nuclear energy essay conclusion

Nuclear Power: Technical and Institutional Options for the Future (1992)

Chapter: 5 conclusions and recommendations, conclusions and recommendations.

The Committee was requested to analyze the technological and institutional alternatives to retain an option for future U.S. nuclear power deployment.

A premise of the Senate report directing this study is “that nuclear fission remains an important option for meeting our electric energy requirements and maintaining a balanced national energy policy.” The Committee was not asked to examine this premise, and it did not do so. The Committee consisted of members with widely ranging views on the desirability of nuclear power. Nevertheless, all members approached the Committee's charge from the perspective of what would be necessary if we are to retain nuclear power as an option for meeting U.S. electric energy requirements, without attempting to achieve consensus on whether or not it should be retained. The Committee's conclusions and recommendations should be read in this context.

The Committee's review and analyses have been presented in previous chapters. Here the Committee consolidates the conclusions and recommendations found in the previous chapters and adds some additional conclusions and recommendations based upon some of the previous statements. The Committee also includes some conclusions and recommendations that are not explicitly based upon the earlier chapters but stem from the considerable experience of the Committee members.

Most of the following discussion contains conclusions. There also are a few recommendations. Where the recommendations appear they are identified as such by bold italicized type.

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

In 1989, nuclear plants produced about 19 percent of the United States ' electricity, 77 percent of France's electricity, 26 percent of Japan's electricity, and 33 percent of West Germany's electricity. However, expansion of commercial nuclear energy has virtually halted in the United States. In other countries, too, growth of nuclear generation has slowed or stopped. The reasons in the United States include reduced growth in demand for electricity, high costs, regulatory uncertainty, and public opinion. In the United States, concern for safety, the economics of nuclear power, and waste disposal issues adversely affect the general acceptance of nuclear power.

Electricity Demand

Estimated growth in summer peak demand for electricity in the United States has fallen from the 1974 projection of more than 7 percent per year to a relatively steady level of about 2 percent per year. Plant orders based on the projections resulted in cancellations, extended construction schedules, and excess capacity during much of the 1970s and 1980s. The excess capacity has diminished in the past five years, and ten year projections (at approximately 2 percent per year) suggest a need for new capacity in the 1990s and beyond. To meet near-term anticipated demand, bidding by non-utility generators and energy efficiency providers is establishing a trend for utilities acquiring a substantial portion of this new generating capacity from others. Reliance on non-utility generators does not now favor large scale baseload technologies.

Nuclear power plants emit neither precursors to acid rain nor gases that contribute to global warming, like carbon dioxide. Both of these environmental issues are currently of great concern. New regulations to address these issues will lead to increases in the costs of electricity produced by combustion of coal, one of nuclear power's main competitors. Increased costs for coal-generated electricity will also benefit alternate energy sources that do not emit these pollutants.

Major deterrents for new U.S. nuclear plant orders include high capital carrying charges, driven by high construction costs and extended construction times, as well as the risk of not recovering all construction costs.

Construction Costs

Construction costs are hard to establish, with no central source, and inconsistent data from several sources. Available data show a wide range of costs for U.S. nuclear plants, with the most expensive costing three times more (in dollars per kilowatt electric) than the least expensive in the same year of commercial operation. In the post-Three Mile Island era, the cost increases have been much larger. Considerable design modification and retrofitting to meet new regulations contributed to cost increases. From 1971 to 1980, the most expensive nuclear plant (in constant dollars) increased by 30 percent. The highest cost for a nuclear plant beginning commercial operation in the United States was twice as expensive (in constant dollars) from 1981 to 1984 as it was from 1977 to 1980.

Construction Time

Although plant size also increased, the average time to construct a U.S. nuclear plant went from about 5 years prior to 1975 to about 12 years from 1985 to 1989. U.S. construction times are much longer than those in other major nuclear countries, except for the United Kingdom. Over the period 1978 to 1989, the U.S. average construction time was nearly twice that of France and more than twice that of Japan.

Billions of dollars in disallowances of recovery of costs from utility ratepayers have made utilities and the financial community leery of further investments in nuclear power plants. During the 1980s, rate base disallowances by state regulators totaled about $14 billion for nuclear plants, but only about $0.7 billion for non-nuclear plants.

Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for U.S. nuclear plants have increased faster than for coal plants. Over the decade of the 1980s, U.S. nuclear O&M-plus-fuel costs grew from nearly half to about the same as those for fossil fueled plants, a significant shift in relative advantage.

Performance

On average, U.S. nuclear plants have poorer capacity factors compared to those of plants in other Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries. On a lifetime basis, the United States is barely above 60 percent capacity factor, while France and Japan are at 68 percent, and West Germany is at 74 percent. Moreover, through 1988 12 U.S. plants were in the bottom 22. However, some U.S. plants do very well: 3 of the top 22 OECD plants through 1988 were U.S. U.S. plants averaged 65 percent in 1988, 63 percent in 1989, and 68 percent in 1990.

Except for capacity factors, the performance indicators of U.S. nuclear plants have improved significantly over the past several years. If the industry is to achieve parity with the operating performance in other countries, it must carefully examine its failure to achieve its own goal in this area and develop improved strategies, including better management practices. Such practices are important if the generators are to develop confidence that the new generation of plants can achieve the higher load factors estimated by the vendors.

Public Attitudes

There has been substantial opposition to new plants. The failure to solve the high-level radioactive waste disposal problem has harmed nuclear power's public image. It is the Committee's opinion, based upon our experience, that, more recently, an inability of states, that are members of regional compact commissions, to site low-level radioactive waste facilities has also harmed nuclear power's public image.

Several factors seem to influence the public to have a less than positive attitude toward new nuclear plants:

no perceived urgency for new capacity;

nuclear power is believed to be more costly than alternatives;

concerns that nuclear power is not safe enough;

little trust in government or industry advocates of nuclear power;

concerns about the health effects of low-level radiation;

concerns that there is no safe way to dispose of high-level waste; and

concerns about proliferation of nuclear weapons.

The Committee concludes that the following would improve public opinion of nuclear power:

a recognized need for a greater electrical supply that can best be met by large plants;

economic sanctions or public policies imposed to reduce fossil fuel burning;

maintaining the safe operation of existing nuclear plants and informing the public;

providing the opportunity for meaningful public participation in nuclear power issues, including generation planning, siting, and oversight;

better communication on the risk of low-level radiation;

resolving the high-level waste disposal issue; and

assurance that a revival of nuclear power would not increase proliferation of nuclear weapons.

As a result of operating experience, improved O&M training programs, safety research, better inspections, and productive use of probabilistic risk analysis, safety is continually improved. The Committee concludes that the risk to the health of the public from the operation of current reactors in the United States is very small. In this fundamental sense, current reactors are safe. However, a significant segment of the public has a different perception and also believes that the level of safety can and should be increased. The

development of advanced reactors is in part an attempt to respond to this public attitude.

Institutional Changes

The Committee believes that large-scale deployment of new nuclear power plants will require significant changes by both industry and government.

One of the most important factors affecting the future of nuclear power in the United States is its cost in relation to alternatives and the recovery of these capital and operating charges through rates that are charged for the electricity produced. Chapter 2 of this report deals with these issues in some detail. As stated there, the industry must develop better methods for managing the design and construction of nuclear plants. Arrangements among the participants that would assure timely, economical, and high-quality construction of new nuclear plants, the Committee believes, will be prerequisites to an adequate degree of assurance of capital cost recovery from state regulatory authorities in advance of construction. The development of state prudency laws also can provide a positive response to this issue.

The Committee and others are well aware of the increases in nuclear plant construction and operating costs over the last 20 years and the extension of plant construction schedules over this same period. 1 The Committee believes there are many reasons for these increases but is unable to disaggregate the cost effect among these reasons with any meaningful precision.

Like others, the Committee believes that the financial community and the generators must both be satisfied that significant improvements can be achieved before new plants can be ordered. In addition, the Committee believes that greater confidence in the control of costs can be realized with plant designs that are more nearly complete before construction begins, plants that are easier to construct, use of better construction and management methods, and business arrangements among the participants that provide stronger incentives for cost-effective, timely completion of projects.

It is the Committee's opinion, based upon our experience, that the principal participants in the nuclear industry--utilities, architect-engineers, and suppliers –should begin now to work out the full range of contractual arrangements for advanced nuclear power plants. Such arrangements would

increase the confidence of state regulatory bodies and others that the principal participants in advanced nuclear power plant projects will be financially accountable for the quality, timeliness, and economy of their products and services.

Inadequate management practices have been identified at some U.S. utilities, large and small public and private. Because of the high visibility of nuclear power and the responsibility for public safety, a consistently higher level of demonstrated utility management practices is essential before the U.S. public's attitude about nuclear power is likely to improve.

Over the past decade, utilities have steadily strengthened their ability to be responsible for the safety of their plants. Their actions include the formation and support of industry institutions, including the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO). Self-assessment and peer oversight through INPO are acknowledged to be strong and effective means of improving the performance of U.S. nuclear power plants. The Committee believes that such industry self-improvement, accountability, and self-regulation efforts improve the ability to retain nuclear power as an option for meeting U.S. electric energy requirements. The Committee encourages industry efforts to reduce reliance on the adversarial approach to issue resolution.

It is the Committee's opinion, based upon our experience, that the nuclear industry should continue to take the initiative to bring the standards of every American nuclear plant up to those of the best plants in the United States and the world. Chronic poor performers should be identified publicly and should face the threat of insurance cancellations. Every U.S. nuclear utility should continue its full-fledged participation in INPO; any new operators should be required to become members through insurance prerequisites or other institutional mechanisms.

Standardization. The Committee views a high degree of standardization as very important for the retention of nuclear power as an option for meeting U.S. electric energy requirements. There is not a uniformly accepted definition of standardization. The industry, under the auspices of the Nuclear Power Oversight Committee, has developed a position paper on standardization that provides definitions of the various phases of standardization and expresses an industry commitment to standardization. The Committee believes that a strong and sustained commitment by the principal participants will be required to realize the potential benefits of standardization (of families of plants) in the diverse U.S. economy. It is the Committee's opinion, based upon our experience, that the following will be necessary:

Families of standardized plants will be important for ensuring the highest levels of safety and for realizing the potential economic benefits of new nuclear plants. Families of standardized plants will allow standardized approaches to plant modification, maintenance, operation, and training.

Customers, whether utilities or other entities, must insist on standardization before an order is placed, during construction, and throughout the life of the plant.

Suppliers must take standardization into account early in planning and marketing. Any supplier of standardized units will need the experience and resources for a long-term commitment.

Antitrust considerations will have to be properly taken into account to develop standardized plants.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

An obstacle to continued nuclear power development has been the uncertainties in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) licensing process. Because the current regulatory framework was mainly intended for light water reactors (LWR) with active safety systems and because regulatory standards were developed piecemeal over many years, without review and consolidation, the regulations should be critically reviewed and modified (or replaced with a more coherent body of regulations) for advanced reactors of other types. The Committee recommends that NRC comprehensively review its regulations to prepare for advance reactors, in particular. LWRs with passive safety features. The review should proceed from first principles to develop a coherent, consistent set of regulations.

The Committee concludes that NRC should improve the quality of its regulation of existing and future nuclear power plants, including tighter management controls over all of its interactions with licensees and consistency of regional activities. Industry has proposed such to NRC.

The Committee encourages efforts by NRC to reduce reliance on the adversarial approach to issue resolution. The Committee recommends that NRC encourage industry self-improvement, accountability, and self-regulation initia tives . While federal regulation plays an important safety role, it must not be allowed to detract from or undermine the accountability of utilities and their line management organizations for the safety of their plants.

It is the Committee's expectation that economic incentive programs instituted by state regulatory bodies will continue for nuclear power plant operators. Properly formulated and administered, these programs should improve the economic performance of nuclear plants, and they may also enhance safety. However, they do have the potential to provide incentives counter to safety. The Committee believes that such programs should focus

on economic incentives and avoid incentives that can directly affect plant safety. On July 18, 1991 NRC issued a Nuclear Regulatory Commission Policy Statement which expressed concern that such incentive programs may adversely affect safety and commits NRC to monitoring such programs. A joint industry/state study of economic incentive programs could help assure that such programs do not interfere with the safe operation of nuclear power plants.

It is the Committee's opinion, based upon our experience, that NRC should continue to exercise its federally mandated preemptive authority over the regulation of commercial nuclear power plant safety if the activities of state government agencies (or other public or private agencies) run counter to nuclear safety. Such activities would include those that individually or in the aggregate interfere with the ability of the organization with direct responsibility for nuclear plant safety (the organization licensed by the Commission to operate the plant) to meet this responsibility. The Committee urges close industry-state cooperation in the safety area.

It is also the Committee's opinion, based upon our experience, that the industry must have confidence in the stability of NRC's licensing process. Suppliers and utilities need assurance that licensing has become and will remain a manageable process that appropriately limits the late introduction of new issues.

It is likely that, if the possibility of a second hearing before a nuclear plant can be authorized to operate is to be reduced or eliminated, legislation will be necessary. The nuclear industry is convinced that such legislation will be required to increase utility and investor confidence to retain nuclear power as an option for meeting U.S. electric energy requirements. The Committee concurs.

It is the Committee's opinion, based upon our experience, that potential nuclear power plant sponsors must not face large unanticipated cost increases as a result of mid-course regulatory changes, such as backfits. NRC 's new licensing rule, 10 CFR Part 52, provides needed incentives for standardized designs.

Industry and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

The U.S. system of nuclear regulation is inherently adversarial, but mitigation of unnecessary tension in the relations between NRC and its nuclear power licensees would, in the Committee's opinion, improve the regulatory environment and enhance public health and safety. Thus, the Committee commends the efforts by both NRC and the industry to work

more cooperatively together and encourages both to continue and strengthen these efforts.

Department of Energy

Lack of resolution of the high-level waste problem jeopardizes future nuclear power development. The Committee believes that the legal status of the Yucca Mountain site for a geologic repository should be resolved soon, and that the Department of Energy's (DOE) program to investigate this site should be continued. In addition, a contingency plan must be developed to store high-level radioactive waste in surface storage facilities pending the availability of the geologic repository.

Environmental Protection Agency

The problems associated with establishing a high-level waste site at Yucca Mountain are exacerbated by the requirement that, before operation of a repository begins, DOE must demonstrate to NRC that the repository will perform to standards established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). NRC's staff has strongly questioned the workability of these quantitative requirements, as have the National Research Council's Radioactive Waste Management Board and others. The Committee concludes that the EPA standard for disposal of high-level waste will have to be reevaluated to ensure that a standard that is both adequate and feasible is applied to the geologic waste repository.

Administration and Congress

The Price-Anderson Act will expire in 2002. The Committee sought to discover whether or not such protection would be required for advanced reactors. The clear impression the Committee received from industry representatives was that some such protection would continue to be needed, although some Committee members believe that this was an expression of desire rather than of need. At the very least, renewal of Price-Anderson in 2002 would be viewed by the industry as a supportive action by Congress and would eliminate the potential disruptive effect of developing alternative liability arrangements with the insurance industry. Failure to renew Price-Anderson in 2002 would raise a new impediment to nuclear power plant orders as well as possibly reduce an assured source of funds to accident victims.

The Committee believes that the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) approach to safety investigations, as a substitute for the present NRC approach, has merit. In view of the infrequent nature of the activities of such a committee, it may be feasible for it to be established on an ad hoc basis and report directly to the NRC chairman. Therefore, the Committee recommends that such a small safety review entity be established. Before the establishment of such an activity, its charter should be carefully defined, along with a clear delineation of the classes of accidents it would investigate. Its location in the government and its reporting channels should also be specified. The function of this group would parallel those of NTSB. Specifically, the group would conduct independent public investigations of serious incidents and accidents at nuclear power plants and would publish reports evaluating the causes of these events. This group would have only a small administrative structure and would bring in independent experts, including those from both industry and government, to conduct its investigations.

It is the Committee's opinion, based upon our experience, that responsible arrangements must be negotiated between sponsors and economic regulators to provide reasonable assurances of complete cost recovery for nuclear power plant sponsors. Without such assurances, private investment capital is not likely to flow to this technology.

In Chapter 2 , the Committee addressed the non-recovery of utility costs in rate proceedings and concluded that better methods of dealing with this issue must be established. The Committee was impressed with proposals for periodic reviews of construction progress and costs--“rolling prudency” determinations--as one method for managing the risks of cost recovery. The Committee believes that enactment of such legislation could remove much of the investor risk and uncertainty currently associated with state regulatory treatment of new power plant construction, and could therefore help retain nuclear power as an option for meeting U.S. electric energy requirements.

On balance, however, unless many states adopt this or similar legislation, it is the Committee's view that substantial assurances probably cannot be given, especially in advance of plant construction, that all costs incurred in building nuclear plants will be allowed into rate bases.

The Committee notes the current trend toward economic deregulation of electric power generation. It is presently unclear whether this trend is compatible with substantial additions of large-scale, utility-owned, baseload generating capacity, and with nuclear power plants in particular.

It is the Committee's opinion, based upon our experience, that regional low-level radioactive waste compact commissions must continue to establish disposal sites.

The institutional challenges are clearly substantial. If they are to be met, the Committee believes that the Federal government must decide, as a matter of national policy, whether a strong and growing nuclear power program is vital to the economic, environmental, and strategic interests of the American people. Only with such a clearly stated policy, enunciated by the President and backed by the Congress through appropriate statutory changes and appropriations, will it be possible to effect the institutional changes necessary to return the flow of capital and human resources required to properly employ this technology.

Alternative Reactor Technologies

Advanced reactors are now in design or development. They are being designed to be simpler, and, if design goals are realized, these plants will be safer than existing reactors. The design requirements for the advanced reactors are more stringent than the NRC safety goal policy. If final safety designs of advanced reactors, and especially those with passive safety features, are as indicated to this Committee, an attractive feature of them should be the significant reduction in system complexity and corresponding improvement in operability. While difficult to quantify, the benefit of improvements in the operator 's ability to monitor the plant and respond to system degradations may well equal or exceed that of other proposed safety improvements.

