nuclear energy essay pros

• Phone This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
• Climate Change
• Policy & Economics
• Biodiversity
• Conservation

Get focused newsletters especially designed to be concise and easy to digest

• ESSENTIAL BRIEFING 3 times weekly
• TOP STORY ROUNDUP Once a week
• MONTHLY OVERVIEW Once a month
• Enter your email *
• Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

The Advantages and Disadvantages of Nuclear Energy

Since the first nuclear plant started operations in the 1950s, the world has been highly divided on nuclear as a source of energy. While it is a cleaner alternative to fossil fuels, this type of power is also associated with some of the world’s most dangerous and deadliest weapons, not to mention nuclear disasters . The extremely high cost and lengthy process to build nuclear plants are compensated by the fact that producing nuclear energy is not nearly as polluting as oil and coal. In the race to net-zero carbon emissions, should countries still rely on nuclear energy or should they make space for more fossil fuels and renewable energy sources? We take a look at the advantages and disadvantages of nuclear energy. 

What Is Nuclear Energy?

Nuclear energy is the energy source found in an atom’s nucleus, or core. Once extracted, this energy can be used to produce electricity by creating nuclear fission in a reactor through two kinds of atomic reaction: nuclear fusion and nuclear fission. During the latter, uranium used as fuel causes atoms to split into two or more nuclei. The energy released from fission generates heat that brings a cooling agent, usually water, to boil. The steam deriving from boiling or pressurised water is then channelled to spin turbines to generate electricity. To produce nuclear fission, reactors make use of uranium as fuel.

For centuries, the industrialisation of economies around the world was made possible by fossil fuels like coal, natural gas, and petroleum and only in recent years countries opened up to alternative, renewable sources like solar and wind energy. In the 1950s, early commercial nuclear power stations started operations, offering to many countries around the world an alternative to oil and gas import dependency and a far less polluting energy source than fossil fuels. Following the 1970s energy crisis and the dramatic increase of oil prices that resulted from it, more and more countries decided to embark on nuclear power programmes. Indeed, most reactors have been built  between 1970 and 1985 worldwide. Today, nuclear energy meets around 10% of global energy demand , with 439 currently operational nuclear plants in 32 countries and about 55 new reactors under construction.

In 2020, 13 countries produced at least one-quarter of their total electricity from nuclear, with the US, China, and France dominating the market by far. 

Fossil fuels make up 60% of the United States’ electricity while the remaining 40% is equally split between renewables and nuclear power. France embarked on a sweeping expansion of its nuclear power industry in the 1970s with the ultimate goal of breaking its dependence on foreign oil. In doing this, the country was able to build up its economy by simultaneously cutting its emissions at a rate never seen before. Today, France is home to 56 operating reactors and it relies on nuclear power for 70% of its electricity . 

You might also like: A ‘Breakthrough’ In Nuclear Fusion: What Does It Mean for the Future of Energy Generation?

Advantages of Nuclear Energy

France’s success in cutting down emissions is a clear example of some of the main advantages of nuclear energy over fossil fuels. First and foremost, nuclear energy is clean and it provides pollution-free power with no greenhouse gas emissions. Contrary to what many believe, cooling towers in nuclear plants only emit water vapour and are thus, not releasing any pollutant or radioactive substance into the atmosphere. Compared to all the energy alternatives we currently have on hand, many experts believe that nuclear energy is indeed one of the cleanest sources. Many nuclear energy supporters also argue that nuclear power is responsible for the fastest decarbonisation effort in history , with big nuclear players like France, Saudi Arabia, Canada, and South Korea being among the countries that recorded the fastest decline in carbon intensity and experienced a clean energy transition by building nuclear reactors and hydroelectric dams.

