Environmentalist Patrick Moore spoke out against nuclear power in 1976,[140] but today he supports it, along with renewable energy sources.[141][142][143] In Australian newspaper The Age, he writes "Greenpeace is wrong — we must consider nuclear power".[144] He argues that any realistic plan to reduce reliance on fossil fuels or greenhouse gas emissions need increased use of nuclear energy.[141] Phil Radford, Executive Director of Greenpeace US responded that nuclear energy is too risky, takes too long to build to address climate change, and by showing that the can U.S. shift to nearly 100% renewable energy while phasing out nuclear power by 2050.[145][146]

text: Environmentalist Stewart Brand wrote the book Whole Earth Discipline, which examines how nuclear power and some other technologies can be used as tools to address global warming.[147] Bernard Cohen, Professor Emeritus of Physics at the University of Pittsburgh, calculates that nuclear power is many times safer than other forms of power generation.[148]

text: President Obama early on included nuclear power as part of his “all of the above” energy strategy.[149] In a speech to the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers in 2010, he demonstrated his commitment to nuclear power by announcing his approval of an $8 billion loan guarantee to pave the way for construction of the first new US nuclear power plant in nearly 30 years.[150][151] Then in 2012, his first post-Fukishima state-of-the-union address, Barack Obama said that America needs “an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy,” yet pointedly omitted any mention of nuclear power.[152] But in February 2014, Energy secretary Ernest Moniz announced $6.5 billion in federal loan guarantees to enable construction of two new nuclear reactors, the first in the US since 1996.[153]

text: According to the Union of Concerned Scientists in March 2013 over one-third of U.S. nuclear power plants suffered safety-related incidents over the past three years, and nuclear regulators and plant operators need to improve inspections to prevent such events.[154]

text: Pandora's Promise is a 2013 documentary film, directed by Robert Stone. It presents an argument that nuclear energy, typically feared by environmentalists, is in fact the only feasible way of meeting humanity's growing need for energy while also addressing the serious problem of climate change. The movie features several notable individuals (some of whom were once vehemently opposed to nuclear power, but who now speak in support of it), including: Stewart Brand, Gwyneth Cravens, Mark Lynas, Richard Rhodes and Michael Shellenberger.[155] Anti-nuclear advocate Helen Caldicott appears briefly.[156]

text: As of 2014, the U.S. nuclear industry has begun a new lobbying effort, hiring three former senators — Evan Bayh, a Democrat; Judd Gregg, a Republican; and Spencer Abraham, a Republican — as well as William M. Daley, a former staffer to President Obama. The initiative is called Nuclear Matters, and it has begun a newspaper advertising campaign.[157]

text: Public opinion[edit]

text: The Gallup organization, which has periodically polled US opinion on nuclear power since 1994, found in March 2016 that, for the first time, a majority (54%) opposed nuclear power, versus 44% in favor. In polls from 2004 through 2015, a majority had supported nuclear power. support peaked at 62% in 2010, and has been in decline since.[158]

text: According to a CBS News poll, what had been growing acceptance of nuclear power in the United States was eroded sharply following the 2011 Japanese nuclear accidents, with support for building nuclear power plants in the U.S. dropping slightly lower than it was immediately after the Three Mile Island accident in 1979.[159] Only 43 percent of those polled after the Fukushima nuclear emergency said they would approve building new power plants in the United States.[159] A Washington Post-ABC poll conducted in April 2011 found that 64 percent of Americans opposed the construction of new nuclear reactors.[160] A survey sponsored by the Nuclear Energy Institute, conducted in September 2011, found that "62 percent of respondents said they favor the use of nuclear energy as one of the ways to provide electricity in the United States, with 35 percent opposed".[161]

text: According to a 2012 Pew Research Center poll, 44 percent of Americans favored and 49 percent opposed the promotion of increased use of nuclear power.[162]

text: A January 2014 Rasmussen poll found likely US voters split nearly evenly on whether to build more nuclear power plants, 39 percent in favor, versus 37 percent opposed, with an error margin of 3 percent.[163]

text: Prospects of a nuclear renaissance[edit]

text: As of 2017, the US Energy Information Administration projects that US nuclear generating capacity will decline 23 percent from its 2016 level of 99.1 GW, to 76.5 GW in 2050, and the nuclear share of electrical generation to go from 20% in 2016 down to 11% in 2050. Driving the decline will be retirements of existing units, to be partially offset by additional units currently under construction and expected capacity expansions of existing reactors.[164]

text: In the 2000s there was a renewed interest in nuclear power in the US, spurred by anticipated government curbs on carbon emissions, and a belief that fossil fuels would become more costly.[165]

text: Signs of a revival[edit]

text: The federal government encouraged development of nuclear power through the Nuclear Power 2010 Program, which coordinates efforts for building new nuclear power plants,[166] and the Energy Policy Act which has provisions favorable to nuclear.[167][168] In February 2010, President Barack Obama announced loan guarantees for two new reactors at Georgia Power's Vogtle Electric Generating Plant.[169][170] The reactors are "just the first of what we hope will be many new nuclear projects," said Carol Browner, director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy.

text: In 2008, it was reported that The Shaw Group and Westinghouse would construct a factory at the Port of Lake Charles at Lake Charles, Louisiana to build components for the Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear reactor.[171] On October 23, 2008, it was reported that Northrop Grumman and Areva were planning to construct a factory in Newport News, Virginia to build nuclear reactors.[172]

text: As of March 2009, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission had received applications for permission to construct 26 new nuclear power reactors[173] with applications for another 7 expected.[174][175] Six of these reactors have been ordered.[176] However, not all the proposed new capacity will necessarily be built, with some applications being made to keep future options open and reserving places in a queue for government incentives available for up to the first three plants based on each innovative reactor design.[174]

text: In August 2011, the TVA board of directors voted to move forward with the construction of the unit one reactor at the Bellefonte Nuclear Generating Station.[177] In addition, the Tennessee Valley Authority petitioned to restart construction on the first two units at Bellefonte. But as of March 2012, many contractors have been laid off and the ultimate cost and timing for Bellefonte 1 will depend on work at another reactor TVA is completing – Watts Bar 2 in Tennessee. In February 2012, TVA said the Watts Bar 2 project was running over budget and behind schedule.[178]

