nuclear power in the future essay

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

• Future Energy Systems Center
• Studies and reports
• Funding opportunities
• Basic energy science
• Built environment and infrastructure
• Climate and environment
• Conventional energy
• Developing world
• Energy efficiency
• Nuclear energy
• Policy and economics
• Power distribution and energy storage
• Renewable energy
• Transportation
• Undergraduate education
• Graduate & postdoctoral
• Online education
• Education research
• Current members
• Energy Futures
• In the media
• Affiliations

The Future of Nuclear Power

Read the report.

Executive summary (PDF) Full report (PDF)

Update (PDF)

An interdisciplinary MIT faculty group decided to study the future of nuclear power because of a belief that this technology is an important option for the United States and the world to meet future energy needs without emitting carbon dioxide and other atmospheric pollutants. Other options include increased efficiency, renewables, and carbon sequestration, and all may be needed for a successful greenhouse gas management strategy. This study, addressed to government, industry, and academic leaders, discusses the interrelated technical, economic, environmental, and political challenges facing a significant increase in global nuclear power utilization over the next half century and what might be done to overcome those challenges.

Related news

5 reasons we must embrace nuclear energy in the fight against climate change

Nuclear energy has its potential pitfalls — but it's also one of the cleanest and cheapest sources of energy available to us. Image:  Lukáš Lehotský/Unsplash

.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo{-webkit-transition:all 0.15s ease-out;transition:all 0.15s ease-out;cursor:pointer;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;outline:none;color:inherit;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:hover,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-hover]{-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:focus,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-focus]{box-shadow:0 0 0 3px rgba(168,203,251,0.5);} Rafael Mariano Grossi

.chakra .wef-9dduvl{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-9dduvl{font-size:1.125rem;}} Explore and monitor how .chakra .wef-15eoq1r{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;color:#F7DB5E;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-15eoq1r{font-size:1.125rem;}} Energy Transition is affecting economies, industries and global issues

.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;color:#2846F8;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{font-size:1.125rem;}} Get involved with our crowdsourced digital platform to deliver impact at scale

Stay up to date:, energy transition.

• At COP28, the world recognized the need to transition away from fossil fuels and reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050.
• To do that, nuclear energy is essential — nuclear power plants produce no carbon emissions, are safer than almost every other option and produce affordable energy over the best part of a century.
• Here's why nuclear energy is so important to the world — and how we can overcome investment barriers to make the most of it.

A little more than a month ago, the president of COP28 brought down the gavel on a global agreement to transition away from fossil fuels in an attempt to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050.

The meeting’s host was the United Arab Emirates. In the past five years, through its investment in renewables and nuclear energy, the UAE has added more clean energy per capita to its energy mix than any other country.

Its Barakah Nuclear Power Plant started commercial operations in 2021. It will decarbonize a quarter of the Emirate’s electricity grid.

Globally, nuclear energy is also playing a key role in the transition to net zero. Fears about nuclear are slowly giving way to fact-based understanding. This year, for the first time, the document agreed at COP backed nuclear energy investment among low-emissions technologies.

One of nuclear’s key attributes is its energy intensity. A thimble-sized pellet of uranium produces as much energy as almost 3 barrels of oil, more than 350 cubic metres of natural gas and about half a tonne of coal .

Have you read?

Small reactors, big ambitions, is this the future of nuclear energy , here's how nuclear energy production has changed since 1965, 5 reasons we cannot ignore nuclear energy.

Nuclear power, which has 20,000 reactor years of experience across the world, has five distinct advantages .

1. From cradle to grave, nuclear energy has the lowest carbon footprint and needs fewer materials and less land than other electricity source. For example, to produce one unit of energy, solar needs more than 17 times as much material and 46 times as much land .

2. Uranium in the earth's crust and oceans is more abundant than gold, platinum and other rare metals. It is going to take us about 100 to 150 years to get through the uranium resources we deem economically recoverable today.

3. Nuclear power doesn’t rely on the weather. Well-run nuclear power plants, including for example those in the US, operate at least two to three times as reliably for two to three times as many years as intermittent low-carbon sources. As a flexible baseload for wind and solar that provides more energy when it is needed and less when it is not, nuclear power plants displace coal and enable renewables .

4. Each year, nuclear power plants produce a quarter of the world’s low-carbon electricity, saving many lives that would otherwise be cut short by the lethal pollution fossil fuels pump into the air. Nuclear energy is about as safe as solar. It is far safer than coal, gas and oil, and safer than almost every other alternative energy source .

5. It is true that spent fuel is highly radioactive and emits heat. But it is also relatively compact, and extremely carefully managed and regulated. Nuclear energy generation is so efficient that the amount of all spent fuel ever produced would — in theory — fit into 42 Olympic-sized swimming pools. Today, it is carefully stored in pools and dry storage systems or recycled. Countries like Finland and Sweden are close to putting into place deep geological repositories to dispose of spent fuel. France is also progressing in the implementation of a deep geological repository for high-level waste from spent fuel recycling.

Nuclear is one of the safest, cleanest, least environmentally burdensome and — ultimately, over the lifetime of a nuclear power plant — one of the cheapest sources of energy available .

But for all of nuclear energy’s positive attributes, there are hurdles to overcome. The accidents at Chernobyl and at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station left long shadows of mistrust and underinvestment. The upfront cost of building a nuclear power plant is considerable and budget overruns and long delays have made it more difficult to gain support for new construction.

Three levers to catalyze investment in nuclear energy

Three main levers will need to be pulled if we are to triple today’s investment levels and build the nuclear capacity that will help get us to net zero.

Lever 1: Nuclear must be acknowledged for what it is: a reliable, scalable, safe and highly affordable low-carbon source of energy. It must be treated that way when it comes to investment incentives. Today’s energy markets are not the same as those of the 1970s and 1980s. Nuclear needs private investment, even in markets where governments still take on much of the financing. Governments need to shoulder the risk of the high capital costs at the start. But that alone is not enough. They need to attract private financing through assured revenues and an enabling investment environment over the longer term. That means levelling the playing field nationally and internationally, including by changing the policies preventing investment in nuclear energy by many keyinternational financial institutions and development banks.

Lever 2: Governments and the public are again turning towards nuclear. The nuclear industry needs to respond to the challenge and opportunity of this unique moment by delivering on time and on budget, while achieving a greater level of industrial standardization and better incorporating safety, security and safeguards at the design stage.

Lever 3: Regulators need to meet the moment by enabling the necessary tripling of capacity while maintaining high levels of safety. This includes building their own internal capacity, including to license the next generation of innovative reactors for which regulators do not yet have experience.

Nuclear energy is a cross-border endeavour. That means all these efforts require international cooperation and collaboration. As the centre of the global nuclear field, the IAEA will continue to facilitate progress in safety and security and enable the timely deployment of small modular reactors by bringing together regulators and industry through its Nuclear Harmonization and Standardization Initiative.

Nuclear energy is an extraordinary asset whose full potential we need to untap if we are to keep climate change in check. The narrative that pits nuclear against wind and solar is wrong. It is time for the truth to get through, for leaders to pull the necessary levers and help make the global climate goals achievable.

Don't miss any update on this topic

Create a free account and access your personalized content collection with our latest publications and analyses.

License and Republishing

World Economic Forum articles may be republished in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License, and in accordance with our Terms of Use.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

Related topics:

The agenda .chakra .wef-n7bacu{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-weight:400;} weekly.

A weekly update of the most important issues driving the global agenda

.chakra .wef-1dtnjt5{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;} More on Energy Transition .chakra .wef-17xejub{-webkit-flex:1;-ms-flex:1;flex:1;justify-self:stretch;-webkit-align-self:stretch;-ms-flex-item-align:stretch;align-self:stretch;} .chakra .wef-nr1rr4{display:-webkit-inline-box;display:-webkit-inline-flex;display:-ms-inline-flexbox;display:inline-flex;white-space:normal;vertical-align:middle;text-transform:uppercase;font-size:0.75rem;border-radius:0.25rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;line-height:1.2;-webkit-letter-spacing:1.25px;-moz-letter-spacing:1.25px;-ms-letter-spacing:1.25px;letter-spacing:1.25px;background:none;padding:0px;color:#B3B3B3;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;box-decoration-break:clone;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;}@media screen and (min-width:37.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:0.875rem;}}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:1rem;}} See all

A new study reveals how renewables could power Africa by 2040

Christiane Zarfl and Rebecca Peters

March 27, 2024

Geopolitics, the equitable transition, and AI: things to look out for in energy in 2024

Robin Pomeroy and Sophia Akram

March 26, 2024

Industrial electrification is a joint venture: why collaboration across sectors is key

Francisco Laverón, Randolph Brazier, Natalia Zabolotnikova and Xabier Mugarza Zorriqueta

76% of Africa’s energy could be renewable by 2040

China strengthens 2024 energy efficiency target, and other top energy stories to read this month

Roberto Bocca

March 25, 2024

Liverpool plans the world's largest tidal power project

Debate and innovation define nuclear energy’s present and future

Is nuclear power a necessary part of the energy transition away from fossil fuels? As the debate rages on, new technologies and smaller reactors may be shifting the balance.

By Nicola Jones / Knowable Magazine | Published Mar 26, 2024 8:00 AM EDT

• Environment

This article was originally featured on  Knowable Magazine .

In an online video from Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation, a cartoon simulation shows a tsunami wiping out one of their future nuclear power stations and cutting off power. What happens next? Not much: The reactor quietly shuts itself down. “It cools off just by sitting there, no moving parts or fluids, no operator actions,” says the reassuring video. “We’ve designed a reactor that is inherently safe no matter the events.”

The Seattle-based Ultra Safe and dozens of other companies like it are at the forefront of a global nuclear energy revival. As the world urgently needs to wean itself off fossil fuels, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and get the planet’s temperature under control, policymakers, companies and researchers are reexamining nuclear energy as a green alternative that can help bolster the power produced by renewables like wind and solar. Today the industry is emerging from a period of stagnation, with a promise to double or triple its capacity by 2050.

That revival is undergirded by two hot technology trends. Companies like Ultra Safe are aiming to build small modular reactors (SMRs) designed to be just a fraction of the size of former plants, to reduce both building costs and the scope of possible disasters. And many are aiming to utilize new technologies designed to make meltdown accidents impossible and to create less long-lived waste.

But the surge in interest is not without controversy. As with everything in the nuclear landscape, debate rages about whether society actually needs nuclear to tackle climate change, and whether the new systems are as shiny as they seem—with reasonable arguments for and against every promise and risk. Some say the new technologies could offer a  fantastic solution to our energy woes ; others say nuclear is beset with so many environmental, social and economic  problems  that it is best abandoned in favor of other ways to meet the globe’s energy demands.

The next few years will decide what course nuclear power takes in the world’s energy future. “This is a moment of truth,” says Francesca Giovannini, a nuclear policy expert at the Harvard Kennedy School. Over the next few decades, nuclear power is “either going to make it, or that industry is fundamentally done for. … It’s 50/50 how this goes.”

Ups and downs in nuclear power output

Nuclear power poses some obvious risks—meltdown accidents, nuclear fuel being diverted to weapons programs, environmental issues posed by mining for uranium, the problems of storing nuclear waste. Against a backdrop of such concerns, alongside shifting economics of energy production, nuclear power production started to level off in the early 2000s and even dipped briefly after the Fukushima power plant accident of 2011. Some nations, most notably Germany, decided to shutter their nuclear programs entirely. But global nuclear power production is now starting to inch upward again.

Today, nuclear plants produce about 10 percent of global electricity, making nuclear the second largest source of non-fossil-fuel energy after hydropower. There are about 440 nuclear power plants in operation globally; another 60 or so are now being built, and around 100 are on order or planned.

Most Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scenarios for keeping the world below 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming include some kind of increase in nuclear power capacity. In the International Energy Agency’s (IEA)  pathway to net zero , global nuclear power production doubles over 2022 levels by 2050. A key reason for this is that nuclear is seen as a good way to provide consistent baseload power to prop up more variable renewable sources of energy like wind or solar. Without nuclear, advocates say, we would need to build far more wind and solar power plants to ensure reliable supplies,  doubling or tripling  costs over power networks that include nuclear.

Nuclear has plenty of advantages: It produces no carbon emissions (and, counterintuitively, releases less radioactive uranium and other elements into the environment than  burning coal does ). It takes up a lot less land than renewables, a  not insignificant consideration . If the goal is to decarbonize quickly and with as little social pain as possible, “nuclear is essential,” says Kai Vetter, a nuclear physicist at the University of California, Berkeley.

At the UN’s Convention on Climate Change meeting in Dubai in December 2023, more than 20 nations signed a  declaration to triple nuclear capacity  by 2050. And cash is flowing into this effort. In 2020, the US Department of Energy (DOE) notably gave $160 million for two demonstration plants to get up and running by 2027. And in 2022, the European Union declared that some nuclear projects could call themselves “green” in the same way as renewables, opening the door to environmental financing mechanisms.

But as with almost every issue relating to nuclear power, the arguments in favor of nuclear have their detractors. Public policy expert M.V. Ramana at the University of British Columbia is one of many, for example, who say that baseload power is an  outdated concept . A smart, diverse and flexible electric grid, they argue, can assure a reliable power supply by shunting power among sources and storage facilities.

And with the  cost of renewables  falling fast, today’s economic estimates about the relative costs of power sources may not mean much in the future.

Then there’s the question of safety. The grand total of lives lost from all nuclear power generation to date, while hard to quantify, is certainly far lower than the number of people killed by air pollution related to the burning of fossil fuels; a  recent paper  by NASA scientists concluded that nuclear power saved roughly 1.8 million lives from 1971 to 2009 thanks to avoided air pollution. By some accounts nuclear power has also proved less deadly than wind power, which has been linked to drownings at offshore wind farm sites and helicopter collisions with turbines.

But fatality is arguably a blunt way to measure the impacts of the nuclear industry, which also include the risk of accidents contaminating large tracts of land, plus numerous other effects related to such things as mining and waste storage. Ramana has  documented  how the burden of these last issues falls disproportionately on Indigenous and   disempowered communities, working against the goals of social justice. Nuclear power, he writes, “does not fit with any idea of a responsible and cleaner energy system.”

Small and shiny: New nuclear technologies

If we are to pursue nuclear power at the scale called for by the IEA, it will take a herculean effort. The IEA’s pathway requires the world to ramp up from building five big nuclear plants per year to 20 per year over the next decade. Big plants typically cost billions of dollars and come with big financial risks. Westinghouse Electric Company, for example, recently filed for bankruptcy in the face of billions of dollars of cost overruns during the construction of four nuclear plants in the United States.

One plan for reducing those epic and prohibitive costs is to build  small modular reactors , ranging from reactors that can be shipped on a truck and produce a couple of hundred megawatts, to tiny single-megawatt sizes that are more akin to hefty diesel generators. The modules could be pre-built in a factory and shipped to a site for installation. All this should make these reactors less frightening prospects for investors (though the end price per unit of electricity might wind up higher than that from a larger nuclear power plant).

A handful of SMRs are already in operation in Russia, China and India. Dozens more are in development. Canada has a national SMR action plan, and as of 2021 there were 10 SMR proposals under review (including one from Ultra Safe).

But so far, the promise of enticingly low costs for SMR builds hasn’t materialized, says Granger Morgan, a physicist and codirector of the Center for Climate and Energy Decision Making at Carnegie Mellon. Morgan has  crunched the numbers  for nuclear in the US and was disappointed. “I thought SMRs were going to hold much more promise, but we can’t make the numbers wash,” he says.

That message was hammered home in November 2023 when the company NuScale scrapped its high-profile advanced plans to build an underground SMR in Idaho in the face of cost hikes. “Would it be nice to have nuclear? Yes absolutely,” says Morgan. “Will it be affordable? That’s very much an open question.”

Others argue that small isn’t always beautiful. While smaller plants present a smaller risk from smaller potential accidents, this strategy also means more plants overall, which means more facilities to protect against theft and terrorism. “You have way more fissile material dispersed; you will have to secure way more infrastructure,” says Giovannini. “I mean, that becomes a mess.”

Next generation nuclear

While some are focusing on making nuclear plants smaller, there’s a parallel movement to make them safer and more efficient. The next generation of reactor designs—Generation IV, in the industry’s lingo—includes a suite of six major reactor families, all very different from today’s standard, each with many possible variants under development. Much of the attention (particularly in the US) has been focused on three of these: high-temperature gas-cooled, molten salt and sodium-cooled.

The ideas behind these technologies, and even some early-stage power plants, have been around for decades. But the new variants of these old ideas combine novel fuels and designs, promising to be safer, more efficient and environmentally friendly. “They’re doing all kinds of whizz-bang, high-tech stuff,” says Morgan, who has no doubt that newer reactors can be made safer than old ones.