Earlier this year, the European Commission took a clear stance on nuclear power by labelling it a green source of energy in its classification system establishing a list of environmentally sustainable economic activities. While nuclear energy may be clean and its production emission-free, experts highlight a hidden danger of this power: nuclear waste. The highly radioactive and toxic byproduct from nuclear reactors can remain radioactive for tens of thousands of years. However, this is still considered a much easier environmental problem to solve than climate change. The main reason for this is that as much as 90% of the nuclear waste generated by the production of nuclear energy can be recycled. Indeed, the fuel used in a reactor, typically uranium, can be treated and put into another reactor as only a small amount of energy in their fuel is extracted in the fission process.

A rather important advantage of nuclear energy is that it is much safer than fossil fuels from a public health perspective. The pro-nuclear movement leverages the fact that nuclear waste is not even remotely as dangerous as the toxic chemicals coming from fossil fuels. Indeed, coal and oil act as ‘ invisible killers ’ and are responsible for 1 in 5 deaths worldwide . In 2018 alone, fossil fuels killed 8.7 million people globally. In contrast, in nearly 70 years since the beginning of nuclear power, only three accidents have raised public alarm: the 1979 Three Mile Island accident, the 1986 Chernobyl disaster and the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster. Of these, only the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear plant in Ukraine directly caused any deaths.

Finally, nuclear energy has some advantages compared to some of the most popular renewable energy sources. According to the US Office of Nuclear Energy , nuclear power has by far the highest capacity factor, with plants requiring less maintenance, capable to operate for up to two years before refuelling and able to produce maximum power more than 93% of the time during the year, making them three times more reliable than wind and solar plants. 

You might also like: Nuclear Energy: A Silver Bullet For Clean Energy?

Disadvantages of Nuclear Energy

The anti-nuclear movement opposes the use of this type of energy for several reasons. The first and currently most talked about disadvantage of nuclear energy is the nuclear weapon proliferation, a debate triggered by the deadly atomic bombing of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the Second World War and recently reopened following rising concerns over nuclear escalation in the Ukraine-Russia conflict . After the world saw the highly destructive effect of these bombs, which caused the death of tens of thousands of people, not only in the impact itself but also in the days, weeks, and months after the tragedy as a consequence of radiation sickness, nuclear energy evolved to a pure means of generating electricity. In 1970, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons entered into force. Its objective was to prevent the spread of such weapons to eventually achieve nuclear disarmament as well as promote peaceful uses of nuclear energy. However, opposers of this energy source still see nuclear energy as being deeply intertwined with nuclear weapons technologies and believe that, with nuclear technologies becoming globally available, the risk of them falling into the wrong hands is high, especially in countries with high levels of corruption and instability. 

As mentioned in the previous section, nuclear energy is clean. However, radioactive nuclear waste contains highly poisonous chemicals like plutonium and the uranium pellets used as fuel. These materials can be extremely toxic for tens of thousands of years and for this reason, they need to be meticulously and permanently disposed of. Since the 1950s, a stockpile of 250,000 tonnes of highly radioactive nuclear waste has been accumulated and distributed across the world, with 90,000 metric tons stored in the US alone. Knowing the dangers of nuclear waste, many oppose nuclear energy for fears of accidents, despite these being extremely unlikely to happen. Indeed, opposers know that when nuclear does fail, it can fail spectacularly. They were reminded of this in 2011, when the Fukushima disaster, despite not killing anyone directly, led to the displacement of more than 150,000 people, thousands of evacuation/related deaths and billions of dollars in cleanup costs. 

Lastly, if compared to other sources of energy, nuclear power is one of the most expensive and time-consuming forms of energy. Nuclear plants cost billions of dollars to build and they take much longer than any other infrastructure for renewable energy, sometimes even more than a decade. However, while nuclear power plants are expensive to build, they are relatively cheap to run , a factor that improves its competitiveness. Still, the long building process is considered a significant obstacle in the run to net-zero emissions that countries around the world have committed to. If they hope to meet their emission reduction targets in time, they cannot afford to rely on new nuclear plants.