The reactor concepts assessed by the Committee were the large evolutionary LWRs, the mid-sized LWRs with passive safety features, 2 the Canadian deuterium uranium (CANDU) heavy water reactor, the modular high-temperature gas-cooled reactor (MHTGR), the safe integral reactor (SIR), the process inherent ultimate safety (PIUS) reactor, and the liquid metal reactor (LMR). The Committee developed the following criteria for comparing these reactor concepts:

safety in operation;

economy of construction and operation;

suitability for future deployment in the U.S. market;

fuel cycle and environmental considerations;

safeguards for resistance to diversion and sabotage;

technology risk and development schedule; and

amenability to efficient and predictable licensing.

With regard to advanced designs, the Committee reached the following conclusions.

Large Evolutionary Light Water Reactors

The large evolutionary LWRs offer the most mature technology. The first standardized design to be certified in the United States is likely to be an evolutionary LWR. The Committee sees no need for federal research and development (R&D) funding for these concepts, although federal funding could accelerate the certification process.

Mid-sized Light Water Reactors with Passive Safety Features

The mid-sized LWRs with passive safety features are designed to be simpler, with modular construction to reduce construction times and costs, and to improve operations. They are likely the next to be certified.

Because there is no experience in building such plants, cost projections for the first plant are clearly uncertain. To reduce the economic uncertainties it will be necessary to demonstrate the construction technology and improved operating performance. These reactors differ from current reactors in construction approach, plant configuration, and safety features. These differences do not appear so great as to require that a first plant be built for NRC certification. While a prototype in the traditional sense will not be required, the Committee concludes that no first-plant mid-sized LWR with passive safety features is likely to be certified and built without government incentives, in the form of shared funding or financial guarantees.

CANDU Heavy Water Reactor

The Committee judges that the CANDU ranks below the advanced mid-sized LWRs in market potential. The CANDU-3 reactor is farther along in design than the mid-sized LWRs with passive safety features. However, it has not entered NRC's design certification process. Commission requirements are complex and different from those in Canada so that U.S. certification

could be a lengthy process. However, the CANDU reactor can probably be licensed in this century.

The heavy water reactor is a mature design, and Canadian entry into the U.S. marketplace would give added insurance of adequate nuclear capacity if it is needed in the future. But the CANDU does not offer advantages sufficient to justify U.S. government assistance to initiate and conduct its licensing review.

Modular High-Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor

The MHTGR posed a difficult set of questions for the Committee. U.S. and foreign experience with commercial gas-cooled reactors has not been good. A consortium of industry and utility people continue to promote federal funding and to express interest in the concept, while none has committed to an order.

The reactor, as presently configured, is located below ground level and does not have a conventional containment. The basic rationale of the designers is that a containment is not needed because of the safety features inherent in the properties of the fuel.

However, the Committee was not convinced by the presentations that the core damage frequency for the MHTGR has been demonstrated to be low enough to make a containment structure unnecessary. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory estimates that data to confirm fuel performance will not be available before 1994. The Committee believes that reliance on the defense-in-depth concept must be retained, and accurate evaluation of safety will require evaluation of a detailed design.

A demonstration plant for the MHTGR could be licensed slightly after the turn of the century, with certification following demonstration of successful operation. The MHTGR needs an extensive R&D program to achieve commercial readiness in the early part of the next century. The construction and operation of a first plant would likely be required before design certification. Recognizing the opposite conclusion of the MHTGR proponents, the Committee was not convinced that a foreseeable commercial market exists for MHTGR-produced process heat, which is the unique strategic capability of the MHTGR. Based on the Committee 's view on containment requirements, and the economics and technology issues, the Committee judged the market potential for the MHTGR to be low.

The Committee believes that no funds should be allocated for development of high-temperature gas-cooled reactor technology within the commercial nuclear power development budget of DOE.

Safe Integral Reactor and Process Inherent Ultimate Safety Reactor

The other advanced light water designs the Committee examined were the United Kingdom and U.S. SIR and the Swedish PIUS reactor.

The Committee believes there is no near-term U.S. market for SIR and PIUS. The development risks for SIR and PIUS are greater than for the other LWRs and CANDU-3. The lack of operational and regulatory experience for these two is expected to significantly delay their acceptance by utilities. SIR and PIUS need much R&D, and a first plant will probably be required before design certification is approved.

The Committee concluded that no Federal funds should be allocated for R&D on SIR or PIUS.

Liquid Metal Reactor

LMRs offer advantages because of their potential ability to provide a long-term energy supply through a nearly complete use of uranium resources. Were the nuclear option to be chosen, and large scale deployment follow, at some point uranium supplies at competitive prices might be exhausted. Breeder reactors offer the possibility of extending fissionable fuel supplies well past the next century. In addition, actinides, including those from LWR spent fuel, can undergo fission without significantly affecting performance of an advanced LMR, transmuting the actinides to fission products, most of which, except for technetium, carbon, and some others of little import, have half-lives very much shorter than the actinides. (Actinides are among the materials of greatest concern in nuclear waste disposal beyond about 300 years.) However, substantial further research is required to establish (1) the technical and the economic feasibility of recycling in LMRs actinides recovered from LWR spent fuel, and (2) whether high-recovery recycling of transuranics and their transmutation can, in fact, benefit waste disposal. Assuming success, it would still be necessary to dispose of high-level waste, although the waste would largely consist of significantly shorter-lived fission products. Special attention will be necessary to ensure that the LMR's reprocessing facilities are not vulnerable to sabotage or to theft of plutonium.

The unique property of the LMR, fuel breeding, might lead to a U.S. market, but only in the long term. From the viewpoint of commercial licensing, it is far behind the evolutionary and mid-sized LWRs with passive safety features in having a commercial design available for review. A federally funded program, including one or more first plants, will be required before any LMR concept would be accepted by U.S. utilities.

Net Assessment

The Committee could not make any meaningful quantitative comparison of the relative safety of the various advanced reactor designs. The Committee believes that each of the concepts considered can be designed and operated to meet or closely approach the safety objectives currently proposed for future, advanced LWRs. The different advanced reactor designs employ different mixes of active and passive safety features. The Committee believes that there currently is no single optimal approach to improved safety. Dependence on passive safety features does not, of itself, ensure greater safety. The Committee believes that a prudent design course retains the historical defense-in-depth approach.

The economic projections are highly uncertain, first, because past experience suggests higher costs, longer construction times, and lower availabilities than projected and, second, because of different assumptions and levels of maturity among the designs. The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) data, which the Committee believes to be more reliable than that of the vendors, indicate that the large evolutionary LWRs are likely to be the least costly to build and operate on a cost per kilowatt electric or kilowatt hour basis, while the high-temperature gas-cooled reactors and LMRs are likely to be the most expensive. EPRI puts the mid-sized LWRs with passive safety features between the two extremes.

Although there are definite differences in the fuel cycle characteristics of the advanced reactors, fuel cycle considerations did not offer much in the way of discrimination among reactors, nor did safeguards and security considerations, particularly for deployment in the United States. However, the CANDU (with on-line refueling and heavy water) and the LMR (with reprocessing) will require special attention to safeguards.

SIR, MHTGR, PIUS, and LMR are not likely to be deployed for commercial use in the United States, at least within the next 20 years. The development required for commercialization of any of these concepts is substantial.

It is the Committee's overall assessment that the large evolutionary LWRs and the mid-sized LWRs with passive safety features rank highest relative to the Committee 's evaluation criteria. The evolutionary reactors could be ready for deployment by 2000, and the mid-sized could be ready for initial plant construction soon after 2000. The Committee's evaluations and overall assessment are summarized in Figure 5-1 .

FIGURE 5.1 Assessment of advanced reactor technologies.

This table is an attempt to summarize the Committee's qualitative rankings of selected reactor types against each other , without reference either to an absolute standard or to the performance of any other energy resource options, This evaluation was based on the Committee's professional judgment.

The Committee has concluded the following:

Safety and cost are the most important characteristics for future nuclear power plants.

LWRs of the large evolutionary and the mid-sized advanced designs offer the best potential for competitive costs (in that order).

Safety benefits among all reactor types appear to be about equal at this stage in the design process. Safety must be achieved by attention to all failure modes and levels of design by a multiplicity of safety barriers and features. Consequently, in the absence of detailed engineering design and because of the lack of construction and operating experience with the actual concepts, vendor claims of safety superiority among conceptual designs cannot be substantiated.

LWRs can be deployed to meet electricity production needs for the first quarter of the next century:

The evolutionary LWRs are further developed and, because of international projects, are most complete in design. They are likely to be the first plants certified by NRC. They are expected to be the first of the advanced reactors available for commercial use and could operate in the 2000 to 2005 time frame. Compared to current reactors, significant improvements in safety appear likely. Compared to recently completed high-cost reactors, significant improvements also appear possible in cost if institutional barriers are resolved. While little or no federal funding is deemed necessary to complete the process, such funding could accelerate the process.

Because of the large size and capital investment of evolutionary reactors, utilities that might order nuclear plants may be reluctant to do so. If nuclear power plants are to be available to a broader range of potential U.S. generators, the development of the mid-sized plants with passive safety features is important. These reactors are progressing in their designs, through DOE and industry funding, toward certification in the 1995 to 2000 time frame. The Committee believes such funding will be necessary to complete the process. While a prototype in the traditional sense will not be required, federal funding will likely be required for the first mid-sized LWR with passive safety features to be ordered.

Government incentives, in the form of shared funding or financial guarantees, would likely accelerate the next order for a light water plant. The Committee has not addressed what type of government assistance should be provided nor whether the first advanced light water plant should be a large evolutionary LWR or a mid-sized passive LWR.

The CANDU-3 reactor is relatively advanced in design but represents technology that has not been licensed in the United States. The Committee did not find compelling reasons for federal funding to the vendor to support the licensing.

SIR and PIUS, while offering potentially attractive safety features, are unlikely to be ready for commercial use until after 2010. This alone may limit their market potential. Funding priority for research on these reactor systems is considered by the Committee to be low.

MHTGRs also offer potential safety features and possible process heat applications that could be attractive in the market place. However, based on the extensive experience base with light water technology in the United States, the lack of success with commercial use of gas technology, the likely higher costs of this technology compared with the alternatives, and the substantial development costs that are still required before certification, 3 the Committee concluded that the MHTGR had a low market potential. The Committee considered the possibility that the MHTGR might be selected as the new tritium production reactor for defense purposes and noted the vendor association's estimated reduction in development costs for a commercial version of the MHTGR. However, the Committee concluded, for the reasons summarized above, that the commercial MHTGR should be given low priority for federal funding.

LMR technology also provides enhanced safety features, but its uniqueness lies in the potential for extending fuel resources through breeding. While the market potential is low in the near term (before the second quarter of the next century), it could be an important long-term technology, especially if it can be demonstrated to be economic. The Committee believes that the LMR should have the highest priority for long-term nuclear technology development.

The problems of proliferation and physical security posed by the various technologies are different and require continued attention. Special attention will need to be paid to the LMR.

Alternative Research and Development Programs

The Committee developed three alternative R&D programs, each of which contains three common research elements: (1) reactor research using federal facilities. The experimental breeder reactor-II, hot fuel examination facility/south, and fuel manufacturing facility are retained for the LMR; (2) university research programs; and (3) improved performance and life extension programs for existing U.S. nuclear power plants.

The Committee concluded that federal support for development of a commercial version of the MHTGR should be a low priority. However, the fundamental design strategy of the MHTGR is based upon the integrity of the fuel (=1600°C) under operation and accident conditions. There are other potentially significant uses for such fuel, in particular, space propulsion. Consequently, the Committee believes that DOE should consider maintaining a coated fuel particle research program within that part of DOE focused on space reactors.

Alternative 1 adds funding to assist development of the mid-sized LWRs with passive safety features. Alternative 2 adds a LMR development program and associated facilities--the transient reactor test facility, the zero power physics reactor, the Energy Technology Engineering Center, and either the hot fuel examination facility/north in Idaho or the Hanford hot fuel examination facility. This alternative would also include limited research to examine the feasibility of recycling actinides from LWR spent fuel, utilizing the LMR. Finally, Alternative 3 adds the fast flux test facility and increases LMR funding to accelerate reactor and integral fast reactor fuel cycle development and examination of actinide recycle of LWR spent fuel.

None of the three alternatives contain funding for development of the MHTGR, SIR, PIUS, or CANDU-3.

Significant analysis and research is required to assess both the technical and economic feasibility of recycling actinides from LWR spent fuel. The Committee notes that a study of separations technology and transmutation systems was initiated in 1991 by DOE through the National Research Council's Board on Radioactive Waste Management.

It is the Committee's judgment that Alternative 2 should be followed because it:

provides adequate support for the most promising near-term reactor technologies;

provides sufficient support for LMR development to maintain the technical capabilities of the LMR R&D community;

would support deployment of LMRs to breed fuel by the second quarter of the next century should that be needed; and

would maintain a research program in support of both existing and advanced reactors.

The construction of nuclear power plants in the United States is stopping, as regulators, reactor manufacturers, and operators sort out a host of technical and institutional problems.

This volume summarizes the status of nuclear power, analyzes the obstacles to resumption of construction of nuclear plants, and describes and evaluates the technological alternatives for safer, more economical reactors. Topics covered include:

• Institutional issues—including regulatory practices at the federal and state levels, the growing trends toward greater competition in the generation of electricity, and nuclear and nonnuclear generation options.
• Critical evaluation of advanced reactors—covering attributes such as cost, construction time, safety, development status, and fuel cycles.

Finally, three alternative federal research and development programs are presented.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

ENVS 202 Nuclear Power

Just another university of oregon sites site.

We strove to answer the the question: While nuclear power plants are significantly cleaner and more environmentally friendly than coal or natural gas plants, are they worth the time, money, and energy to build even as they are not sustainable?

This was a very difficult question to answer, as there are so many different variables involved. To start off with, there are some facts that must be addressed:

1.) The use of coal and natural gas power plants  directly  contributes to climate change, as well as adverse health affects due to pollutants.

2.) The population of the United States is growing rapidly, and will continue to do so (source). As the population increases, the energy demand in the country will also increase.

3.) Americans use more electricity per capita than any other nation in the world (source).

4.) Nuclear power already provides nearly a fifth of the energy demands in the United States.

With those points clearly outlined, now we can begin to look at the various factors of nuclear power, and how they may be perceived as net positives or negatives.

Nuclear Power plants have the potential for both positive and negative impacts on the environment:

Positive Environmental Impact:

Nuclear power plants do not emit any particulate or gaseous pollution. This makes them far cleaner in the short term than either coal or natural gas power plants. Coal and gas plants produce carbon dioxide and methane, which act as greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere, actively trapping heat and contributing to global climate change. Since nuclear power plants do not emit this kind of pollution, they are a definite improvement in this area.

Nuclear power plants are also capable of producing huge quantities of electricity, further reducing the need for additional coal or gas power plants. Since nuclear plants can produce so much energy, far fewer are needed in order to meet demands than are coal or gas plants. Thus, the more nuclear power plants in the country, the lesser the need for coal or gas plants that contribute to climate change.

Negative Environmental Impact:

How radioactive waste from the Hanford site pollutes the Columbia river and its inhabitants.

As exemplified in Chernobyl, Ukraine, Fukushima, Japan, and Three  Mile Island, Pennsylvania; Nuclear disasters have massive environmental impacts. Although some may argue that they are few and far between, it is vital to understand the enormous global consequences of even just one disaster. After the Fukushima Diiachi disaster, radiation reached all the way to the North American coast in just 10 days.  Radiation came by both sea and air, and at least one salmon in British Columbia  was found with low levels of Cesium-134, an isotope released from the disaster.

However, even at sites that did not have meltdowns, there are issues. In south central Washington state, along the Columbia river sits a 586 square mile expanse that is home to the most contaminated site in the western hemisphere: the Hanford Nuclear Site (hanfordchallenge.org).  This site is known to have leaked over 1 million gallons of radioactive waste. While many would like to forget this disaster in our backyard, the Hanford site is so far up the Columbia river that it pollutes the river for several hundred miles until it is released into the Pacific Ocean.

Earlier in May, a tunnel containing radioactive waste collapsed, potentially leaking more radioactive waste into the environment we live in. It is now being declared an emergency situation (NPR).  Hanford is an excellent example of even a decommissioned  nuclear power plant becoming an environmental disaster.

Not worried about the environment? No problem!

There are plenty of human health hazards to be concerned about as well: For example, in an article published June 6th, 2017 by The Japan Times, seven more residents who were 18 years or younger at the time of the 2011 disaster at Fukushima, were just diagnosed with thyroid cancer, a cancer correlated with radiation exposure in children and young adults. This brings the number of Fukushima prefecture residents suffering from Thyroid cancer to 152 people (japantimes). There will never be any positive health benefits from Nuclear Power.

While there is no doubt that new Nuclear Power plants will bring jobs and economic growth to a region, the costs of building and maintaining new plants are so prohibitively expensive, that potential investors are shying away. Of the four planned new plants in the United States, two have already been canceled. It it likely that the other two will be abandoned as well due to alternative opportunities for investors. Some plants around the country (like Three Mile Island) are already in danger of closing just due to market pressures.

The renewable and green energy markets are expanding so rapidly, that new investors are more likely to choose them over nuclear power. Not only do renewables offer energy at with a much better Return on Investment (ROI), but they also offer great PR opportunities for energy companies. In the United States right now, solar, wind, and now wave power are growing so quickly, that it just does not make economic sense to build any new plants. If we as a country invest and subsidize renewable and green energy, the number jobs that would be created by new nuclear plants would be eclipsed by the available jobs working to create the production and installation methods for renewables.

Final Words:

Although there are some significant advantages to Nuclear Power over Coal and Natural Gas, those advantages disappear when compared to renewable energy technologies, and the potential for environmental disaster is huge, and long lasting.

It is of our firm belief, that there is no reason to continue building new Nuclear Power plants, and that investment should be made into wind, solar, hydro, wave, and other renewable and green energy resources, that will not harm the planet.

SOURCES (including images):

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/05/09/527605496/emergency-declared-at-nuclear-contaminated-site-in-washington-state

http://totalrehash.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/img_5915a79807e38.jpeghttp://totalrehash.com/for-west-coast-nuclear-hanford-threat-dwarfs-fukushima/

http://www.snopes.com/radioactive-salmon-fukushima/

http://www.hanfordchallenge.org

https://www.cancer.gov/types/thyroid/hp/thyroid-treatment-pdq

https://southeastenergy.wordpress.com/2010/02/25/tell-congress-we-want-renewable-solutions-not-nuclear-problems/

Seven more Fukushima residents diagnosed with thyroid cancer

Back to the Future Josh Freed

Leslie and mark's old/new idea.