text: In 2012, The NRC approved construction permits for four new nuclear reactor units at two existing plants, the first permits in 34 years.[179] The first new permits, for two proposed reactors at the Vogtle plant, were approved in February 2012.[180] NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko cast the lone dissenting vote, citing safety concerns stemming from Japan's 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster: "I cannot support issuing this license as if Fukushima never happened".[181]

text: The first two of the newly approved units were the Units 3 and 4 at the existing Vogtle Electric Generating Plant. As of December 2011, construction by Southern Company on the two new nuclear units had begun, and they are expected to be delivering commercial power by 2016 and 2017, respectively.[182][183] One week after Southern received the license to begin major construction on the two new reactors, a dozen environmental and anti-nuclear groups sued to stop the Plant Vogtle expansion project, saying "public safety and environmental problems since Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactor accident have not been taken into account".[184] The lawsuit was dismissed in July 2012.

text: Also in 2012, Units 2 and 3 at the SCANA Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Generating Station in South Carolina were approved, and are scheduled to come online in 2017 and 2018, respectively.[179]

text: A proposed nuclear power plant, the Blue Castle Project, is set to begin construction near Green River, Utah in 2023.[185] The plant will use 53,500 acre-feet of water annually from the Green River once both reactors are commissioned.[186] The first reactor is scheduled to come online in 2028, with the second reactor coming online in 2030.[185]

text: Continued problems and opposition[edit]

text: A number of other reactors were under consideration – a third reactor at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant in Maryland, a third and fourth reactor at South Texas Nuclear Generating Station, together with two other reactors in Texas, four in Florida, and one in Missouri. However, these have all been postponed or canceled.[187] But, looking ahead, experts see continuing challenges that will make it very difficult for the nuclear power industry to expand beyond a small handful of reactor projects that "government agencies decide to subsidize by forcing taxpayers to assume the risk for the reactors and mandating that ratepayers pay for construction in advance".[62]

text: In May 2009, John Rowe, chairman of Exelon, which operates 17 nuclear reactors, stated that he would cancel or delay construction of two new reactors in Texas without federal loan guarantees.[117] Following the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, he remarked that the nuclear renaissance was dead.[citation needed] Amory Lovins added that "market forces had killed it years earlier".[188]

text: In July 2009, the proposed Victoria County Nuclear Power Plant was delayed, as the project proved difficult to finance.[189] As of April 2009[update], AmerenUE has suspended plans to build its proposed plant in Missouri because the state Legislature would not allow it to charge consumers for some of the project's costs before the plant's completion. The New York Times has reported that without that "financial and regulatory certainty" the company has said it could not proceed.[190] Previously, MidAmerican Energy Company decided to "end its pursuit of a nuclear power plant in Payette County, Idaho." MidAmerican cited cost as the primary factor in their decision.[191]

text: In February 2010, the Vermont Senate voted 26 to 4 to block operation of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant after 2012, citing radioactive tritium leaks, misstatements in testimony by plant officials, a cooling tower collapse in 2007, and other problems. By state law, the renewal of the operating license must be approved by both houses of the legislature for the nuclear power plant to continue operation.[192]

text: In 2010, demand for nuclear power softened in America, and some companies withdrew their applications for licenses to build.[193][194] In September 2010, Matthew Wald from the New York Times reported that "the nuclear renaissance is looking small and slow at the moment".[187]

text: In the first quarter of 2011, renewable energy contributed 11.7 percent of total U.S. energy production (2.245 quadrillion BTUs of energy), surpassing energy production from nuclear power (2.125 quadrillion BTUs).[195] 2011 was the first year since 1997 that renewables exceeded nuclear in US total energy production.[196]

text: In August 2012, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia found that the NRC's rules for the temporary storage and permanent disposal of nuclear waste stood in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act, rendering the NRC legally unable to grant final licenses for any further new nuclear power plants.[197] This ruling was based on the fact that the Yucca Mountain waste repository had never received a license due to its license application being withdrawn by the DOE nor had any viable alternative waste repository been proposed. So long as this ruling stands and this impasse on waste disposal exists, no additional nuclear plants can ever be licensed for operation in the United States.[citation needed]

text:
In March 2013, the concrete for the basemat of Block 2 of the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Generating Station was poured. First concrete for Unit 3 was completed on November 4, 2013.
In March 2013, construction on unit 3 of Vogtle Electric Generating Plant started. Unit 4 was begun in November 2013.

text: In 2015 the Energy Information Administration estimated that nuclear power's share of U.S. generation would fall from 19% to 15% by 2040 in its central estimate (High Oil and Gas Resource case). However, as total generation increases 24% by 2040 in the central estimate, the absolute amount of nuclear generation remains fairly flat.[198]

text: Economics[edit]

text: The low price of natural gas in the US since 2008 has spurred construction of gas-fired power plants as an alternative to nuclear plants. In August 2011, the head of America's largest nuclear utility said that this was not the time to build new nuclear plants, not because of political opposition or the threat of cost overruns, but because of the low price of natural gas. John Rowe, head of Exelon, said “Shale [gas] is good for the country, bad for new nuclear development".[152]

text: In 2013, four older reactors were permanently closed: San Onofre 2 and 3 in California, Crystal River 3 in Florida, and Kewaunee in Wisconsin.[7][8] The state of Vermont tried to shut Vermont Yankee, in Vermont, but the plant was closed by the parent corporation for economic reasons in December 2014. New York State is seeking to close Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant, in Buchanan, 30 miles from New York City, despite this reactor being the primary contributor to Vermont's green energy fund.[8][200]

text: The additional cancellation of five large reactor upgrades (Prairie Island, 1 reactor, LaSalle, 2 reactors, and Limerick, 2 reactors), four by the largest nuclear company in the U.S., suggest that the nuclear industry faces "a broad range of operational and economic problems".[201]

text: In July 2013, economist Mark Cooper named some nuclear power plants that face particularly intense challenges to their continued operation:[201]

text:
Palisades, decomissioning announced for spring 2022
Ft. Calhoun, decommissioned 2016
Nine Mile Point
Fitzpatrick
Ginna
Oyster Creek, decomissioning announced for Dec. 2019
Vermont Yankee, decommissioned 2014
Millstone
Clinton
Indian Point, decomissionings announced for April 2020, and April 2021