You might also like: The Nuclear Waste Disposal Dilemma

Who Wins the Nuclear Debate?

There are a multitude of advantages and disadvantages of nuclear energy and the debate on whether to keep this technology or find other alternatives is destined to continue in the years to come.

Nuclear power can be a highly destructive weapon, but the risks of a nuclear catastrophe are relatively low. While historic nuclear disasters can be counted on the fingers of a single hand, they are remembered for their devastating impact and the life-threatening consequences they sparked (or almost sparked). However, it is important to remember that fossil fuels like coal and oil represent a much bigger threat and silently kill millions of people every year worldwide. 

Another big aspect to take into account, and one that is currently discussed by global leaders, is the dependence of some of the world’s largest economies on countries like Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq for fossil fuels. While the 2011 Fukushima disaster, for example, pushed the then-German Chancellor Angela Merkel to close all of Germany’s nuclear plants, her decision only increased the country’s dependence on much more polluting Russian oil. Nuclear supporters argue that relying on nuclear energy would decrease the energy dependency from third countries. However, raw materials such as the uranium needed to make plants function would still need to be imported from countries like Canada, Kazakhstan, and Australia.

The debate thus shifts to another problem: which countries should we rely on for imports and, most importantly, is it worth keeping these dependencies?

This story is funded by readers like you

Our non-profit newsroom provides climate coverage free of charge and advertising. Your one-off or monthly donations play a crucial role in supporting our operations, expanding our reach, and maintaining our editorial independence.

About EO | Mission Statement | Impact & Reach | Write for us

About the Author

Martina Igini

Top 7 Smart Cities in the World in 2024

What the Future of Renewable Energy Looks Like

The Environmental Impacts of Lithium and Cobalt Mining

Hand-picked stories weekly or monthly. We promise, no spam!

• Name This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Boost this article By donating us $100, $50 or subscribe to Boosting $10/month – we can get this article and others in front of tens of thousands of specially targeted readers. This targeted Boosting – helps us to reach wider audiences – aiming to convince the unconvinced, to inform the uninformed, to enlighten the dogmatic.

Nuclear energy protects air quality by producing massive amounts of carbon-free electricity. It powers communities in 28 U.S. states and contributes to many non-electric applications, ranging from the  medical field to space exploration .

The Office of Nuclear Energy within the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) focuses its research primarily on maintaining the existing fleet of reactors, developing new advanced reactor technologies, and improving the nuclear fuel cycle to increase the sustainability of our energy supply and strengthen the U.S. economy.

Below are some of the main advantages of nuclear energy and the challenges currently facing the industry today.

Advantages of Nuclear Energy

Clean energy source.

Nuclear is the largest source of clean power in the United States. It generates nearly 775 billion kilowatthours of electricity each year and produces nearly half of the nation’s emissions-free electricity. This avoids more than 471 million metric tons of carbon each year, which is the equivalent of removing 100 million cars off of the road.

Creates Jobs

The nuclear industry supports nearly half a million jobs in the United States. Domestic nuclear power plants can employ up to 800 workers with salaries that are 50% higher than those of other generation sources. They also contribute billions of dollars annually to local economies through federal and state tax revenues.

Supports National Security

A strong civilian nuclear sector is essential to U.S. national security and energy diplomacy. The United States must maintain its global leadership in this arena to influence the peaceful use of nuclear technologies. The U.S. government works with countries in this capacity to build relationships and develop new opportunities for the nation’s nuclear technologies.

Challenges of Nuclear Energy

Public awareness.

Commercial nuclear power is sometimes viewed by the general public as a dangerous or unstable process. This perception is often based on three global nuclear accidents, its false association with nuclear weapons, and how it is portrayed on popular television shows and films.

DOE and its national labs are working with industry to develop new reactors and fuels that will increase the overall performance of these technologies and reduce the amount of nuclear waste that is produced.  