Most existing reactors are water-cooled uranium systems, which were chosen as the dominant technology largely as a quirk of history. Like all reactor types, they have their pros and cons. They need high pressures to stop their coolant waters from boiling off at typical operating temperatures around 300 degrees Celsius. And they are designed to work with relatively slow-moving neutrons—the subatomic particles that collide with nuclear fuel to initiate nuclear fission. Slow-moving neutrons are more likely to interact with fuel particles, but systems that use them are also limited in the kinds of fuels they can use. Catastrophe can strike if the fission reaction runs amok or the reactor gets too hot and the core “melts down,” as happened at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, spewing radiation into the environment.

The latest models of water-cooled reactors (sometimes called Gen III Plus, including many SMRs) use new design tricks to reduce the number of safety systems that require human intervention, aiming to stop accidents in their tracks automatically. Gen IV reactors, though, use entirely different coolant materials, are usually designed to operate at higher, more efficient temperatures, and often use faster-speed neutrons that can convert the most prevalent natural isotopes of uranium into usable fuel, or even feed on nuclear waste.

High-temperature gas-cooled reactors, for example, run at temperatures up to 950°C, making them 20 to 33 percent more thermally efficient than water-cooled reactors. Since the core materials used in these reactors are typically stable up to 1,600°C, which is hotter than lava, there’s a large margin of safety. The reactor in Ultra Safe’s video is an SMR that falls into this category; its small size helps, too, with passive cooling. Ultra Safe also makes their own fuel pellets, encased in a bespoke material that they say retains radioactive materials even in extreme conditions. They’re hoping to build their  first commercial micro-reactor  in Canada.

In  molten salt reactors , both fuel and coolant are already liquid. So meltdowns, in the traditional sense, are impossible. And liquid-sodium-cooled reactors have a built-in safety feature: If they heat up, the liquid sodium expands and allows more neutrons to escape through the gaps between atoms, so the reaction (which is driven by neutrons) naturally winds down. The US Department of Energy has funded the US company TerraPower (which has Bill Gates as a major investor) to build a demonstration plant of its sodium-cooled Natrium reactor in Wyoming by 2030.

Nuclear waste not, want not

Waste is one area where the new designs really see some significant improvements, says Giovannini. “None of the reactors have entirely solved the problem of nuclear waste, but they do provide some significant solutions in terms of quantity,” she says. The spent fuel from traditional light water reactors needs to be buried in special repositories for hundreds of thousands of years, because of the production of long-lived radioactive byproducts. Some Gen IV reactors, on the other hand, can transform spent fuel into more fissile isotopes and use it for further fission reactions. This can improve efficiency and produce waste that need only be stored for hundreds of years.

Not everyone, though, thinks all these systems are as shiny as they seem. In 2021, the Union of Concerned Scientists published a report entitled “‘ Advanced’ Isn’t Always Better ,” in which they highlighted issues with safety, sustainability and nuclear proliferation. They concluded that nearly all the Gen IV reactor types “fail to provide significant enough improvements over [light water reactors] to justify their considerable risks.”

The report was criticized by some for being ideologically antinuclear, says Giovannini. But, she says, “it was very fair” to point out that new tech comes with new worries. Liquid salt, the report pointed out, is corrosive; liquid sodium metal can burst into flame when in contact with water or air. High-temperature gas-cooled reactors, the report concluded, while tolerant of high temperatures, are “far from meltdown-proof, as some claim.”

Many of these Gen IV systems offer another key benefit: Their higher temperatures can provide not just electricity but also useful heat. This could be used in many industrial processes, such as the production of steel, cement and fertilizer, which currently burn a lot of fossil fuels in their furnaces.

“That heat is pretty much for free,” says Vetter, who sees a particular utility for nuclear heat in desalination, getting clean drinking water out of saltwater as is done at the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant in California. Indeed, X-energy, a leading US Gen IV nuclear company funded by the DOE, has partnered with Dow chemical company to build its first high-temperature gas-cooled reactor at a Dow chemical production site by 2030. Morgan, though, thinks that most industries will balk at the set-up costs.

Even if Gen IV reactors turn out to be technically superior, though, it may be decades before they can be thoroughly tested, passed by regulators and built at commercial scale. With little time to spare in the fight against climate change, the world might be better off simply ramping up old reactor designs that are already proven, says Esam Hussein, a retired nuclear engineer from the University of Regina, Canada.   “We have the operating experience, we have the regulatory framework,” he says. “If the goal is to fight climate change, why don’t you go with the devil you know?”

In response to why we need a devil at all, many are quick to point out that no energy solution is problem-free, including renewables. Giovannini says she agrees with the nuclear industry’s criticism that we have “jumped on renewables in a very uncritical way.” Wind and solar require electronics and battery banks to store their energy; these in turn need elements like lithium and cobalt that can come with environmental and social justice issues from mining. “Nothing is 100 percent safe,” says Vetter.

It is hard for many to swallow data, assurances and statistics about nuclear, given its history and the huge amounts of money at stake. “I think the nuclear industry is selling a bunch of bullshit most of the time,” says Giovannini, who  has been critical  of how the industry deals with public concerns. But her own main worry about nuclear is “they’re moving too slow.” If companies like Ultra Safe, X-Energy, TerraPower and others are going to help fight climate change with Gen IV technologies and fleets of small reactors, she and others say, they’re going to have to ramp up fast.

This article originally appeared in  Knowable Magazine , an independent journalistic endeavor from Annual Reviews. Sign up for the  newsletter .

Like science, tech, and DIY projects?

Sign up to receive Popular Science's emails and get the highlights.

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

• LISTEN & FOLLOW
• Apple Podcasts
• Google Podcasts
• Amazon Music
• Amazon Alexa

Your support helps make our show possible and unlocks access to our sponsor-free feed.

Are we on the brink of a nuclear fusion breakthrough?

Regina G. Barber

Geoff Brumfiel

Rachel Carlson

Rebecca Ramirez

The National Ignition Facility used lasers to generate net energy from a pellet of fusion fuel in 2022. But the experiment is still a long way from truly producing more electricity than it requires. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory hide caption

The National Ignition Facility used lasers to generate net energy from a pellet of fusion fuel in 2022. But the experiment is still a long way from truly producing more electricity than it requires.

Nuclear fusion could change the world. It would produce energy at lower costs than we generate it now without greenhouse gas emissions or long-term nuclear waste.

"Fusion is the ultimate energy source," says Phil Larochelle , a partner at Breakthrough Energy Ventures, a private venture capital firm that's investing in fusion companies. "If we can get it to work it's basically infinite, free, accessible to all, and if we get it right, carbon-free," he says.

If we can get it to work.

Companies say they're closing in on nuclear fusion as an energy source. Will it work?

It's an ambitious goal. Nuclear fusion is the same process that powers stars like the sun. Scientists have been promising fusion energy as a new, clean source of power for decades without commercial success. In the 1950s and '60s, governments poured money into research, hoping for clean, essentially limitless energy here on Earth.

Decades later, there is no commercial success to speak of.

But lately, billions of dollars from venture capitalists and tech entrepreneurs have flowed into the field. Companies like Helion , which raised $500 million in its last major fundraising round in 2021, are racing to build commercial fusion power plants and produce net energy in the next few years. Curious about other science breakthroughs? Email us at [email protected] .

Listen to Short Wave on Spotify , Apple Podcasts and Google Podcasts .

Listen to every episode of Short Wave sponsor-free and support our work at NPR by signing up for Short Wave+ at plus.npr.org/shortwave .

Today's episode was produced by Rachel Carlson. It was edited by Rebecca Ramirez. Geoff Brumfiel checked the facts, and Maggie Luthar was the audio engineer.

Suggestions or feedback?

MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology

• Machine learning
• Social justice
• Black holes
• Classes and programs

Departments

• Aeronautics and Astronautics
• Brain and Cognitive Sciences
• Architecture
• Political Science
• Mechanical Engineering

Centers, Labs, & Programs

• Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL)
• Picower Institute for Learning and Memory
• Lincoln Laboratory
• School of Architecture + Planning
• School of Engineering
• School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences
• Sloan School of Management
• School of Science
• MIT Schwarzman College of Computing

Future nuclear power reactors could rely on molten salts — but what about corrosion?

Press contact :.

Previous image Next image

Most discussions of how to avert climate change focus on solar and wind generation as key to the transition to a future carbon-free power system. But Michael Short, the Class of ’42 Associate Professor of Nuclear Science and Engineering at MIT and associate director of the MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center (PSFC), is impatient with such talk. “We can say we should have only wind and solar someday. But we don’t have the luxury of ‘someday’ anymore, so we can’t ignore other helpful ways to combat climate change,” he says. “To me, it’s an ‘all-hands-on-deck’ thing. Solar and wind are clearly a big part of the solution. But I think that nuclear power also has a critical role to play.”

For decades, researchers have been working on designs for both fission and fusion nuclear reactors using molten salts as fuels or coolants. While those designs promise significant safety and performance advantages, there’s a catch: Molten salt and the impurities within it often corrode metals, ultimately causing them to crack, weaken, and fail. Inside a reactor, key metal components will be exposed not only to molten salt but also simultaneously to radiation, which generally has a detrimental effect on materials, making them more brittle and prone to failure. Will irradiation make metal components inside a molten salt-cooled nuclear reactor corrode even more quickly?

Short and Weiyue Zhou PhD ’21, a postdoc in the PSFC, have been investigating that question for eight years. Their recent experimental findings show that certain alloys will corrode more slowly when they’re irradiated — and identifying them among all the available commercial alloys can be straightforward.

The first challenge — building a test facility

When Short and Zhou began investigating the effect of radiation on corrosion, practically no reliable facilities existed to look at the two effects at once. The standard approach was to examine such mechanisms in sequence: first corrode, then irradiate, then examine the impact on the material. That approach greatly simplifies the task for the researchers, but with a major trade-off. “In a reactor, everything is going to be happening at the same time,” says Short. “If you separate the two processes, you’re not simulating a reactor; you’re doing some other experiment that’s not as relevant.”

So, Short and Zhou took on the challenge of designing and building an experimental setup that could do both at once. Short credits a team at the University of Michigan for paving the way by designing a device that could accomplish that feat in water, rather than molten salts. Even so, Zhou notes, it took them three years to come up with a device that would work with molten salts. Both researchers recall failure after failure, but the persistent Zhou ultimately tried a totally new design, and it worked. Short adds that it also took them three years to precisely replicate the salt mixture used by industry — another factor critical to getting a meaningful result. The hardest part was achieving and ensuring that the purity was correct by removing critical impurities such as moisture, oxygen, and certain other metals.

As they were developing and testing their setup, Short and Zhou obtained initial results showing that proton irradiation did not always accelerate corrosion but sometimes actually decelerated it. They and others had hypothesized that possibility, but even so, they were surprised. “We thought we must be doing something wrong,” recalls Short. “Maybe we mixed up the samples or something.” But they subsequently made similar observations for a variety of conditions, increasing their confidence that their initial observations were not outliers.

The successful setup

Central to their approach is the use of accelerated protons to mimic the impact of the neutrons inside a nuclear reactor. Generating neutrons would be both impractical and prohibitively expensive, and the neutrons would make everything highly radioactive, posing health risks and requiring very long times for an irradiated sample to cool down enough to be examined. Using protons would enable Short and Zhou to examine radiation-altered corrosion both rapidly and safely.

Key to their experimental setup is a test chamber that they attach to a proton accelerator. To prepare the test chamber for an experiment, they place inside it a thin disc of the metal alloy being tested on top of a a pellet of salt. During the test, the entire foil disc is exposed to a bath of molten salt. At the same time, a beam of protons bombards the sample from the side opposite the salt pellet, but the proton beam is restricted to a circle in the middle of the foil sample. “No one can argue with our results then,” says Short. “In a single experiment, the whole sample is subjected to corrosion, and only a circle in the center of the sample is simultaneously irradiated by protons. We can see the curvature of the proton beam outline in our results, so we know which region is which.”

The results with that arrangement were unchanged from the initial results. They confirmed the researchers’ preliminary findings, supporting their controversial hypothesis that rather than accelerating corrosion, radiation would actually decelerate corrosion in some materials under some conditions. Fortunately, they just happen to be the same conditions that will be experienced by metals in molten salt-cooled reactors.

Why is that outcome controversial? A closeup look at the corrosion process will explain. When salt corrodes metal, the salt finds atomic-level openings in the solid, seeps in, and dissolves salt-soluble atoms, pulling them out and leaving a gap in the material — a spot where the material is now weak. “Radiation adds energy to atoms, causing them to be ballistically knocked out of their positions and move very fast,” explains Short. So, it makes sense that irradiating a material would cause atoms to move into the salt more quickly, increasing the rate of corrosion. Yet in some of their tests, the researchers found the opposite to be true.

Experiments with “model” alloys

The researchers’ first experiments in their novel setup involved “model” alloys consisting of nickel and chromium, a simple combination that would give them a first look at the corrosion process in action. In addition, they added europium fluoride to the salt, a compound known to speed up corrosion. In our everyday world, we often think of corrosion as taking years or decades, but in the more extreme conditions of a molten salt reactor it can noticeably occur in just hours. The researchers used the europium fluoride to speed up corrosion even more without changing the corrosion process. This allowed for more rapid determination of which materials, under which conditions, experienced more or less corrosion with simultaneous proton irradiation.

The use of protons to emulate neutron damage to materials meant that the experimental setup had to be carefully designed and the operating conditions carefully selected and controlled. Protons are hydrogen atoms with an electrical charge, and under some conditions the hydrogen could chemically react with atoms in the sample foil, altering the corrosion response, or with ions in the salt, making the salt more corrosive. Therefore, the proton beam had to penetrate the foil sample but then stop in the salt as soon as possible. Under these conditions, the researchers found they could deliver a relatively uniform dose of radiation inside the foil layer while also minimizing chemical reactions in both the foil and the salt.

Tests showed that a proton beam accelerated to 3 million electron-volts combined with a foil sample between 25 and 30 microns thick would work well for their nickel-chromium alloys. The temperature and duration of the exposure could be adjusted based on the corrosion susceptibility of the specific materials being tested.

Optical images of samples examined after tests with the model alloys showed a clear boundary between the area that was exposed only to the molten salt and the area that was also exposed to the proton beam. Electron microscope images focusing on that boundary showed that the area that had been exposed only to the molten salt included dark patches where the molten salt had penetrated all the way through the foil, while the area that had also been exposed to the proton beam showed almost no such dark patches.

To confirm that the dark patches were due to corrosion, the researchers cut through the foil sample to create cross sections. In them, they could see tunnels that the salt had dug into the sample. “For regions not under radiation, we see that the salt tunnels link the one side of the sample to the other side,” says Zhou. “For regions under radiation, we see that the salt tunnels stop more or less halfway and rarely reach the other side. So we verified that they didn’t penetrate the whole way.”

The results “exceeded our wildest expectations,” says Short. “In every test we ran, the application of radiation slowed corrosion by a factor of two to three times.”

More experiments, more insights

In subsequent tests, the researchers more closely replicated commercially available molten salt by omitting the additive (europium fluoride) that they had used to speed up corrosion, and they tweaked the temperature for even more realistic conditions. “In carefully monitored tests, we found that by raising the temperature by 100 degrees Celsius, we could get corrosion to happen about 1,000 times faster than it would in a reactor,” says Short.

Images from experiments with the nickel-chromium alloy plus the molten salt without the corrosive additive yielded further insights. Electron microscope images of the side of the foil sample facing the molten salt showed that in sections only exposed to the molten salt, the corrosion is clearly focused on the weakest part of the structure — the boundaries between the grains in the metal. In sections that were exposed to both the molten salt and the proton beam, the corrosion isn’t limited to the grain boundaries but is more spread out over the surface. Experimental results showed that these cracks are shallower and less likely to cause a key component to break.

Short explains the observations. Metals are made up of individual grains inside which atoms are lined up in an orderly fashion. Where the grains come together there are areas — called grain boundaries — where the atoms don’t line up as well. In the corrosion-only images, dark lines track the grain boundaries. Molten salt has seeped into the grain boundaries and pulled out salt-soluble atoms. In the corrosion-plus-irradiation images, the damage is more general. It’s not only the grain boundaries that get attacked but also regions within the grains.

So, when the material is irradiated, the molten salt also removes material from within the grains. Over time, more material comes out of the grains themselves than from the spaces between them. The removal isn’t focused on the grain boundaries; it’s spread out over the whole surface. As a result, any cracks that form are shallower and more spread out, and the material is less likely to fail.

Testing commercial alloys

The experiments described thus far involved model alloys — simple combinations of elements that are good for studying science but would never be used in a reactor. In the next series of experiments , the researchers focused on three commercially available alloys that are composed of nickel, chromium, iron, molybdenum, and other elements in various combinations.

Results from the experiments with the commercial alloys showed a consistent pattern — one that confirmed an idea that the researchers had going in: the higher the concentration of salt-soluble elements in the alloy, the worse the radiation-induced corrosion damage. Radiation will increase the rate at which salt-soluble atoms such as chromium leave the grain boundaries, hastening the corrosion process. However, if there are more not-soluble elements such as nickel present, those atoms will go into the salt more slowly. Over time, they’ll accumulate at the grain boundary and form a protective coating that blocks the grain boundary — a “self-healing mechanism that decelerates the rate of corrosion,” say the researchers.