text: Cooper said that the lesson for policy makers and economists is clear: "nuclear reactors are simply not competitive".[201]

text: In December 2010, The Economist reported that the demand for nuclear power was softening in America.[194] In recent years,[when?] utilities have shown an interest in about 30 new reactors, but the number with any serious prospect of being built as of the end of 2010 was about a dozen, as some companies had withdrawn their applications for licenses to build.[193][202] Exelon has withdrawn its application for a license for a twin-unit nuclear plant in Victoria County, Texas, citing lower electricity demand projections. The decision has left the country’s largest nuclear operator without a direct role in what the nuclear industry hopes is a nuclear renaissance.[203] Ground has been broken on two new nuclear plants with a total of four reactors. The Obama administration was seeking the expansion of a loan guarantee program but as of December 2010 had been unable to commit all the loan guarantee money already approved by Congress. Since talk a few years ago[when?] of a “nuclear renaissance”, gas prices have fallen and old reactors are getting license extensions. The only reactor to finish construction after 1996 was at Watts Bar, Tennessee, is an old unit, begun in 1973, whose construction was suspended in 1988, and was resumed in 2007.[204] It became operational in October 2016. Of the 100 reactors operating in the U.S., ground was broken on all of them in 1974 or earlier.[193][194]

text: Experts see continuing challenges that will make it very difficult for the nuclear power industry to expand beyond a small handful of reactor projects that "government agencies decide to subsidize by forcing taxpayers to assume the risk for the reactors and mandating that ratepayers pay for construction in advance".[62]

text: In August 2012, Exelon stated that economic and market conditions, especially low natural gas prices, made the "construction of new merchant nuclear power plants in competitive markets uneconomical now and for the foreseeable future".[205] In early 2013 UBS noted that some smaller reactors operating in deregulated markets may become uneconomic to operate and maintain, due to competition from generators using low priced natural gas, and may be retired early.[206] The 556 MWe Kewaunee Power Station is being closed 20 years before license expiry for these economic reasons.[200][207][208] In February 2014 the Financial Times identified Pilgrim, Indian Point, Clinton and Quad Cities power stations as potentially at risk of premature closure for economic reasons.[209]

text: As of 2017, the U.S. shale gas boom has lowered electricity generation costs placing severe pressure on the economics of operating older existing nuclear power plants.[210] Analysis by Bloomberg shows that over half of U.S. nuclear plants are running at a loss.[211] The Nuclear Energy Institute has estimated that 15 to 20 reactors are at risk of early closure for economic reasons.[212] Nuclear operators in Illinois and New York have obtained financial support from regulators, and operators in Connecticut, New Jersey, Ohio and Pennsylvania are seeking similar support.[210] Some non-nuclear power generating companies have filed unfair competition lawsuits against these subsidies, and have raised the issue with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.[211]


document_title: Hungarian invasions of Europe

question_text: what ended the magyar raids in western europe

text: Hungarian invasions of Europe

text: History[edit]

text: Before the conquest of Hungary (9th century)[edit]

text: The first supposed reference to the Hungarians in war is in the 9th century: in 811, the Hungarians (Magyars) were in alliance with Krum of Bulgaria against Emperor Nikephoros I possibly at the Battle of Pliska in the Haemus Mountains (Balkan Mountains).[3] Georgius Monachus' work mentions that around 837 the Bulgarian Empire sought an alliance with the Hungarians.[3][4] Constantine Porphyrogenitus wrote in his work On Administering the Empire that the Khagan and the Bek of the Khazars asked the Emperor Teophilos to have the fortress of Sarkel built for them.[4] This record is thought to refer to the Hungarians on the basis that the new fortress must have become necessary because of the appearance of a new enemy of the Khazars, and no other people could have been the Khazars’ enemy at that time.[4] In the 10th century, Ahmad ibn Rustah wrote that "earlier, the Khazars entrenched themselves against the attacks of the Magyars and other peoples".[4]

text: In 860–861, Hungarian soldiers attacked Saint Cyril's convoy but the meeting is said to have ended peacefully.[3] Saint Cyril was traveling to the Khagan at (or near) Chersonesos Taurica, which had been captured by the Khazars. Muslim geographers recorded that the Magyars regularly attacked the neighboring East Slavic tribes, and took captives to sell to the Byzantine Empire at Kerch.[5][6] There is some information about Hungarian raids into the eastern Carolingian Empire in 862.[7]

text: In 881, the Hungarians and the Kabars invaded East Francia and fought two battles, the former (Ungari) at Wenia (probably Vienna)[7] and the latter (Cowari) at Culmite (possibly Kulmberg or Kollmitz in Austria).[8] In 892, according to the Annales Fuldenses, King Arnulf of East Francia invaded Great Moravia and the Magyars joined his troops.[4][7] After 893, Magyar troops were conveyed across the Danube by the Byzantine fleet and defeated the Bulgarians in three battles (at the Danube, Silistra and Preslav).[6] In 894, the Magyars invaded Pannonia in alliance with King Svatopluk I of Moravia.[4][7]

text: After the conquest of Hungary (10th century)[edit]

text: Around 896,[9] probably under the leadership of Árpád, the Hungarians (Magyars) crossed the Carpathians and entered the Carpathian Basin (the plains of Hungary, approximately).

text: In 899, these Magyars defeated Berengar's army in the Battle of Brenta River and invaded the northern regions of Italy. They pillaged the countryside around Treviso, Vicenza, Verona, Brescia, Bergamo and Milan.[6] They also defeated Braslav, Duke of Lower Pannonia. In 901, they attacked Italy again.[10] In 902, they led a campaign against northern Moravia and defeated the Moravians whose country was annihilated.[6] Almost every year after 900 they conducted raids against the Catholic west and Byzantine east. In 905, the Magyars and King Berengar formed an amicitia, and fifteen years passed without Hungarian troops entering Italy.[11]

text: The Magyars defeated no fewer than three large Frankish imperial armies between 907 and 910, as follows.[12] In 907 they defeated the invading Bavarians near Brezalauspurc, destroying their army, successfully defending Hungary and laying Great Moravia, Germany, France and Italy open to Magyar raids. On 3 August 908 the Hungarians won the battle of Eisenach, Thuringia.[8] Egino, Duke of Thuringia was killed, along with Burchard, Duke of Thuringia and Rudolf I, Bishop of Würzburg.[13] The Magyars defeated Louis the Child's united Frankish Imperial Army at the first Battle of Lechfeld in 910.