DOE also works to provide accurate, fact-based information about nuclear energy through its social media and STEM outreach efforts to educate the public on the benefits of nuclear energy.

Used Fuel Transportation, Storage and Disposal

Many people view used fuel as a growing problem and are apprehensive about its transportation, storage, and disposal. DOE is responsible for the eventual disposal and associated transport of all used fuel , most of which is currently securely stored at more than 70 sites in 35 states. For the foreseeable future, this fuel can safely remain at these facilities until a permanent disposal solution is determined by Congress.

DOE is currently evaluating nuclear power plant sites and nearby transportation infrastructure to support the eventual transport of used fuel away from these sites.

Subject to appropriations, the Department is moving forward on a government-owned consolidated interim storage facility project that includes rail transportation . 

The location of the storage facility would be selected through DOE's consent-based siting process that puts communities at the forefront and would ultimately reduce the number of locations where commercial spent nuclear fuel is stored in the United States.  

Constructing New Power Plants

Building a nuclear power plant can be discouraging for stakeholders. Conventional reactor designs are considered multi-billion dollar infrastructure projects. High capital costs, licensing and regulation approvals, coupled with long lead times and construction delays, have also deterred public interest.

Microreactor (left) - Small Modular Reactor (right)

DOE is rebuilding its nuclear workforce by  supporting the construction  of two new reactors at Plant Vogtle in Waynesboro, Georgia. The units are the first new reactors to begin construction in the United States in more than 30 years. The expansion project supported up to 9,000 workers at peak construction and created 800 permanent jobs at the facility when the units came online in 2023 and 2024.

DOE is also supporting the development of smaller reactor designs, such as  microreactors  and  small modular reactors , that will offer even more flexibility in size and power capacity to the customer. These factory-built systems are expected to dramatically reduce construction timelines and will make nuclear more affordable to build and operate.

High Operating Costs

Challenging market conditions have left the nuclear industry struggling to compete. DOE’s  Light Water Reactor Sustainability (LWRS) program  is working to overcome these economic challenges by modernizing plant systems to reduce operation and maintenance costs, while improving performance. In addition to its materials research that supports the long-term operation of the nation’s fleet of reactors, the program is also looking to diversify plant products through non-electric applications such as water desalination and  hydrogen production .

To further improve operating costs. DOE is also working with industry to develop new fuels and cladding known as  accident tolerant fuels . These new fuels could increase plant performance, allowing for longer response times and will produce less waste. Accident tolerant fuels could gain widespread use by 2025.

*Update June 2024

• Clean energy
• Nuclear energy
• Top pros and cons of...

The top pros and cons of nuclear energy

• Share to LinkedIn
• Share to Facebook
• Jacob Marsh

As subject matter experts, we provide only objective information. We design every article to provide you with deeply-researched, factual, useful information so that you can make informed home electrification and financial decisions. We have:

Sourced the majority of our data from hundreds of thousands of quotes through our own marketplace.

Incorporated third-party data and information from primary sources, government agencies, educational institutions, peer-reviewed research, or well-researched nonprofit organizations.

Built our own database and rating system for solar equipment, including solar panels, inverters, and batteries.

We won't charge you anything to get quotes through our marketplace. Instead, installers and other service providers pay us a small fee to participate after we vet them for reliability and suitability. To learn more, read about how we make money and our Editorial Guidelines .

As with any energy source, renewable or non-renewable, there are pros and cons to using nuclear energy. We'll review some of these top benefits and drawbacks to keep in mind when comparing nuclear to other energy sources.

• 100% free to use, 100% online
• Access the lowest prices from installers near you
• Unbiased Energy Advisors ready to help

Top pros and cons of nuclear energy

Despite the limited development of nuclear power plants recently, nuclear energy still supplies about 20 percent of U.S. electricity. As with any energy source, it comes with various advantages and disadvantages. Here are just a few top ones to keep in mind:

Pros and cons of nuclear power

On the pros side, nuclear energy is a carbon-free electricity source (with other environmental benefits as well!). It needs a relatively small land area to operate and is a great energy source for reliable baseload power for the electric grid. On the cons side, nuclear is technically a non-renewable energy source, nuclear plants have a high up-front cost associated with them, and nuclear waste and the operation of nuclear plants pose some environmental and health challenges.