The Nuclear Science and Engineering Library at MIT is not a place where most people would go to unwind. It’s filled with journals that have articles with titles like “Longitudinal double-spin asymmetry of electrons from heavy flavor decays in polarized p + p collisions at √s = 200 GeV.” But nuclear engineering Ph.D. candidates relax in ways all their own. In the winter of 2009, two of those candidates, Leslie Dewan and Mark Massie, were studying for their qualifying exams—a brutal rite of passage—and had a serious need to decompress.

To clear their heads after long days and nights of reviewing neutron transport, the mathematics behind thermohydraulics, and other such subjects, they browsed through the crinkled pages of journals from the first days of their industry—the glory days. Reading articles by scientists working in the 1950s and ‘60s, they found themselves marveling at the sense of infinite possibility those pioneers had brought to their work, in awe of the huge outpouring of creative energy. They were also curious about the dozens of different reactor technologies that had once been explored, only to be abandoned when the funding dried up.

The early nuclear researchers were all housed in government laboratories—at Oak Ridge in Tennessee, at the Idaho National Lab in the high desert of eastern Idaho, at Argonne in Chicago, and Los Alamos in New Mexico. Across the country, the nation’s top physicists, metallurgists, mathematicians, and engineers worked together in an atmosphere of feverish excitement, as government support gave them the freedom to explore the furthest boundaries of their burgeoning new field. Locked in what they thought of as a life-or-death race with the Soviet Union, they aimed to be first in every aspect of scientific inquiry, especially those that involved atom splitting.

1955: Argonne's BORAX III reactor provided all the electricity for Arco, Idaho, the first time any community's electricity was provided entirely by nuclear energy. Source: Wikimedia Commons

Though nuclear engineers were mostly men in those days, Leslie imagined herself working alongside them, wearing a white lab coat, thinking big thoughts. “It was all so fresh, so exciting, so limitless back then,” she told me. “They were designing all sorts of things: nuclear-powered cars and airplanes, reactors cooled by lead. Today, it’s much less interesting. Most of us are just working on ways to tweak basically the same light water reactor we’ve been building for 50 years.”

1958: The Ford Nucleon scale-model concept car developed by Ford Motor Company as a design of how a nuclear-powered car might look. Source: Wikimedia Commons

But because of something that she and Mark stumbled across in the library during one of their forays into the old journals, Leslie herself is not doing that kind of tweaking—she’s trying to do something much more radical. One night, Mark showed Leslie a 50-year-old paper from Oak Ridge about a reactor powered not by rods of metal-clad uranium pellets in water, like the light water reactors of today, but by a liquid fuel of uranium mixed into molten salt to keep it at a constant temperature. The two were intrigued, because it was clear from the paper that the molten salt design could potentially be constructed at a lower cost and shut down more easily in an emergency than today’s light water reactors. And the molten salt design wasn’t just theoretical—Oak Ridge had built a real reactor, which ran from 1965-1969, racking up 20,000 operating hours.

The 1960s-era salt reactor was interesting, but at first blush it didn’t seem practical enough to revive. It was bulky, expensive, and not very efficient. Worse, it ran on uranium enriched to levels far above the modern legal limit for commercial nuclear power. Most modern light water reactors run on 5 percent enriched uranium, and it is illegal under international and domestic law for commercial power generators to use anything above 20 percent, because at levels that high uranium can be used for making weapons. The Oak Ridge molten salt reactor needed uranium enriched to at least 33 percent, possibly even higher.

Aircraft Reactor Experiment building at ORNL (Extensive research into molten salt reactors started with the U.S. aircraft reactor experiment (ARE) in support of the U.S. Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion program.) Wikimedia Commons

1964: Molten salt reactor at Oak Ridge. Source: Wikimedia Commons

But they were aware that smart young engineers were considering applying modern technology to several other decades-old reactor designs from the dawn of the nuclear age, and this one seemed to Leslie and Mark to warrant a second look. After finishing their exams, they started searching for new materials that could be used in a molten salt reactor to make it both legal and more efficient. If they could show that a modified version of the old design could compete with—or exceed—the performance of today’s light water reactors, they knew they might have a very interesting project on their hands.

First, they took a look at the fuel. By using different, more modern materials, they had a theory that they could get the reactor to work at very low enrichment levels. Maybe, they hoped, even significantly below 5 percent.

There was a good reason to hope. Today’s reactors produce a significant amount of nuclear “waste,” many tons of which are currently sitting in cooling pools and storage canisters at plant sites all over the country. The reason that the waste has to be managed so carefully is that when they are discarded, the uranium fuel rods contain about 95 percent of the original amount of energy and remain both highly radioactive and hot enough to boil water. It dawned on Leslie and Mark that if they could chop up the rods and remove their metal cladding, they might have a “killer app”—a sector-redefining technology like Uber or Airbnb—for their molten salt reactor design, enabling it to run on the waste itself.

By late 2010, the computer modeling they were doing suggested this might indeed work. When Leslie left for a trip to Egypt with her family in January 2011, Mark kept running simulations back at MIT. On January 11, he sent his partner an email that she read as she toured the sites of Alexandria. The note was highly technical, but said in essence that Mark’s latest work confirmed their hunch—they could indeed make their reactor run on nuclear waste. Leslie looked up from her phone and said to her brother: “I need to go back to Boston.”

Watch Leslie Dewan and Mark Massie on the future of nuclear energy

Climate Change Spurs New Call for Nuclear Energy

In the days when Leslie and Mark were studying for their exams, it may have seemed that the Golden Age of nuclear energy in the United States had long since passed. Not a single new commercial reactor project had been built here in over 30 years. Not only were there no new reactors, but with the fracking boom having produced abundant supplies of cheap natural gas, some electric utilities were shutting down their aging reactors rather than doing the costly upgrades needed to keep them online.

As the domestic reactor market went into decline, the American supply chain for nuclear reactor parts withered. Although almost all commercial nuclear technology had been discovered in the United States, our competitors eventually purchased much of our nuclear industrial base, with Toshiba buying Westinghouse, for example.* Not surprisingly, as the nuclear pioneers aged and young scientists stayed away from what seemed to be a dying industry, the number of nuclear engineers also dwindled over the decades. In addition, the American regulatory system, long considered the gold standard for western nuclear systems, began to lose influence as other countries pressed ahead with new reactor construction while the U.S. market remained dormant.

Yet something has changed in recent years. Leslie and Mark are not really outliers. All of a sudden, a flood of young engineers has entered the field. More than 1,164 nuclear engineering degrees were awarded in 2013—a 160 percent increase over the number granted a decade ago.

So what, after a 30-year drought, is drawing smart young people back to the nuclear industry? The answer is climate change. Nuclear energy currently provides about 20 percent of the electric power in the United States, and it does so without emitting any greenhouse gases. Compare that to the amount of electricity produced by the other main non-emitting sources of power, the so-called “renewables”—hydroelectric (6.8 percent), wind (4.2 percent) and solar (about one quarter of a percent). Not only are nuclear plants the most important of the non-emitting sources, but they provide baseload—“always there”—power, while most renewables can produce electricity only intermittently, when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining.

In 2014, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations-based organization that is the leading international body for the assessment of climate risk, issued a desperate call for more non-emitting power sources. According to the IPCC, in order to mitigate climate change and meet growing energy demands, the world must aggressively expand its sources of renewable energy, and it must also build more than 400 new nuclear reactors in the next 20 years—a near-doubling of today’s global fleet of 435 reactors. However, in the wake of the tsunami that struck Japan’s Fukushima Daichi plant in 2011, some countries are newly fearful about the safety of light water reactors. Germany, for example, vowed to shutter its entire nuclear fleet.

November 6, 2013: The spent fuel pool inside the No.4 reactor building at the tsunami-crippled Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s (TEPCO) Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. Source: REUTERS/Kyodo (Japan)

The young scientists entering the nuclear energy field know all of this. They understand that a major build-out of nuclear reactors could play a vital role in saving the world from climate disaster. But they also recognize that for that to happen, there must be significant changes in the technology of the reactors, because fear of light water reactors means that the world is not going to be willing to fund and build enough of them to supply the necessary energy. That’s what had sent Leslie and Mark into the library stacks at MIT—a search for new ideas that might be buried in the old designs.

They have now launched a company, Transatomic, to build the molten salt reactor they see as a viable answer to the problem. And they’re not alone—at least eight other startups have emerged in recent years, each with its own advanced reactor design. This new generation of pioneers is working with the same sense of mission and urgency that animated the discipline’s founders. The existential threat that drove the men of Oak Ridge and Argonne was posed by the Soviets; the threat of today is from climate change.

Heeding that sense of urgency, investors from Silicon Valley and elsewhere are stepping up to provide funding. One startup, TerraPower, has the backing of Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and former Microsoft executive Nathan Myhrvold. Another, General Fusion, has raised $32 million from investors, including nearly $20 million from Amazon founder Jeff Bezos. And LPP Fusion has even benefited, to the tune of $180,000, from an Indiegogo crowd-funding campaign.

All of the new blood, new ideas, and new money are having a real effect. In the last several years, a field that had been moribund has become dynamic again, once more charged with a feeling of boundless possibility and optimism.

But one huge source of funding and support enjoyed by those first pioneers has all but disappeared: The U.S. government.

The "Atoms for Peace" program supplied equipment and information to schools, hospitals, and research institutions within the U.S. and throughout the world. Source: Wikipedia

From Atoms for Peace to Chernobyl

December 8, 1953: U.S. President Eisenhower delivers his "Atoms for Peace" speech to the United Nations General Assembly in New York. Source: IAEA

In the early days of nuclear energy development, the government led the charge, funding the research, development, and design of 52 different reactors at the Idaho laboratory’s National Reactor Testing Station alone, not to mention those that were being developed at other labs, like the one that was the subject of the paper Leslie and Mark read. With the help of the government, engineers were able to branch out in many different directions.

Soon enough, the designs were moving from paper to test reactors to deployment at breathtaking speed. The tiny Experimental Breeder Reactor 1, which went online in December 1951 at the Idaho National Lab, ushered in the age of nuclear energy.

Just two years later, President Dwight D. Eisenhower made his Atoms for Peace speech to the U.N., in which he declared that “The United States knows that peaceful power from atomic energy is no dream of the future. The capability, already proved, is here today.” Less than a year after that, Eisenhower waved a ceremonial "neutron wand" to signal a bulldozer in Shippingport, Pennsylvania to begin construction of the nation’s first commercial nuclear power plant.

1956: Reactor pressure vessel during construction at the Shippingport Atomic Power Station. Source: Wikipedia

By 1957 the Atoms for Peace program had borne fruit, and Shippingport was open for business. During the years that followed, the government, fulfilling Eisenhower’s dream, not only funded the research, it ran the labs, chose the technologies, and, eventually, regulated the reactors.

The U.S. would soon rapidly surpass not only its Cold War enemy, the Soviet Union, which had brought the first significant electricity-producing reactor online in 1954, but every other country seeking to deploy nuclear energy, including France and Canada. Much of the extraordinary progress in America’s development of nuclear energy technology can be credited to one specific government institution—the U.S. Navy.

Rickover’s choice has had enormous implications. To this day, the light water reactor remains the standard—the only type of reactor built or used for energy production in the United States and in most other countries as well. Research on other reactor types (like molten salt and lead) essentially ended for almost six decades, not to be revived until very recently.

Once light water reactors got the nod, the Atomic Energy Commission endorsed a cookie-cutter-like approach to building additional reactors that was very enticing to energy companies seeking to enter the atomic arena. Having a standardized light water reactor design meant quicker regulatory approval, economies of scale, and operating uniformity, which helped control costs and minimize uncertainty. And there was another upside to the light water reactors, at least back then: they produced a byproduct—plutonium. These days, we call that a problem: the remaining fissile material that must be protected from accidental discharge or proliferation and stored indefinitely. In the Cold War 1960s, however, that was seen as a benefit, because the leftover plutonium could be used to make nuclear weapons.

2005: An ICBM loaded into a silo of the former ICBM missile site, now the Titan Missile Museum. Source: Wikipedia

With the triumph of the light water reactor came a massive expansion of the domestic and global nuclear energy industries. In the 1960s and ‘70s, America’s technology, design, supply chain, and regulatory system dominated the production of all civilian nuclear energy on this side of the Iron Curtain. U.S. engineers drew the plans, U.S. companies like Westinghouse and GE built the plants, U.S. factories and mills made the parts, and the U.S. government’s Atomic Energy Commission set the global safety standards.

In this country, we built more than 100 light water reactors for commercial power production. Though no two American plants were identical, all of the plants constructed in that era were essentially the same—light water reactors running on uranium enriched to about 4 percent. By the end of the 1970s, in addition to the 100-odd reactors that had been built, 100 more were in the planning or early construction stage.

And then everything came to a screeching halt, thanks to a bizarre confluence of Hollywood and real life.

On March 16, 1979, The China Syndrome —starring Jane Fonda, Jack Lemmon, and Michael Douglas—hit theaters, frightening moviegoers with an implausible but well-told tale of a reactor meltdown and catastrophe, which had the potential, according to a character in the film, to render an area “the size of Pennsylvania permanently uninhabitable.” Twelve days later, the Number 2 reactor at the Three Mile Island plant in central Pennsylvania suffered an accident that caused the release of some nuclear coolant and a partial meltdown of the reactor core. After the governor ordered the evacuation of “pregnant women and preschool age children,” widespread panic followed, and tens of thousands of people fled in terror.

1979: Three Mile Island power station. Source: Wikipedia

But both the evacuation order and the fear were unwarranted. A massive investigation revealed that the release of radioactive materials was minimal and had posed no risk to human health. No one was injured or killed at Three Mile Island. What did die that day was America’s nuclear energy leadership. After Three Mile Island, plans for new plants then on the drawing board were scrapped or went under in a blizzard of public recrimination, legal action, and regulatory overreach by federal, state, and local officials. For example, the Shoreham plant on Long Island, which took nearly a decade to build and was completed in 1984, never opened, becoming one of the biggest and most expensive white elephants in human history.

The concrete "sarcophagus" built over the Chernobyl nuclear power plant's fourth reactor that exploded on April 26, 1986. Source: REUTERS

Chernobyl sarcophogi Magnum

The final, definitive blow to American nuclear energy was delivered in 1986, when the Soviets bungled their way into a genuine nuclear energy catastrophe: the disaster at the Chernobyl plant in Ukraine. It was man-made in its origin (risky decisions made at the plant led to the meltdown, and the plant itself was badly designed); widespread in its scope (Soviet reactors had no containment vessel, so the roof was literally blown off, the core was exposed, and a radioactive cloud covered almost the whole of Europe); and lethal in its impact (rescuers and area residents were lied to by the Soviet government, which denied the risk posed by the disaster, causing many needless deaths and illnesses and the hospitalization of thousands).

After Chernobyl, it didn’t matter that American plants were infinitely safer and better run. This country, which was awash in cheap and plentiful coal, simply wasn’t going to build more nuclear plants if it didn’t have to.

But now we have to.

The terrible consequences of climate change mean that we must find low- and zero-emitting ways of producing electricity.

November 2014: Leslie Dewan and Mark Massie at MIT. Source: Sareen Hairabedian, Brookings Institution

The Return of Nuclear Pioneers

Five new light water reactors are currently under construction in the U.S., but the safety concerns about them (largely unwarranted as they are) as well as their massive size, cost, complexity, and production of used fuel (“waste”) mean that there will probably be no large-scale return to the old style of reactor. What we need now is to go back to the future and build some of those plants that they dreamed up in the labs of yesterday.

Which is what Leslie and Mark are trying to do with Transatomic. Once they had their breakthrough moment and realized that they could fuel their reactor on nuclear waste material, they began to think seriously about founding a company. So they started doing what all entrepreneurial MIT grads do—they talked to venture capitalists. Once they got their initial funding, the two engineers knew that they needed someone with business experience, so they hired a CEO, Russ Wilcox, who had built and sold a very successful e-publishing company. At the time they approached him, Wilcox was in high demand, but after hearing Leslie and Mark give a TEDx talk about the environmental promise of advanced nuclear technology, he opted to go with Transatomic— because he thought it could help save the world.

November 1, 2014: Mark Massie and Leslie Dewan giving a TEDx talk . Source: Transatomic

In their talk, the two founders had explained that in today’s light water reactors, metal-clad uranium fuel rods are lowered into water in order to heat it and create steam to run the electric turbines. But the water eventually breaks down the metal cladding and then the rods must be replaced. The old rods become nuclear waste, which will remain radioactive for up to 100,000 years, and, under the current American system, must remain in storage for that period.

The genius of the Transatomic design is that, according to Mark’s simulations, their reactor could make use of almost all of the energy remaining in the rods that have been removed from the old light water reactors, while producing almost no waste of their own—just 2.5 percent as much as produced by a typical light water reactor. If they built enough molten salt reactors, Transatomic could theoretically consume not just the roughly 70,000 metric tons of nuclear waste currently stored at U.S. nuclear plants, but also the additional 2,000 metric tons that are produced each year.

Like all molten salt reactors, the Transatomic design is extraordinarily safe as well. That is more important than ever after the terror inspired by the disaster that occurred at the Fukushima light water reactor plant in 2011.When the tsunami knocked out the power for the pumps that provided the water required for coolant, the Fukushima plant suffered a partial core meltdown. In a molten salt reactor, by contrast, no externally supplied coolant would be needed, making it what Transatomic calls “walk away safe.” That means that, in the event of a power failure, no human intervention would be required; the reactor would essentially cool itself without water or pumps. With a loss of external electricity, the artificially chilled plug at the base of the reactor would melt, and the material in the core (salt and uranium fuel) would drain to a containment tank and cool within hours.

Leslie and Mark have also found materials that would boost the power output of a molten salt reactor by 30 times over the 1960s model. Their redesign means the reactor might be small and efficient enough to be built in a factory and moved by rail. (Current reactors are so large that they must be assembled on site.)

Click image to play or stop animation

Transatomic, as well as General Fusion and LPP Fusion, represent one branch of the new breed of nuclear pioneers—call them “the young guns.” Also included in this group are companies like Terrestrial Energy in Canada, which is developing an alternative version of the molten salt reactor; Flibe Energy, which is preparing for experiments on a liquid-thorium fluoride reactor; UPower, at work on a nuclear battery; and engineers who are incubating projects not just at MIT but at a number of other universities and labs. Thanks to their work, the next generator of reactors might just be developed by small teams of brilliant entrepreneurs.