text: Smaller units penetrated as far as Bremen in 915.[14] In 919, after the death of Conrad I of Germany, the Magyars raided Saxony, Lotharingia and West Francia. In 921, they defeated King Berengar's enemies at Verona and reached Apulia in 922.[11] Between 917 and 925, the Magyars raided through Basel, Alsace, Burgundy, Provence and the Pyrenees.[14]

text: Around 925, according to the Chronicle of the Priest of Dioclea from the late 12th century, Tomislav of Croatia defeated the Magyars in battle,[15] however others question the reliability of this account, because there is no proof for this interpretation in other records.[15]

text: In 926, they ravaged Swabia and Alsace, campaigned through present-day Luxembourg and reached as far as the Atlantic Ocean.[11] In 927, Peter, brother of Pope John X, called on the Magyars to rule Italy.[11] They marched into Rome and imposed large tribute payments on Tuscany and Tarento.[11][14] In 933, a substantial Magyar army appeared in Saxony (the pact with the Saxons having expired) but was defeated by Henry I at Merseburg.[11] Magyar attacks continued against Upper Burgundy (in 935) and against Saxony (in 936).[11] In 937, they raided France as far west as Reims, Lotharingia, Swabia, Franconia, the Duchy of Burgundy[16] and Italy as far as Otranto in the south.[11] They attacked Bulgaria and the Byzantine Empire, reaching the walls of Constantinople. The Byzantines paid them a “tax” for 15 years.[17] In 938, the Magyars repeatedly attacked Saxony.[11] In 940, they ravaged the region of Rome.[11] In 942, Hungarian raids on Spain, particularly in Catalonia,[18] took place, according to Ibn Hayyan's work.[19] In 947, Bulcsú, a chieftain of Taksony, led a raid into Italy[20] as far as Apulia, and King Berengar II of Italy had to buy peace by paying a large amount of money to him and his followers.

text: The Battle of Lechfeld in 955, in which the Magyars lost approximately 5,000 warriors, finally checked their expansion, although raids on the Byzantine Empire continued until 970. Lechfeld is south of Augsburg in present-day southern Germany.

text: According to the contemporary sources, the researchers count 45 (according to Nagy Kálmán) or 47 (According to Szabados György)[21] raids in different parts of Europe. From these campaigns only 8 (17,5 %) were unsuccessful (901, 913, 933, 943, 948, 951, 955, 970) and 37 ended with success (82,5 %).[22]

text: Timeline of the Hungarian invasions[edit]

text: Before the Hungarian Conquest[edit]

text:
839 – The Hungarians, who then lived East to the Carpathians, in Etelköz, fight at Lower Danube at the request of the First Bulgarian Empire against the Byzantine insurgents.[23]
861 – Saint Cyril is attacked in Crimea by Hungarians "screaming like wolves", but seeing him praying, they became peaceful.[24]
862 – First raid of the Hungarians in the Carpathian Basin at the request of Rastislav of Moravia against East Francia.[24]
c. 870 – al-Djayhani and Ahmad ibn Rustah writes that the Hungarian tribes attack the Slavs and the Russians who live near their borders, defeat them continuously, forcing them to pay tribute, and drive many of them to Kerch in Crimea, selling them to the Byzantines as slaves.[25]
881 – The Hungarian troops, helping the Morvaians, fight two battles against the Germans.[24]
882 – The Hungarian "king" meet with Saints Cyril and Methodius at the Lower Danube to discuss.[26]
892 – The Hungarian troops attack Great Moravia in alliance with the East Francian king Arnulf of Carinthia.[27]
894

In alliance with Svatopluk I of Moravia, the Hungarians attack the East Francian province of Pannonia. Svatopluk dies during this war.[28]
The Bulgarians, led by Simeon I of Bulgaria, attack the Byzantines, who ask for Hungarian help. A Hungarian army, led by Liüntika, defeats the Bulgarian army in three battles (at the Danube, Silistra and Preslav),[6] and force Simeon to retreat to Silistra.[29]

895 – Simeon allies with the Pechenegs, and attacks in alliance with them the Hungarians, forcing them to retreat towards West and enter in the Carpathian Basin. The Hungarians conquer the eastern parts of the Carpathian Basin (until the river Danube). Here the Hungarians defeat the Bulgarians in Southern Transylvania and Tiszántúl, and end their power in the Carpathian Basin, starting with this the Hungarian Conquest.[30]

text: After the Hungarian Conquest[edit]

text:
899 – The Hungarian troops attack the Italian Kingdom, and defeat, at 24 September, in the Battle of Brenta the army of Berengar I of Italy, burning Modena, and attacking Venice. Berengar accepts to pay them tribute.[31]
900 – The Hungarian army units conquer Pannonia, after their alliance proposal to the East Francians was rejected. This was another step in the Hungarian Conquest.[32]
901

Hungarian attack to Carinthia and Northern Italy.
April 11 or 18 – The Magyar army from Carinthia is defeated by margrave Ratold at Laibach.[33]

902 – The Hungarians conquer the eastern parts of Great Moravia, ending with this the Hungarian Conquest of the Carpathian Basin, while the Slavs from West and North to this region, start to pay tribute to them.[34]
903 – A Hungarian unit raiding in Bavaria, is defeated near the river Fischa.[34]
904

The Hungarian political and military leader Kurszán (kende, gyula or horka) is invited to a feast and then assassinated by the Bavarians.[34]
early summer – Hungarian troops go to Lombardy.[34]

905

King Berengar of Italy makes alliance with the Hungarians against his enemy, Louis of Provence, who declared himself emperor of Italy.
early summer – The Magyars defeat Louis of Provence, who is then blinded by Berengar.[35]

906 – Two Hungarian armies devastate, one after the other the Duchy of Saxony. The Magyars were asked to come by the Slavic tribe of Dalamancians, threatened by the Saxon attacks.[35]
907