Below, we'll explore these pros and cons in further detail.

Advantages of nuclear energy

Here are four advantages of nuclear energy:

Carbon-free electricity

Small land footprint, high power output, reliable energy source.

While traditional fossil fuel generation sources pump massive amounts of carbon dioxide (the primary cause of global climate change) into the atmosphere, nuclear energy plants do not produce carbon dioxide, or any air pollution, during operation. That's not to say that they don't pollute at all, though - mining, refining, and preparing uranium use energy, and nuclear waste pose a completely separate environmental problem. We'll discuss nuclear waste's role in all this later on.

Nuclear energy plants take up far less physical space than other common clean energy facilities (particularly wind and solar power). According to the Department of Energy, a typical nuclear facility producing 1,000 megawatts (MW) of electricity takes up about one square mile of space. Comparatively, a wind farm producing the same amount of energy takes 360x more land area, and a large-scale solar farm uses 75x more space. That's 431 wind turbines or 3.125 million (!!!) solar panels. Check out this graphic from the Department of Energy for more fun comparisons of energy sources, like how many Corvettes are needed to produce the same amount of energy as one nuclear reactor.

Nuclear power plants produce high energy levels compared to most power sources (especially renewables), making them a great provider of baseload electricity. "Baseload electricity" simply means the minimum level of energy demand on the grid over some time, say a week. Nuclear has the potential to be this high-output baseload source, and we're headed that way - since 1990, nuclear power plants have generated 20% of the US's electricity. Additionally, nuclear is a prime candidate for replacing current baseload electricity sources that contribute significantly to air pollution, such as large coal plants.

Lastly, nuclear energy is a reliable renewable energy source based on its constant production and accessibility. Nuclear power plants produce their maximum power output more often (93% of the time) than any other energy source, and because of this round-the-clock stability, makes nuclear energy an ideal source of reliable baseload electricity for the grid.

Disadvantages of nuclear energy

Here are four disadvantages of nuclear energy:

Uranium is technically non-renewable

Very high upfront costs

Nuclear waste

Malfunctions can be catastrophic, uranium is non-renewable.

Although nuclear energy is a "clean" source of power, it is technically not renewable. Current nuclear technology relies on uranium ore for fuel, which exists in limited amounts in the earth's crust. The longer we rely on nuclear power (and uranium ore in particular), the more depleted the earth's uranium resources will become, which will drive up the cost of extracting it and the negative environmental impacts of mining and processing the uranium.

High upfront costs

Operating a nuclear energy plant is a relatively low-cost endeavor, but building it in the first place is very expensive. Nuclear reactors are complex devices that require many levels of safety built around them, which drives up the cost of new nuclear plants. 

And now, to the thorny issue of nuclear waste – we could write hundreds of articles about the science of nuclear waste, its political implications, cost/benefit analyses, and more regarding this particular subject. The key takeaway from that would be this: nuclear waste is a complicated issue, and we won't claim to be anything near experts . Nuclear waste is radioactive, making it an environmental and health catastrophe waiting to happen. These reasons are exactly why governments spend tons of money to safely package and dispose of used-up nuclear fuel. At the end of the day, yes, nuclear waste is a dangerous by-product of nuclear power plants, and it takes extreme care and advanced technology to handle it properly.

A nuclear meltdown occurs when the heat created by a nuclear reactor exceeds the amount of heat being transferred out by the cooling systems; this causes the system to exceed its melting point. If this happens, hot radioactive vapors can escape, which can cause nuclear plants to melt down fully and combust, releasing harmful radioactive materials into the environment. This is an extremely unlikely worst-case scenario, and nuclear plants are equipped with numerous safety measures to prevent meltdowns.