Then there are the more established companies and individuals—call them the “old pros”—who have become players in the advanced nuclear game. These include the engineering giant Fluor, which recently bought a startup out of Oregon called NuScale Power. They are designing a new type of light water “Small Modular Reactor” that is integral (the steam generator is built in), small (it generates about 4 percent of the output of a large reactor and fits on the back of a truck), and sectional (it can be strung together with others to generate more power). In part because of its relatively familiar light water design, Fluor and a small modular reactor competitor, Babcock & Wilcox, are the only pioneers of the new generation of technology to have received government grants—for $226 million each—to fund their research.

Another of the “old pros,” the well-established General Atomics, in business since 1955, is combining the benefits of small modular reactors with a design that can convert nuclear waste into electricity and also produce large amounts of heat and energy for industrial applications. The reactor uses helium rather than water or molten salt as its coolant. Its advanced design, which they call the Energy Multiplier Module reactor, has the potential to revolutionize the industry.

Somewhere in between is TerraPower. While it’s run by young guns, it’s backed by the world’s second richest man (among others). But even Bill Gates’s money won’t be enough. Nuclear technology is too big, too expensive, and too complex to explore in a garage, real or metaphorical. TerraPower has said that a prototype reactor could cost up to $5 billion, and they are going to need some big machines to develop and test it.

So while Leslie, Mark, and others in their cohort may seem like the latest iteration of Silicon Valley hipster entrepreneurs, the work they’re trying to do cannot be accomplished by Silicon Valley VC-scale funding. There has to be substantial government involvement.

Unfortunately, the relatively puny grants to Fluor and Babcock & Wilcox are the federal government’s largest contribution to advanced nuclear development to date. At the moment, the rest are on their own.

The result is that some of the fledgling enterprises, like General Atomic and Gates’s TerraPower, have decamped for China. Others, like Leslie and Mark’s, are staying put in the United States (for now) and hoping for federal support.

UBritish Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne (2nd R) chats with workers beside Taishan Nuclear Power Joint Venture Co Ltd General Manager Guo Liming (3rd R) and EDF Energy CEO Vincent de Rivaz (R), in front of a nuclear reactor under construction at a nuclear power plant in Taishan, Guangdong province, October 17, 2013. Chinese companies will be allowed to take stakes in British nuclear projects, Osborne said on Thursday, as Britain pushes ahead with an ambitious target to expand nuclear energy. REUTERS/Bobby Yip (CHINA - Tags: POLITICS BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY ENERGY) Source: REUTERS

June 2008: A nearly 200 ton nuclear reactor safety vessel is erected at the Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research at Kalpakkam, near the southern Indian city of Chennai. Source: REUTERS/Babu (INDIA)

Missing in Action: The United States Government

There are American political leaders in both parties who talk about having an “all of the above” energy policy, implying that they want to build everything, all at once. But they don’t mean it, at least not really. In this country, we don’t need all of the above—virtually every American has access to electric power. We don’t want it—we have largely stopped building coal as well as nuclear plants, even though we could. And we don’t underwrite it—the public is generally opposed to the government being in the business of energy research, development, and demonstration (aka, RD&D).

In China, when they talk of “all of the above,” they do mean it. With hundreds of millions of Chinese living without electricity and a billion more demanding ever-increasing amounts of power, China is funding, building, and running every power project that they possibly can. This includes the nuclear sector, where they have about 29 big new light water reactors under construction. China is particularly keen on finding non-emitting forms of electricity, both to address climate change and, more urgently for them, to help slow the emissions of the conventional pollutants that are choking their cities in smog and literally killing their citizens.

Since (for better or for worse) China isn’t hung up on safety regulation, and there is zero threat of legal challenge to nuclear projects, plans can be realized much more quickly than in the West. That means that there are not only dozens of light water reactor plants going up in China, but also a lot of work on experimental reactors with advanced nuclear designs—like those being developed by General Atomic and TerraPower.

Given both the competitive threat from China and the potentially disastrous global effects of emissions-induced climate change, the U.S. government should be leaping back into the nuclear race with the kind of integrated response that it brought to the Soviet threat during the Cold War.

But it isn’t, at least not yet. Through years of stagnation, America lost—or perhaps misplaced—its ability to do big, bold things in nuclear science. Our national labs, which once led the world to this technology, are underfunded, and our regulatory system, which once set the standard of global excellence, has become overly burdensome, slow, and sclerotic.

The villains in this story are familiar in Washington: ideology, ignorance, and bureaucracy. Let’s start with Congress, currently sporting a well-earned 14 percent approval rating. On Capitol Hill, an unholy and unwitting alliance of right-wing climate deniers, small-government radicals, and liberal anti-nuclear advocates have joined together to keep nuclear lab budgets small. And since even naming a post office constitutes a huge challenge for this broken Congress, moving forward with the funding and regulation of a complex new technology seems well beyond its capabilities at the moment.

Then there is the federal bureaucracy, which has failed even to acknowledge that a new generation of reactors is on the horizon. It took the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the successor to the Atomic Energy Commission) years to approve a design for the new light water reactor now being built in Georgia, despite the fact that it’s nearly identical to the 100 or so that preceded it. The NRC makes no pretense of being prepared to evaluate reactors cooled by molten salt or run on depleted uranium. And it insists on pounding these new round pegs into its old square holes, demanding that the new reactors meet the same requirements as the old ones, even when that makes no sense.

At the Department of Energy, their heart is in the right place. DOE Secretary Ernest Moniz is a seasoned political hand as well as an MIT nuclear physicist, and he absolutely sees the potential in advanced reactor designs. But, constrained by a limited budget, the department is not currently in a position to drive the kind of changes needed to bring advanced nuclear designs to market.

President Obama clearly believes in nuclear energy. In an early State of the Union address he said, “We need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country." But the White House has been largely absent from the nuclear energy discussion in recent years. It is time for it to reengage.

May 22, 1957: A GE supervisor inspects the instrument panel for the company’s boiling water power reactor in Pleasanton, CA. Source: Bettmann/Corbis/AP Images

Getting the U.S. Back in the Race

So what, exactly, do the people running the advanced nuclear companies need from the U.S. government? What can government do to help move the technology off of their computers and into the electricity production marketplace?

First, they need a practical development path. Where is Bill Gates going to test TerraPower’s brilliant new reactor designs? Because there are no appropriate government-run facilities in the United States, he is forced to make do in China. He can’t find this ideal. Since more than two-thirds of Microsoft Windows operating systems used in China are pirated, he is surely aware that testing in China greatly increases the risk of intellectual property theft.

Thus, at the center of a development path would be an advanced reactor test bed facility, run by the government, and similar to what we had at the Idaho National Lab in 1960s. Such a facility, which would be open to all of the U.S. companies with reactors in development, would allow any of them to simply plug in their fuel and materials and run their tests

But advanced test reactors of the type we need are expensive and complex. The old one at the Idaho lab can’t accommodate the radiation and heat levels required by the new technologies. Japan has a newer one, but it shut down after Fukushima. China and Russia each have them, and France is building one that should be completed in 2016. But no one has the cutting-edge, truly advanced incubator space that the new firms need to move toward development.

Second is funding. Mark and Leslie have secured some venture capital, but Transatomic will need much more money in order to perform the basic engineering on an advanced test reactor and, eventually, to construct demonstration reactors. Like all startups, Transatomic faces a “Valley of Death” between concept and deployment; with nuclear technology’s enormous costs and financial risk, it’s more like a “Grand Canyon of Death.” Government must play a big role in bridging that canyon, as it did in the early days of commercial nuclear energy development, beginning with the first light water reactor at Shippingport.

For Further Reading

President Obama, It's Time to Act on Energy Policy November 2014, Charles Ebinger

Transforming the Electricity Portfolio: Lessons from Germany and Japan in Deploying Renewable Energy September 2014, John Banks, Charles Ebinger, and Alisa Schackmann

The Road Ahead for Japanese Energy June 2014

Planet Policy A blog about the intersection of energy and climate policy

Third, they need a complete rethinking of the NRC approach to regulating advanced nuclear technology. How can the brand new Flibe Energy liquid-thorium fluoride reactor technology be forced to meet the same criteria as the typical light water reactor? The NRC must be flexible enough to accommodate technology that works differently from the light water reactors it is familiar with. For example, since Transatomic’s reactor would run at normal atmospheric pressure, unlike a light water reactor, which operates under vastly greater pressure, Mark and Leslie shouldn’t be required to build a huge and massively expensive containment structure around their reactors. Yet the NRC has no provision allowing them to bypass that requirement. If that doesn’t change, there is no way that Transatomic will be able to bring its small, modular, innovative reactors to market.

In addition, the NRC must let these technologies develop organically. They should permit Transatomic and the others to build and operate prototype reactors before they are fully licensed, allowing them to demonstrate their safety and reliability with real-world stress tests, as opposed to putting them through never-ending rounds of theoretical discussion and negotiation with NRC testers.

None of this is easy. The seriousness of the climate change threat is not universally acknowledged in Washington. Federal budgets are now based in the pinched, deficit-constrained present, not the full employment, high-growth economy of the 1950s. And the NRC, in part because of its mission to protect public safety, is among the most change-averse of any federal agency.

But all of this is vital. Advanced nuclear technology could hold a key to fighting climate change. It could also result in an enormous boon to the American economy. But only if we get there first.

Who Will Own the Nuclear Power Future?

Josh Freed, Third Way's clean energy vice president, works on developing ways the federal government can help accelerate the private sector's adoption of clean energy and address climate change. He has served as a senior staffer on Capitol Hill and worked in various public advocacy and political campaigns, including advising the senior leadership of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Nuclear energy is at a crossroads. One path sends brilliant engineers like Leslie and Mark forward, applying their boundless skills and infectious optimism to world-changing technologies that have the potential to solve our energy problems while also fueling economic development and creating new jobs. The other path keeps the nuclear industry locked in unadaptable technologies that will lead, inevitably, to a decline in our major source of carbon-free energy.

The chance to regain our leadership in nuclear energy, to walk on the path once trod by the engineers and scientists of the 1950s and ‘60s, will not last forever. It is up to those who make decisions on matters concerning funding and regulation to strike while the iron is hot.

This is not pie-in-the-sky thinking—we have done this before. At the dawn of the nuclear age, we designed and built reactors that tested the range of possibility. The blueprints then languished on the shelves of places like the MIT library for more than fifty years until Leslie Dewan, Mark Massie, and other brilliant engineers and scientists thought to revive them. With sufficient funding and the appropriate technical and political leadership, we can offer the innovators and entrepreneurs of today the chance to use those designs to power the future.

Join the conversation on Twitter using #BrookingsEssay or share this on Facebook .

This Essay is also available as an eBook from these online retailers: Amazon Kindle , Barnes & Noble , Apple iTunes , Google Play , Ebooks.com , and on Kobo .

This article was written by Josh Freed, vice president of the Clean Energy Program at Third Way. The author has not personally received any compensation from the nuclear energy industry. In the spirit of maximum transparency, however, the author has disclosed that several entities mentioned in this article are associated in varying degrees with Third Way. The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) and Babcock & Wilcox have financially supported Third Way. NEI includes TerraPower, Babcock & Wilcox, and Idaho National Lab among its members, as well as Fluor on its Board of Directors. Transatomic is not a member of NEI, but Dr. Leslie Dewan has appeared in several of its advertisements. Third Way is also working with and has received funding from Ray Rothrock, although he was not consulted on the contents of this essay. Third Way previously held a joint event with the Idaho National Lab that was unrelated to the subject of this essay.

* The essay originally also referred to Hitachi buying GE's nuclear arm. GE owns 60 percent of Hitachi.

Like other products of the Institution, The Brookings Essay is intended to contribute to discussion and stimulate debate on important issues. The views are solely those of the author.

Graphic Design: Marcia Underwood and Jessica Pavone Research: Fred Dews, Thomas Young, Jessica Pavone, Kevin Hawkins Editorial: Beth Rashbaum and Fred Dews Web Development: Marcia Underwood and Kevin Hawkins Video: George Burroughs- Director, Ian McAllister- Technical Director, Sareen Hairabedian and Mark Hoelscher Directors of Photography, Sareen Hairabedian- Editor, Mark Hoelscher- Color Correction and Graphics, Zachary Kulzer- Sound, Thomas Young- Producer

1775 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Washington , DC 20036

• Media Relations

More Brookings Essays

Published 12/12/2014

© 2014 The Brookings Institution

• Terms and Conditions
• Brookings Privacy Policy

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Meet top uk universities from the comfort of your home, here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

• School Education /

Essay on Nuclear Energy in 500+ words for School Students 

• Updated on  
• Dec 30, 2023

Essay on Nuclear Energy: Nuclear energy has been fascinating and controversial since the beginning. Using atomic power to generate electricity holds the promise of huge energy supplies but we cannot overlook the concerns about safety, environmental impact, and the increase in potential weapon increase. 

The blog will help you to explore various aspects of energy seeking its history, advantages, disadvantages, and role in addressing the global energy challenge. 

Table of Contents

• 1 History Overview
• 2 Nuclear Technology 
• 3 Advantages of Nuclear Energy
• 4 Disadvantages of Nuclear Energy
• 5 Safety Measures and Regulations of Nuclear Energy
• 6 Concerns of Nuclear Proliferation
• 7 Future Prospects and Innovations of Nuclear Energy
• 8 FAQs 

Also Read: Find List of Nuclear Power Plants In India

History Overview

The roots of nuclear energy have their roots back to the early 20th century when innovative discoveries in physics laid the foundation for understanding atomic structure. In the year 1938, Otto Hahn, a German chemist and Fritz Stassman, a German physical chemist discovered nuclear fission, the splitting of atomic nuclei. This discovery opened the way for utilising the immense energy released during the process of fission. 

Also Read: What are the Different Types of Energy?

Nuclear Technology 

Nuclear power plants use controlled fission to produce heat. The heat generated is further used to produce steam, by turning the turbines connected to generators that produce electricity. This process takes place in two types of reactors: Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR) and Boiling Water Reactors (BWR). PWRs use pressurised water to transfer heat. Whereas, BWRs allow water to boil, which produces steam directly. 

Also Read: Nuclear Engineering Course: Universities and Careers

Advantages of Nuclear Energy

Let us learn about the positive aspects of nuclear energy in the following:

1. High Energy Density

Nuclear energy possesses an unparalleled energy density which means that a small amount of nuclear fuel can produce a substantial amount of electricity. This high energy density efficiency makes nuclear power reliable and powerful.

2. Low Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Unlike other traditional fossil fuels, nuclear power generation produces minimum greenhouse gas emissions during electricity generation. The low greenhouse gas emissions feature positions nuclear energy as a potential solution to weakening climate change.

3. Base Load Power

Nuclear power plants provide consistent, baseload power, continuously operating at a stable output level. This makes nuclear energy reliable for meeting the constant demand for electricity, complementing intermittent renewable sources of energy like wind and solar. 

Also Read: How to Become a Nuclear Engineer in India?

Disadvantages of Nuclear Energy

After learning the pros of nuclear energy, now let’s switch to the cons of nuclear energy.

1. Radioactive Waste

One of the most important challenges that is associated with nuclear energy is the management and disposal of radioactive waste. Nuclear power gives rise to spent fuel and other radioactive byproducts that require secure, long-term storage solutions.

2. Nuclear Accidents

The two catastrophic accidents at Chornobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011 underlined the potential risks of nuclear power. These nuclear accidents can lead to severe environmental contamination, human casualties, and long-lasting negative perceptions of the technology. 

3. High Initial Costs

The construction of nuclear power plants includes substantial upfront costs. Moreover, stringent safety measures contribute to the overall expenses, which makes nuclear energy economically challenging compared to some renewable alternatives. 

Also Read: What is the IAEA Full Form?

Safety Measures and Regulations of Nuclear Energy

After recognizing the potential risks associated with nuclear energy, strict safety measures and regulations have been implemented worldwide. These safety measures include reactor design improvements, emergency preparedness, and ongoing monitoring of the plant operations. Regulatory bodies, such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in the United States, play an important role in overseeing and enforcing safety standards. 

Also Read: What is the Full Form of AEC?

Concerns of Nuclear Proliferation

The dual-use nature of nuclear technology raises concerns about the spread of nuclear weapons. The same nuclear technology used for the peaceful generation of electricity can be diverted for military purposes. International efforts, including the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), aim to help the proliferation of nuclear weapons and promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy. 

Also Read: Dr. Homi J. Bhabha’s Education, Inventions & Discoveries

Future Prospects and Innovations of Nuclear Energy

The ongoing research and development into advanced reactor technologies are part of nuclear energy. Concepts like small modular reactors (SMRs) and Generation IV reactors aim to address safety, efficiency, and waste management concerns. Moreover, the exploration of nuclear fusion as a clean and virtually limitless energy source represents an innovation for future energy solutions. 

Nuclear energy stands at the crossroads of possibility and peril, offering the possibility of addressing the world´s growing energy needs while posing important challenges. Striking a balance between utilising the benefits of nuclear power and alleviating its risks requires ongoing technological innovation, powerful safety measures, and international cooperation. 

As we drive the complexities of perspective challenges of nuclear energy, the role of nuclear energy in the global energy mix remains a subject of ongoing debate and exploration. 

Also Read: Essay on Science and Technology for Students: 100, 200, 350 Words

Ans. Nuclear energy is the energy released during nuclear reactions. Its importance lies in generating electricity, medical applications, and powering spacecraft.

Ans. Nuclear energy is exploited from the nucleus of atoms through processes like fission or fusion. It is a powerful and controversial energy source with applications in power generation and various technologies. 

Ans. The five benefits of nuclear energy include: 1. Less greenhouse gas emissions 2. High energy density 3. Continuos power generation  4. Relatively low fuel consumption 5. Potential for reducing dependence on fossil fuels

Ans. Three important facts about nuclear energy: a. Nuclear fission releases a significant amount of energy. b. Nuclear power plants use controlled fission reactions to generate electricity. c. Nuclear fusion, combining atomic nuclei, is a potential future energy source.

Ans. Nuclear energy is considered best due to its low carbon footprint, high energy output, and potential to address energy needs. However, concerns about safety, radioactive waste, and proliferation risk are challenges that need careful consideration.

Related Articles

For more information on such interesting topics, visit our essay writing page and follow Leverage Edu.