Thus, if an alloy consists mostly of atoms that don’t dissolve in molten salt, irradiation will cause them to form a protective coating that slows the corrosion process. But if an alloy consists mostly of atoms that dissolve in molten salt, irradiation will make them dissolve faster, speeding up corrosion. As Short summarizes, “In terms of corrosion, irradiation makes a good alloy better and a bad alloy worse.”

Real-world relevance plus practical guidelines

Short and Zhou find their results encouraging. In a nuclear reactor made of “good” alloys, the slowdown in corrosion will probably be even more pronounced than what they observed in their proton-based experiments because the neutrons that inflict the damage won’t chemically react with the salt to make it more corrosive. As a result, reactor designers could push the envelope more in their operating conditions, allowing them to get more power out of the same nuclear plant without compromising on safety.

However, the researchers stress that there’s much work to be done. Many more projects are needed to explore and understand the exact corrosion mechanism in specific alloys under different irradiation conditions. In addition, their findings need to be replicated by groups at other institutions using their own facilities. “What needs to happen now is for other labs to build their own facilities and start verifying whether they get the same results as we did,” says Short. To that end, Short and Zhou have made the details of their experimental setup and all of their data freely available online. “We’ve also been actively communicating with researchers at other institutions who have contacted us,” adds Zhou. “When they’re planning to visit, we offer to show them demonstration experiments while they’re here.”

But already their findings provide practical guidance for other researchers and equipment designers. For example, the standard way to quantify corrosion damage is by “mass loss,” a measure of how much weight the material has lost. But Short and Zhou consider mass loss a flawed measure of corrosion in molten salts. “If you’re a nuclear plant operator, you usually care whether your structural components are going to break,” says Short. “Our experiments show that radiation can change how deep the cracks are, when all other things are held constant. The deeper the cracks, the more likely a structural component is to break, leading to a reactor failure.”

In addition, the researchers offer a simple rule for identifying good metal alloys for structural components in molten salt reactors. Manufacturers provide extensive lists of available alloys with different compositions, microstructures, and additives. Faced with a list of options for critical structures, the designer of a new nuclear fission or fusion reactor can simply examine the composition of each alloy being offered. The one with the highest content of corrosion-resistant elements such as nickel will be the best choice. Inside a nuclear reactor, that alloy should respond to a bombardment of radiation not by corroding more rapidly but by forming a protective layer that helps block the corrosion process. “That may seem like a trivial result, but the exact threshold where radiation decelerates corrosion depends on the salt chemistry, the density of neutrons in the reactor, their energies, and a few other factors,” says Short. “Therefore, the complete guidelines are a bit more complicated. But they’re presented in a straightforward way that users can understand and utilize to make a good choice for the molten salt–based reactor they’re designing.”

This research was funded, in part, by Eni S.p.A. through the MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center’s Laboratory for Innovative Fusion Technologies. Earlier work was funded, in part, by the Transatomic Power Corporation and by the U.S. Department of Energy Nuclear Energy University Program. Equipment development and testing was supported by the Transatomic Power Corporation.

This article appears in the Winter 2024 issue of Energy Futures , the magazine of the MIT Energy Initiative.

Share this news article on:

Related links.

• Michael Short
• Plasma Science and Fusion Center
• MIT Energy Initiative
• Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering

Related Topics

• Nuclear power and reactors
• Renewable energy
• Nuclear science and engineering

Related Articles

Printing a new approach to fusion power plant materials

Investigating materials for safe, secure nuclear power

Keeping humanity central to solving climate change

Previous item Next item

More MIT News

A first-ever complete map for elastic strain engineering

Read full story →

Shining a light on oil fields to make them more sustainable

“Life is short, so aim high”

MIT launches Working Group on Generative AI and the Work of the Future

Atmospheric observations in China show rise in emissions of a potent greenhouse gas

Second round of seed grants awarded to MIT scholars studying the impact and applications of generative AI

• More news on MIT News homepage →

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA, USA

• Map (opens in new window)
• Events (opens in new window)
• People (opens in new window)
• Careers (opens in new window)
• Accessibility
• Social Media Hub
• MIT on Facebook
• MIT on YouTube
• MIT on Instagram

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.45(Suppl 1); 2016 Jan

Nuclear power in the 21st century: Challenges and possibilities

Akos horvath.

MTA Centre for Energy Research, KFKI Campus, P.O.B. 49, Budapest 114, 1525 Hungary

Elisabeth Rachlew

Department of Physics, Royal Institute of Technology, KTH, 10691 Stockholm, Sweden

The current situation and possible future developments for nuclear power—including fission and fusion processes—is presented. The fission nuclear power continues to be an essential part of the low-carbon electricity generation in the world for decades to come. There are breakthrough possibilities in the development of new generation nuclear reactors where the life-time of the nuclear waste can be reduced to some hundreds of years instead of the present time-scales of hundred thousand of years. Research on the fourth generation reactors is needed for the realisation of this development. For the fast nuclear reactors, a substantial research and development effort is required in many fields—from material sciences to safety demonstration—to attain the envisaged goals. Fusion provides a long-term vision for an efficient energy production. The fusion option for a nuclear reactor for efficient production of electricity has been set out in a focussed European programme including the international project of ITER after which a fusion electricity DEMO reactor is envisaged.

Introduction

All countries have a common interest in securing sustainable, low-cost energy supplies with minimal impact on the environment; therefore, many consider nuclear energy as part of their energy mix in fulfilling policy objectives. The discussion of the role of nuclear energy is especially topical for industrialised countries wishing to reduce carbon emissions below the current levels. The latest report from IPCC WGIII ( 2014 ) (see Box 1 for explanations of all acronyms in the article) says: “Nuclear energy is a mature low-GHG emission source of base load power, but its share of global electricity has been declining since 1993. Nuclear energy could make an increasing contribution to low-carbon energy supply, but a variety of barriers and risks exist ”.

Demand for electricity is likely to increase significantly in the future, as current fossil fuel uses are being substituted by processes using electricity. For example, the transport sector is likely to rely increasingly on electricity, whether in the form of fully electric or hybrid vehicles, either using battery power or synthetic hydrocarbon fuels. Here, nuclear power can also contribute, via generation of either electricity or process heat for the production of hydrogen or other fuels.

In Europe, in particular, the public opinion about safety and regulations with nuclear power has introduced much critical discussions about the continuation of nuclear power, and Germany has introduced the “Energiewende” with the goal to close all their nuclear power by 2022. The contribution of nuclear power to the electricity production in the different countries in Europe differs widely with some countries having zero contribution (e.g. Italy, Lithuania) and some with the major part comprising nuclear power (e.g. France, Hungary, Belgium, Slovakia, Sweden).

Current status

The use of nuclear energy for commercial electricity production began in the mid-1950s. In 2013, the world’s 392 GW of installed nuclear capacity accounted for 11 % of electricity generation produced by around 440 nuclear power plants situated in 30 countries (Fig.  1 ). This share has declined gradually since 1996, when it reached almost 18 %, as the rate of new nuclear additions (and generation) has been outpaced by the expansion of other technologies. After hydropower, nuclear is the world’s second-largest source of low-carbon electricity generation (IEA 2014 1 ).

Total number of operating nuclear reactors worldwide. The total number of reactors also include six in Taiwan (source: IAEA 2015) ( https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/nuclear-power )

The Country Nuclear Power Profiles (CNPP 2 ) compiles background information on the status and development of nuclear power programmes in member states. The CNPP’s main objectives are to consolidate information about the nuclear power infrastructures in participating countries, and to present factors related to the effective planning, decision-making and implementation of nuclear power programmes that together lead to safe and economical operations of nuclear power plants.

Within the European Union, 27 % of electricity production (13 % of primary energy) is obtained from 132 nuclear power plants in January 2015 (Fig.  1 ). Across the world, 65 new reactors are under construction, mainly in Asia (China, South Korea, India), and also in Russia, Slovakia, France and Finland. Many other new reactors are in the planning stage, including for example, 12 in the UK.

Apart from one first Generation “Magnox” reactor still operating in the UK, the remainder of the operating fleet is of the second or third Generation type (Fig.  2 ). The predominant technology is the Light Water Reactor (LWR) developed originally in the United States by Westinghouse and then exploited massively by France and others in the 1970s as a response to the 1973 oil crisis. The UK followed a different path and pursued the Advanced Gas-cooled Reactor (AGR). Some countries (France, UK, Russia, Japan) built demonstration scale fast neutron reactors in the 1960s and 70s, but the only commercial reactor of this type currently operating is in Russia.

Nuclear reactor generations from the pioneering age to the next decade (reproduced with permission from Ricotti 2013 )

Future evolution

The fourth Generation reactors, offering the potential of much higher energy recovery and reduced volumes of radioactive waste, are under study in the framework of the “Generation IV International Forum” (GIF) 3 and the “International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles” (INPRO). The European Commission in 2010 launched the European Sustainable Nuclear Industrial Initiative (ESNII), which will support three Generation IV fast reactor projects as part of the EU’s plan to promote low-carbon energy technologies. Other initiatives supporting biomass, wind, solar, electricity grids and carbon sequestration are in parallel. ESNII will take forward: the Astrid sodium-cooled fast reactor (SFR) proposed by France, the Allegro gas-cooled fast reactor (GFR) supported by central and eastern Europe and the MYRRHA lead- cooled fast reactor (LFR) technology pilot proposed by Belgium.

The generation of nuclear energy from uranium produces not only electricity but also spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste (HLW) as a by-product. For this HLW, a technical and socially acceptable solution is necessary. The time scale needed for the radiotoxicity of the spent fuel to drop to the level of natural uranium is very long (i.e. of the order of 200 000–300 000 years). The preferred solution for disposing of spent fuel or the HLW resulting from classical reprocessing is deep geological storage. Whilst there are no such geological repositories operating yet in the world, Sweden, Finland and France are on track to have such facilities ready by 2025 (Kautsky et al. 2013 ). In this context it should also be mentioned that it is only for a minor fraction of the HLW that recycling and transmutation is required since adequate separation techniques of the fuel can be recycled and again fed through the LWR system.

The “Strategic Energy Technology Plan” (SET-Plan) identifies fission energy as one of the contributors to the 2050 objectives of a low-carbon energy mix, relying on the Generation-3 reactors, closed fuel cycle and the start of implementation of Generation IV reactors making nuclear energy more sustainable. The EU Energy Roadmap 2050 provides decarbonisation scenarios with different assumptions from the nuclear perspective: two scenarios contemplate a nuclear phase-out by 2050, whilst three others consider that 15–20 % of electricity will be produced by nuclear energy. If by 2050 a generation capacity of 20 % nuclear electricity (140 GWe) is to be secured, 100–120 nuclear power units will have to be built between now and 2050, the precise number depending on the power rating (Garbil and Goethem 2013 ).

Despite the regional differences in the development plans, the main questions are of common interest to all countries, and require solutions in order to maintain nuclear power in the power mix of contributing to sustainable economic growth. The questions include (i) maintaining safe operation of the nuclear plants, (ii) securing the fuel supplies, (iii) a strategy for the management of radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel.

Safety and non-proliferation risks are managed in accordance with the international rules issued both by IAEA and EURATOM in the EU. The nuclear countries have signed the corresponding agreements and the majority of them have created the necessary legal and regulatory structure (Nuclear Safety Authority). As regards radioactive wastes, particularly high-level wastes (HLW) and spent fuel (SF) most of the countries have long-term policies. The establishment of new nuclear units and the associated nuclear technology developments offer new perspectives, which may need reconsideration of fuel cycle policies and more active regional and global co-operation.

Open and closed fuel cycle

In the frame of the open fuel cycle, the spent fuel will be taken to final disposal without recycling. Deep geological repositories are the only available option for isolating the highly radioactive materials for a very long time from the biosphere. Long-term (80–100 years) near soil intermediate storages are realised in e.g. France and the Netherlands which will allow for permanent access and inspection. The main advantage of the open fuel cycle is its simplicity. The spent fuel assemblies are first stored in interim storage for several years or decades, then they will be placed in special containers and moved into deep underground storage facilities. The technology for producing such containers and for excavation of the underground system of tunnels exists today (Hózer et al. 2010 ; Kautsky et al. 2013 ).

The European Academies Science Advisory Board recently released the report on “Management of spent nuclear fuel and its waste” (EASAC 2014 ). The report discusses the challenges associated with different strategies to manage spent nuclear fuel, in respect of both open cycles and steps towards closing the nuclear fuel cycle. It integrates the conclusions on the issues raised on sustainability, safety, non-proliferation and security, economics, public involvement and on the decision-making process. Recently Vandenbosch et al. ( 2015 ) critically discussed the issue of confidence in the indefinite storage of nuclear waste. One complication of the nuclear waste storage problem is that the minor actinides represent a high activity (see Fig.  3 ) and pose non-proliferation issues to be handled safely in a civil used plant. This might be a difficult challenge if the storage is to be operated economically together with the fuel fabrication.

Radiotoxicity of radioactive waste

The open (or ‘once through’) cycle only uses part of the energy stored in the fuel, whilst effectively wasting substantial amounts of energy that could be recovered through recycling. The conventional closed fuel cycle strategy uses the reprocessing of the spent fuel following interim storage. The main components which can be further utilised (U and Pu) are recycled to fuel manufacturing (MOX (Mixed Oxide) fuel fabrication), whilst the smaller volume of residual waste in appropriately conditioned form—e.g. vitrified and encapsulated—is disposed of in deep geological repositories.

The advanced closed fuel cycle strategy is similar to the conventional one, but within this strategy the minor actinides are also removed during reprocessing. The separated isotopes are transmuted in combination with power generation and only the net reprocessing wastes and those conditioned wastes generated during transmutation will be, following appropriate encapsulation, disposed of in deep geological repositories. The main factor that determines the overall storage capacity of a long-term repository is the heat content of nuclear waste, not its volume. During the anticipated repository time, the specific heat generated during the decay of the stored HLW must always stay below a dedicated value prescribed by the storage concept and the geological host information. The waste that results from reprocessing spent fuel from thermal reactors has a lower heat content (after a period of cooling) than does the spent fuel itself. Thus, it can be stored more densely.

A modern light water reactor of 1 GWe capacity will typically discharge about 20–25 tonnes of irradiated fuel per year of operation. About 93–94 % of the mass of typical uranium oxide irradiated fuel comprises uranium (mostly 238 U), with about 4–5 % fission products and ~1 % plutonium. About 0.1–0.2 % of the mass comprises minor actinides (neptunium, americium and curium). These latter elements accumulate in nuclear fuel because of neutron capture, and they contribute significantly to decay heat loading and neutron output, as well as to the overall radiotoxic hazard of spent fuel. Although the total minor actinide mass is relatively small—20 to 25 kg per year from a 1 GWe LWR—it has a disproportionate impact on spent fuel disposal because of its long radioactive decay times (OECD Nuclear Energy Agency 2013 ).

Generation IV development

To address the issue of sustainability of nuclear energy, in particular the use of natural resources, fast neutron reactors (FNRs) must be developed, since they can typically multiply by over a factor 50 the energy production from a given amount of uranium fuel compared to current reactors. FNRs, just as today’s fleet, will be primarily dedicated to the generation of fossil-free base-load electricity. In the FNR the fuel conversion ratio (FCR) is optimised. Through hardening the spectrum a fast reactor can be designed to burn minor actinides giving a FCR larger than unity which allows breeding of fissile materials. FNRs have been operated in the past (especially the Sodium-cooled Fast Reactor in Europe), but today’s safety, operational and competitiveness standards require the design of a new generation of fast reactors. Important research and development is currently being coordinated at the international level through initiatives such as GIF.

In 2002, six reactor technologies were selected which GIF believe represent the future of nuclear energy. These were selected from the many various approaches being studied on the basis of being clean, safe and cost-effective means of meeting increased energy demands on a sustainable basis. Furthermore, they are considered being resistant to diversion of materials for weapons proliferation and secure from terrorist attacks. The continued research and development will focus on the chosen six reactor approaches. Most of the six systems employ a closed fuel cycle to maximise the resource base and minimise high-level wastes to be sent to a repository. Three of the six are fast neutron reactors (FNR) and one can be built as a fast reactor, one is described as epithermal, and only two operate with slow neutrons like today’s plants. Only one is cooled by light water, two are helium-cooled and the others have lead–bismuth, sodium or fluoride salt coolant. The latter three operate at low pressure, with significant safety advantage. The last has the uranium fuel dissolved in the circulating coolant. Temperatures range from 510 to 1000 °C, compared with less than 330 °C for today’s light water reactors, and this means that four of them can be used for thermochemical hydrogen production.

The sizes range from 150 to 1500 MWe, with the lead-cooled one optionally available as a 50–150 MWe “battery” with long core life (15–20 years without refuelling) as replaceable cassette or entire reactor module. This is designed for distributed generation or desalination. At least four of the systems have significant operating experience already in most respects of their design, which provides a good basis for further research and development and is likely to mean that they can be in commercial operation well before 2030. However, when addressing non-proliferation concerns it is significant that fast neutron reactors are not conventional fast breeders, i.e. they do not have a blanket assembly where plutonium-239 is produced. Instead, plutonium production happens to take place in the core, where burn-up is high and the proportion of plutonium isotopes other than Pu-239 remains high. In addition, new reprocessing technologies will enable the fuel to be recycled without separating the plutonium.