Create your own clean energy with solar panels.

Enjoy the benefits of solar without rooftop panels.

Explore heat pumps, the latest in clean heating & cooling technology.

See solar prices near you.

Enter your zip code to find out what typical solar installations cost in your neighborhood.

• Our offerings
• Community solar
• Heating & cooling
• Backup power
• EV charging
• For your business
• Other energy options
• Solar calculator
• Solar rebates
• Home solar guide
• Market intel
• Refer a friend
• Mission & values
• How it works
• Editorial guidelines
• Work with us
• Solar & HVAC installers
• Corporate partnerships
• Community programs
• Utility programs

ENERGYSAGE is a registered trademark and the EnergySage logo is a trademark of EnergySage, Inc. Other trademarks are the property of either EnergySage, Inc. or our licensors and are used with permission.

© Copyright 2009-2024 EnergySage, Inc. All rights reserved.

Learn more about our success working with the U.S. Department of Energy.

Nuclear Power Advantages and Disadvantages Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Nuclear power and fuel cost, global warming and nuclear power, article annotation, works cited.

Nuclear power is the energy generated by use of Uranium. The energy is produced via complex chemical processes in the nuclear power stations. Major chemical reactions that involve the splitting of atom’s nucleus take place in the reactors. This process is known as fission (Klug and Davies 31-32). The first nuclear power station was established in 1956 in Cumbira, England. Nuclear energy provides about sixteen percent of the total earth’s energy requirements (Cohen ch. 2).

Nuclear plants take years to be built.The cost of buying, and building the reactors is way too high (Klug and Davies 31-32). The kinds of security installations done around the power plant are of high technology which is extremely costly. Managers of nuclear power plants would prefer claiming their returns at the commencement of the plants activities which describes the high cost of fuel. The claim is thought to include cost of installations and time taken to construct the nuclear plants.

Other reasons that could lead to high cost of fuel namely, Security measures, installation factors and safety measures (Klug and Davies 36). The safety measure gadgets are very expensive and are made by great technological experts. Another form of safety measure is availability of machine spare parts. This ensures frequent renewal and upgrading of the plant’s mechanical equipment and this is again very costly.

The main reason for such security is due to the danger that could be caused by exposure to the products of radioactivity. The main equipment that needs close check up is the reactor. Its installation is quite costly hence appropriate renewal of worn out parts is an option that should not to be overlooked.

In addition to these costs, the costs of containing the waste matter is also quite high (Cohen ch.11). Although many people think that investing in nuclear power is a costly event, I do not feel so because it is a worthy venture and one of the cleanest sources of energy.

Though it is not renewable, its establishment and good management could provide a perfect source of energy to the world at large . Nuclear energy production requires low fuel and once the plant is built the cost variables are minor. The Cost of doubling fuel or uranium cost in nuclear plants will only increase fuel cost by 9%. For other sources like coal and gas, doubling fuel prices will increase the fuel prices by 31% and 66% respectively (Cohen ch.9).

Global warming is caused by the effect of green house gases. These gases are carbon dioxide, methane, vapor and ozone. They are produced by burning fossil fuel. When the gases accumulate in the atmosphere they serve as a mirror in reflecting heat energy back to earth. The accumulation of these gases leads to increased temperature on earth’s atmosphere resulting into global warming (Klug and Davies 31-37).

Nuclear power should not at any instance be regarded as one of the causative effects of global warming. This is because it consumes carbon dioxide which is of the green house gases during energy production. Carbon dioxide is a major gas among the green house gases. Hence nuclear energy has provided a solution point for its disposal.

Nuclear energy should therefore be referred to as a cleaner rather than destroyer. It has also boosted the economy by creating a market for sale of carbon dioxide gas. Industries producing this gas can as well trade with nuclear power plants. When serious action is taken in trading this gas from various outlets to various nuclear plants, then a solution would be made on how to regulate global warming using nuclear power generation.