Deepika Joshi

Deepika Joshi is an experienced content writer with expertise in creating educational and informative content. She has a year of experience writing content for speeches, essays, NCERT, study abroad and EdTech SaaS. Her strengths lie in conducting thorough research and ananlysis to provide accurate and up-to-date information to readers. She enjoys staying updated on new skills and knowledge, particulary in education domain. In her free time, she loves to read articles, and blogs with related to her field to further expand her expertise. In personal life, she loves creative writing and aspire to connect with innovative people who have fresh ideas to offer.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Contact no. *

Connect With Us

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today.

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

January 2024

September 2024

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Have something on your mind?

Make your study abroad dream a reality in January 2022 with

India's Biggest Virtual University Fair

Essex Direct Admission Day

Why attend .

Don't Miss Out

Essay on Nuclear Energy

Students are often asked to write an essay on Nuclear Energy in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Nuclear Energy

Introduction.

Nuclear energy is a powerful source of energy generated from atomic reactions. It is created from the splitting of atoms, a process known as nuclear fission.

Production of Nuclear Energy

Nuclear energy is produced in nuclear power plants. These plants use uranium, a mineral, as fuel. The heat generated from nuclear fission is used to create steam, which spins a turbine to generate electricity.

Benefits of Nuclear Energy

Nuclear energy is very efficient. It produces a large amount of energy from a small amount of uranium. It also does not emit harmful greenhouse gases, making it environmentally friendly.

Drawbacks of Nuclear Energy

Despite its benefits, nuclear energy has drawbacks. The most significant is the production of radioactive waste, which is dangerous and hard to dispose of. It also poses a risk of nuclear accidents.

Also check:

• Advantages and Disadvantages of Nuclear Energy
• Paragraph on Nuclear Energy

250 Words Essay on Nuclear Energy

Introduction to nuclear energy.

Nuclear energy, a powerful and complex energy source, is derived from splitting atoms in a process known as nuclear fission. Its significant energy output and low greenhouse gas emissions make it a potential solution to the world’s increasing energy demands.

Production and Efficiency

Nuclear power plants operate by using nuclear fission to generate heat, which then produces steam to turn turbines and generate electricity. The efficiency of nuclear energy is unparalleled, with one kilogram of uranium-235 producing approximately three million times the energy of a kilogram of coal.

Environmental Implications

Nuclear energy is often considered a clean energy source due to its minimal carbon footprint. However, the production of nuclear energy also results in radioactive waste, the disposal of which poses significant environmental challenges.

Security and Ethical Concerns

The utilization of nuclear energy is not without its risks. Accidents like those at Chernobyl and Fukushima have highlighted the potential for catastrophic damage. Furthermore, the proliferation of nuclear technology raises ethical concerns about its potential misuse for military purposes.

Future of Nuclear Energy

The future of nuclear energy hinges on technological advancements and policy decisions. The development of safer, more efficient reactors and sustainable waste disposal methods could mitigate some of the risks associated with nuclear energy. Additionally, international cooperation is crucial to ensure the peaceful and secure use of nuclear technology.

In conclusion, nuclear energy presents a potent solution to the energy crisis, but it also brings significant challenges. Balancing its benefits against the associated risks requires careful consideration and responsible action.

500 Words Essay on Nuclear Energy

Nuclear energy, a powerful and complex form of energy, is derived from splitting atoms in a reactor to heat water into steam, turn a turbine, and generate electricity. Ninety-four nuclear reactors in 28 states, approximately 20% of total electricity production in the United States, are powered by this process. Globally, nuclear energy is a significant source of power, contributing to about 10% of the world’s total electricity supply.

The Mechanics of Nuclear Energy

Nuclear energy is produced through a process called nuclear fission. This process involves the splitting of uranium atoms in a nuclear reactor, which releases an immense amount of energy in the form of heat and radiation. The heat generated is then used to boil water, create steam, and power turbines that generate electricity.

The fuel for nuclear reactors, uranium, is abundant and can be found in many parts of the world, making nuclear energy a viable option for countries without significant fossil fuel resources. Moreover, the energy produced by a single uranium atom split is a million times greater than that from burning a single coal or gas molecule, making nuclear power a highly efficient energy source.

Pros and Cons of Nuclear Energy

One of the main advantages of nuclear energy is its low greenhouse gas emission. It emits a fraction of the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases compared to fossil fuel-based energy sources, making it a potential solution to combat climate change.

Nuclear energy is also reliable. Unlike renewable energy sources like wind and solar, nuclear power plants can operate continuously and are not dependent on weather conditions. They can provide a steady, uninterrupted supply of electricity, which is crucial for the functioning of modern societies.

However, nuclear energy also has significant drawbacks. The risk of nuclear accidents, while statistically low, can have devastating and long-lasting impacts, as seen in Chernobyl and Fukushima. Additionally, the disposal of nuclear waste poses a serious challenge due to its long-term radioactivity.

The Future of Nuclear Energy

The future of nuclear energy is uncertain. On one hand, the demand for low-carbon energy sources to combat climate change could lead to an increase in the use of nuclear energy. On the other hand, concerns about nuclear safety, waste disposal, and the high costs of building new nuclear power plants could hinder its growth.

Advancements in nuclear technology, such as the development of small modular reactors and fourth-generation reactors, could address some of these concerns. These technologies promise to be safer, more efficient, and produce less nuclear waste, potentially paving the way for a nuclear renaissance.

In conclusion, nuclear energy presents a compelling paradox. It offers a high-energy, low-carbon alternative to fossil fuels, yet it carries significant risks and challenges. As we move towards a more sustainable future, it is crucial to weigh these factors and make informed decisions about the role of nuclear energy in our global energy mix.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Negative Effects of Social Media
• Essay on Nature
• Essay on Nationalism

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Home — Essay Samples — Environment — Human Impact — Nuclear Energy

Essays on Nuclear Energy

Brief description of nuclear energy, importance of writing essays on this topic, tips on choosing a good topic, essay topics, concluding thought, the promise of nuclear energy for climate change, nuclear energy: safety, security, and ethical considerations, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Nuclear Innovation: Balancing Challenges and Opportunities

The pros and cons when discussing the use of nuclear energy, nuclear energy: the future of humanity's energy source, an issue of safety of nuclear energy, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Nuclear Waste: an American Disaster

The history and use of nuclear energy, ernest rutherford, the father of nuclear physics, niels bohr's biography, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

Technetium-99m

The manhattan project - a top secret nuclear energy research program, a study on the effects of nuclear waste on the environment, iaea safeguards - serving nuclear non-proliferation, potential consequences of nuclear politics in south asia, the effects of fukushima daihatsu nuclear disaster, attitudes of the australian public to nuclear power, countering myths and misinformation around nuclear power, nuclear power economic: cost, comparison and waste, the role of nuclear energy in the global energy transition, bridging perception and reality in nuclear energy, relevant topics.

• Fast Fashion
• Water Pollution
• Air Pollution
• Deforestation
• Plastic Bags
• Endangered Species
• Global Warming
• Ocean Pollution

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

World Energy Needs and Nuclear Power

• The world will need significantly increased energy supply in the future, especially cleanly-generated electricity.
• Electricity demand is increasing about twice as fast as overall energy use and is likely to rise by more than half to 2040.
• Nuclear power provides about 10% of the world's electricity, and 18% of electricity in OECD countries.
• Almost all reports on future energy supply from major organizations suggest an increasing role for nuclear power as an environmentally benign way of producing reliable electricity on a large scale.

Growth in the world's population and economy, coupled with rapid urbanisation, will result in a substantial increase in energy demand over the coming years. The United Nations (UN) estimates that the world's population will grow from 7.8 billion in 2020 to around 8.5 billion in 2030 and 9.7 billion by 2050. The process of urbanization – which currently adds a city the size of Shanghai to the world's urban population every four months or so – will result in approximately two-thirds of the world's people living in urban areas by 2050 (up from about 55% at present). The challenge of meeting rapidly growing energy demand, whilst reducing harmful emissions of greenhouse gases, is considerable. In 2019 global energy-related carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions rose to 33.3 Gt, the highest on record, and about 45% above the total in 2000 (23.2 Gt). In 2020, due to the response to the coronavirus pandemic, primary energy demand dropped by nearly 4%, and CO 2 emissions fell by 5.8%. In 2021 CO 2 emissions bounced back to pre-pandemic levels, rising by 5% to 33 Gt.

Electricity demand growth has outpaced growth in final energy demand for many years. Increased electrification of end-uses – such as transport, space cooling, large appliances, and ICT – are key contributors to rising electricity demand. The number of people without access to electricity has fallen substantially, and is now below one billion. However, despite significant progress, 733 million people – 9.4% of the world’s population – mostly in rural areas, live without access (data for 2020).

Aside from the challenges of meeting increasing demand and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, cleaner air is a vital need. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), air pollution is the world's largest environmental risk. The WHO estimates that about seven million people die prematurely as a result of air pollution. Much of the fine particulate matter in polluted areas arises from industrial sources such as power generation or from indoor air pollution which could be averted by electricity use.

Nuclear energy is a low-emitting source of electricity production and is also specifically low-carbon, emitting among the lowest amount of carbon dioxide equivalent per unit of energy produced when considering total life-cycle emissions. It is the second largest source of low-carbon electricity production globally (after hydropower), and provided about 30% of all low-carbon electricity generated in 2019. Almost all reports on future energy supply from major organizations suggest an expanded role for nuclear power is required, alongside growth in other forms of low-carbon power generation, to create a sustainable future energy system.

In June 2019 the OECD’s International Energy Agency (IEA) published a report, Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System , which concluded that a failure to invest in existing and new nuclear plants in advanced economies would make global efforts to transition to a cleaner energy system drastically harder and more costly.

In June 2022 the IEA report on  Nuclear Power and Secure Energy Transitions  concluded that nuclear energy can “help make the energy sector's journey away from unabated fossil fuels faster and more secure,” with nuclear being “well placed to help decarbonise electricity supply”. The report emphasizes the significant role nuclear plants can play in securing the global pathway to net zero.

Primary energy and electricity outlook

There are many outlooks for primary energy and electricity published each year, many of which are summarized below. Among the most widely-referenced organizations in this regard is the IEA. Each year, the IEA releases its  World Energy Outlook  (WEO), setting out the current situation and presenting a number of forward-looking scenarios. The report's 'Current Policies Scenario' considers only policies firmly enacted at the time of writing, whilst the 'New Policies Scenario' – the central scenario, renamed 'Stated Policies Scenario' in WEO 2019 – incorporates policies firmly enacted as well as an assessment of the results likely to stem from announced policy intentions. In each recent WEO report, a third scenario is included that starts with a vision of how and over what timeframe the energy sector needs to change – primarily to decarbonize – and works back to the present. In each WEO released over 2008-2016, the main decarbonisation scenario had been the '450 Scenario'; a scenario consistent with limiting the rise in average global temperatures to 2°C. In WEO-2017, the 450 Scenario was replaced by a new, 'Sustainable Development Scenario'. This presents a pathway that would address three principal objectives for building a sustainable, modern energy system: access to affordable, clean and reliable energy; reduction of air pollution; and effective action to combat climate change. For more information on sustainability, see information page on Nuclear Energy and Sustainable Development .

In the WEO 2021  'Stated Policies Scenario' ('STEPS'), global energy needs rise by about 26% to 2050, and global electricity demand nearly doubles. Growth in demand comes largely from emerging markets and developing economies. Almost all net growth in demand is met by low emissions sources, but annual emissions remain at about current levels.

In the STEPS scenario, China’s energy demand reduces slightly between 2030 and 2050, but in 2050 still accounts for 45% of world total.

There are many changes ahead in the sources of primary energy used. The dominance of fossil fuels is reduced modestly across the scenarios, declining from 79% of total primary demand in 2020, to 66% by 2050 in the STEPS scenario and 33% in the Sustainable Development Scenario. Despite the relative decrease, the absolute amount of energy consumed either directly or indirectly through the burning of fossil fuels increases by over 5% to 2050 in the STEPS scenario, and decreases by about 55% in the Sustainable Development Scenario. The proportion of final energy consumption that is in the form of electricity increases from 19% in 2020, to 26% by 2050 in the STEPS scenario, and to 40% in the Sustainable Development Scenario.

As the use of electricity grows significantly, the primary energy sources used to generate it are changing. In 2020, 61% of the electricity generated globally was through the burning of fossil fuels. Whilst the STEPS scenario sees this figure reduced to 32% of the total, absolute electricity generation in 2050 from fossil fuels remains at 98% of 2020 levels. The Sustainable Development Scenario sees the fossil fuel share of generation markedly reduced to just 7% of total generation by 2050, with absolute generation 21% of that in 2020. In both scenarios, generation from all low-carbon sources of electricity is required to grow substantially. 

Nuclear power for electricity in published scenarios

Nuclear power generation is an established part of the world's electricity mix providing about 10% of world electricity. It is especially suitable for meeting large-scale, continuous electricity demand where reliability and predictability are vital – hence ideally matched to increasing urbanisation worldwide.

MIT Future of Nuclear Energy in a Carbon-Constrained World

A major two-year study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Energy Initiative (MITEI) published in September 2018 underlined the pressing need to increase nuclear power generation worldwide. It outlined measures to achieve this, including moves to reduce the cost of building new nuclear capacity and creating a level playing field that would allow all low-carbon generation technologies to compete on their merits. "While a variety of low- or zero-carbon technologies can be employed in various combinations, our analysis shows the potential contribution nuclear can make as a dispatchable low-carbon technology. Without that contribution, the cost of achieving deep decarbonisation targets increases significantly," the study finds. The MIT study is designed to serve as a balanced, fact-based, and analysis-driven guide for stakeholders involved in nuclear energy, notably governments.

With high carbon constraints, the system cost of electricity without nuclear power is twice as high in the USA and four times as high in China according to the MIT study.* Scenarios envisage nuclear comprising over half of capacity in the USA and over 60% in China if overall carbon emissions are reduced to 50 g/kWh.

* Nominal overnight capital cost of nuclear is $5500/kW in the USA and $2800/kW in China, possibly reducing to $4100 and $2100/kW.

IEA: World Energy Outlook

Annual editions of WEO from the OECD IEA make clear the increasing importance of electricity, with all scenarios expecting demand growth to outpace that of total final energy demand. Also clear across successive reports is the growing role that nuclear power will play in meeting global energy needs, while achieving security of supply and minimising carbon dioxide and air pollutant emissions.

WEO 2021 , referred to above, presents electricity generation growth of between 75% and 116% over 2020-2050 across its three main scenarios. In the report's Sustainable Development Scenario, nuclear generation increases by 2022 TWh (75%) over the same period, requiring capacity growth of about 254 GW, or 61%.

WEO 2020 presents electricity generation growth of between 46% and 51% over 2018-2040 across its two main scenarios (the 2020 publication did not include a New Policies Scenario). In the Stated Policies Scenario, the report's central scenario, annual nuclear generation increases by 729 TWh (27%) between 2018 and 2040, requiring an increase in capacity of 59 GW, or 14%. In the report's Sustainable Development Scenario, nuclear generation increases by 1610 TWh (60%) over the same period, requiring capacity growth of about 179 GW, or 43%.

WEO 2019  presents electricity generation growth of between 51% and 67% over 2017-2040 across its three scenarios. In the Stated Policies Scenario, the report's central scenario, annual nuclear generation increases by 839 TWh (32%) between 2017 and 2040, requiring an increase in capacity of 69 GW, or 17%. In the report's Sustainable Development Scenario nuclear generation increases by 1773 TWh (67%) over the same period, requiring capacity growth of about 188 GW, or 46%. 

WEO 2018  presents electricity generation growth of between 49% and 72% over 2016-2040 across its three scenarios. In the New Policies Scenario, the report's central scenario, annual nuclear generation increases by 1121 TWh (43%) between 2016 and 2040, requiring an increase in capacity of about 100 GW, or 25%. In the report's Sustainable Development Scenario nuclear generation increases by 2355 TWh (90%) over the same period, requiring capacity growth of about 265 GW, or 65%. 

WEO 2017  presents electricity generation growth of between 48% and 75% over 2015-2040 across its three scenarios. In the New Policies Scenario, nuclear generation increases by 1273 TWh (50%) between 2015 and 2040, requiring an increase in capacity of about 100 GW, or 25%. In the report's Sustainable Development Scenario, nuclear generation increases by 2774 TWh (108%) over the same period, requiring capacity growth of about 300 GW, or 75%.

WEO 2016  presents electricity generation growth of between 43% and 78% over 2014-2040 across its three scenarios. In the New Policies Scenario, nuclear generation increases by 1997 TWh (78%) between 2014 and 2040, requiring an increase in capacity of about 200 GW, or 45%. In the report's 450 Scenario, nuclear generation increases by 3566 TWh (141%) over the same period, requiring capacity growth of about 300 GW, or 95%.

WEO 2015 presents electricity generation growth of between 45% and 84% over 2013-2040 across its three scenarios. In the New Policies Scenario, nuclear generation increases by 2128 TWh (86%) between 2013 and 2040, requiring an increase in capacity of about 220 GW, or 55%. In the report's 450 Scenario, nuclear generation increases 3765 TWh (152%) over the same period, requiring capacity growth of about 450 GW, or 115%.

In June 2015 the IEA’s  World Energy Outlook 2015 Special Report on Energy and Climate Change  was published, which “has the pragmatic purpose of arming COP21 negotiators with the energy sector material they need to achieve success in Paris in December 2015”. It outlines a strategy to limit global warming to 2°C, but is very much focused on renewables.

The report recommended a series of measures including increasing energy efficiency, reducing the use of inefficient coal-fired power plants, increasing investment in renewables, reducing methane emissions, and phasing out fossil fuels subsidies. Half of the additional emissions reductions in its 450 Scenario come from decarbonisation efforts in power supply, driven by high carbon price incentives. In this scenario, an additional 245 GWe of nuclear capacity is built by 2040 compared with a moderate ‘Bridge’ option. The IEA acknowledges that nuclear power is the second-biggest source of low-carbon electricity worldwide after hydropower and that the use of nuclear energy has avoided the release of 56 billion tonnes of CO 2 since 1971, equivalent to almost two years of global emissions at current rates. The report suggests that intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs) submitted by countries in advance of COP21 will have trivial effect, and its purpose is clearly to suggest more ambitious emission reduction targets in its ‘Bridge’ scenario.