In January 2014, a new GIF Technology Roadmap Update was published. 4 It confirmed the choice of the six systems and focused on the most relevant developments of them so as to define the research and development goals for the next decade. It suggested that the Generation IV technologies most likely to be deployed first are the SFR, the lead-cooled fast reactor (LFR) and the very high temperature reactor technologies. The molten salt reactor and the GFR were shown as furthest from demonstration phase.

Europe, through sustainable nuclear energy technology platform (SNETP) and ESNII, has defined its own strategy and priorities for FNRs with the goal to demonstrate Generation IV reactor technologies that can close the nuclear fuel cycle, provide long-term waste management solutions and expand the applications of nuclear fission beyond electricity production to hydrogen production, industrial heat and desalination; The SFR as a proven concept, as well as the LFR as a short-medium term alternative and the GFR as a longer-term alternative technology. The French Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique (CEA) has chosen the development of the SFR technology. Astrid (Advanced Sodium Technological Reactor for Industrial Demonstration) is based on about 45 reactor-years of operational experience in France and will be rated 250 to 600 MWe. It is expected to be built at Marcoule from 2017, with the unit being connected to the grid in 2022.

Other countries like Belgium, Italy, Sweden and Romania are focussing their research and development effort on the LFR whereas Hungary, Czech Republic and Slovakia are investing in the research and development on GFR building upon the work initiated in France on GFR as an alternative technology to SFR. Allegro GFR is to be built in eastern Europe, and is more innovative. It is rated at 100 MWt and would lead to a larger industrial demonstration unit called GoFastR. The Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia are making a joint proposal to host the project, with French CEA support. Allegro is expected to begin construction in 2018 operate from 2025. The industrial demonstrator would follow it.

In mid-2013, four nuclear research institutes and engineering companies from central Europe’s Visegrád Group of Nations (V4) agreed to establish a centre for joint research, development and innovation in Generation IV nuclear reactors (the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia) which is focused on gas-cooled fast reactors such as Allegro.

The MYRRHA (Multi-purpose hYbrid Research Reactor for High-tech Applications) 5 project proposed in Belgium by SCK•CEN could be an Experimental Technological Pilot Plant (ETPP) for the LFR technology. Later, it could become a European fast neutron technology pilot plant for lead and a multi-purpose research reactor. The unit is rated at 100 thermal MW and has started construction at SCK-CEN’s Mol site in 2014 planned to begin operation in 2023. A reduced-power model of Myrrha called Guinevere started up at Mol in March 2010. ESNII also includes an LFR technology demonstrator known as Alfred, also about 100 MWt, seen as a prelude to an industrial demonstration unit of about 600 MWe. Construction on Alfred could begin in 2017 and the unit could start operating in 2025.

Research and development topics to meet the top-level criteria established within the GIF forum in the context of simultaneously matching economics as well as stricter safety criteria set-up by the WENRA FNR demand substantial improvements with respect to the following issues:

• Primary system design simplification,
• Improved materials,
• Innovative heat exchangers and power conversion systems,
• Advanced instrumentation, in-service inspection systems,
• Enhanced safety,

and those for fuel cycle issues pertain to:

• Partitioning and transmutation,
• Innovative fuels (including minor actinide-bearing) and core performance,
• Advanced separation both via aqueous processes supplementing the PUREX process as well as pyroprocessing, which is mandatory for the reprocessing of the high MA-containing fuels,
• Develop a final depository.

Beyond the research and development, the demonstration projects mentioned above are planned in the frame of the SET-Plan ESNII for sustainable fission. In addition, supporting research infrastructures, irradiation facilities, experimental loops and fuel fabrication facilities, will need to be constructed.

Regarding transmutation, the accelerator-driven transmutation systems (ADS) technology must be compared to FNR technology from the point of view of feasibility, transmutation efficiency and cost efficiency. It is the objective of the MYRRHA project to be an experimental demonstrator of ADS technology. From the economical point of view, the ADS industrial solution should be assessed in terms of its contribution to closing the fuel cycle. One point of utmost importance for the ADS is its ability for burning larger amounts of minor actinides (the typical maximum in a critical FNR is about 2 %).

The concept of partitioning and transmutation (P&T) has three main goals: reduce the radiological hazard associated with spent fuel by reducing the inventory of minor actinides, reduce the time interval required to reach the radiotoxicity of natural uranium and reduce the heat load of the HLW packages to be stored in the geological disposal hence reducing the foot print of the geological disposal.

Advanced management of HLW through P&T consists in advanced separation of the minor actinides (americium, curium and neptunium) and some fission products with a long half-life present in the nuclear waste and their transmutation in dedicated burners to reduce the radiological and heat loads on the geological disposal. The time scale needed for the radiotoxicity of the waste to drop to the level of natural uranium will be reduced from a ‘geological’ value (300 000 years) to a value that is comparable to that of human activities (few hundreds of years) (OECD/NEA 2006 ; OECD 2012 ; PATEROS 2008 6 ). Transmutation of the minor actinides is achieved through fission reactions and therefore fast neutrons are preferred in dedicated burners.

At the European level, four building blocks strategy for Partitioning and Transmutation have been identified. Each block poses a serious challenge in terms of research & development to be done in order to reach industrial scale deployment. These blocks are:

• Demonstration of advanced reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel from LWRs, separating Uranium, Plutonium and Minor Actinides;
• Demonstration of the capability to fabricate at semi-industrial level dedicated transmuter fuel heavily loaded in minor actinides;
• Design and construct one or more dedicated transmuters;
• Fabrication of new transmuter fuel together with demonstration of advanced reprocessing of transmuter fuel.

MYRRHA will support this Roadmap by playing the role of an ADS prototype (at reasonable power level) and as a flexible irradiation facility providing fast neutrons for the qualification of materials and fuel for an industrial transmuter. MYRRHA will be not only capable of irradiating samples of such inert matrix fuels but also of housing fuel pins or even a limited number of fuel assemblies heavily loaded with MAs for irradiation and qualification purposes.

Options for nuclear fusion beyond 2050

Nuclear fusion research, on the basis of magnetic confinement, considered in this report, has been actively pursued in Europe from the mid-60s. Fusion research has the goal to achieve a clean and sustainable energy source for many generations to come. In parallel with basic high-temperature plasma research, the fusion technology programme is pursued as well as the economy of a future fusion reactor (Ward et al. 2005 ; Ward 2009 ; Bradshaw et al. 2011 ). The goal-oriented fusion research should be driven with an increased effort to be able to give the long searched answer to the open question, “will fusion energy be able to cover a major part of mankind’s electricity demand?”. ITER, the first fusion reactor to be built in France by the seven collaborating partners (Europe, USA, Russia, Japan, Korea, China, India) is hoped to answer most of the open physics and many of the remaining technology/material questions. ITER is expected to start operation of the first plasma around 2020 and D-T operation 2027.

The European fusion research has been successful through the organisation of EURATOM to which most countries in Europe belong (the fission programme is also included in EURATOM). EUROfusion, the European Consortium for the Development of Fusion Energy, manages European fusion research activities on behalf of EURATOM. The organisation of the research has resulted in a well-focused common fusion research programme. The members of the EUROfusion 7 consortium are 29 national fusion laboratories. EUROfusion funds all fusion research activities in accordance with the “EFDA Fusion electricity. Roadmap to the realisation of fusion energy” (EFDA 2012 , Fusion electricity). The Roadmap outlines the most efficient way to realise fusion electricity. It is the result of an analysis of the European Fusion Programme undertaken by all Research Units within EUROfusion’s predecessor agreement, the European Fusion Development Agreement, EFDA.

The most successful confinement concepts are toroidal ones like tokamaks and helical systems like stellarators (Wagner 2012 , 2013 ). To avoid drift losses, two magnetic field components are necessary for confinement and stability—the toroidal and the poloidal field component. Due to their superposition, the magnetic field winds helically around a system of nested toroids. In both cases, tokamak and stellarator, the toroidal field is produced by external coils; the poloidal field arises from a strong toroidal plasma current in tokamaks. In case of helical systems all necessary fields are produced externally by coils which have to be superconductive when steady-state operation is intended. Europe is constructing the most ambitious stellarator, Wendelstein 7-X in Germany. It is a fully optimised system with promising features. W7-X goes into operation in 2015. 8

Fusion research has now reached plasma parameters needed for a fusion reactor, even if not all parameters are reached simultaneously in a single plasma discharge (see Fig.  4 ). Plotted is the triple product n•τ E• T i composed of the density n, the confinement time τ E and the ion temperature T i . For ignition of a deuterium–tritium plasma, when the internal α-particle heating from the DT-reaction takes over and allows the external heating to be switched off, the triple product has to be about >6 × 10 21  m −3  s keV). The record parameters given as of today are shown together with the fusion experiment of its achievement in Fig.  4 . The achieved parameters and the missing factors to the ultimate goal of a fusion reactor are summarised below:

• Temperature: 40 keV achieved (JT-60U, Japan); the goal is surpassed by a factor of two
• Density n surpassed by factor 5 (C-mod,USA; LHD,Japan)
• Energy confinement time: a factor of 4 is missing (JET, Europe)
• Fusion triple product (see Fig.  4 : a factor of 6 is missing (JET, Europe)
• The first scientific goal is achieved: Q (fusion power/external heating power) ~1 (0,65) (JET, Europe)
• D-T operation without problems (TFTR (USA), JET, small tritium quantities have been used, however)
• Maximal fusion power for short pulse: 16 MW (JET)
• Divertor development (ASDEX, ASDEX-Upgrade, Germany)
• Design for the first experimental reactor complete (ITER, see below)
• The optimisation of stellarators (W7-AS, W7-X, Germany)

Progress in fusion parameters. Derived in 1955, the Lawson criterion specifies the conditions that must be met for fusion to produce a net energy output (1 keV × 12 million K). From this, a fusion “triple product” can be derived, which is defined as the product of the plasma ion density, ion temperature and energy confinement time. This product must be greater than about 6 × 10 21  keV m −3  s for a deuterium–tritium plasma to ignite. Due to the radioactivity associated with tritium, today’s research tokamaks generally operate with deuterium only ( solid dots ). The large tokamaks JET(EU) and TFTR(US), however, have used a deuterium–tritium mix ( open dots ). The rate of increase in tokamak performance has outstripped that of Moore’s law for the miniaturisation of silicon chips (Pitts et al. 2006 ). Many international projects (their names are given by acronyms in the figure) have contributed to the development of fusion plasma parameters and the progress in fusion research which serves as the basis for the ITER design

After 50 years of fusion research there is no evidence for a fundamental obstacle in the basic physics. But still many problems have to be overcome as detailed below:

Critical issues in fusion plasma physics based on magnetic confinement

• confine a plasma magnetically with 1000 m 3 volume,
• maintain the plasma stable at 2–4 bar pressure,
• achieve 15 MA current running in a fluid (in case of tokamaks, avoid instabilities leading to disruptions),
• find methods to maintain the plasma current in steady-state,
• tame plasma turbulence to get the necessary confinement time,
• develop an exhaust system (divertor) to control power and particle exhaust, specifically to remove the α-particle heat deposited into the plasma and to control He as the fusion ash.

Critical issues in fusion plasma technology

• build a system with 200 MKelvin in the plasma core and 4 Kelvin about 2 m away,
• build magnetic system at 6 Tesla (max field 12 Tesla) with 50 GJ energy,
• develop heating systems to heat the plasma to the fusion temperature and current drive systems to maintain steady-state conditions for the tokamak,
• handle neutron-fluxes of 2 MW/m 2 leading to 100 dpa in the surrounding material,
• develop low activation materials,
• develop tritium breeding technologies,
• provide high availability of a complex system using an appropriate remote handling system,
• develop the complete physics and engineering basis for system licensing.

The goals of ITER

The major goals of ITER (see Fig.  5 ) in physics are to confine a D-T plasma with α-particle self-heating dominating all other forms of plasma heating, to produce about ~500 MW of fusion power at a gain Q  = fusion power/external heating power, of about 10, to explore plasma stability in the presence of energetic α-particles, and to demonstrate ash-exhaust and burn control.

Schematic layout of the ITER reactor experiment (from www.iter.org )

In the field of technology, ITER will demonstrate fundamental aspects of fusion as the self-heating of the plasma by alpha-particles, show the essentials to a fusion reactor in an integrated system, give the first test a breeding blanket and assess the technology and its efficiency, breed tritium from lithium utilising the D-T fusion neutron, develop scenarios and materials with low T-inventories. Thus ITER will provide strong indications for vital research and development efforts necessary in the view of a demonstration reactor (DEMO). ITER will be based on conventional steel as structural material. Its inner wall will be covered with beryllium to surround the plasma with low-Z metal with low inventory properties. The divertor will be mostly from tungsten to sustain the high α-particle heat fluxes directed onto target plates situated inside a divertor chamber. An important step in fusion reactor development is the achievement of licensing of the complete system.

The rewards from fusion research and the realisation of a fusion reactor can be described in the following points:

• fusion has a tremendous potential thanks to the availability of deuterium and lithium as primary fuels. But as a recommendation, the fusion development has to be accelerated,

Fusion time strategy towards the fusion reactor on the net (EFDA 2012 , Fusion electricity. A roadmap to the realisation of fusion energy)

In addition, there is the fusion technology programme and its material branch, which ultimately need a neutron source to study the interaction with 14 MeV neutrons. For this purpose, a spallation source IFMIF is presently under design. As a recommendation, ways have to be found to accelerate the fusion development. In general, with ITER, IFMIF and the DEMO, the programme will move away from plasma science more towards technology orientation. After the ITER physics and technology programme—if successful—fusion can be placed into national energy supply strategies. With fusion, future generations can have access to a clean, safe and (at least expected of today) economic power source.

The fission nuclear power continues to be an essential part of the low-carbon electricity generation in the world for decades to come. There are breakthrough possibilities in the development of new generation nuclear reactors where the life-time of the nuclear waste can be reduced to some hundreds of years instead of the present time-scales of hundred thousand of years. Research on the fourth generation reactors is needed for the realisation of this development. For the fast nuclear reactors a substantial research and development effort is required in many fields—from material sciences to safety demonstration—to attain the envisaged goals. Fusion provides a long-term vision for an efficient energy production. The fusion option for a nuclear reactor for efficient production of electricity should be vigorously pursued on the international arena as well as within the European energy roadmap to reach a decision point which allows to critically assess this energy option.

Box 1 Explanations of abbreviations used in this article

Biographies.

is Professor in Energy Research and Director of MTA Center for Energy Research, Budapest, Hungary. His research interests are in the development of new fission reactors, new structural materials, high temperature irradiation resistance, mechanical deformation.

is Professor of Applied Atomic and Molecular Physics at Royal Institute of Technology, (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden. Her research interests are in basic atomic and molecular processes studied with synchrotron radiation, development of diagnostic techniques for analysing the performance of fusion experiments in particular development of photon spectroscopic diagnostics.

1 http://www.iea.org/ .

2 https://cnpp.iaea.org/pages/index.htm .

3 GenIV International forum: ( http://www.gen-4.org/index.html ).

4 https://www.gen-4.org/gif/jcms/c_60729/technology-roadmap-update-2013 .

5 http://myrrha.sckcen.be/ .

6 www.sckcen.be/pateros/ .

7 https://www.euro-fusion.org/ .

8 https://www.ipp.mpg.de/ippcms/de/pr/forschung/w7x/index.html .

Contributor Information

Akos Horvath, Email: [email protected] .

Elisabeth Rachlew, Email: es.htk@kre .