In addition to nuclear power generation, use of renewable energy would also help in countering global warming. Due to the increased need for electricity, more nuclear power plants should be built. These will provide enough market for carbon dioxide waste from other manufacturing industries.

Nuclear energy should be adopted in place of fossil fuel. This is because fossil fuels position’s the earth at a higher risk of global warming. The only task that would justify the use of nuclear energy is when the purpose of Uranium metal is not shifted to bomb production or nuclear weapon production. New adoptions and policies on how to prevent global warming should be implemented.

Barkan, Steven. Nuclear Power and Protest Movements. Social problems journal Vol. 27.1(1979):11-36.Print.

Steve Barkan, a retired article writer basically points out people’s views that have been influenced by environmental degradation. The people have turned more attention to nuclear energy technology as a means of addressing the problem. Barkan’s article examines people’s opinion on nuclear energy. Those against the notion of nuclear energy as a source of energy believe that carbon dioxide emissions mostly emanate from nuclear power and not renewable energy.

These people’s arguments are based on the argument that high grade ores will get depleted hence low grade ores which produce carbon dioxide will be used with no installation of advanced reactor equipment.

In addition the opponents say that nuclear waste makes the environment susceptible to harm in the future, but they fail to point out that long lived constituents or radioactive elements give off small portion of radioactivity. The opponents also fail to mention any person that could have been harmed as a result of using fuel from power plants.

Another argument is that high cost of nuclear plant management has resulted to increased cost of fuel. In this case, they fail to note that the cost of electricity from nuclear energy is cheaper than most sources. Barkan also brings out the contrasting issue of terrorist attack whom the anti nuclear group argues that could cause melt down of ore. He responds by saying that high level of technological security would not allow access of such suicidal sabotage.

Nuclear energy is more affordable to produce than coal energy. It does not produce smoke or carbon dioxide. Instead, the carbon dioxide is used in the process to remove heat from the system. In this case carbon dioxide does not act as a byproduct rather it serves a positive purpose by being utilized. In addition its usage, nuclear energy produces less waste. It does contribute to neither environmental hazards nor green house effect like coal.

Nuclear energy is reliable and produces large amount of energy from less fuel. The negative effect lies on the risks that are associated with nuclear plants especially accidents and suicidal terrorists. These could cause extremely deadly effects and scars that can never be erased. Only good management and high technological security can assist in nullifying such fateful occurrences.

Nuclear power reactors should not be built in politically unstable regions. Political instability results in war and negative effects on the economy. For instance war prone areas are susceptible to attacks by terrorists which could result in detrimental effects. There is need for effective safety policy to be implemented that will address the following factors namely, climate change, security of power plants, safety, energy security and proliferation of nuclear technologies. This is because such proliferations would result in nuclear bomb.

Cohen, Benard. The Nuclear Energy Option . Plenum Press.1990.

Klug, Aaron & Davies, David. Nuclear Energy; The Future Climate. Norway: The Royal Society (1999):11-65.Print.

• Ecosphere Care in the United States
• Climate Shift Could Leave Some Marine Species Homeless
• Can a Nuclear Reactor Explode Like an Atomic Bomb?
• Nuclear Power Station Advantages and Disadvantages
• The Environmental Impact of Nuclear Energy
• Mitigation Plan for Energy Resources
• Solution to Environmental Problems
• Energy Use and Conservation
• Policy Paper on Oil Conservation
• United National Environment Programme (UNEP)
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, October 17). Nuclear Power Advantages and Disadvantages. https://ivypanda.com/essays/nuclear-power/

"Nuclear Power Advantages and Disadvantages." IvyPanda , 17 Oct. 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/nuclear-power/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'Nuclear Power Advantages and Disadvantages'. 17 October.