While the report confirms that nuclear energy needs to play an important role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it projects nuclear capacity of only 542 GWe (38% increase), producing 4005 TWh, by 2030 in its main ‘Bridge’ scenario. Most of the new nuclear plants are expected to be built in countries with price-regulated markets or where government-owned entities build, own, and operate the plants, or where governments act to facilitate private investment.

WEO-2014  had a special focus on nuclear power, and extended the scope of scenarios to 2040. In its New Policies Scenario, installed nuclear capacity growth is 60% through 543 GWe in 2030, and to 624 GWe in 2040 out of a total of 10,700 GWe, with the increase concentrated heavily in China (46% of it), plus India, Korea, and Russia (30% of it together) and the USA (16%), countered by a 10% drop in the EU. Despite this, the percentage share of nuclear power in the global power mix increases to only 12%, well below its historic peak. The 450 Scenario gives a cost-effective transition to limiting global warming assuming an effective international agreement in 2015, and this brings about a more than doubling of nuclear capacity to 862 GWe in 2040, while energy-related CO 2 emissions peak before 2020 and then decline. In this scenario, almost all new generating capacity built after 2030 needs to be low-carbon.

"Despite the challenges it currently faces, nuclear power has specific characteristics that underpin the commitment of some countries to maintain it as a future option," it said. "Nuclear plants can contribute to the reliability of the power system where they increase the diversity of power generation technologies in the system. For countries that import energy, it can reduce their dependence on foreign supplies and limit their exposure to fuel price movements in international markets."

Carbon dioxide emissions from coal use level off after 2020 in the New Policies Scenario, though CCS is expected to be negligible before 2030. CO 2 emissions from gas grow strongly to 2040.

WEO-2014  expressed concern about subsidies to fossil fuels, “which encourage wasteful consumption” and totalled $548 billion in 2013, over half of this for oil. Ten countries account for almost three-quarters of the world total for fossil-fuel subsidies, five of them in Middle East (notably Iran and Saudi Arabia) or North Africa where much electricity is generated from oil, and where nuclear power plants and renewables would be competitive, but for those subsidies. The report advocates ensuring “that energy prices reflect their full economic value by introducing market pricing and removing price controls.” Renewables subsides in 2013 are put at $121 billion and rising, $45 billion of this being solar PV. Geographically this is $69 billion for EU and $27 billion in USA. The report was unable to assign a figure for nuclear subsidies, which at present don’t exist. 

Following the Fukushima accident,  WEO-2011  New Policies Scenario had a 60% increase in nuclear capacity to 2035, compared with about 90% the year before. "Although the prospects for nuclear power in the New Policies Scenario are weaker in some regions than in [ WEO-2010 ] projections, nuclear power continues to play an important role, providing base-load electricity. ... Globally, nuclear power capacity is projected to rise in the New Policies Scenario from 393 GW in 2009 to 630 GW in 2035, around 20 GW lower than projected last year." In this scenario the IEA expected the share of coal in total electricity to drop from 41% now to 33% in 2035.  WEO-2011  also included a "Low Nuclear Case (which) examines the implications for global energy balances of a much smaller role for nuclear power. Its effect would be to "increase import bills, heighten energy security concerns and make it harder and more expensive to combat climate change."

IEA: Net Zero by 2050

Net Zero by 2050 , released in May 2021, outlines a possible roadmap for the global energy sector to achieve net zero emissions by mid-century. In the roadmap, the amount of energy provided by nuclear nearly doubles between 2020 and 2050. To achieve this, new capacity additions reach 30 GW per year in the early 2030s. 

The amount of energy consumption that is in the form of electricity increases from about 20% today to about 50% by 2050. Whilst absolute supply from nuclear increases, its relative contribution to the electricity mix decreases from about 10.5% in 2020 to about 8% in 2050. 

The report warned: “Failing to take timely decisions on nuclear power ... would raise the costs of a net-zero emissions pathway and add to the risk of not meeting the goal.” 

IEA: Energy Technology Perspectives

Energy Technology Perspectives (ETP) 2020  from the IEA says that, with a rising share of electricity in final consumption, “the technological transformation of the power generation sector is a central element of the clean energy transition. Decarbonisation drives down the carbon intensity of electricity generation: it falls from 463 grams of CO 2 per kilowatt-hour in 2019 to below zero in net terms around 2055.” However, in its Sustainable Development scenario with a threefold increase in total power generation, it projects only 780 GWe nuclear providing 8% in 2070. To support its projection of 84% from renewables, it projects 2100 GWe of utility-scale storage including 300 GWe pumped hydro, the rest being mainly by batteries with an average discharge duration of five hours. 

ETP 2017  analyses various energy sector development paths to 2060 and notes: “In the power sector, renewables and nuclear capacity additions supply the majority of demand growth... Innovative transportation technologies are gaining momentum and are projected to increase electricity demand." Rising living standards will increase demand. “Nuclear power benefits from the stringent carbon constraint in the [Beyond 2 Degrees Scenario], with its generation share increasing to 15% by 2060 and installed capacity compared with today more than doubling to 1062 GWe by 2060. Of this, 64% is installed in non-OECD countries, with China alone accounting for 28% of global capacity... Achieving this long-term deployment level will require construction rates for new nuclear capacity of 23 GWe per year on average between 2017 and 2060." (p295)

ETP-2016  focused on the urban environment, since cities “represent almost two-thirds of global primary energy demand and account for 70% of carbon emissions in the energy sector.” Its 2DS scenario to 2050 gives a major role to renewables in reducing emissions and much less to nuclear power, while maintaining optimism on CCS. For electricity, generation is almost completely decarbonized by 2050, achieved with 67% renewables including hydro (30% solar PV and wind), 12% coal and gas with CCS, and 16% nuclear (about 7000 TWh, from 914 GWe). Electric vehicles will account for 450 TWh. However, it notes that CCS development is languishing and “is not on a trajectory to meet the 2DS target of 540 Mt CO 2  being stored per year in 2025,” and in 2015 “only 7.5 Mt/yr (27%) of the captured CO 2  is being stored with appropriate monitoring and verification.”

ETP-2015  developed the earlier scenarios. In the main 2DS scenario, the share of fossil fuels in global primary energy supply drops by almost half – from 80% in 2011 to just over 40% in 2050. Energy efficiency, renewables and CCS make the largest contributions to global emissions reductions under the scenario. Under the 2DS scenario, some 22 GWe of new nuclear generating capacity must be added annually by 2050.

Launching ETP 2015, the IEA said: "A concerted push for clean-energy innovation is the only way the world can meet its climate goals," and that governments should help boost or accelerate this transformation."

ETP-2014  developed the ETP 2012 scenarios. In the 2DS one which is the main focus, some 22 GWe of new nuclear generating capacity must be added annually by 2050. However, the IEA notes that global nuclear capacity "is stagnating at this time" and by 2025 will be 5% to 25% below needed levels, "demonstrating significant uncertainty." It suggests that the high capital and low running costs of nuclear create the need for policies that provide investor certainty.

The IEA estimated that an additional $44 trillion in investment was needed in global electricity systems by 2050. However, it says that this represents only a small portion of global GDP and is offset by over $115 trillion in fuel savings.

Launching the ETP 2014 report, the IEA executive director said: "Electricity is going to play a defining role in the first half of this century as the energy carrier that increasingly powers economic growth and development. While this offers opportunities, it does not solve our problems; indeed, it creates many new challenges."

International Atomic Energy Agency

In the 2022 edition of the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA's)  Energy, Electricity and Nuclear Power Estimates for the Period up to 2050 , the high case projection has global nuclear energy capacity increasing from 390 GWe in 2021 to 479 GWe by 2030, 676 GWe by 2040 and 873 GWe by 2050. In the high case, 5.3% of generating capacity is provided by nuclear in 2050, up from 4.8% in 2021.

The IAEA's low case projection assumes a continuation of current market technology and resource trends with few changes to policies affecting nuclear power. It is designed to produce "conservative but plausible" estimates. It does not assume that all national targets for nuclear power will be achieved. Under this projection, nuclear capacity decreases to 381 GWe by 2030, before recovering slightly to 392 GWe by 2040 and 404 GWe by 2050.

These projections represent an increase from those presented in the 2020 edition of  Energy, Electricity and Nuclear Power Estimates for the Period up to 2050 , where nuclear generating capacity increases to 475 GWe by 2030, 622 GWe by 2040 and 715 GWe by 2050 in the high case. Low case projections have also increased from 369 GWe by 2030, 349 GWe by 2040, and 363 GWe by 2050.

Earlier projections from the IAEA had suggested a significantly stronger growth outlook for nuclear energy. For example, in the 2012 edition of  Energy, Electricity and Nuclear Power Estimates for the Period to 2050 , the IAEA's low projection showed a nuclear capacity increase from 370 GWe in 2011 to 456 GWe in 2030; the high case for that year was 740 GWe. For 2050 it projected 469 GWe and 1137 GWe respectively. The projected figures in the 2012 edition for the year 2020 ranged from 421 GWe (low case) to 528 GWe (high case); the actual figure for nuclear capacity in 2020 was 393 GWe.

OECD Nuclear Energy Agency

The 2015 edition of the joint NEA-IEA  Nuclear Technology Roadmap  asserts that “current trends in energy supply and use are unsustainable,” and “the fundamental advantages provided by nuclear energy in terms of reduction of GHG emissions, competitiveness of electricity production and security of supply still apply” (from 2010). It puts forward a 2050 carbon-limited energy mix scenario providing about 40,000 TWh in which 930 GWe of nuclear capacity supplies 17% of electricity but plays an important role beyond that. "The contributions of nuclear energy – providing valuable base-load electricity, supplying important ancillary services to the grid and contributing to the security of energy supply – must be fully acknowledged." Governments should "review arrangements in the electricity market so as to... allow nuclear power plants to operate effectively."

"Clearer policies are needed to encourage operators to invest in both long-term operation and new build so as to replace retiring units," said the report. "Governments should ensure price transparency and the stable policies required for investment in large capital-intensive and long-lived base-load power. Policies should support a level playing field for all sources of low-carbon power projects." This is particularly important to OECD countries, where nuclear power is the largest source of low-carbon electricity, providing 18% of their total electricity. Even though the use of electricity grows over the timeframe to 2050, the increase of nuclear power from 377 GWe today would contribute 13% of the emissions reduction needed to limit global warming.

In the near term, small modular reactors "could extend the market for nuclear energy" and even replace coal boilers forced into closure in order to improve air quality. "Governments and industry should work together to accelerate the development of SMR prototypes and the launch of construction projects (about five projects per design) needed to demonstrate the benefits of modular design and factory assembly." In the longer term the IEA wants so-called Generation IV reactor and fuel cycle designs to be ready for deployment in 2030-40.

US Energy Information Administration

The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) publishes an annual report called International Energy Outlook (IEO).

In IEO-2021 , electricity from renewables is projected to increase by more than 200% between 2020 and 2050, accounting for 56% of global electricity generation by 2050. Nuclear generation is projected to increase by 15% during this period, but relative to total generation, the share of nuclear generation would fall by one-third from 10.5% of total electricity generation in 2020 to 7.2% in 2050.

In IEO-2017 , renewable energy and natural gas are forecast to be the world’s fastest growing energy sources over 2015-2040. Renewables increase at 2.8%/year, and by 2040 will provide 31% of electricity generation, equal to coal; natural gas increases by 2.1%/year. Generation from nuclear is forecast to increase by 1.6% each year. The net nuclear capacity increase is all in non-OECD countries (growth in South Korea is offset by decreases in both Canada and Europe), and China accounts for 67% of the capacity growth. By 2032, the outlook sees China surprass the United States as the country with the most nuclear generating capacity.

In IEO-2016 , nuclear power and renewable energy are forecast to be the world's fastest-growing energy sources from 2012 to 2040. Renewables increase 2.6% per year, from 22% to 29% of total. Nuclear increases by 2.3% per year, from 4% of total to 6%, 2.3 PWh to 4.5 PWh. Generation from non-hydro renewables increases by 5.7% each year. Net nuclear capacity increase is all in non-OECD countries (growth in South Korea is offset by decrease in Canada and Europe), and China accounts for 61% of the capacity growth.

Institute of Energy Economics, Japan

The Asia/World Energy Outlook 2016 report by the Institute of Energy Economics, Japan (IEEJ) shows nuclear energy helping Asian countries achieve future economic growth, energy security and environmental protection. In the reference scenario, global installed nuclear generating capacity would increase from 399 GWe in 2014 to 612 GWe in 2040. Over this period, nuclear electricity generation would increase from 2535 TWh to 4357 TWh but its share of total global electricity generation will remain unchanged at around 11.5%.

In the high nuclear scenario, the IEEJ says that nuclear in effect "becomes the base power source" for many emerging countries, such as Asian and Middle Eastern countries. This scenario assumes that nuclear energy "will benefit from lower level costs, and that nuclear technology transfer will be properly made from developed countries of nuclear technology, such as Japan, to emerging countries." Under this scenario, nuclear generating capacity in Asia would increase about seven-fold between 2014 and 2040. The IEEJ notes: "The development of nuclear in the future is significantly uncertain. It is not only due to countries' or regions' circumstances of energy, economy, and development level of social infrastructure, but also a matter of international relations."

World Energy Council

In October 2016, World Energy Council (WEC) published new scenarios developed in collaboration with Accenture Strategy and the Paul Scherrer Institute as  The Grand Transition . WEC notes that while global energy demand has more than doubled since 1970, the rate of growth for primary energy will now reduce and per capita demand will peak before 2030. However, electricity demand will double by 2060. Furthermore, "limiting global warming to no more than a 2°C increase will require an exceptional and enduring effort, far beyond already pledged commitments, and with very high carbon prices." WEC says global cooperation, sustainable economic growth, and technology innovation are needed to balance the energy trilemma: energy security, energy equity and environmental sustainability. Under its main scenario, where 'intelligent' and 'sustainable' economic growth models emerge as the world seeks a low-carbon future, nuclear accounts for 17% of electricity generation, or 7617 TWh, in 2060, from global installed capacity of 989 GWe. More than half of nuclear capacity additions throughout the period are in China, reaching 158 GWe in 2030 and 344 GWe in 2060. India follows China, with nuclear capacity reaching 137 GWe in 2060.

WEC’s  World Energy Resources 2016  report released in the same month showed that total global renewable energy generating capacity had almost doubled over the past decade, from 1037 GWe in 2006 to 1985 GWe by the end of 2015 (61% of this hydro, 22% wind), and that renewable sources including hydro now account for 23% of total 24,098 TWh generation. The report also said: "The outlook for nuclear up to 2035 will depend largely on the success of the industry in constructing plants to agreed budgets and with predictable construction periods. It is evident in a number of countries that median construction times are stable.” Beyond 2035, the report expects fast reactors to make "an increasing contribution in a number of countries by building on the experience of operating these reactors in Russia and with developing the Generation IV prototypes, such as the Astrid reactor being designed in France.”

In November 2011 the World Energy Council (WEC) published a report: Policies for the future: 2011 Assessment of country energy and climate policies , which ranked country performance according to an energy sustainability index, meaning how well each country performs on "three pillars" of energy policy – energy security, social equity, and environmental impact mitigation (particularly low-carbon emissions), or simply environmental sustainability. The five countries with the "most coherent and robust" energy policies included large shares of nuclear energy in their electricity fuel mix. The best performers, according to the report, were: Switzerland (40% nuclear), Sweden (40% nuclear), France (75% nuclear), Germany (30% nuclear prior to reactor shutdowns earlier 2011), and Canada (15% nuclear). The report said that countries wanting to reduce reliance on nuclear power must work out how to do so without compromising energy sustainability. In Germany this would be a particular challenge without increasing the reliance on carbon-based power generation "since the renewable infrastructure currently does not have the capability to do so."

The 2013 version of this WEC  World Energy Trilemma report gave top rating to Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and Spain as being the only countries that historically demonstrate their ability to manage the trade-offs among the three competing energy policy dimensions coherently. These all have, or depend upon, a high level of nuclear contribution. Germany had notably dropped down the list on energy security and sustainability criteria, as had France on energy security. Canada plunged from 2011 due to environmental sustainability, though at top on the other two. In the 2014 edition, WEC gave top honours to Switzerland, Sweden and Norway. Germany, Spain, and Japan dropped down the rankings.

European Commission

In December 2011 the European Commission (EC) published its Energy 2050 Roadmap , a policy paper. This was very positive regarding nuclear power and said that nuclear energy can make "a significant contribution to the energy transformation process" and is "a key source of low-carbon electricity generation" that will keep system costs and electricity prices lower. "As a large scale low-carbon option, nuclear energy will remain in the EU power generation mix." The paper analysed five possible scenarios leading to the EU low-carbon energy economy goal by 2050 (80% reduction of CO 2 emissions), based on energy efficiency, renewables, nuclear power and carbon capture and storage (CCS). All scenarios show electricity will have to play a much greater role than now, almost doubling its share in final energy demand to 36%-39% in 2050. The EC high-efficiency scenario would reduce energy demand by 41% by 2050 (compared with 2005); the diversified supply technologies scenario would have a combination of high carbon prices, nuclear energy and introduction of CCS technologies; a high-renewables scenario suggests they might supply 75% of total energy supply by 2050; a "delayed CCS" scenario has nuclear power playing a major role; and a low-nuclear power scenario had coal plants with CCS providing 32% of total energy (ie 82-89% of EU electricity). The highest percentage of nuclear energy would be in the delayed CCS and diversified supply technologies scenarios, in which it would account for 18% and 15% shares of primary energy supply respectively, ie 38-50% of EU electricity. Those scenarios also had the lowest total energy costs.

World Nuclear Association Harmony programme

The World Nuclear Association has published its  Harmony  vision for the future of electricity, developed from the International Energy Agency’s ‘2°C Scenario' (2DS) in reducing CO 2  emissions*. This IEA scenario adds 680 GWe of nuclear capacity by 2050, giving 930 GWe then (after 150 GWe retirements from 2014’s 396 GWe), providing 17% of world electricity. Harmony sets a further goal for the nuclear industry, drawing on the experience of nuclear construction in the 1980s.

* See section above on the 2015 edition of the International Energy Agency's  Energy Technology Perspectives .