• Bradshaw AM, Hamacher T, Fischer U. Is nuclear fusion a sustainable energy form? Fusion Engineering and Design. 2011; 86 :2770–2773. doi: 10.1016/j.fusengdes.2010.11.040. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• EASAC. 2014. EASAC Report 23—Management of spent nuclear fuel and its waste. http://www.easac.eu/energy/reports-and-statements/detail-view/article/management-o.html .
• EFDA. 2012. Fusion electricity. A roadmap to the realization of fusion energy. https://www.euro-fusion.org/wpcms/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/JG12.356-web.pdf .
• Garbil, R., and G. Van Goethem. (ed.). 2013. Symposium on the “Benefits and limitations of nuclear fission for a low carbon economy”, European Commission, Brussels, ISBN 978-92.79.29833.2.
• Hózer, Z. S. Borovitskiy, G. Buday, B. Boullis, G. Cognet, S. A. Delichatsios, J. Gadó, A. Grishin, et al. 2010. Regional strategies concerning nuclear fuel cycle and HLRW in Central and Eastern European Countries. International conference on management of spent fuel from Nuclear Power Reactors, Vienna, Conference ID:38089 (CN-178).
• IEA (International Energy Authority). 2014. World Energy Outlook 2014. http://www.iea.org/ .
• IPCC. 2014. Summary for policymakers WGIII AR5, SPM.4.2.2 Energy supply.
• Kautsky, U., T. Lindborg, and J. Valentin (ed.). 2013. Humans and ecosystems over the coming millenia: A biosphere assessment of radioactive waste disposal in Sweden. Ambio 42(4): 381–526. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• OECD. 2011–2012. Fact book: Economic, environmental and social statistics. Retrieved from http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/oecd-factbook-2011-2012_factbook-2011-en .
• OECD/NEA. 2006. Potential benefits and impacts of advanced nuclear fuel cycles with actinide partitioning and transmutation. ISBN: 978-92-64-99165-1, http://www.oecd-nea.org/science/reports/2011/6894-benefits-impacts-advanced-fuel.pdf .
• OECD Nuclear Energy Agency. 2013. Minor actinide burning in thermal reactors. A report by the Working Party on Scientific Issues of Reactor Systems, NEA #6997. http://www.oecd-nea.org/science/pubs/2013/6997-minor-actinide.pdf .
• Pitts R, Buttery R, Pinches S. Fusion: The way ahead. Physics World. 2006; 19 :20–26. doi: 10.1088/2058-7058/19/3/35. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ricotti ME. Nuclear energy: Basics, present, future. EPJ Web of Conferences. 2013; 54 :01005. doi: 10.1051/epjconf/20135401005. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vandenbosch R, Vandenbosch SE. Nuclear waste confidence: Is indefinite storage safe? APS Physics and Society. 2015; 44 :5–7. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wagner, F. 2012. Fusion energy by magnetic confinement. IPP 18/3, http://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-0026-E767-A .
• Wagner F. Physics of magnetic confinement fusion. EPJ Web of Conferences. 2013; 54 :01007. doi: 10.1051/epjconf/20135401007. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ward DJ. The contribution of fusion to sustainable development. Fusion Engineering and Design. 2009; 82 :528–533. doi: 10.1016/j.fusengdes.2007.02.028. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ward DJ, Cook I, Lechon Y, Saez R. The economic viability of fusion power. Engineering and Design. 2005; 75–79 :1221–1227. doi: 10.1016/j.fusengdes.2005.06.160. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

 / 

The 3,122-megawatt Civaux Nuclear Power Plant in France, which opened in 1997. GUILLAUME SOUVANT / AFP / Getty Images

Why Nuclear Power Must Be Part of the Energy Solution

By Richard Rhodes • July 19, 2018

Many environmentalists have opposed nuclear power, citing its dangers and the difficulty of disposing of its radioactive waste. But a Pulitzer Prize-winning author argues that nuclear is safer than most energy sources and is needed if the world hopes to radically decrease its carbon emissions. 

In the late 16th century, when the increasing cost of firewood forced ordinary Londoners to switch reluctantly to coal, Elizabethan preachers railed against a fuel they believed to be, literally, the Devil’s excrement. Coal was black, after all, dirty, found in layers underground — down toward Hell at the center of the earth — and smelled strongly of sulfur when it burned. Switching to coal, in houses that usually lacked chimneys, was difficult enough; the clergy’s outspoken condemnation, while certainly justified environmentally, further complicated and delayed the timely resolution of an urgent problem in energy supply.

For too many environmentalists concerned with global warming, nuclear energy is today’s Devil’s excrement. They condemn it for its production and use of radioactive fuels and for the supposed problem of disposing of its waste. In my judgment, their condemnation of this efficient, low-carbon source of baseload energy is misplaced. Far from being the Devil’s excrement, nuclear power can be, and should be, one major component of our rescue from a hotter, more meteorologically destructive world.

Like all energy sources, nuclear power has advantages and disadvantages. What are nuclear power’s benefits? First and foremost, since it produces energy via nuclear fission rather than chemical burning, it generates baseload electricity with no output of carbon, the villainous element of global warming. Switching from coal to natural gas is a step toward decarbonizing, since burning natural gas produces about half the carbon dioxide of burning coal. But switching from coal to nuclear power is radically decarbonizing, since nuclear power plants release greenhouse gases only from the ancillary use of fossil fuels during their construction, mining, fuel processing, maintenance, and decommissioning — about as much as solar power does, which is about 4 to 5 percent as much as a natural gas-fired power plant.

Nuclear power releases less radiation into the environment than any other major energy source.

Second, nuclear power plants operate at much higher capacity factors than renewable energy sources or fossil fuels. Capacity factor is a measure of what percentage of the time a power plant actually produces energy. It’s a problem for all intermittent energy sources. The sun doesn’t always shine, nor the wind always blow, nor water always fall through the turbines of a dam.

In the United States in 2016, nuclear power plants, which generated almost 20 percent of U.S. electricity, had an average capacity factor of 92.3 percent , meaning they operated at full power on 336 out of 365 days per year. (The other 29 days they were taken off the grid for maintenance.) In contrast , U.S. hydroelectric systems delivered power 38.2 percent of the time (138 days per year), wind turbines 34.5 percent of the time (127 days per year) and solar electricity arrays only 25.1 percent of the time (92 days per year). Even plants powered with coal or natural gas only generate electricity about half the time for reasons such as fuel costs and seasonal and nocturnal variations in demand. Nuclear is a clear winner on reliability.

Third, nuclear power releases less radiation into the environment than any other major energy source. This statement will seem paradoxical to many readers, since it’s not commonly known that non-nuclear energy sources release any radiation into the environment. They do. The worst offender is coal, a mineral of the earth’s crust that contains a substantial volume of the radioactive elements uranium and thorium. Burning coal gasifies its organic materials, concentrating its mineral components into the remaining waste, called fly ash. So much coal is burned in the world and so much fly ash produced that coal is actually the major source of radioactive releases into the environment. 

Anti-nuclear activists protest the construction of a nuclear power station in Seabrook, New Hampshire in 1977.  AP Photo

In the early 1950s, when the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission believed high-grade uranium ores to be in short supply domestically, it considered extracting uranium for nuclear weapons from the abundant U.S. supply of fly ash from coal burning. In 2007, China began exploring such extraction, drawing on a pile of some 5.3 million metric tons of brown-coal fly ash at Xiaolongtang in Yunnan. The Chinese ash averages about 0.4 pounds of triuranium octoxide (U3O8), a uranium compound, per metric ton. Hungary and South Africa are also exploring uranium extraction from coal fly ash. 

What are nuclear’s downsides? In the public’s perception, there are two, both related to radiation: the risk of accidents, and the question of disposal of nuclear waste.

There have been three large-scale accidents involving nuclear power reactors since the onset of commercial nuclear power in the mid-1950s: Three-Mile Island in Pennsylvania, Chernobyl in Ukraine, and Fukushima in Japan.

Studies indicate even the worst possible accident at a nuclear plant is less destructive than other major industrial accidents.

The partial meltdown of the Three-Mile Island reactor in March 1979, while a disaster for the owners of the Pennsylvania plant, released only a minimal quantity of radiation to the surrounding population. According to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission :

“The approximately 2 million people around TMI-2 during the accident are estimated to have received an average radiation dose of only about 1 millirem above the usual background dose. To put this into context, exposure from a chest X-ray is about 6 millirem and the area’s natural radioactive background dose is about 100-125 millirem per year… In spite of serious damage to the reactor, the actual release had negligible effects on the physical health of individuals or the environment.”

The explosion and subsequent burnout of a large graphite-moderated, water-cooled reactor at Chernobyl in 1986 was easily the worst nuclear accident in history. Twenty-nine disaster relief workers died of acute radiation exposure in the immediate aftermath of the accident. In the subsequent three decades, UNSCEAR — the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, composed of senior scientists from 27 member states — has observed and reported at regular intervals on the health effects of the Chernobyl accident. It has identified no long-term health consequences to populations exposed to Chernobyl fallout except for thyroid cancers in residents of Belarus, Ukraine and western Russia who were children or adolescents at the time of the accident, who drank milk contaminated with 131iodine, and who were not evacuated. By 2008, UNSCEAR had attributed some 6,500 excess cases of thyroid cancer in the Chernobyl region to the accident, with 15 deaths.  The occurrence of these cancers increased dramatically from 1991 to 1995, which researchers attributed mostly to radiation exposure. No increase occurred in adults.

The Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, located near Avila Beach, California, will be decommissioned starting in 2024. Pacific Gas and Electric

“The average effective doses” of radiation from Chernobyl, UNSCEAR also concluded , “due to both external and internal exposures, received by members of the general public during 1986-2005 [were] about 30 mSv for the evacuees, 1 mSv for the residents of the former Soviet Union, and 0.3 mSv for the populations of the rest of Europe.”  A sievert is a measure of radiation exposure, a millisievert is one-one-thousandth of a sievert. A full-body CT scan delivers about 10-30 mSv. A U.S. resident receives an average background radiation dose, exclusive of radon, of about 1 mSv per year.

The statistics of Chernobyl irradiations cited here are so low that they must seem intentionally minimized to those who followed the extensive media coverage of the accident and its aftermath. Yet they are the peer-reviewed products of extensive investigation by an international scientific agency of the United Nations. They indicate that even the worst possible accident at a nuclear power plant — the complete meltdown and burnup of its radioactive fuel — was yet far less destructive than other major industrial accidents across the past century. To name only two: Bhopal, in India, where at least 3,800 people died immediately and many thousands more were sickened when 40 tons of methyl isocyanate gas leaked from a pesticide plant; and Henan Province, in China, where at least 26,000 people drowned following the failure of a major hydroelectric dam in a typhoon. “Measured as early deaths per electricity units produced by the Chernobyl facility (9 years of operation, total electricity production of 36 GWe-years, 31 early deaths) yields 0.86 death/GWe-year),” concludes Zbigniew Jaworowski, a physician and former UNSCEAR chairman active during the Chernobyl accident. “This rate is lower than the average fatalities from [accidents involving] a majority of other energy sources. For example, the Chernobyl rate is nine times lower than the death rate from liquefied gas… and 47 times lower than from hydroelectric stations.” 

Nuclear waste disposal, although a continuing political problem, is not any longer a technological problem.

The accident in Japan at Fukushima Daiichi in March 2011 followed a major earthquake and tsunami. The tsunami flooded out the power supply and cooling systems of three power reactors, causing them to melt down and explode, breaching their confinement. Although 154,000 Japanese citizens were evacuated from a 12-mile exclusion zone around the power station, radiation exposure beyond the station grounds was limited. According to the report submitted to the International Atomic Energy Agency in June 2011:

“No harmful health effects were found in 195,345 residents living in the vicinity of the plant who were screened by the end of May 2011. All the 1,080 children tested for thyroid gland exposure showed results within safe limits. By December, government health checks of some 1,700 residents who were evacuated from three municipalities showed that two-thirds received an external radiation dose within the normal international limit of 1 mSv/year, 98 percent were below 5 mSv/year, and 10 people were exposed to more than 10 mSv… [There] was no major public exposure, let alone deaths from radiation.” 

Nuclear waste disposal, although a continuing political problem in the U.S., is not any longer a technological problem. Most U.S. spent fuel, more than 90 percent of which could be recycled to extend nuclear power production by hundreds of years, is stored at present safely in impenetrable concrete-and-steel dry casks on the grounds of operating reactors, its radiation slowly declining. 

An activist in March 2017 demanding closure of the Fessenheim Nuclear Power Plant in France. Authorities announced in April that they will close the facility by 2020. SEBASTIEN BOZON / AFP / Getty Images

The U.S. Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) near Carlsbad, New Mexico currently stores low-level and transuranic military waste and could store commercial nuclear waste in a 2-kilometer thick bed of crystalline salt, the remains of an ancient sea. The salt formation extends from southern New Mexico all the way northeast to southwestern Kansas. It could easily accommodate the entire world’s nuclear waste for the next thousand years.

Finland is even further advanced in carving out a permanent repository in granite bedrock 400 meters under Olkiluoto, an island in the Baltic Sea off the nation’s west coast. It expects to begin permanent waste storage in 2023.

A final complaint against nuclear power is that it costs too much. Whether or not nuclear power costs too much will ultimately be a matter for markets to decide, but there is no question that a full accounting of the external costs of different energy systems would find nuclear cheaper than coal or natural gas. 

Nuclear power is not the only answer to the world-scale threat of global warming. Renewables have their place; so, at least for leveling the flow of electricity when renewables vary, does natural gas. But nuclear deserves better than the anti-nuclear prejudices and fears that have plagued it. It isn’t the 21st century’s version of the Devil’s excrement. It’s a valuable, even an irreplaceable, part of the solution to the greatest energy threat in the history of humankind.

Related Articles

How china became the world’s leader on renewable energy.

By Isabel Hilton

In Rush for Lithium, Miners Turn to the Oil Fields of Arkansas

By Boyce Upholt

How a Solar Revolution in Farming Is Depleting World’s Groundwater

By Fred Pearce

More From E360

At 11,500 feet, a ‘climate fast’ to save the melting himalaya, octopuses are highly intelligent. should they be farmed for food, nations are undercounting emissions, putting un goals at risk, as carbon air capture ramps up, major hurdles remain, biodiversity, as flooding increases on the mississippi, forests are drowning, in mongolia, a killer winter is ravaging herds and a way of life, food & agriculture, what will it take to save our cities from a scorching future, rain comes to the arctic, with a cascade of troubling changes, plastics reckoning: pvc is ubiquitous, but maybe not for long.

• ENVIRONMENT

What is nuclear energy and is it a viable resource?

Nuclear energy's future as an electricity source may depend on scientists' ability to make it cheaper and safer.

Nuclear power is generated by splitting atoms to release the energy held at the core, or nucleus, of those atoms. This process, nuclear fission, generates heat that is directed to a cooling agent—usually water. The resulting steam spins a turbine connected to a generator, producing electricity.

About 450 nuclear reactors provide about 11 percent of the world's electricity. The countries generating the most nuclear power are, in order, the United States, France, China, Russia, and South Korea.

The most common fuel for nuclear power is uranium, an abundant metal found throughout the world. Mined uranium is processed into U-235, an enriched version used as fuel in nuclear reactors because its atoms can be split apart easily.

In a nuclear reactor, neutrons—subatomic particles that have no electric charge—collide with atoms, causing them to split. That collision—called nuclear fission—releases more neutrons that react with more atoms, creating a chain reaction. A byproduct of nuclear reactions, plutonium , can also be used as nuclear fuel.

Types of nuclear reactors

In the U.S. most nuclear reactors are either boiling water reactors , in which the water is heated to the boiling point to release steam, or pressurized water reactors , in which the pressurized water does not boil but funnels heat to a secondary water supply for steam generation. Other types of nuclear power reactors include gas-cooled reactors, which use carbon dioxide as the cooling agent and are used in the U.K., and fast neutron reactors, which are cooled by liquid sodium.

Nuclear energy history

The idea of nuclear power began in the 1930s , when physicist Enrico Fermi first showed that neutrons could split atoms. Fermi led a team that in 1942 achieved the first nuclear chain reaction, under a stadium at the University of Chicago. This was followed by a series of milestones in the 1950s: the first electricity produced from atomic energy at Idaho's Experimental Breeder Reactor I in 1951; the first nuclear power plant in the city of Obninsk in the former Soviet Union in 1954; and the first commercial nuclear power plant in Shippingport, Pennsylvania, in 1957. ( Take our quizzes about nuclear power and see how much you've learned: for Part I, go here ; for Part II, go here .)

Nuclear power, climate change, and future designs

Nuclear power isn't considered renewable energy , given its dependence on a mined, finite resource, but because operating reactors do not emit any of the greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming , proponents say it should be considered a climate change solution . National Geographic emerging explorer Leslie Dewan, for example, wants to resurrect the molten salt reactor , which uses liquid uranium dissolved in molten salt as fuel, arguing it could be safer and less costly than reactors in use today.

Others are working on small modular reactors that could be portable and easier to build. Innovations like those are aimed at saving an industry in crisis as current nuclear plants continue to age and new ones fail to compete on price with natural gas and renewable sources such as wind and solar.

The holy grail for the future of nuclear power involves nuclear fusion, which generates energy when two light nuclei smash together to form a single, heavier nucleus. Fusion could deliver more energy more safely and with far less harmful radioactive waste than fission, but just a small number of people— including a 14-year-old from Arkansas —have managed to build working nuclear fusion reactors. Organizations such as ITER in France and Max Planck Institute of Plasma Physics are working on commercially viable versions, which so far remain elusive.

Nuclear power risks

When arguing against nuclear power, opponents point to the problems of long-lived nuclear waste and the specter of rare but devastating nuclear accidents such as those at Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima Daiichi in 2011 . The deadly Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine happened when flawed reactor design and human error caused a power surge and explosion at one of the reactors. Large amounts of radioactivity were released into the air, and hundreds of thousands of people were forced from their homes . Today, the area surrounding the plant—known as the Exclusion Zone—is open to tourists but inhabited only by the various wildlife species, such as gray wolves , that have since taken over .