July 4–6 – An East Francian army led by Luitpold, Margrave of Bavaria, which entered the Hungarian territory in order to expel the Hungarians from the Carpathian Basin, is annihilated by the Hungarian army in the Battle of Pressburg. Luitpold, Dietmar I, Archbishop of Salzburg, Prince Sieghard, 19 counts, 2 bishops and 3 abbots are killed in the battle, together with the majority of the soldiers.[34] This battle is considered the conclusion of the Hungarian Conquest.[36]
July–August – The Hungarians assault Bavaria, making great destructions, and occupying many towns, in their way home, defeating a Bavarian army at Lengenfeld. The Hungarian-Bavarian border is fixed on the Enns river.[37]

908 – Hungarians attack Thuringia and Saxony, and on 3 August defeat in the Battle of Eisenach the army of Burchard, Duke of Thuringia. Burchard, Egino, Duke of Thuringia and Rudolf I, Bishop of Würzburg, are killed in the battle.[38]
909

spring – Hungarian troops are raiding in Bavaria and Swabia.
August 4 – They burn the two churches of Freising in Bavaria.
August 11 – The returning Hungarians are defeated at Pocking by the Bavarians led by Arnulf, Duke of Bavaria.[38]

910

June 12 – The Hungarians crush the army of the German king Louis the Child in the first Battle of Augsburg, led by Count Gozbert of Alemannia. The commander and Managolt, count of Alemannia are killed in the battle.
June 22 – The same Hungarian army enter Franconia, and defeat a united army of the duchies of Franconia, Lotharingia and Bavaria in the Battle of Rednitz. The German commander Gebhard, Duke of Lorraine and Liudger, Count of Ladengau are killed in the battle.
King Louis the Child asks for peace and starts to pay a tribute.
The returning Hungarians plunder the outskirts of Regensburg, sack Altaich and Osterhofen, but one of their minor riding units is defeated by Arnulf, Duke of Bavaria at Neuching.[39]

911 – Hungarian troops cross Bavaria and attack Swabia and Franconia. They plunder the territories from Meinfeld to Aargau. After that, they cross the Rhine, and attack Burgundy for the first time.[40]
912 – Hungarians attack Franconia and Thuringia, in order to force the new East Francian king, Conrad I of Germany to pay them tribute.[40]
913 – Hungarian raid to Bavaria, Swabia and Northern Burgundy. At their return they face the combined army of Arnulf, Duke of Bavaria, Erchanger, Duke of Swabia, dukes Udalrich and Berchtold, who defeat them at Aschbach by Inn.[41]
914 – Duke Arnulf, Duke of Bavaria and his family is forced to flee to Hungary by king Conrad I of Germany. The Hungarians promise him help to regain his throne.[42]
915 – A Hungarian army devastates Swabia then Franconia. One of their plundering units attack the Fulda monastery, but they are repelled, they burn the Abbey of Corvey, plunder the monastery St. Ida in Herzfeld. In Saxony the Hungarians plunder Valun, then they burn Bremen, and after defeating a Saxon army at Eresburg, they arrive to the Danish border.[42]
916 – A Hungarian army helps Arnulf, Duke of Bavaria, in his first, unsuccessful attack to regain his duchy.[42]
917

Attack to West

January 21 – The Hungarians sack and burn Basel, then invade the Duchy of Alsace.
February – They enter Lotharingia, destroying Verdun, burning Moyenmoutier and the monasteries of Saint-Dié-des-Vosges and Remiremont.

With Hungarian help, Arnulf, Duke of Bavaria reoccupies his realm from the forces of Conrad I of Germany. After this he becomes a faithful ally of the Hungarians, paying them tribute, as well as his neighbour, Burchard II, Duke of Swabia.[43]
Hungarian troops are helping Simeon I of Bulgaria to defeat the Byzantines in the great Battle of Acheloos.[44]

919 - 920

After the election of Henry the Fowler as the new king of East Francia, a Hungarian army enters in Germany, and defeats Henry's forces in the Battle of Püchen, then heads towards West.
The Hungarian army enters Lotharingia and France. King Charles the Simple cannot gather enough forces to face them in a battle, retreats, and lets them to plunder his realm.[44]
Early 920, the same Hungarian army enter from West in Burgundy, then in Lombardy, and defeats the forces of Rudolf II of Burgundy, who attacked Berengar I of Italy, the ally of the Principality of Hungary. After that, the Magyars plunder the surrounding of those Italian cities, which they think that supported Rudolf: Bergamo, Piacenza and Nogara.[44][45]

921 - 922

In 921 a Hungarian army led by Dursac and Bogát, enters Northern Italy, then annihilates between Brescia and Verona the forces of the Italian supporters of Rudolf II of Burgundy, killing the palatine Odelrik, and taking as captive Gislebert, the count of Bergamo.
This army wents towards southern Italy, where it winters, and in January 922 plunders the regions between Rome and Naples.
February 4 – The Magyar army attacks Apulia in Southern Italy, ruled by the Byzantines.[46]

924

Campaign in Italy and Southern France

Spring – Rudolf II of Burgundy is elected by the Italian insurgents as king of Italy in Pavia. Emperor Berengar I of Italy asks help from the Hungarians, who send an army led by Szalárd, who burns Pavia and the war galleys on the shores of the Ticino river.
April 7 – When emperor Berengar is assassinated in Verona, the Hungarians went towards Burgundy. Rudolf II of Burgundy and Hugh of Arles try to encircle them in the passes of the Alps, but the Hungarians escape from this ambush, and attack Gothia and the outskirts of Nîmes. They return home because a plague breaks out among them.[47]

Campaign in Saxony

Another Hungarian army plunders Saxony. The German king Henry the Fowler retreats in the castle of Werla. A Hungarian noble fells by accident in the hands of the Germans. King Henry uses this opportunity to enter in negotiations with the Hungarians, and to ask for peace, accepting to pay a tribute to the Principality of Hungary.[48]