The Harmony goal is for the nuclear industry to provide 25% of global electricity and build 1000 GWe of new nuclear capacity by 2050. The World Nuclear Association says this requires an economic and technological level playing field, harmonized regulatory processes to streamline nuclear construction, and an effective safety paradigm which focuses safety efforts on measures that make the most difference to public wellbeing. The build schedule would involve adding 10 GWe per year to 2020, 25 GWe per year to 2025, and 33 GWe per year from then. This rate compares with 31 GWe per year in the mid-1980s. The Harmony goal is put forward at a time when the limitations, costs and unreliability of other low-carbon sources of electricity are becoming politically high-profile in several countries.

BP's latest  Energy Outlook  includes ‘Rapid’, ‘Net Zero’ and ‘Business-as-usual' scenarios. Growth in primary energy consumption is expected across all three scenarios, ranging from about 8% to about 25% by 2050. Growth in nuclear energy is driven by China, with generation in the country increasing by 2050 to between 3967 TWh and 4767 TWh across BP’s three scenarios. Output from renewables globally increases to about 29% of power generation by 2040.

Generation options

In electricity demand, the need for low-cost continuous, reliable supply can be distinguished from peak demand occurring over a few hours daily and able to command higher prices. Supply needs to match demand instantly and reliably over time. There are a number of characteristics of nuclear power which make it particularly valuable apart from its actual generation cost per unit – MWh or kWh. Fuel is a low proportion of power cost, giving power price stability, its fuel is on site (not depending on continuous delivery), it is dispatchable on demand, it has fairly quick ramp-up, it contributes to clean air and low-CO 2 objectives, it gives good voltage support for grid stability. These attributes are mostly not monetized in merchant markets, but have great value which is increasingly recognized where dependence on intermittent sources has grown, and governments address long-term reliability and security of supply.

The renewable energy sources for electricity constitute a diverse group, from wind, solar, tidal, and wave energy to hydro, geothermal, and biomass-based power generation. Apart from hydro power in the few places where it is very plentiful, all of the renewables have limitiations, either intrinsically or economically, in potential use for large-scale power generation where continuous, reliable supply is needed.

This diagram shows that much of the electricity demand is in fact for continuous 24/7 supply (base-load), while some is for a lesser amount of predictable supply for about three quarters of the day, and less still for variable peak demand up to half of the time.

Apart from nuclear power the world relies almost entirely on fossil fuels, especially coal, to meet demand for base-load electricity production. Most of the demand is for continuous, reliable supply on a large scale and there are limits to the extent to which this can be changed.

Natural gas is increasingly used as fuel for electricity generation in many countries. The challenges associated with transport over long distances and storage are to an extent alleviated through liquefaction. However much storage remains underground, in depleted oilfields, especially in the USA, and this can be dangerous. In 2015 the Aliso Canyon storage field in California leaked for some months, releasing about 66 tonnes of methane per hour, causing widespread evacuation and neutralising the state’s efforts to curb CO 2 emissions (methane having 25 times the global warming potential).

Implications of Electric Vehicles

Future widespread use of electric vehicles, both pure electric and plug-in hybrids, will increase electricity demand modestly – perhaps up to 15% in terms of kilowatt-hours. But this increase will mostly come overnight, in off-peak demand, so will not significantly increase systems' peak capacity requirement in gigawatts. Overnight charging of vehicles will however greatly increase the proportion of that system capacity to be covered by base-load power generation – either nuclear or coal. In a typical system this might increase from about 50-60% to 70-80% of the total, as shown in the Figures below.

This then has significant implications for the cost of electricity. Base-load power is generated much more cheaply than intermediate- and peak-load power, so the average cost of electricity will be lower than with the present pattern of use. And any such major increase in base-load capacity requirement will have a major upside potential for nuclear power if there are constraints on carbon emissions. So potentially the whole power supply gets a little cheaper and cleaner, and many fossil fuel emissions from road transport are avoided at the same time.

Drivers for increased nuclear capacity

The first generation of nuclear plants were justified by the need to alleviate urban smog caused by coal-fired power plants. Nuclear was also seen as an economic source of base-load electricity which reduced dependence on overseas imports of fossil fuels. Today's drivers for nuclear build have evolved:

Increasing energy demand

Global population growth in combination with industrial development will lead to strong growth in electricity consumption in the decades ahead. Besides the expected incremental growth in demand, there will be there will be the challenge of renewing a lot of existing generating stock in the USA and the EU over the same period. An increasing shortage of fresh water calls for energy-intensive desalination plants See first section above for recent projections.

Climate change

Increased awareness of the dangers and effects of global warming and climate change has led decision makers, media, and the public to realize that the use of fossil fuels must be reduced and replaced by low-emission sources of energy, such as nuclear power – the only readily available large-scale alternative to fossil fuels for production of a continuous, reliable supply of electricity.

Security of Supply

A major topic on many political agendas is security of supply, as countries realize how vulnerable they are to interrupted deliveries of oil and gas. The abundance of naturally occurring uranium makes nuclear power attractive from an energy security standpoint.

As carbon emission reductions are encouraged through various forms of government incentives and trading schemes, the economic benefits of nuclear power will increase further.

Insurance against future price exposure

A longer-term advantage of uranium over fossil fuels is the low impact that variable fuel prices have on final electricity production costs. This insensitivity to fuel price fluctuations offers a way to stabilize power prices in deregulated markets.

In practice, is a rapid expansion of nuclear power capacity possible?

It is noteworthy that in the 1980s, 218 power reactors started up, an average of one every 17 days. These included 47 in USA, 42 in France and 18 in Japan. The average power was 923.5 MWe. So it is not hard to imagine a similar number being commissioned in a decade after about 2015. 

See also the page in this series: Heavy Manufacturing of Power Plants.

Clean Air and Greenhouse Gases

On a global scale nuclear power currently reduces carbon dioxide emissions by some 2.5 billion tonnes per year (relative to the main alternative of coal-fired generation, about 2 billion tonnes relative to the present fuel mix). Carbon dioxide accounts for half of the human-contributed portion of the global warming effect of the atmosphere. Nuclear power has a key role to play in reducing greenhouse gases. 

In August 2015 the Global Nexus Initiative (GNI) was set up by the US Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) and the Partnership for Global Security. It aims to explore the links between climate change, nuclear energy and global security challenges through a working group of 17 multidisciplinary policy experts from the non-governmental, academic and private sectors in Denmark, France, Japan, Sweden, the United Arab Emirates and the USA. The group will convene for a series of meetings and workshops, through which it aims to produce policy memoranda identifying the challenges and offering recommendations. These will feed into a cumulative report at the end of the two-year project. GNI points out that climate change, energy security and global security are all issues that cut across national borders, have significant economic and social impacts, and require input from the full spectrum of stakeholders. This means policies must be coordinated at national, regional and global levels.

See also information page on Nuclear Energy and Sustainable Development .

Related information

• Undergraduate
• High School
• Architecture
• American History
• Asian History
• Antique Literature
• American Literature
• Asian Literature
• Classic English Literature
• World Literature
• Creative Writing
• Linguistics
• Criminal Justice
• Legal Issues
• Anthropology
• Archaeology
• Political Science
• World Affairs
• African-American Studies
• East European Studies
• Latin-American Studies
• Native-American Studies
• West European Studies
• Family and Consumer Science
• Social Issues
• Women and Gender Studies
• Social Work
• Natural Sciences
• Pharmacology
• Earth science
• Agriculture
• Agricultural Studies
• Computer Science
• IT Management
• Mathematics
• Investments
• Engineering and Technology
• Engineering
• Aeronautics
• Medicine and Health
• Alternative Medicine
• Communications and Media
• Advertising
• Communication Strategies
• Public Relations
• Educational Theories
• Teacher's Career
• Chicago/Turabian
• Company Analysis
• Education Theories
• Shakespeare
• Canadian Studies
• Food Safety
• Relation of Global Warming and Extreme Weather Condition
• Movie Review
• Admission Essay
• Annotated Bibliography
• Application Essay
• Article Critique
• Article Review
• Article Writing
• Book Review
• Business Plan
• Business Proposal
• Capstone Project
• Cover Letter
• Creative Essay
• Dissertation
• Dissertation - Abstract
• Dissertation - Conclusion
• Dissertation - Discussion
• Dissertation - Hypothesis
• Dissertation - Introduction
• Dissertation - Literature
• Dissertation - Methodology
• Dissertation - Results
• GCSE Coursework
• Grant Proposal
• Marketing Plan
• Multiple Choice Quiz
• Personal Statement
• Power Point Presentation
• Power Point Presentation With Speaker Notes
• Questionnaire
• Reaction Paper

Research Paper

• Research Proposal
• SWOT analysis
• Thesis Paper
• Online Quiz
• Literature Review
• Movie Analysis
• Statistics problem
• Math Problem
• All papers examples
• How It Works
• Money Back Policy
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• We Are Hiring

Nuclear Energy, Essay Example

Pages: 4

Words: 1230

Hire a Writer for Custom Essay

Use 10% Off Discount: "custom10" in 1 Click 👇

You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work.

In the wake of the Three Mile Island (TMI-2) nuclear reactor incident in 1979, it was nearly a decade before the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approved a new nuclear power plan for development of a site in the State of Georgia.[i] In the interim, nuclear energy facilities underwent thorough-going review, as in-depth risk assessment protocol and stipulation to Superfund allocations were revised on the basis of such a major disaster. The after-math of TMI-2 also provided the springboard for an entire gateway analysis of all aspects of nuclear reactor risk mitigation, and set the stage for regulatory measures up to decommission, if another reactor disaster were to take place. As in all cases, federal legislation pertaining to nuclear power facilities, looked to new models of policy within pre-emptive international nuclear energy law, and subsequently crafted more responsive laws toward regulatory compliance in the United States.

Concomitantly to the development of the Georgia site, the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste and Materials (ACNW&M) was established by the Commission in June 1988 to provide the NRC with independent reviews, applications and recommendations to nuclear waste facilities holding a 10 CFR Parts 60 and 61 (disposal of high-level radioactive wastes in geologic repositories and land disposal of radioactive waste) subject to NRC regulations (10 CFR Part 7).[ii] New regulatory mandates in the form of policy legislation such as the Nuclear Waste Act , the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act were expanded with amendments to address the incursion of nuclear waste into the surrounding environment, with oversight of site decommission by the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards. Innovation in risk based approaches to regulatory problems has been in conjunction with the EPA on deep geologic disposal of high-level radioactive waste (40 CFR Part 191). The National Research Council collaboration led to Section 301 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992.

In the nuclear power sector, multi-scale risks are part of the equation, and all risk is not hazardous. During the same period that transformations were taking place in the NRC and its related commissions, a host of energy investment matters were emerging in response to the shift in privatized options in the energy marketplace, and the simultaneous financial risk assessment of former government managed nuclear facilities. Nuclear power was no exception. As a 1999 Washington Post article reflection of the post TMI-2 industry suggested:

“State by state, the rules are being written that will transform the industry from a network of nearly 200 regional monopolies into a handful of national competitors that will vie for customers the way long-distance phone companies do. One of the most visible changes underway so far has been the sale of power plants by utility companies.”[iii]

With privatization comes complexity in administration, as profit is prioritized. While U.S. corporate management models may enhance fiscal practices and operational procedures, the conglomerate model also presents the challenge of “too many cooks in the kitchen.” At the international level, structural adjustment policies informed economic decision by energy corporations, and promoted the interests of those entities and their stakeholders in the development of everything from market based CDM (Clean Development Mechanisms) securities, to influence on lobbying of regulatory laws in those states where those nuclear power or other energy companies might be acquired.

In the context of globalization, there is an increase in the transactional exchange of energy resources. Since the 1990s, nuclear power has become increasingly contracted into the private sphere, and as seen in the case of post TMI-2 investment, stakeholder participation required extensive accountability toward operations of such ventures. What does this mean for nuclear power as a regulated industry? As the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) maintains, nuclear facilities were “originally conceived as providing power that would be “too cheap to meter.” What was once prided as the future of the electric industry within energy investment circles has now become a dystopic reality; “the largest managerial disaster in business history” which led to the two industry bailouts in the 1980s and 1990s.[iv]

One realm of consideration within the finance of nuclear power is the tax payer base for government contribution to such projects. According to UCS, “the industry has proposed building almost 30 new nuclear reactors, with some calling for 300 new plants by mid-century.” Such an expansion is unlikely. In the present scenario, only four new nuclear reactors already spurred by existing loan guarantees from the Department of Energy (DOE) and other incentives. Amidst the recent financial crises which foreshadowed 2009 and continues into the present, the instability of traditional investment on Wall Street has reinstated federal government partnership in nuclear power, with fiscal assistance in the form of subsidies, including federal loan guarantees and production tax credits. In spite of the resurgence of market interest in nuclear energy under the rubric of alt.energy or clean energy sources within an array of newer opportunities for growth in energy, the promise of what some have called a “Nuclear Renaissance” is still cautionary.[v]

Proponents of nuclear power claim that we should focus on the “cheap and efficient” logic of the energy source, and the especially in light of the new generation of reactors. Indeed, the world is searching for low to no GHG emissions power sources, and post the December 2009, Conference of the Parties (COP/15) in Copenhagen, the articulation of which types of energy sources might fall under the decision making of forthcoming cap-and-trade legislation is likely to include those recommendations.[vi] The International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) is focused on the promotion of policy in the area of fast reactor research toward cleaner nuclear technologies that might contribute to the market in low emissions power.[vii] The goal is not short sighted. With low life-cycle emissions, nuclear reactors emit little carbon into the atmosphere. If the nuclear energy industry is to take a lead as viable solution within cap-and-trade legislation, the initiative must also take significant financial, safety, security and waste mitigation steps.vii

San Onofre Nuclear Generator Station (SONGS), is located in the State of California, where emissions reductions legislation has surpassed U.S. Federal EPA rules in the State’s Assembly Bill: 32, Nunez. Air pollution: greenhouse gases: California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 . Prepared for the transition to an international cap-and-trade scheme that includes environmental responsibility of the corporate kind, the jointly owned municipal and private business cooperation practices “continuous environmental protection activities” and is “committed to safe, reliable operation[s]” in compliance with “all applicable federal, state and local standards and regulations.”[viii] Characteristic of what nuclear advocates argue is the most effective resource in energy, the SONGS nuclear facility service of 2,200 megawatts of power to 1.5 million energy California consumers may indeed be the future of alt.energy after all.

[i] Backgrounder on the Three Mile Island Accident. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Retrieved from: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html

[ii] ACNW&M History. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Retrieved from: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acnw/history.html

[iii] Hamilton, M.M. Nuclear Plant Sale Shows Power Shift. Washington Post, Saturday, March 27, 1999, E1. Retrieved from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/tmi/stories/tmi032799.htm

[iv] Nuclear Loan Guarantees: Another Taxpayer Bailout Ahead?. Union of Concerned Scientists. March 3, 2009. Retrieved from: http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_and_global_warming/nuclear-loan-guarantees.html

[v] Nuclear Power: A Resurgence We Cannot Afford. Union of Concerned Scientists. August, 1, 2009. Retrieved from: http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_and_global_warming/nuclear-power-resurgence.html

[vi] United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Retrieved from: http://unfccc.int/2860.php

[vii] Cleaner Nuclear Technologies for a Better Future: IAEA International Conference Highlights Innovative Fast Reactor Research. International Atomic Energy Association. Retrieved from: http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2009/fr09.html

[viii] San Onofre Nuclear Generator Station (SONGS). Retrieved from: http://www.sce.com/PowerandEnvironment/PowerGeneration/SanOnofreNuclearGeneratingStation/default.htm?goto=songs

Stuck with your Essay?

Get in touch with one of our experts for instant help!

Therese of Lisieux, Research Paper Example

Math Through the Ages, Research Paper Example

Time is precious

don’t waste it!

Plagiarism-free guarantee

Privacy guarantee

Secure checkout

Money back guarantee

Related Essay Samples & Examples

Voting as a civic responsibility, essay example.

Pages: 1

Words: 287

Utilitarianism and Its Applications, Essay Example

Words: 356

The Age-Related Changes of the Older Person, Essay Example

Pages: 2

Words: 448

The Problems ESOL Teachers Face, Essay Example

Pages: 8

Words: 2293

Should English Be the Primary Language? Essay Example

Words: 999

The Term “Social Construction of Reality”, Essay Example

Words: 371

Russian Federation to Conduct Tactical Nuclear Weapons Exercises Amidst Warnings from Western Leaders

Editorial Perspective: Russian Nuclear Enterprise Endures Despite Sanctions Pressure

As we observe the 38th year since the Chornobyl nuclear catastrophe, the nuclear dangers emanating from Moscow appear to be escalating. Rosatom, Russia’s government-controlled nuclear corporation, plays a pivotal role in this situation—not only by providing financial support to Russia’s military actions against Ukraine but also by reinforcing worldwide dependencies on energy that…

FAQ Section

Q: What is Rosatom?

A: Rosatom is the Russian state-controlled nuclear energy corporation responsible for Russia’s nuclear energy production and development.

Q: How is Rosatom connected to the nuclear threat from Russia?

A: Rosatom is implicated in funding Russia’s military campaign in Ukraine, which contributes to the nuclear threat the country poses.

Q: What is the significance of the 38th anniversary of the Chornobyl disaster in this context?

A: The Chornobyl disaster serves as a reminder of the catastrophic potential of nuclear power mishaps, and the increased nuclear threat from Moscow given its heightened military activities amplifies concerns on the anniversary.

Q: Are the sanctions affecting Rosatom?

A: Despite international sanctions, Rosatom seems to be withstanding the financial pressures and continues to operate in the global nuclear energy sector.

As the situation develops, the attention of global observers remains fixed on the Russian Federation’s upcoming tactical nuclear weapons exercises. With threats issued by some Western officials and the pivotal role of Rosatom in worldwide nuclear energy reliance, the concerns regarding nuclear safety and geopolitics become increasingly pronounced. The memory of the Chornobyl nuclear disaster underscores the importance of vigilance and responsibility in managing nuclear capabilities, even as geopolitical tensions persist.

Note: The material published by TheUBJ is an amalgamation of various internet sources restructured through AI-driven news feeds. While we strive to relay accurate information, we neither claim originality nor ownership of the presented news content. The original source for the material is attributed to https://kyivindependent.com/russia-to-hold-tactical-nuclear-weapons-drills-amid-threats-by-certain-western-officials/ for reference purposes.