In the case of Japan's Fukushima Daiichi, the aftermath of the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami caused the plant's catastrophic failures. Several years on, the surrounding towns struggle to recover, evacuees remain afraid to return , and public mistrust has dogged the recovery effort, despite government assurances that most areas are safe.

Other accidents, such as the partial meltdown at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island in 1979, linger as terrifying examples of nuclear power's radioactive risks. The Fukushima disaster in particular raised questions about safety of power plants in seismic zones, such as Armenia's Metsamor power station.

Other issues related to nuclear power include where and how to store the spent fuel, or nuclear waste, which remains dangerously radioactive for thousands of years. Nuclear power plants, many of which are located on or near coasts because of the proximity to water for cooling, also face rising sea levels and the risk of more extreme storms due to climate change.

LIMITED TIME OFFER

Receive up to 2 bonus issues, with any paid gift subscription!

Related Topics

• NUCLEAR ENERGY
• NUCLEAR WEAPONS
• TOXIC WASTE
• RENEWABLE ENERGY

You May Also Like

This pill could protect us from radiation after a nuclear meltdown

Scientists achieve a breakthrough in nuclear fusion. Here’s what it means.

This young nuclear engineer has a new plan for clean energy

The true history of Einstein's role in developing the atomic bomb

The controversial future of nuclear power in the U.S.

• History & Culture
• Photography
• Environment
• Paid Content

History & Culture

• Mind, Body, Wonder
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Your US State Privacy Rights
• Children's Online Privacy Policy
• Interest-Based Ads
• About Nielsen Measurement
• Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
• Nat Geo Home
• Attend a Live Event
• Book a Trip
• Inspire Your Kids
• Shop Nat Geo
• Visit the D.C. Museum
• Learn About Our Impact
• Support Our Mission
• Advertise With Us
• Customer Service
• Renew Subscription
• Manage Your Subscription
• Work at Nat Geo
• Sign Up for Our Newsletters
• Contribute to Protect the Planet

Copyright © 1996-2015 National Geographic Society Copyright © 2015-2024 National Geographic Partners, LLC. All rights reserved

• Share full article

Advertisement

Should America Go Nuclear?

It’s carbon-free, but has a history of disasters. investing more in nuclear power can help get us to carbon-neutral by 2050. but is it worth it.

Today on The Argument, can nuclear power save us from the climate crisis?

Most reasonable people agree that unless we get our carbon emissions under control, we’re headed towards a climate disaster. But they don’t agree on how to do it. Wind farms and solar panels are part of the solution. So are better batteries and a more efficient electrical grid. But shouldn’t we be throwing everything at one of the biggest problems our planet has ever faced, like, ever, ever faced?

I’m Jane Coaston, and I’m curious about nuclear power. France gets more than 70 percent of its electricity from nuclear power, Sweden more than 40 percent. Here in the United States, we’re more skittish because though nuclear is clean, when it goes wrong, it goes really, really, really wrong. My guests today disagree on the risks and rewards of nuclear power. MC Hammond is a senior fellow at The Good Energy Collective, a progressive nonprofit that does nuclear research. She’s also a lawyer at Pillsbury Law. MC’s opinions today don’t represent the opinions or positions of her firm. Todd Larsen is the executive co-director for consumer and corporate engagement at Green America, a nonprofit group focused on environmental sustainability.

First and foremost, there are more than 50 nuclear power plants operating in the United States right now. MC, can you give us a very basic description of a nuclear power plant?

Yeah, absolutely. So I think that when people think about nuclear power plants, they think about the really big evaporation towers you see when you’re driving down the highway or The Simpsons. And not a lot of people understand just how nuclear power works. So not to take everybody back to 10th grade science class, but nuclear energy is created from breaking apart the nucleus of atoms, of really heavy elements like uranium. And when you break apart atoms, you create energy. And in a reactor, what happens is that energy creates heat. And that heat is used to create steam from water, and that steam goes into a steam turbine. And it turns and creates energy, and that’s how you turn your lights on in your house. Actually, in 2020, nuclear power replaced coal as the nation’s second largest source of generation. So it’s about 19 percent of the total energy generation on the grid. And it’s over half of the nation’s carbon-free electricity.

So Todd, you’re skeptical of expanding the United States’s use of nuclear power for a couple of reasons. Can you lay those out for us?

Sure, I’d be happy to. So there are very significant risks with nuclear power, all the way from uranium mining to the actual operation of the nuclear power plant, through to what do we do with the nuclear waste that’s produced by nuclear power plants in the United States and around the world. There’s also a major cost issue with nuclear power. Nuclear power is very expensive. Compared to other alternatives that we have, like wind and solar, new nuclear plants are at least twice as expensive. The nuclear plants that were under construction in the last 10 years all went over budget in the United States. The one in Georgia, the Vogtle plant that is being built, is about double its budget. It was projected to be $14 billion. And instead, it’s running about $28 billion. And the plants that were being constructed in South Carolina, the V.C. Sumner plants, utilities there spent $9 billion. And they never completed the plants. And those costs were passed on to ratepayers. And for $9 billion, you could have built a lot of wind and solar in the state of South Carolina. And that clean energy could be on the grid right now.

MC, clearly, the cost issue is huge. $9 billion for a plant that will not work is bad. But South Korea, in comparison, has been able to get its costs down. So this isn’t necessarily a across the board issue. Why is nuclear power so expensive? And is there a way, in your view, that that could change?

Yeah, absolutely. And I think Todd brings up such a great point with these really big plants and how expensive they are to operate. And that’s why what I work a lot on is smaller plants and advanced nuclear where they’re not so big, like bet-the-farm operations. So a lot of the power plants in the United States are really big, right? They’re one gigawatt of electricity, a lot of them, or two gigawatts. And we are looking at these smaller reactors. You have reactors that are 300 to 500 megawatts, kind of a size of a coal plant generally. But I want to go to your point, Jane, on South Korea and the reason that they’re able to build these plants generally on time and on budget. And they’ve really seen cost reductions. And they’ve seen cost reductions for the same reason we’ve seen cost reductions for wind and solar in the United States. They build the same thing over and over. And when you build the same thing over and over, you generally have a lot of learning from that. And you’re able to do it better the next time. And in some of these iterations, 30% to 40% cost reductions. In Georgia, those are a first of a kind plants for the United States, first of its kind, first in country. And when you build a first of a kind thing, it is going to be expensive. But that is why I think we need to learn from what we did with renewables to help reduce those costs, so we can have the tools to get to 100 percent carbon-free electricity.

I’ve joked that nuclear power has massive PR issue for understandable reasons. First, when you think about nuclear power, you think about Chernobyl or Three Mile Island. So I want to address the safety concerns first from you, MC. Why expand with these potential concerns?

Yeah, first, I just want to address Chernobyl because it was such a massive disaster. And just to be very clear, I know a lot of folks have watched the mini series where he explains at the end just how bad of a nuclear reactor design that was.

Yes, we’ve been talking about that series. And I have watched, like, 15 minutes of Chernobyl, and then I got too scared.

I really loved that mini-series because he explained what I think all of nuclear folks try to explain about Chernobyl, was just, like, how risky of a design that was. It was a massive reactor. And most reactors have something called the containment, which is just in case, you have a containment to contain the fission radiation. Chernobyl didn’t even have one. So that was one major design flaw that was one of the reasons it was such a large disaster. And the other thing is the way that it was designed, is, as a reactor that gets hotter, it increased its fission. And when I’m talking about these new advanced reactor designs, they’re designed the actual opposite way. So as they get too hot, they shut themselves down, which is the opposite of what happened to Chernobyl.

The concern here is Chernobyl takes place in 1986, but Fukushima takes place just a decade ago and is a massive disaster and one that ultimately reshaped the Japanese nuclear industry. After Fukushima, all nuclear reactors in Japan were shuttered, which eliminated 30 percent of total electricity production. And Japan is now the second largest net importer of fossil fuel in the world. Like, when nuclear goes wrong, it goes really wrong.

What happened at Fukushima is they had a substantial earthquake. And their power went out, so then their diesel generators kicked on, right? And then a giant tsunami came and flooded their generators. And that cut their backup power. When you cut the backup power, you lose your ability to put water coolant into the reactor. So, Fukushima relied on an external source of power to keep the plants cool. And these new designs, we call them in the industry walkaway safe, meaning I don’t need an external power source to shut the reactor down. When it gets too hot, it shuts itself down on its own.

Todd, I’m going to guess that if things get too hot, everything shuts down. That sounds better to me. Does that alleviate any of your concerns about the safety of nuclear energy?

Well, no, I think there are very serious risks to nuclear power. And first, let’s just talk about the fact that we do have nuclear power plants still in operation in the United States that have been around for several decades. So at Fukushima, what happened is the earthquake that occurred was of a magnitude much higher than had ever occurred in that area of Japan. And of course, that then led to the evacuation of thousands of people. That led to radiation being released into the water, not just in the community, but also into the ocean. So we’re still not done with Fukushima 10 years later. But I think what Fukushima shows for us here in the United States is that our plants are at risk, too. And then there’s the history of nuclear power in the United States so far, which doesn’t give anyone great confidence. There have been over 50 nuclear accidents that are significant in the United States. It just didn’t lead to the level of concern that we had with Three Mile Island with a partial meltdown. But if you look at, for example, Browns Ferry, which is a nuclear power plant in Alabama, workers there were trying to make a repair and put some insulation in place. And they wanted to test that the insulation was working to stop drafts, so they lit a candle. The candle lit the insulation on fire. It knocked out the cooling systems in Browns Ferry. It almost led to a nuclear meltdown. And the only thing that saved us is that the workers created a number of workarounds to the safety features at that plant and stopped the plant from melting down. And we have to also look at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission itself. It’s the regulator of nuclear power in the United States. And we trust it with our safety. But investigations have found that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is too friendly to the industry, that they watered down their recommendations to the industry based on industry pressure. And that’s very concerning.

I just want to pick up on a couple of the points that Todd made, which is what the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has done in response to the fire incident at Browns Ferry, in response to Fukushima. Every time there’s an incident, there are inspections and hearings and remediations. And finally, I’ll say, as somebody who’s been on the opposite side of the table of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission many times, they are certainly not friendly to me as a person in the industry. And I don’t know if that’s anecdotal experience. But I have to take a personal issue with that.

But Todd, you have, I think, some additional safety concerns that I want to get into. One is that spent fuel rods need to be maintained in pools of water or steel or concrete containers.

I think for many people, perhaps their best example of what a nuclear facility looks like is The Simpsons, which depicts nuclear waste as green ooze, which it isn’t.

It’s solid. But where we put that is a big problem.

I think everybody who’s involved in nuclear power would agree that we could store nuclear waste better than we’re storing it now. There’s universal agreement on that. And there’s real risk in what we’re doing right now. The amount of nuclear waste produced and then put into wet storage and then dry storage is greater than those plants were designed for. Because everybody thought that eventually we’d have a permanent solution to nuclear waste in this country. And we don’t. But the biggest issue of this is what are we going to do in the long run with all this nuclear waste? It is radioactive for thousands of years, tens of thousands of years. We have to find a safe way to store it. If we continue to store it the way we are storing it even in dry casks, which are safer, they’re not designed to store nuclear waste for thousands of years. Metal is going to corrode. Concrete’s going to deteriorate. And that’s a tremendous risk. So one long-term solution we had, Yucca Mountain, was opposed by the local communities and eventually stopped.

Clearly, nobody wants to be near a nuclear waste, but there has to be a place to put it. But no one wants to be the place. So how does the industry respond to these concerns?

Yeah, I mean, folks like to say or critics of nuclear power like to say that we don’t have a long-term waste solution, when, as Todd rightly points out, we do. We know what to do with the waste. I mean, technically, it’s solved, it relates to the political willpower, I think, in terms of solving it. And to say that we don’t have a solution, that might be true for civilian waste in the United States. But we’re already storing Department of Defense waste in an underground facility, like we’ve been doing that since 1999. You haven’t heard about it because it’s pretty safe. And these casks similarily, those have been in operation since 1986. There hasn’t been an issue with those casks. And if we look at what other countries that have nuclear are doing, you have a consent-based siting program in Finland that’s resulted in a really mature project for a deep geological repository that they’re moving forward with. Sweden and France are not far behind in their geological repositories. But I want to kind of take a step back and think about the lessons that we’ve learned from Nevada and Yucca Mountain and how important it is to ensure that if we are going to build something in a community, that the community wants it.

So one of the issues, MC, the uranium mining process is very similar to the coal mining process in terms of the risks that it can pose to the local communities and to the land. As we were researching for this episode, one of our producers spoke with Joe Heath, general counsel from the Onondaga Nation, who said that mining on Navajo Nation land impacted people who weren’t adequately protected and polluted the air and water from drainage from the mining. What regulations are there in place to protect the people who were involved in the mining process? Doesn’t that pose a huge risk? Because it seems to me that nuclear power may be, quote unquote, “clean.” The mining process definitely isn’t.

We mine now very little uranium in the United States. A lot of our uranium is imported. But I think what’s important to understand is that the mining processes have changed significantly from those that really affect these indigenous peoples. And first and foremost is to remediate these issues that occurred in mining processes. Underground mining processes are harmful to people. My family comes from Appalachia coal Country. And we were really affected by that. My grandfather is an orphan.

I think we don’t want to underestimate the harms that are caused by uranium mining, first in the United States and now around the world. And I don’t think most people realize that the largest release of radioactive material in US history occurred due to uranium mining. It was the Church Rock mines in New Mexico. They released 1,100 tons of radioactive mill waste that contaminated miles of the Puerco River. And that’s in the Navajo Nation. And that’s what you were referring to, the Navajo Nation and their fears around — and their anger around uranium mining. That’s where this comes from. And if you’re looking at environmental justice, though, and you talk to advocates around the country, what they’re talking about is renewable energy. They don’t bring up, we want nuclear power in our community. They talk about we want community solar. We want more control of our energy market in our communities. And the way you’re going to get that is going to be through renewable energy. And that’s because renewable energy is the most cost effective form of energy in the United States at this point. It’s carbon neutral. It’s safe. It’s the way we should be going in this country. If we really care about the climate crisis and we care about environmental justice in this country, there really is no alternative to rapidly scaling up renewable energy with battery storage.

So, Todd, according to 2020 data, nuclear power plants operate at full power, on average, 337 out of 365 days a year. Compare that to hydroelectric, which delivers 151 days per year, and wind, 129 days per year. We’ve gotten into a lot of the concerns about the processes by which you get nuclear power and the risks that that comes with. But wouldn’t that make nuclear our most reliable alternative energy source?

I don’t think nuclear power is the best solution for us. And we can address reliability with the technologies we have with renewable energy these days. Now what we need to do in the United States is to pair renewable energy with storage technologies. And that way, when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing, you can produce energy. When those events are occurring, you can store the power for later and then put it back on the grid when you need it. There have been peer-reviewed studies that have looked at this. And it’s entirely possible to meet the energy needs of the United States with renewable energy alone. It’s all really about politics at this point.

But there’s also the matter that wind farms require 360 times more land area to produce the same amount of electricity as nuclear plants. Solar requires 75 times more space. According to the, now, granted, the nuclear energy trade group, the Nuclear Energy Institute, they said in 2015 that no wind or solar facility currently operating in the United States is large enough to match the output of 1,000 megawatt nuclear reactor. How do we make wind and solar work as well and generate as much electricity as nuclear already can?

Well, I think wind and solar can be integrated into the built environment that we already have in a lot of ways. And in particular, this works with solar energy. You can put solar panels all over the place. You can put them into communities that already exist. You can put them into fields and farms. And between all these different solutions, you can actually bring enough wind and solar into the United States in order to meet our energy needs.

Last month, the Biden administration announced that their $2 trillion infrastructure plan included significant funding for advanced nuclear research and development. So what is advanced nuclear?

So I think there is probably about 60 different advanced reactor companies in the United States working on different designs. But I’ll tell you about my favorite one, which is the pebble bed reactor. And the reason that I think it’s so cool is because it looks kind of like a gumball machine. But instead of using long fuel rods, like you see in normal reactors, pebble bed reactors use a pebble. It’s about the size of a tennis ball. It’s, like, eight pounds. And they put it into the reactor, and you take the old pebbles out of the bottom and you put the new fuel in at the top. You never have to shut it down to refuel because you can always cycle it through. And another really cool thing about these advanced designs is when they get too hot, they shut themselves down. It’s a matter of physics. So when you think about thermal expansion, so when you take a jar of pickles and you run it under hot water to get the top off, that’s because the metal on the lid expands. That’s what we call thermal expansion. And when you have thermal expansion in a nuclear reactor, it makes the neutrons a little bit further away from everybody so they can’t run into the other ones and continue that fission reaction. The other thing I really want to talk about actually with these designs that’s so cool that I think a lot of people don’t realize is they’re designed with giant batteries with them together. These work really, really well with the intermittency of wind and solar to help create an overall firm energy grid. And that’s one of the reasons I think these new reactor designs are so exciting for the clean energy community.

Todd, I am guessing that these advances in nuclear energy aren’t exactly alleviating your concerns with nuclear energy.