926

May 1–8 – Hungarian troops enter Swabia, as allies of the new Italian king, Hugh of Italy, besiege Augsburg,[49] then occupy the Abbey of Sankt Gallen, where they spare the life of the monk Heribald, whose accounts give a detailed description about their traditions and way of life. From the abbey they send minor units to reconnoitre and plunder the surroundings. One of their units kills Saint Wiborada who lived as anchoress in a wood nearby.
After May 8 – The Magyars besiege Konstanz, burning its suburbs, then head towards West in the direction of Schaffhausen and Basel. One of their units is defeated by the locals at Säckingen on the shores of the Rhine. The Hungarian army cross the Rhine with some captured ships into Alsace, and defeat the troops of count Liutfred. Then, following the Rhine they went towards North, sack the surroundings of Voncq, arrive to the Atlantic Ocean's shores, then head towards home via Reims. On their way home, they renew the alliance with Arnulf, Duke of Bavaria.
July 29 – The Hungarians destroy Oberkirchen.[50]

927 – Hungarian troops, called by King Hugh of Italy, to help margrave Peter against Pope John X to regain his power in Rome, which they succeed. During and after these events, they plunder Tuscany and Apulia, taking many prisoners, and occupying the cities of Oria and Taranto.[51]
931 – A Hungarian army burns the Italian city of Piacenza.[52]
933

Beginning of March – Because the German king Henry the Fowler refused to continue to pay tribute to the Principality of Hungary, a Magyar army enters Saxony. They enter from the lands of the Slavic tribe of Dalamancians, who refuse their alliance proposal, then the Hungarians split in two, but soon the army which tries to outflank Saxony from west, is defeated by the combined forces of Saxony and Thuringia near Gotha.
March 15 – The other army besieges Merseburg, but after that, is defeated in the Battle of Riade by the kings army.[52]

934

West

A Hungarian army raids in the environs of Metz in Lothariniga.[53]

Balkans

War between the Hungarians and the Pechenegs but a peace is concluded after the news of a Bulgarian attack against their territories, coming from the town of W.l.n.d.r (probably Belgrade). The Hungarians and the Pechenegs decide to attack this town.
April – The Hungarian - Pecheneg army defeats in the Battle of W.l.n.d.r the relieving Byzantine - Bulgarian forces, then conquer the city, and plunder it for three days.
May–June – The allies plunder Bulgaria, then head towards Constantinople, where they camp for 40 days, and sack Thrace, taking many captives. The Byzantine Empire concludes a peace treaty with the Hungarians, ransom the captives, and accepts to pay tribute to the Principality of Hungary.[54]

935 – Hungarian raid to Aquitaine and Bourges. They return towards home in Burgundy and Northern Italy, where they plunder the environs of Brescia.[53]
936 - 937

End of 936 – The Hungarians, with the aim to force the new German king, Otto I, to pay them tribute, attack Swabia and Franconia, burn the Fulda monastery, then enter Saxony, but the new kings forces repel them towards Lotharingia and West Francia.
February 21, 937 – They enter Lotharingia, crossing the Rhine at Worms, and advance towards Namur.
The Hungarians occupy the Abbey of Saint Basolus from Verzy, which they use as headquarters, then send plundering units to attack the abbeys from Orbay, Saint Macra from Fîmes, the city of Bouvancourt.
March 24 – They reach the city of Sens, where they burn the Abbey of Saint Peter.
At Orléans they fight with the French army led by count Ebbes de Déols, who is wounded in the battle and dies afterwards. After this, the Hungarians, following the course of the Loire, cross the whole France, until the Atlantic Ocean, then return towards South-East, and on their way to Burgundy, they plunder the surroundings of Bourges.
After July 11 – The Hungarians enter Burgundy near Dijon, harrying the Monastery of Luxeuil, then they plunder the valley of the Rhône, burn the city of Tournus, occupy the monasteries of Saint Deicolus and Saint Marcell, but fail at the Monastery of Saint Appollinaris.
August – Continuing their campaign, the Hungarians enter, from West, in Lombardy where Hugh of Italy asks them to go to Southern Italy to help the Byzantines. The Hungarians plunder the surroundings of Capua, and install their camp on the meadows of Galliano, and send small units to plunder the regions of Naples, Benevento, Sarno, Nola and Montecassino. The Abbey of Montecassino gives them valuable objects valuing 200 Byzantine hyperpyrons in order to ranslome the captives.[55]
Autumn – One unit of the Hungarians returning home is ambushed in the Abruzzo Mountains by the local forces, and lost its plunders.[55]

938

End of July – The Hungarians attack Thuringia and Saxony, and set camp at the Bode, north to the Harz mountains, and sends its raiding units in every direction. One of these units is defeated at Wolfenbüttel, while its leader killed. Another unit is misled by its Slavic guides in the marshes of Drömling, and ambushed and massacred by the Germans at Belxa. The Hungarians ransom the captured leader of this unit.
After 31 August – Hearing about these defeats, the main Hungarian army, camped at the Bode river, withdraws in Hungary.[56]

940 April – The Hungarian auxiliary troops helping Hugh of Italy in his campaign against Rome, win at Lateran a victory against the Roman nobles, but then they are defeated by the Longobards.[56]
942

Spring – A Hungarian army enters Italy, where king Hugh, giving them 10 bushels of gold, persuades them to attack the Caliphate of Córdoba.
Middle of June – They arrive to Catalonia, plunder the region, then enter in the northern territories of the Caliphate of Córdoba.
June 23 – The Hungarians besiege Lérida for 8 days, then attack Cerdaña and Huesca.
June 26 – The Hungarians capture Yahya ibn Muhammad ibn al Tawil, the ruler of Barbastro, and hold him captive 33 days, until he is ransomed.
July – The Hungarians arrive in desert territory, run out of food and water, so they return home, killing their Italian guide. 5 Hungarians are taken prisoners by the Cordobans. They become bodyguards of the caliph.[57]

943

Balkans

Allied with the Russians, a Hungarian army attacks the Byzantine Empire. Emperor Romanos I Lekapenos buys peace, and accepts to pay a yearly tribute to the Hungarians.[58]

Bavaria

The Hungarians who attacked Bavaria, are defeated in the Battle of Wels by Berthold, Duke of Bavaria and the Carantanians.[58]