Advertisement

The best new science fiction books of May 2024

A new Stephen King short story collection, an Ursula K. Le Guin reissue and a celebration of cyberpunk featuring writing from Philip K. Dick and Cory Doctorow are among the new science fiction titles published this month

By Alison Flood

A new short story collection from Stephen King, You Like It Darker, is out in May

Shane Leonard

Every month, I trawl through publishers’ catalogues so I can tell you about the new science fiction being released. And every month, I’m disappointed to see so much more fantasy on publishers’ lists than sci-fi. I know it’s a response to the huge boom in readers of what’s been dubbed “ romantasy ”, and I’m not knocking it – I love that sort of book too. But it would be great to see more good, hard, mind-expanding sci-fi in the offing as well.

In the meantime, there is definitely enough for us sci-fi fans to sink our teeth into this month, whether it’s a reissue of classic writing from Ursula K. Le Guin, some new speculative short stories from Stephen King or murder in space from Victor Manibo and S. A. Barnes.

Last month, I tipped Douglas Preston’s Extinction and Sofia Samatar’s The Practice, the Horizon, and the Chain as books I was looking forward to. I can report that they were both excellent: Extinction was a lot of good, clean, Jurassic Park -tinged fun, while Samatar’s offering was a beautiful and thought-provoking look at life on a generation ship.

The Language of the Night: Essays on writing, science fiction, and fantasy by Ursula K. Le Guin

There are few sci-fi and fantasy writers more brilliant (and revered) than Ursula K. Le Guin. This reissue of her first full-length collection of essays features a new introduction from Hugo and Nebula award-winner Ken Liu and covers the writing of The Left Hand of Darkness and A Wizard of Earthsea , as well as her advocacy for sci-fi and fantasy as legitimate literary mediums. I’ve read some of these essays but not all, and I won’t be missing this collection.

Nuclear War: A Scenario by Annie Jacobsen

This isn’t science fiction, not quite, but it is one of the best and most important books I have read for some time. It sees Jacobsen lay out, minute by minute, what would happen if an intercontinental ballistic missile hit Washington DC. How would the US react? What, exactly, happens if deterrence fails? Jacobsen has spoken to dozens of military experts to put together what her publisher calls a “non-fiction thriller”, and what I call the scariest book I have possibly ever read (and I’m a Stephen King fan; see below). We’re currently reading it at the New Scientist Book Club, and you can sign up to join us here .

Read an extract from Nuclear War: A scenario by Annie Jacobsen

In this terrifying extract from Annie Jacobsen’s Nuclear War: A Scenario, the author lays out what would happen in the first seconds after a nuclear missile hits the Pentagon

The Big Book of Cyberpunk (Vol 1 & 2)

Forty years ago, William Gibson published Neuromancer . Since then, it has entranced millions of readers right from its unforgettable opening line: “The sky above the port was the color of television, tuned to a dead channel…”. Neuromancer gave us the literary genre that is cyberpunk, and we can now welcome a huge, two-volume anthology celebrating cyberpunk’s best stories, by writers from Cory Doctorow to Justina Robson, and from Samuel R. Delaney to Philip K. Dick. I have both glorious-sounding volumes, brought together by anthologist Jared Shurin, on my desk (using up most of the space on it), and I am looking forward to dipping in.

You Like It Darker by Stephen King

You could categorise Stephen King as a horror writer. I see him as an expert chronicler of the dark side of small-town America, and from The Tommyknockers and its aliens to Under the Dome with its literally divisive trope, he frequently slides into sci-fi. Even the horror at the heart of It is some sort of cosmic hideousness. He is one of my favourite writers, and You Like It Darker is a new collection of short stories that moves from “the folds in reality where anything can happen” to a “psychic flash” that upends dozens of lives. There’s a sequel to Cujo , and a look at “corners of the universe best left unexplored”. I’ve read the first story so far, and I can confirm there is plenty for us sci-fi fans here.

Enlightenment by Sarah Perry

Not sci-fi, but fiction about science – and from one of the UK’s most exciting writers (if you haven’t read The Essex Serpent yet, you’re in for a treat). This time, Perry tells the story of Thomas Hart, a columnist on the Essex Chronicle who becomes a passionate amateur astronomer as the comet Hale-Bopp approaches in 1997. Our sci-fi columnist Emily Wilson is reviewing it for New Scientist ’s 11 May issue, and she has given it a vigorous thumbs up (“a beautiful, compassionate and memorable book,” she writes in a sneak preview just for you guys).

Ghost Station by S.A. Barnes

Dr Ophelia Bray is a psychologist and expert in the study of Eckhart-Reiser syndrome, a fictional condition that affects space travellers in terrible ways. She’s sent to help a small crew whose colleague recently died, but as they begin life on an abandoned planet, she realises that her charges are hiding something. And then the pilot is murdered… Horror in space? Mysterious planets? I’m up for that.

In Hey, Zoey, the protagonist finds an animatronic sex doll hidden in her garage

Shutterstock / FOTOGRIN

Hey, Zoey by Sarah Crossan

Hot on the heels of Sierra Greer’s story about a sex robot wondering what it means to be human in Annie Bot , the acclaimed young adult and children’s author Sarah Crossan has ventured into similar territory. In Hey, Zoey , Dolores finds an animatronic sex doll hidden in her garage and assumes it belongs to her husband David. She takes no action – but then Dolores and Zoey begin to talk, and Dolores’s life changes.

How to Become the Dark Lord and Die Trying by Django Wexler

Davi has tried to take down the Dark Lord before, rallying humanity and making the final charge – as you do. But the time loop she is stuck in always defeats her, and she loses the battle in the end. This time around, Davi decides that the best thing to do is to become the Dark Lord herself. You could argue that this is fantasy, but it has a time loop, so I’m going to count it as sci-fi. It sounds fun and lighthearted: quotes from early readers are along the lines of “A darkly comic delight”, and we could all use a bit of that these days.

Escape Velocity by Victor Manibo

It’s 2089, and there’s an old murder hanging over the clientele of Space Habitat Altaire, a luxury space hotel, while an “unforeseen threat” is also brewing in the service corridors. A thriller in space? Sounds excellent – and I’m keen to see if Manibo makes use of the latest research into the angle at which blood might travel following violence in space, as reported on by our New Scientist humour columnist Marc Abrahams recently.

The best new science fiction books of March 2024

With a new Adrian Tchaikovsky, Mars-set romance from Natasha Pulley and a high-concept thriller from Stuart Turton due to hit shelves, there is plenty of great new science fiction to be reading in March

In Our Stars by Jack Campbell

Part of the Doomed Earth series, this follows Lieutenant Selene Genji, who has been genetically engineered with partly alien DNA and has “one last chance to save the Earth from destruction”. Beautifully retro cover for this space adventure – not to judge a book in this way, of course…

The Downloaded by Robert J. Sawyer

Two sets of people have had their minds uploaded into a quantum computer in the Ontario of 2059. Astronauts preparing for the world’s first interstellar voyage form one group; the other contains convicted murderers, sentenced to a virtual-reality prison. Naturally, disaster strikes, and, yup, they must work together to save Earth from destruction. Originally released as an Audible Original with Brendan Fraser as lead narrator, this is the first print edition of the Hugo and Nebula award-winning Sawyer’s 26 th novel.

The Ferryman by Justin Cronin

Just in case you still haven’t read it, Justin Cronin’s gloriously dreamy novel The Ferryman , set on an apparently utopian island where things aren’t quite as they seem, is out in paperback this month. It was the first pick for the New Scientist Book Club, and it is a mind-bending, dreamy stunner of a read. Go try it – and sign up for the Book Club in the meantime!

• science fiction /

Sign up to our weekly newsletter

Receive a weekly dose of discovery in your inbox! We'll also keep you up to date with New Scientist events and special offers.

More from New Scientist

Explore the latest news, articles and features

We live in a cosmic void so empty that it breaks the laws of cosmology

Subscriber-only

Annie Jacobsen: 'What if we had a nuclear war?’

Two brilliant new novels from adrian tchaikovsky show his range, popular articles.

Trending New Scientist articles

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

U.S. Plan to Protect Oceans Has a Problem, Some Say: Too Much Fishing

An effort to protect 30 percent of land and waters would count some commercial fishing zones as conserved areas.

By Catrin Einhorn

New details of the Biden administration’s signature conservation effort, made public this month amid a burst of other environmental announcements, have alarmed some scientists who study marine protected areas because the plan would count certain commercial fishing zones as conserved.

The decision could have ripple effects around the world as nations work toward fulfilling a broader global commitment to safeguard 30 percent of the entire planet’s land, inland waters and seas. That effort has been hailed as historic, but the critical question of what, exactly, counts as conserved is still being decided.

This early answer from the Biden administration is worrying, researchers say, because high-impact commercial fishing is incompatible with the goals of the efforts.

“Saying that these areas that are touted to be for biodiversity conservation should also do double duty for fishing as well, especially highly impactful gears that are for large-scale commercial take, there’s just a cognitive dissonance there,” said Kirsten Grorud-Colvert, a marine biologist at Oregon State University who led a group of scientists that in 2021 published a guide for evaluating marine protected areas .

The debate is unfolding amid a global biodiversity crisis that is speeding extinctions and eroding ecosystems, according to a landmark intergovernmental assessment . As the natural world degrades, its ability to give humans essentials like food and clean water also diminishes. The primary driver of biodiversity declines in the ocean, the assessment found, is overfishing. Climate change is an additional and ever-worsening threat.

Fish are an important source of nutrition for billions of people around the world. Research shows that effectively conserving key areas is an key tool to keep stocks healthy while also protecting other ocean life.

Nations are watching to see how the United States enacts its protections.

The American approach is specific because the broader plan falls under the United Nations biodiversity treaty, which the United States has never ratified. The effort in the United States is happening under a 2021 executive order by President Biden.

Still, the United States, a powerful donor country, exerts considerable influence on the sidelines of the U.N. talks. Both the American and international efforts are known as 30x30.

On April 19, federal officials launched a new website updating the public on their 30x30 efforts. They did not indicate how much land was currently conserved (beyond approximately 13 percent of permanently protected federal lands), stating that they needed to better understand what was happening at the state, tribal and private levels. But they announced a number for the ocean: about a third of U.S. marine areas are currently conserved, the website said.

The problem, according to scientists, is how the Biden administration arrived at that figure.

Everyone seems to agree that the highly protected areas classified as marine national monuments should count as conserved, and they did: four in the Pacific around Hawaii, Guam and American Samoa that were set up and expanded between 2006 and 2016; and one in the Atlantic southeast of Cape Cod, designated in 2016. A vast area of the Arctic where commercial fishing is banned was also included, with wide agreement.

But other places on the list should not be counted unless protections there are tightened, said Lance Morgan, a marine biologist and president of the Marine Conservation Institute, a nonprofit group that maintains a global map of the ocean’s protected areas.

For example, 15 National Marine Sanctuaries are included. While these areas typically restrict activities like oil and gas drilling, they do not require reduced quotas of commercial fishing. High-impact fishing techniques like bottom trawling, which damages seafloor habitat and captures vast amounts of fish, are prohibited in certain sanctuaries but permitted in others.

Also included on the list are “deep sea coral protection areas” that ban seafloor fishing like bottom trawling, but not some other commercial fishing methods.

“Much more effort should be focused on improving the National Marine Sanctuary program and ensuring that new areas being created provide conservation benefits and ban commercial fishing methods like bottom trawling and long-lining,” Dr. Morgan said.

Senior officials with the Biden administration emphasized that ocean work under 30x30 was far from over. Very little of the conserved marine area is near the continental United States, for example, and one of the administration’s priorities is adding places there to make the effort more geographically representative.

But they defended the decision to include areas that allow commercial fishing. Despite the high-impact gear, national marine sanctuaries have long been considered protected areas by the United Nations, they pointed out. More generally, they said, the administration weighed various approaches to defining what it would count.

For example, while an atlas of marine protected areas maintained by Dr. Morgan’s group considers 25 percent of American waters to be conserved, the U.S. Fishery Management Councils puts that number at more than 72 percent . Administration officials said their number reflected important conservation work by a variety of agencies and stakeholders.

“We do have very highly regulated fisheries in the U.S.,” said Matt Lee-Ashley, the chief of staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, which is helping to coordinate the 30x30 effort. “And so, our domestic definition of conservation may be a little bit different, and other countries’ definitions may be a little bit different.”

Even though the United States has not ratified the biodiversity treaty, it will still submit a conservation total to be counted toward the global 30x30 commitment. Officials said they were still weighing which areas to submit.

In a statement, representatives of the Fishery Management Councils praised the inclusion of commercial fishing areas, noting that they are managed under “very stringent sustainability and conservation standards.”

But sustainably managed commercial fishing is what should be happening in the rest of the ocean, said Enric Sala, a marine biologist who studies and advocates for marine protected areas. Allowing commercial fishing in places conserved under 30x30, he said, is “padding the numbers.”

“People are looking up to the U.S.,” Dr. Sala, who is originally from Spain, said. “That sends a really bad signal.”

Catrin Einhorn covers biodiversity, climate and the environment for The Times. More about Catrin Einhorn

Why Nuclear Energy Is Not Good? Essay

Introduction, why nuclear energy is not best alternative.

Energy source that is being proposed and used by people in the public, one must always look at safety and economic use. This paper provide thesis argument: nuclear energy is not good.

Making nuclear plant that would be good for replacing fossil fuels must require many nuclear plants which each need billion dollars. In the end this means the country would have to waste with so much money before it can remove the energy demand for the United States even as much as the fossil fuels (Mackenzie, 1977). Even the day and time needed to create a nuclear plant would be bog problem because one plant take about ten years in order to complete.

Again even shutting a nuclear plant involves massive expensive because it must be decommissioned by a decommissioning authority. Even those who say net production is cost effective for unit of nuclear energy produced may not be saying the truth because most of these estimate forget that nuclear energy is recipient of many government subsidies.

Most researches in renewable energy are done with help of government inventions and subsidies in it. If these are removed because they cannot be there in the future then cost of producing this power would be so high. Therefore, it would not be good idea to make large scale nuclear energy because it would be good to improve current energy sources in because of costs.

Another problem and issue is environmental damage being taken by this source of electricity. Nuclear energy is bad for total of nuclear waste removed at time of production and this waste often radioactive (Diesendorf, 2007). It is because of these problem, factories must have system in place that allow disposals and this must be very expensive that make a number of them very much uneconomical.

If they have not been in position to do so then the environment suffer through the emission of any kind of heat in waste or because radioactive emissions that be very harmful to the human body. Furthermore, even process of mining the material to begin with for nuclear energy production i.e. uranium mining would being radioactive dumps which being in some sort of negative cycles. One method used to remove of this kind of waste has been making of electricity during the use of heat from the waste.

Here, people who support of nuclear energy say that natural gas can be generated through such method and this may therefore increase the convenience of the waste. But, major reason for take up nuclear energy is to protect the environment from carbon emissions. It would not be good to use clean energy to make dirty one (Lowe & Brook, 2010). Another method in getting rid these effects is US must build repository.

Still, do not forget radioactive nature of the materials, there must be radioactive resistant material that you use so to prevent the spread of these radiations to outside world. Also, nuclear energy building factories are using too much of resource – they want too much of water in order to make cooling effect.

Some plants like this one in Southern Australia consumers thirty million liters of water and plans in future for tripling this water. When economic activity bring to much of using of important natural resource like the water then it is environmental sustainability should always be wrong since it now competing with other kinds of uses that may be more important to the people (Bodansky, 2008).

Last one; many nuclear firm will like to focus on high level of the waste like the one radioactive material from factory after completing the process but very small number of them will think on low level wastes like radiation clothing (that may been used so that it can cover workers not to get radioactive emissions), rags, syringes and other smaller produces of radioactive emissions that may not attract many attention from manufacturers but this still be a dangerous thing to the public.

One other issue concerning nuclear energy is likely harm is may present to the public. Any employee who works at nuclear plant is risky always of being exposed to low level of radiations that may be responsible for many sick persons. Still, some disastrous events even occur especially around this form of energy.

The most big case of them was the Chernobyl accident. Not just this, smaller accidents have occurred or will be going to occur in the everyday to day making nuclear energy. For example, in Minnesota, it was said contaminated equipment transported from another location, this could put many at big danger (Cooke, 2009). And this is not enough, any people who live near nuclear plants always put the other at problem of long term health effects.

Those who work or live near the factories may be in danger to long term complications like cancer. Even though the chance of having affects by these issues may be highly small when safety measures and throwing away are obeyed, studies show serious problem there is still a danger of getting a health problem because of going near radioactive emissions or radioactive work.

These many risk of nuclear energy i.e. safety problem and around health of workers and residents, the building factories is not and environmental problems are many. Make this nuclear energy not a good and clean energy for the United States and world.

Mackenzie, J. (1977). The nuclear power controversy. Biology quarterly review, 52(4), 467

Cooke, S. (2009). A cautionary history on nuclear age. NY: Black inc

Diesendorf, M. (2007). Greenhouse solutions and sustainable energy. NSW: New South Wales university press

Lowe, I. & Brook, B. (2010). Why vs. Why: Nuclear power. Sydney: Pantera Press

Bodansky, D. (2008). Environmental paradox of nuclear power. Environmental practice, 3(2), 86

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, February 29). Why Nuclear Energy Is Not Good? https://ivypanda.com/essays/renewable-energy/

"Why Nuclear Energy Is Not Good?" IvyPanda , 29 Feb. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/renewable-energy/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'Why Nuclear Energy Is Not Good'. 29 February.

IvyPanda . 2024. "Why Nuclear Energy Is Not Good?" February 29, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/renewable-energy/.

1. IvyPanda . "Why Nuclear Energy Is Not Good?" February 29, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/renewable-energy/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Why Nuclear Energy Is Not Good?" February 29, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/renewable-energy/.

• Classification of Radioactive Waste
• Radioactive Medical Waste Management
• Characteristics of Radioactive Emission
• Nuclear Energy and Its Risks
• Biological Effect of Man-Made Disasters in Nuclear Power Plants
• Aspects of Bremsstrahlung of Electrons in a Medium
• Gamma Ray Spectroscopy Analysis of Environmental Samples: a Literature Review
• The Effect of Nuclear Energy on the Environment
• Radioactive Decay Types:  Environments
• Impact of Nuclear Energy in France
• Theoretical Aspects of Quantum Teleportation
• The Wonders of the Universe
• The Evolution of Electricity
• Ethnography Reflection
• Foundations of Earth Science