Well, there are two concerns that I have, one of which is that the technology is not ready to go. And these nuclear solutions, they will be commercialized sometime next decade, someplace between 2030 and 2040. And the nuclear industry has a history of projecting deadlines that it never meets. The other problem is that we keep hearing about the safety of them. But I know the Union of Concerned Scientists recently just released a massive study of so-called advanced reactors. And what they found is that a number of the so-called advanced reactors actually continue to pose safety risks. And they also pose risks of proliferation because a number of these reactors that are being proposed, including the ones proposed by TerraPower, Bill Gates’s company, these are breeder reactors. And they reprocess the fuel to be reused again. And when you have that kind of process, you’re opening the door to proliferation. So if these reactors are used throughout the world in an attempt to address climate change, what we could be seeing is an expansion of the proliferation of plutonium weapons grade material. And those can actually be used in nuclear bombs, so how are we going to control the risks from that? How are we going to control the risks of weapons of mass destruction coming out of these programs?

We, in the advanced nuclear community, we’re really incorporating proliferation concerns into the designs of the reactors themselves. It’s called safeguards by design and working very closely with the IEA in Vienna to ensure that these proliferation concerns are addressed. And I also want to say the designs that I’m talking about in the United States that are being developed are not breeder reactors. They’re different. They’re molten salt. They’re sodium fast reactors. So I’m talking about a different thing. I think people like to take breeder reactors out and make an example of them. That’s not what I’m talking about. And now we have a lot of really smart people in private companies and in 17 national labs around the country figuring out how to make them the absolute safest they can be. It’s a little bit of hubris, right? We don’t know the solutions we’re going to need to solve in the future. So why take a potential solution off the table? My perspective is not that I think everything should be nuclear all the time. I think it’s really important that it’s a strong mix. And I think we need to deploy wind and solar and batteries right now at scale as much as possible. But we shouldn’t have these solutions taken away from us or from future Americans, frankly. [MUSIC PLAYING]

MC Hammond is a lawyer specializing in energy at Pillsbury Law, and she’s a senior policy fellow at The Good Energy Collective, a progressive nonprofit focused on nuclear energy. Todd Larsen is the executive co-director for consumer and corporate engagement at Green America, a nonprofit group focused on environmental sustainability. Thank you both so much for joining me.

Thanks so much. This was really great.

Yeah, thanks for having me. Thank you.

If you want to learn more about nuclear power, I recommend the article “Why Nuclear Power Must Be Part of the Energy Solution” at Yale Environment 360, and for an opposing view, the Washington Post op-ed titled, “I Oversaw the US Nuclear Power Industry, Now I Think it Should be Banned,” by Gregory Jaczko. You can find links to all of these in our episode notes. And after the break, I’m calling opinion columnist Bret Stephens to ask him about a recent column.

Hi, my name is Gus Demora. I’m a senior in high school from Shreveport, Louisiana. And there’s been a lot of people angry about Biden’s strike on Iranian-backed militias in the Middle East. I’m wondering if there’s a better way for us to have foreign policy in the Middle East, other than liberal internationalism, where we use drone strikes and hard power.

What are you arguing about with your family, your friends, your frenemies? Tell me about the big debate you’re having in a voicemail by calling 347-915-4324. And we might play an excerpt of it on a future episode. [MUSIC PLAYING]

[DIAL TONE]

Hello. Bret Stephens is a columnist at Times Opinion. He wrote a piece last month called “America Could Use a Liberal Party.” I read the article, and it annoyed me because the premise of his grand new party seemed to be that there should be a party comprised of people who agree with him, who call themselves Republicans or Democrats, but really are more Bret Stephens’s. In my previous life, I probably would have just tweeted about it. But now Bret is my colleague. And I realized I could just talk to him directly. And maybe he would explain himself. So we spoke last month.

Jane, how are you doing?

I’m doing well. Thank you.

And you got your shot, I saw.

I did. I did. I’ve had my shot. It was an excellent process.

Are you feeling OK?

Yeah, there is really something to the impact of having the shot because for the entire day I had it, everything I felt, I was like, is that it? Is that the shot? What just happened? But no, I felt fine, and I feel fine.

Well, I’m very happy for you, and I feel I must tell you, a little bit envious. I can’t wait to get a needle in my arm and go on with trying to live a normal life.

I wanted to talk about one of your recent columns, “America Could Use a Liberal Party.” So, why?

Well, because I think it’s the unoccupied space in the American public square. When I use the term “liberal,” I’m not referring to I guess what — I don’t know — Nancy Pelosi or the editors of the nation would typically mean by liberal. I mean, the values of liberal democracy writ large, a commitment to the rule of law, to free speech, to respecting the outcome of elections, to believing in the presumption of innocence. But I think that increasingly, as particularly the Republican Party moves much further to the right and as parts of the Democratic Party move to the left, that is a zone of ideology, if you will, that the current party system doesn’t really represent. And I think a Liberal Party built on those lines, attracting former centrist Republicans and maybe some disenchanted Democrats, could work.

But if you asked someone from the Democratic National Committee or the Republican National Committee, they would both say that they already do this. Neither party, no matter what they actually do, is like, screw the rule of law. We hate freedom of speech. There should be no deference to personal autonomy. Why do you say that neither party, particularly Republicans, but you do talk about Democrats, why do you think that these parties aren’t doing those things?

Well, obviously, if you talk to the head of the DNC or the head of the RNC, they would tell you that, right? I just don’t think that they’re telling you or maybe they’re not telling themselves the truth. And I think it registers in the profound disenchantment that a growing number of Americans feel with the current political duopolies. So the real question is, who is going to harness it and how? And right now, the people who are harnessing that disenchantment, I think, fall kind of on what used to be the fringes, whether it’s Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or the Trumpians in the Republican Party. But I also think that there’s additional vacant space at the center of a lot of people who are just like, I don’t like these jerks. I don’t like where they’re taking the parties that used to represent me. And I want a different form of politics.

I want to read you a comment that someone left on your piece.

Because it goes back to the fact that — I know, I know. It’s going to be OK. It goes back to the point that you did make, saying that this is a concern you see predominantly for Republicans. And Robert in Illinois says, “As someone who self-identifies as a radical centrist, I think there’s a qualitative difference between the extremes of the left of the Democratic Party and the right of the Republican Party. In previous times at best, there were more like two teams playing the same game, more or less accepting the same rules. Now the Trump-influenced Republican Party is trying to destroy the rules of the game altogether because they think it is the only way they can win. I fail to see the equivalent undermining of democracy on the left.” And you acknowledge that liberalism on the right is the most dangerous form because it’s attempted to subvert an election. So is your piece, in some ways, calling for reforms of the Republican Party or asking the Democratic Party to not become like the Republican Party as it is now?

Well, look, I think Democrats who think that they’re immune from what happens to the Republican Party are fooling themselves. And I basically agree with that comment from Robert. But it is also true that there is a kind of liberalism on the left that is more apparent in cultural institutions. And I think if you scroll through some of those comments, as I did, you’ll find plenty of people attesting to the fact that there’s a kind of a culture of, keep your mouth shut and don’t disagree when it comes to university settings, even high school settings, magazine culture, and so on. And culture has a way of jumping over into politics. So yeah, I guess, my answer to your question is Democrats, don’t tilt the way that the Republican Party did.

You mentioned magazine politics or university politics and the influence that that kind of culture can have in the Democratic Party. But the party at large, they didn’t go for the kind of what we used to call political correctness and what is apparently called wokeness that you and others think that was coming from a lot of other Democratic candidates. They went for Joe Biden.

Again, I think that what the last election cycle showed is that the heart of the Democratic Party remains much more kind of middle of the road, working class values than I had feared or suspected. But on the other hand, I really do think that it was a kind of an 11th hour — I don’t want to say a miracle, but a surprise that [Bernie] Sanders, who had done so extraordinarily well in the early rounds of voting, whether in New Hampshire or in Iowa, came up short. So I’m just saying, look, I remember the Republican Party in 2015 and the sense that the idea that Donald Trump could take it over just seemed absurd. It just seemed ridiculous, and yet here we are five years later. So look, maybe, Jane, it’s my inner Jewish fatalism that that says, worry now, more to follow. But I think the Democrats are foolish just to assume that all is well and that the kind of very illiberal kind of left-wing progressivism that some of us see in elite circles can’t have a greater foothold on the mainstream of the Democratic Party.

I think I want to ask you one question because you’ve talked a little bit in other conversations how sometimes you feel as if you’re the Komodo dragon of New York Times Opinion. You’re here to look scary. How much does that influence how you write and how you argue?

Well, I write with the idea that I’m trying to reach the persuadables person on the other side, not necessarily to convince them, but to at least say, yeah, I can see that. And that’s different from the way I used to write at the Wall Street Journal, where I could say with a reasonable amount of conviction that 95 percent of the audience already shared 95 percent of my premises, so that there was a lot that you can elide as a columnist. As a columnist, a lot of what goes into a column is what you’re not saying because you’re just assuming a basis for common agreement. And I can do a lot less of that at The Times. I think it has forced me to become a more careful writer. I can’t say I always succeed at it. And I’m sometimes surprised by what some readers take exception to. I mean, I still feel like a bit of a newbie at The Times. I’ve been here for four years. But it definitely forces me to write in a different way. And it forces me to think about how you reach people who are not going to see it your way either at the beginning of your column or at the end, but who might at least give something a second thought.

Well, Bret, thank you so much for your time for getting on the phone with me. And I hope you enjoy the rest of your day.

Thank you, Jane. [MUSIC PLAYING]

The Argument is a production of New York Times Opinion. It’s produced by Phoebe Lett, Elisa Gutierrez, and Vishakha Darbha; edited by Alison Bruzek and Paula Szuchman; with original music and sound design by Isaac Jones; and fact-checking by Kate Sinclair. Special thanks this week to Shannon Busta.

• December 14, 2022   •   40:31 The Libertarian Party Became Too Extreme for Me, So I Changed My Political Allegiance
• December 7, 2022   •   31:32 Should America Intervene in Haiti? ‘Go to Hell’ and Other Views
• November 30, 2022   •   34:51 How to Perform Normalcy — and Why the Democrats Should Give It a Try
• November 16, 2022   •   27:49 Has Donald Trump Lost His Grip on the Republican Party?
• November 9, 2022   •   26:31 Donald Trump Was the Midterm’s Biggest Loser
• November 2, 2022   •   35:21 The Price of $5 Donations: Is Small-Dollar Fund-Raising Doing More Harm Than Good?
• October 26, 2022   •   36:21 ‘Maybe Gen Z Is Just Kinder’: How America’s Youngest Voters Are Shaping Politics
• October 19, 2022   •   31:24 Has Polling Broken Politics?
• October 12, 2022   •   39:53 Is America Headed for Another Civil War?
• October 5, 2022   •   31:58 Are You ‘Third-Party-Curious’? Andrew Yang and David Jolly Would Like a Word.
• September 28, 2022   •   32:23 After Dobbs: What Is Feminist Sex?
• September 21, 2022   •   32:58 After Dobbs: Feminism Beyond the Gender Binary

Produced by ‘The Argument’

President Biden has set an ambitious goal for the United States to be carbon-neutral by 2050. Achieving it means weaning the country off fossil fuels and using more alternative energy sources like solar and wind. But environmentalists disagree about whether nuclear power should be part of the mix.

[You can listen to this episode of “The Argument” on Apple , Spotify , Google or wherever you get your podcasts .]

Todd Larsen, executive co-director for consumer and corporate engagement at Green America and Meghan Claire Hammond, senior fellow at the Good Energy Collective, a policy research organization focusing on new nuclear technology, join Jane Coaston to debate whether nuclear power is worth the risks.

And then the Times columnist Bret Stephens joins Jane to talk about why he thinks America needs a liberal party.

Mentioned in this episode

“ Why Nuclear Power Must Be Part of the Energy Solution ,” by Richard Rhodes in Yale Environment 360.

“ I oversaw the U.S. nuclear power industry. Now I think it should be banned ,” by Gregory Jaczko in The Washington Post

The TV mini-series “Chernobyl,” a depiction of the 1986 explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant

“ America Could Use a Liberal Party ,” by Bret Stephens

(A full transcript of the episode will be available midday on the Times website.)

Thoughts? Email us at [email protected] or leave us a voice mail message at (347) 915-4324. We want to hear what you’re arguing about with your family, your friends and your frenemies. (We may use excerpts from your message in a future episode.)

By leaving us a message, you are agreeing to be governed by our reader submission terms and agreeing that we may use and allow others to use your name, voice and message.

“The Argument” is produced by Phoebe Lett, Elisa Gutierrez and Vishakha Darbha and edited by Alison Bruzek and Paula Szuchman; fact-checking by Kate Sinclair and Michelle Harris; music and sound design by Isaac Jones.

• Work & Careers
• Life & Arts

Become an FT subscriber

Limited time offer save up to 40% on standard digital.

• Global news & analysis
• Expert opinion
• Special features
• FirstFT newsletter
• Videos & Podcasts
• Android & iOS app
• FT Edit app
• 10 gift articles per month

Explore more offers.

Standard digital.

• FT Digital Edition

Premium Digital

Print + premium digital.

Then $75 per month. Complete digital access to quality FT journalism on any device. Cancel anytime during your trial.

• 10 additional gift articles per month
• Global news & analysis
• Exclusive FT analysis
• Videos & Podcasts
• FT App on Android & iOS
• Everything in Standard Digital
• Premium newsletters
• Weekday Print Edition

Complete digital access to quality FT journalism with expert analysis from industry leaders. Pay a year upfront and save 20%.

• Everything in Print
• Everything in Premium Digital

The new FT Digital Edition: today’s FT, cover to cover on any device. This subscription does not include access to ft.com or the FT App.

Terms & Conditions apply

Explore our full range of subscriptions.

Why the ft.

See why over a million readers pay to read the Financial Times.

International Edition

Home — Essay Samples — Science — Nuclear Power — Nuclear Power and Its Impact on Modern Society 

Nuclear Power and Its Impact on Modern Society 

• Categories: Modern Society Nuclear Power

About this sample

Words: 1553 |

Published: Aug 30, 2022

Words: 1553 | Pages: 3 | 8 min read

Cite this Essay

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

Get high-quality help

Prof. Kifaru

Verified writer

• Expert in: Sociology Science

+ 120 experts online

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!

Related Essays

4 pages / 2197 words

3 pages / 1456 words

3 pages / 1184 words

5 pages / 2373 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Nuclear Power

In Anne Applebaum’s column titled “If the Japanese can’t build a safe reactor, who can?” on The Washington Post, she attempts to prove that nuclear power plants are a danger to our society. Although her column contains many [...]

It’s like something out of a science fiction movie. Nuclear waste - hundreds of millions of gallons of it - are buried underground after the Cold War. Years later, it threatens to contaminate major sources of food and water for [...]

As the world moves towards a future where cleaner and more plentiful energy sources will be utilized over traditional non-renewables, the research field into the benefits and detriments of nuclear energy continues to grow. While [...]

This paper involves the details of the project entitled “Wireless Power Transmission”. It is the system for transmitting the electrical power from the source to load wirelessly using coils. There are two coils used, one at the [...]

The concept of what it means to be secure and stable is highly contested and has entailed many different interpretations throughout history. The Cold War lasted for almost fifty years and raised important questions of security [...]

A scientist can truly be viewed as revolutionary when their di Robert Andrews Millikan was born on the 22nd of March in 1868 as the second son of Reverend Silas Franklin Millikan (Father) and Mary Jane Andrews Millikan (Mother) [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

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

Nuclear Power Essay IELTS 2024: Writing Task 2 Latest Samples

Looking for samples of Nuclear Power Essay IELTS Click here for tips on how you can write an essay in writing task 2 find out examples for reference!

8/25/2023 3 min read

Nuclear power has been a subject of both fascination and controversy since its inception. As the global energy landscape evolves, the role of nuclear power in providing clean and sustainable energy solutions has come into focus. In this essay, we will explore the latest samples and perspectives on nuclear power in the context of IELTS Writing Task 2. From its benefits to its potential drawbacks, we'll delve into various aspects to provide a comprehensive overview.

Introduction

Nuclear power, often hailed as a promising solution to the world's energy needs, involves harnessing the energy released during nuclear reactions to generate electricity. As the demand for clean energy sources rises, the examination of nuclear power's advantages, challenges, and its potential role in shaping our energy future becomes crucial.

Understanding Nuclear Power

What is nuclear power.

Nuclear power is a form of energy obtained by altering the structure of atomic nuclei through nuclear reactions. The most common nuclear reaction involves splitting the nucleus of an atom, a process known as nuclear fission.

The Science Behind Nuclear Reactions

Nuclear reactions release an immense amount of energy in the form of heat. This heat is used to produce steam, which drives turbines connected to generators, ultimately producing electricity.

Advantages of Nuclear Power

Low greenhouse gas emissions.

Unlike fossil fuels, nuclear power generation produces minimal greenhouse gas emissions. This characteristic makes it a potentially valuable tool in mitigating climate change.

High Energy Output

Nuclear reactions release a vast amount of energy from a small amount of fuel, resulting in high energy output compared to other energy sources.