947 – A Hungarian army, led by prince Taksony, campaigns in Italy, heading southwards on the Eastern shore of the peninsula. Besieges Larino, and reaches Otranto, plundering Apulia for 3 months.[59]
948 – Two Hungarian armies attack Bavaria and Karintia. One of them is defeated at Flozzun in Nordgau by Henry I, Duke of Bavaria.[60]
949 August 9 – The Hungarians defeat the Bavarians at Laa.[60][61]
950 – Henry I, Duke of Bavaria attacks Western Hungary, taking captives and plunder.[60]
951

Spring – Hungarians, crossing Lombardia, attack Aquitania.
November 20 – The returning Hungarians are defeated by the German army, which, in the meanwhile conquered the Kingdom of Italy.[60]

954

The German princes rebel against Otto I, and ally with the Hungarians, who in February send an army led by Bulcsú to help them. The Magyar army plunders the domains of Otto's allies in Bavaria Swabia and Frankonia.
March 1 – The Hungarians cross the Rhine, camp at Worms in the capital of their ally, Conrad, Duke of Lorraine, then in 19 of March, they head towards West, attacking the domains of the dukes enemies, Bruno the Great, archbishop of Cologne, then count Ragenarius, crossing the rivers Moselle and Maas.[62][63]
The Hungarians plunder the regions of Hesbaye and Carbonaria in today's Belgium, plunder and burn the Monastery of Saint Lambert from Hainaut, the monastery of Moorsel, sack the cities of Gembloux and Tournai.
April 2 – They besiege the Lobbes Abbey, but the monks defend the monastery. However the Hungarians burn the church of Saint Paul, and take with them the treasures of the abbey.
April 6–10 – The Hungarians besiege the city of Cambrai, burn its suburbs, but they are unable to conquer the city. One of Bulcsú's relatives is killed by the defenders. They refuse to pass over his body to the Hungarians. As a revenge, they kill all their captives, burn the monastery of Saint Géry near Cambrai.
After April 6 – the Hungarians cross the French border, plundering the surroundings of Laon, Reims, Chalon, Metz, Gorze. After that, they return via Burgundy and Northern Italy.[64]
In Provence, the Hungarian army battled with the Arabs from the Muslim enclave of Fraxinet, when Conrad I of Burgundy fell on them by surprise and defeated the two combatant armies.[65]

955

Middle of July – Called by the Bavarian and Saxonian insurgents, a Hungarian army, led by Bulcsú, Lehel, Sur and Taksony break into Germany, plunder Bavaria, then enter Swabia, burning many monasteries.
Beginning of August – The Hungarians start to besiege Augsburg.
August 10 – The German army of Otto I defeats the Hungarian army, and put it to flight, in the Battle of Lechfeld. Despite the victory, the German losses were heavy, among them many nobles: Conrad, Duke of Lorraine, Count Dietpald, Ulrich count of Aargau, the Bavarian count Berthold, etc.[66]
August 10–11 – The Germans capture Bulcsú, Lehel and Sur. Many Hungarians die during the flight, killed by the Germans.
August 15 – Bulcsú, Lehel and Sur are hanged in Regensburg.[67] End of the Hungarian invasions towards the West.

959 April–May – Because in 957 the Byzantines ceased the payment of the tribute, a Hungarian army, led by Apor, attacks the empire, plunders its territories until Constantinople, but in their way back, it is defeated in, a night attack, by the Byzantine army.[68]
961 – A Hungarian army attacks Thrace and Macedonia, but it is defeated in, a night attack, by the Byzantine army.[68]
966 – The Hungarians attack the First Bulgarian Empire, and force tsar Peter I of Bulgaria to conclude peace with them, and to let them cross to Byzance.[69]
968 – A Hungarian army attacks the Byzantine Empire, and splits into two groups. Near Thessaloniki, one army groop of 300 men take 500 Greek captives, and takes them to Hungary. The other army groups of 200 men is ambushed by the Byzantine army, and takes 40 of them as captives. They become bodyguards of emperor Nikephoros II Phokas.[70]
970 – Sviatoslav I of Kiev attacks the Byzantine empire. His army has Hungarian auxiliary troops too. The Byzantines defeat Sviatoslav's army in the Battle of Arcadiopolis.[71] End of the Hungarian invasions of Europe.

text: Tactics[edit]

text: Their army had mostly light cavalry and were highly mobile.[72] Attacking without warning, they quickly plundered the countryside and departed before any defensive force could be organized.[72] If forced to fight, they would harass their enemies with arrows, then suddenly retreat, tempting their opponents to break ranks and pursue, after which the Hungarians would turn to fight them singly.[72] This tactic is formally known as a feigned retreat.

text: Aftermath[edit]

text: The Hungarians were the last invading people to establish a permanent presence in Central Europe.[72] Paul K. Davis writes, the "Magyar defeat (at the Battle of Lechfeld) ended more than 90 years of their pillaging western Europe and convinced survivors to settle down, creating the basis for the state of Hungary."[73] In the following centuries, the Hungarians adopted western European forms of feudal military organization, including the predominant use of heavily armored cavalry.[72]

text: Notes[edit]