Continuous Power Generation

Nuclear power plants can operate continuously for long periods without interruption, providing a stable source of electricity to the grid.

Challenges of Nuclear Power

Radioactive waste management.

One of the most significant challenges is the proper disposal of radioactive waste generated during nuclear reactions. Long-term storage solutions are essential to prevent environmental contamination.

Safety Concerns

Safety is a primary concern with nuclear power. Accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima have raised questions about the reliability of safety measures in nuclear facilities.

High Initial Costs

Building and commissioning nuclear power plants require substantial upfront investment, which can deter many countries from adopting this technology.

Nuclear Power and the Environment

Comparison with fossil fuels.

Nuclear power's low emissions make it a cleaner alternative to fossil fuels like coal and oil, which are major contributors to air pollution and global warming.

Mitigating Climate Change

The consistent power output of nuclear plants can contribute significantly to reducing the use of fossil fuels, thus helping in the fight against climate change.

Global Perspective on Nuclear Power

Leading nuclear energy producers.

Countries like the United States, China, and Russia are leading producers of nuclear energy, contributing to a substantial portion of their electricity generation.

International Regulations and Agreements

International bodies like the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) play a critical role in setting standards and guidelines for the safe use of nuclear power globally.

Nuclear Safety Measures

Design of nuclear reactors.

Modern reactor designs incorporate passive safety features that can help prevent or mitigate accidents without human intervention.

Emergency Protocols

Nuclear power plants have strict emergency protocols in place to ensure rapid responses to any unforeseen situations, minimizing the potential for widespread disasters.

The Future of Nuclear Power

Advanced reactor technologies.

Research into advanced reactor designs aims to enhance safety, reduce waste, and make nuclear energy more accessible.

Fusion as a Clean Energy Source

Fusion, the process that powers the sun, holds immense promise as a clean and virtually limitless energy source, although practical implementation remains a challenge.

Public Opinion and Nuclear Power

Addressing misconceptions.

Public perception often includes misconceptions about nuclear power's safety and environmental impact. Education and accurate information dissemination are crucial in addressing these concerns.

Building Public Trust

Transparency in operations, rigorous safety standards, and community engagement are vital in building public trust and acceptance of nuclear power projects.

Nuclear Power and Developing Countries

Energy security and economic growth.

For developing countries, nuclear power can provide a reliable energy source, reducing dependence on imports and fostering economic development.

Capacity Building Challenges

However, establishing nuclear infrastructure requires substantial resources, technical expertise, and stringent regulatory frameworks.

Nuclear power stands at a crossroads in the global pursuit of sustainable energy. Its potential to generate large amounts of clean energy comes with significant challenges that need to be addressed collectively. As technology advances and safety measures improve, nuclear power could play a pivotal role in shaping a greener future.

Subscribe newsletter

• Phone: +91 8466016171
• Whatsapp: +91 8208375580
• Email: contact@leapscholar.com

Nuclear Power Essay IELTS 2024: Writing Task 2 Latest Samples

• Updated On March 10, 2024
• Published In IELTS Preparation 💻

The IELTS exam tests how well-versed you are in the English language. It consists of 4 papers: reading, writing, listening, and speaking. Essay writing can be daunting if you’re not conversant in its framework and concept. This blog will assist you in writing Nuclear Power Essay IELTS and guide you on how to crack IELTS writing task 2.

Table of Contents

We’ll focus more on the nuclear power essay during this blog and walk you through the process. For guidance and reference on other topics and any other help regarding the IELTS exam , you can look through our website’s collection of blogs and obtain the assistance you need.

Nuclear Power Essay IELTS Sample Answer

Nuclear power is a very debated topic in every convention and has always been questioned for the bad it does rather than its good. In my opinion, nuclear power needs to be used, and the user should also be controlled and hedged with renewable energy sources as they are the only viable solution. Nuclear plants currently provide 11% of the world’s electricity. With an ever-increasing demand for electricity being seen everywhere and the fossil fuels reducing each day, it is now more important than ever that major decisions should be made. In the upcoming decades, energy consumption will only increase and meet the rising demand; nuclear power plants will be required as they are the best source of traditional energy-producing sources. Although nuclear power plants are required, it is also necessary to gradually push renewable energy sources and promote them to create a sustainable future for future generations. Nuclear power plants’ waste disposal and radioactivity are the concerning factors that have been the hot topic of most debates at conventions and meetings. In addition to that, a single misuse of this tremendous power can result in the disruption of life for all mankind. Striking a balance between the two will be crucial in the coming time as global warming and the energy crisis are on a constant rise. If nothing is done in the near time, countries could get submerged underwater within the coming decades, and the entire world will have to fight for survival.

Writing Task 2

The writing section of the IELTS exam consists of two sections. Writing task 2 is an essay writing task that requires deep thinking and coherence. This task will be our focus for this blog, as the rules and guidelines of the IELTS exam can be confusing for students appearing for the first time. Writing task 2 has the subsequent guidelines:

Crack IELTS Exam in first attempt

Attend Leap’s free masterclass to get tips, tricks and advance strategies to crack IELTS exam in first attempt

• The essay should have a minimum of 250 words. An essay written in less than 250 words will be penalised and negatively marked. There is no penalty for writing a longer essay, but it will cause you to stray off-topic and waste time.
• 40 minutes is a good enough time to complete this task and will leave you with time to recheck your answer.
• The essay’s contents should be written with perfect grammar and solely focused on the topic.
• You can be penalised if you stray off-topic while writing your essay. All the sentences must be related and formed to provide a clear view and information.
• The content must be well structured to fetch the best results and have proper cohesion between the sentences.
• The tone of your answer must be academic or semi-formal and should discuss the given topic at length and focus on proper and sophisticated language.
• Using bullet points and notes is not allowed in the IELTS exam . The real answer must be written together and broken into paragraphs to better examine your writing style and structure.

Structure of Essay in Writing Task 2

The structure of the essay in writing task 2 is the base of your essay, and a clear idea of the structure will make it much easier for you to finish the essay on time. The structure of the essay can be broken down in the following way:

• First Paragraph
• Second Paragraph
• Third Paragraph
• Fourth Paragraph

The first paragraph of your essay should provide a small introduction to the topic and provide an opinion of yours about what side you are on about the topic. The first paragraph should be minimal and to the point. A clear and concise introduction leaves a good impression on the examiner. The second paragraph should begin with your stance on the topic. The first sentence should provide clarity on your stance. The second sentence should build on that idea and delve deeper into the specifics. The next sentences are suitable for providing an example and developing it in detail. You can make up research studies and quote them in your essay to support your point. At the end of the paragraph, end with a statement that sums up the overall idea of the paragraph and supports the idea you started with. The third paragraph is very similar in structure to the second paragraph. The main objective of this paragraph is to provide either the opposite view of the topic or discuss new ideas that touch on a different perspective of the topic but ultimately support your opinion. The structuring is the same as in the second paragraph, with minute changes. The fourth paragraph is the conclusion of your essay and, just like the introduction, should be minimal. Summing up your essay with a statement supporting your opinion and overall idea is best advised.

Score well on IELTS Nuclear Essay by understanding the Writing task 2 structure above. Add Brownie points for writing answers with facts, examples and evidence. For more related content, head on to LeapScholar blogs. Avail of one-on-one guidance from India’s top IELTS educators from the Leap Scholar Premium course .

Frequently Asked Questions

1. what are the pros and cons of nuclear power.

Ans: Nuclear energy is a widely used method of production of electricity. The benefits of nuclear technology and the main advantages of nuclear power are: a. No production of harmful gases that cause air pollution b. Clean source of energy c. Low cost of fuel d. Long-life once constructed e. A massive amount of energy produced f. Unlike most energy production methods, nuclear energy does not contribute to the increase in global warming

Disadvantages: a. Very high cost of construction of the facility. b. Waste produced is very toxic and requires proper and safe disposal, which is costly. c. If any accident happens, it can have a major impact on everyone and can be devastating. d. Mining of uranium 235, which is nuclear fuel, is very expensive.

2. Does Japan have a plan for dealing with its own nuclear waste problem?

Ans: As per the latest news and research, Japan does not have a proper nuclear waste dumping structure even after the Fukushima disaster in 2011. The Fukushima disaster was caused by the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan in 2011 and caused meltdowns and hydrogen explosions at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Reactor. It was the worst recorded nuclear disaster since Chernobyl. Japan is said to have enough nuclear waste to create nuclear arsenals. In April 2021, Japan declared they would be dumping 1.2 million tonnes of nuclear waste into the sea. This is the same Japan that called the 1993 ocean dumping by Russia “extremely regrettable.” The discharges are bound to begin by 2023, and various legal proceedings and protests have been going on inside Japan against this inhuman decision that would destroy marine life.

3. How many countries have nuclear power plants?

Ans : Currently, 32 countries in the world possess nuclear power plants within their boundaries.

4. Why do people oppose nuclear power?

Ans: Opposition to nuclear power has been a long-standing issue. It is backed by a variety of reasons which are as follows:Nuclear waste is hard to dispose of, and improper disposal affects the radioactivity levels and can disrupt the normal life of people as well as animals. Nuclear technology is another concern of people as the usage of nuclear power plants leads to deeper research into the nuclear field. In today’s world, anything can be weaponised, and the threat of nuclear weapons is one of the drawbacks of nuclear power. This brings the threat of nuclear war and disruption of world peace. Any attack on nuclear power plants by terrorist organisations can result in a massive explosion that can disrupt and destroy human life and increase radioactivity to alarming levels around the site of the explosion.

5. What is the best way to dispose of nuclear waste?

Ans: Nuclear waste needs to be disposed of properly to prevent radioactive issues in the environment. The best methods to dispose of nuclear waste are as follows: a. Incineration : Radioactive waste can be incinerated in large scale incinerators with low production of waste. b. Deep burial: Nuclear waste can be buried deep into the ground as the radioactivity of nuclear waste wears off over time. This method is used for waste that is highly radioactive and will take a longer time to lose its radioactivity. c. Storage: Nuclear waste with low radioactivity is stored by some countries in storage. This is because their radioactive decay takes lesser time and can be disposed of safely once the radiation wears off.

6. Is it possible to produce electricity without using fossil fuels?

Ans: At the moment, 11% of the world’s electricity is produced by nuclear power plants alone. Replacing fossil fuel-based energy with renewable needs to be done gradually and properly. Renewable energy sources such as solar, hydro, and wind will have to be promoted and pushed to create a sustainable future. Renewable energy sources provide cheap energy, do not use up natural resources and fossil fuels and are much cheaper to construct than a nuclear power station.

Know more about IELTS

Get free speaking practice samples.

• Describe a Skill That you can teach other people
• Describe a Place you Visited Where the Air was Polluted
• Describe a Famous Person that you are Interested in
• Describe a Course That You Want to Learn
• Describe a Person who Solved a Problem in Smart Way
• Describe a Prize That You Received
• Describe a Volunteering Experience You Have Had
• Describe a Piece of Good News
• Describe Something you Taught to Your Friend
• Talk About an Interesting Old Person you Met Recently
• Describe a Dinner you Really Enjoyed
• Describe a Story or Novel That Was Interesting to You
• Describe a Time When you Shared Something with Others
• Describe a Toy you Liked in Childhood
• Describe an Interesting Neighbour
• Describe a Competition You Would Like to Take Part In
• Describe an interesting activity that you remember enjoying most in your Primary School
• Describe Your Childhood Friend
• Describe an Object You Find Particularly Beautiful
• Describe a Place Where you are Able to Relax
• Describe a person you know who likes to talk a lot
• Describe a place where you would like to go to relax
• Describe a period when you were busy
• Describe a long-term goal you would like to achieve
• Describe a situation when you helped someone
• Describe a job you would not like to do in the future
• Describe a time when you used a map
• Describe a skill that you learned in your childhood
• Describe an unusual holiday you had
• Describe an exciting activity that you experienced with someone else
• Describe a person who is good at making people feel welcome in his/her home
• Describe A Time You Successfully Did Something Difficult
• Describe Something in Your Country That You Are Interested In
• Describe a Beautiful City
• Describe something you do regularly that helps you work and study better
• Describe a photo that you took and are proud of
• Describe a party that you enjoyed
• Describe a useful object in your home that you can’t live without
• Describe a good advertisement that you think is useful
• Describe an occasion when someone or something made noise
• Describe a sportsperson that you admire
• Describe something that you picked up that was thrown by someone else
• Describe a time that something changed your life in good ways
• Describe a successful person who you once studied or worked with

Get Free Reading Practice Samples

• William henry perkin reading answers
• Why zoos are good reading answers
• Bioluminescence reading answers
• Classifying societies reading answers
• Artificial artists reading answers
• Jargon reading answers
• The Origins of Laughter Reading Answers
• The Innovation of Grocery Stores Reading Answers
• All About the Otter Reading Answers
• The Triune Brain Reading Answers
• Saving the Soil Reading Answers
• Trans Fatty Acids Reading Answers
• A Disaster of Titanic Proportions Reading Answers
• Why Companies Should Welcome Disorder Reading Answers
• Book Review Reading Answers
• Tea Times Reading Answers
• Why are Finland's Schools Successful Reading Answers
• Intelligence and Giftedness Reading Answers
• Animal Minds Parrot Alex Reading Answers
• Crop Growing Skyscrapers Reading Answers
• Secrets of the Swarm Reading Answers
• Walking with Dinosaurs Reading Answers
• The Development of Travel Under the Ocean Reading Answers
• What's so Funny Reading Answers
• The Culture of Chimpanzee Reading Answers
• Clutter Bugs Beware Reading Answer

Get Free Writing Practice Samples

• Advantages and Disadvantages Essay with Sample Answers
• Agree and Disagree Essay with Sample Answers
• Problem Solution Essay Topic with Sample Answers
• Every year several languages die out
• Positive or Negative Development Essay with Sample Answers
• Honesty is the best policy essay
• Online shopping essay
• Environment essay topics
• Prevention is better than cure essay

Get Free Listening Practice Samples

• Family excursions listening answers
• Public library listening answers
• Hiring a public room listening answers
• Notes on social programme listening answers
• Accommodation request form listening answers
• Transport survey listening answers
• Mic house agency repairs listening answers
• Holiday rentals listening answer
• Job enquiry listening answers
• Homestay application listening answers
• Library information listening answers
• Free activities in the burnham area listening answers

IELTS Important Information

• IELTS Exam Date
• IELTS Exam Fee
• IELTS Modules
• IELTS Speaking Practice Test
• IELTS Writing Practice Test
• IELTS Reading Practice Test
• IELTS Listening Practice Test
• IELTS Test Centres
• IELTS Results
• Types of IELTS
• IELTS Pattern
• IELTS Exam Eligibilty
• IELTS Slot Booking
• IELTS Band Score
• IELTS Registration
• IELTS Books
• IELTS Preparation
• IELTS Practice Test
• IELTS Speaking Cue Card
• IELTS Speaking Part 1
• IELTS Writing Task 1
• IELTS Writing Task 2
• Task 1 Pie Chart
• Task 1 Table Chart
• Task 1 Bar Graph
• Task 1 Line Graph
• Task 1 Diagram
• IELTS Computer Based Test
• IELTS Paper Based Test
• IELTS One Skill Retake
• IELTS for UKVI
• IELTS Vocabulary

IELTS Test Centre and Dates in India

• IELTS Test Centre and Dates in Hyderabad
• IELTS Test Centre and Dates in Bangalore
• IELTS Test Centre and Dates in Chennai
• IELTS Test Centre and Dates in Amritsar
• IELTS Centre and Dates in Ludhiana
• IELTS Test Centre and Dates in Mumbai
• IELTS Test Centres and Dates in Ahmedabad
• IELTS Centre and Dates in Delhi
• IELTS Test Centres and Dates in Chandigarh
• IELTS Center and Dates in Pune

Manisha Angre

Experienced IELTS prep trainer and education management industry veteran. Specializes in public speaking, international education, market research, mentoring, and management.

Related Posts

Top IELTS Tips and Tricks For Best IELTS Scores 2024

60+ IELTS Essay Topics 2024: IELTS Writing Task 2 Samples & Tips

IELTS Academic or General: Which is the Easiest Test?

Trending now.

EDF reorganises its nuclear business to improve performance

• Edf Energy Limited Follow
• EDF Renewable Energy Inc Follow

The Reuters Power Up newsletter provides everything you need to know about the global energy industry. Sign up here.

Reporting by Benoit Van Overstraeten; Editing by Ros Russell

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. , opens new tab

QatarEnergy (QATPE.UL) CEO Saad Al Kaabi announced on Sunday that the company has finalised a number of charter contracts with several Asian ship owners to bolster its shipping fleet by 19 LNG vessels ahead of a massive expansion in LNG output.

Nippon Steel emphasises its 'deep roots' in the US as it pursues U.S. Steel deal

Nippon Steel intends to pursue its proposed acquisition of U.S. Steel and wants its "deep roots" in the United States to be recognised, its new president said - remarks that come after U.S. President Joe Biden expressed opposition to the deal.