text:
Jump up ^ Barbara H. Rosenwein, A short history of the Middle Ages, University of Toronto Press, 2009, p. 152 [1]
Jump up ^ Jean-Baptiste Duroselle, Europe: a history of its peoples, Viking, 1990, p. 124 [2]
^ Jump up to: a b c Király, Péter. Gondolatok a kalandozásokról M. G. Kellner "Ungarneinfälle..." könyve kapcsán.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Tóth, Sándor László (1998). Levediától a Kárpát-medencéig (From Levedia to the Carpathian Basin). Szeged: Szegedi Középkorász Műhely. ISBN 963-482-175-8.
Jump up ^ Kevin Alan Brook, The Jews of Khazaria, Rowman & Littlefield, 2009, p. 142.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e Kristó, Gyula (1993). A Kárpát-medence és a magyarság régmultja (1301-ig) (The ancient history of the Carpathian Basin and the Hungarians - till 1301). Szeged: Szegedi Középkorász Műhely. p. 299. ISBN 963-04-2914-4.
^ Jump up to: a b c d Victor Spinei, Text to be displayedThe Romanians and the Turkic nomads north of the Danube Delta from the tenth to the mid-thirteenth century, BRILL, 2009, p. 69
^ Jump up to: a b Csorba, Csaba (1997). Árpád népe (Árpád’s people). Budapest: Kulturtrade. p. 193. ISBN 963-9069-20-5.
Jump up ^ Gyula Kristó, Encyclopedia of the Early Hungarian History - 9-14th centuries[3]
Jump up ^ Lajos Gubcsi, Hungary in the Carpathian Basin, MoD Zrínyi Media Ltd, 2011
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j Timothy Reuter, The New Cambridge Medieval History: c. 900-c. 1024, Cambridge University Press, 1995, p. 543, ISBN 978-0-521-36447-8
Jump up ^ Peter Heather, Empires and Barbarians: The Fall of Rome and the Birth of Europe, Pan Macmillan, 2012, p. 369, ISBN 9780199892266
Jump up ^ Reuter, Timothy. Germany in the Early Middle Ages 800–1056. New York: Longman, 1991., p. 129
^ Jump up to: a b c Peter F. Sugar, Péter Hanák, A History of Hungary, Indiana University Press, 1994, p. 13
^ Jump up to: a b Florin Curta, Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500-1250, Cambridge University Press, 2006, p. 193, ISBN 978-0521815390
Jump up ^ Karl Leyser, Medieval Germany and its neighbours, 900-1250, Continuum International Publishing Group, 1982, p. 50 [4]
Jump up ^ The Magyars of Hungary
Jump up ^ Various authors, Santa Coloma de Farners a l'alta edat mitjana: La vila, l'ermita, el castell in Catalan
Jump up ^ Elter, I. (1981) Remarks on Ibn Hayyan's report on the Magyar raids on Spain, Magyar Nyelv 77, p. 413-419
Jump up ^ The Hungarians' Prehistory, their Conquest of Hungary, and their Raids to the West to 955, Laszlo Makkai, A History of Hungary, ed. Peter F. Sugar, Péter Hanák, Tibor Frank, (Indiana University Press, 1990), 13.
Jump up ^ Szabados György Vereség háttér nélkül? Augsburg 955 Hitel 18 (2005)/8. 24–30
Jump up ^ Nagy Kálmán: A honfoglalás korának hadtörténete; Heraldika Kiadó, Budapest, 2007, p. 168
Jump up ^ Bóna, István (2000). A magyarok és Európa a 9-10. században ("The Hungarians and Europe in the 9th-10th centuries") (in Hungarian). Budapest: História - MTA Történettudományi Intézete. p. 11. ISBN 963-8312-67-X.
^ Jump up to: a b c Bóna István 2000 p. 13
Jump up ^ Györffy György: A magyarok elődeiről és a honfoglalásról; Osiris Kiadó, Budapest, 2002 p. 88
Jump up ^ Györffy György, 2002 p. 124
Jump up ^ Györffy György, 2002 p. 300
Jump up ^ Róna-Tas András: A honfoglaló magyar nép; Balassi Kiadó, Budapest, 1996, p. 374
Jump up ^ Bóna István 2000 p. 26
Jump up ^ Bóna István 2000 p. 26-28
Jump up ^ Bóna István 2000 p. 29-32
Jump up ^ Bóna István 2000 p. 33
Jump up ^ Baják László: A fejedelmek kora. A korai magyar történet időrendi vázlata. II. rész. 900-1000 ("The Era of the Princes. The chronological sketch of the early Hungarian history. II. part. 900-1000"); ÓMT, Budapest, 2000 p. 8-9
^ Jump up to: a b c d e Baják László 2000 p. 9
^ Jump up to: a b Baják László 2000 p. 11
Jump up ^ Bóna István 2000 p. 34
Jump up ^ Aventinus, Johannes. "Annalium Boiorum Libri Septem, 1554 p. 481-482" (in Latin). Retrieved 2015-06-26. [permanent dead link]
^ Jump up to: a b Baják László 2000 p. 12
Jump up ^ Baják László 2000 p. 12-13
^ Jump up to: a b Baják László 2000 p. 13
Jump up ^ Baják László 2000 p. 13-14
^ Jump up to: a b c Baják László 2000 p. 14
Jump up ^ Baják László 2000 p. 14-15
^ Jump up to: a b c Baják László 2000 p. 15
Jump up ^ Bóna István 2000 p. 44
Jump up ^ Baják László 2000 p. 15-16
Jump up ^ Baják László 2000 p. 17-18
Jump up ^ Baják László 2000 p. 18
Jump up ^ Bóna István 2000 p. 39
Jump up ^ Baják László 2000 p. 18-19
Jump up ^ Baják László 2000 p. 19
^ Jump up to: a b Baják László 2000 p. 20
^ Jump up to: a b Baják László 2000 p. 21
Jump up ^ Baják László 2000 p. 20-21
^ Jump up to: a b Baják László 2000 p. 22-23
^ Jump up to: a b Baják László 2000 p. 23
Jump up ^ Baják László 2000 p. 24
^ Jump up to: a b Baják László 2000 p. 25
Jump up ^ Baják László 2000 p. 26
^ Jump up to: a b c d Baják László 2000 p. 27
Jump up ^ Kristó Gyula: Levedi törzsszövetségétől Szent István Államáig; Magvető Könyvkiadó, Budapest, 1980, p. 282
Jump up ^ Bóna István 2000 p. 51-52
Jump up ^ Baják László 2000 p. 28
Jump up ^ Baják László 2000 p. 28-29
Jump up ^ Ballan, Mohammad (2010). Fraxinetum: An Islamic Frontier State in Tenth-Century Provence. Comitatus: A Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies, Volume 41, 2010, p. 31.
Jump up ^ Bóna István 2000 p. 54
Jump up ^ Baják László 2000 p. 30-32
^ Jump up to: a b Baják László 2000 p. 33
Jump up ^ Baják László 2000 p. 34
Jump up ^ Baják László 2000 p. 35
Jump up ^ Baják László 2000 p. 36
^ Jump up to: a b c d e Stanley Sandler, Ground warfare: an international encyclopedia, Volume 1, Volume 1, ABC-CLIO, 2002, p. 527
Jump up ^ Davis, Paul K. (2001-04-15). 100 Decisive Battles: from Ancient Times to the Present. Oxford University Press US. p. 110. ISBN 978-0-19-514366-9. Retrieved 9 August 2011.

tag: ol