IvyPanda . 2018. "Nuclear Power Advantages and Disadvantages." October 17, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/nuclear-power/.

1. IvyPanda . "Nuclear Power Advantages and Disadvantages." October 17, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/nuclear-power/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Nuclear Power Advantages and Disadvantages." October 17, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/nuclear-power/.

IvyPanda uses cookies and similar technologies to enhance your experience, enabling functionalities such as:

• Basic site functions
• Ensuring secure, safe transactions
• Secure account login
• Remembering account, browser, and regional preferences
• Remembering privacy and security settings
• Analyzing site traffic and usage
• Personalized search, content, and recommendations
• Displaying relevant, targeted ads on and off IvyPanda

Please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy for detailed information.

Certain technologies we use are essential for critical functions such as security and site integrity, account authentication, security and privacy preferences, internal site usage and maintenance data, and ensuring the site operates correctly for browsing and transactions.

Cookies and similar technologies are used to enhance your experience by:

• Remembering general and regional preferences
• Personalizing content, search, recommendations, and offers

Some functions, such as personalized recommendations, account preferences, or localization, may not work correctly without these technologies. For more details, please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy .

To enable personalized advertising (such as interest-based ads), we may share your data with our marketing and advertising partners using cookies and other technologies. These partners may have their own information collected about you. Turning off the personalized advertising setting won't stop you from seeing IvyPanda ads, but it may make the ads you see less relevant or more repetitive.

Personalized advertising may be considered a "sale" or "sharing" of the information under California and other state privacy laws, and you may have the right to opt out. Turning off personalized advertising allows you to exercise your right to opt out. Learn more in IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy .

Benefits and Disadvantages of Nuclear Energy

Jesse kuet march 22, 2018, submitted as coursework for ph241 , stanford university, winter 2018.

According to the 2017 BP Statistical Review of World Energy, about 4.7% of the world's energy budget is dedicated to nuclear energy. [1] The utilization of nuclear power has been portrayed negatively in the media. Although there are severe consequences if a nuclear power plant goes awry, there are also many benefits associated with its usage. The purpose of this paper is to inform readers about the advantages and disadvantages of using nuclear power to create electrical energy.

Advantages of Nuclear Power

Most light water reactors (See Fig. 1) that make up the world's nuclear capacity create electricity at costs of between $0.025 and $0.07 USD per kilowatt-hour dependent upon the design and requirements of each reactor, and experiences many favorable variables such as government subsidies and research. [2] To put into perspective, in California, the wholesale price to produce electricity from natural gas is approximately $0.05 USD per kilowatt-hour, revealing that nuclear energy may or may not be as costly as other alternatives in certain geographical areas. In addition, nuclear energy by far has the lowest impact on the environment since it does not release any gases like carbon dioxide or methane, which are largely responsible for the greenhouse effect." [3] As a result, this differentiates nuclear energy from fossil fuels in that it does not produce negative carbon externalities as a byproduct, "though some greenhouse gases are released while transporting fuel or extracting energy from uranium." [3] The factor of scarcity is not of concern when it comes to the reactors fuel source, which is primarily uranium. There are roughly 5.5 million tonnes of uranium in the known reserves that could be mined at $130 USD per kilogram. [2] Currently, with the world's consumption of around 66,500 tonnes per year, there is about 80 years worth of fuel with the known reserves since the element is relatively abundant in the earth's crust. The main advantage to nuclear energy is that is it relatively low-cost and consistently runs on its full potential, making it the ideal source to power national grids. [2,4]

Disadvantages of Nuclear Power

The hindrance in the growth of nuclear energy is due to many complex reasons, and a major component is the nuclear waste. The further implementations of nuclear power are limited because although nuclear energy does not produce CO 2 the way fossil fuels do, there is still a toxic byproduct produced from uranium-fueled nuclear cycles: radioactive fission waste. 1 tonne of fresh fuel rod waste from a nuclear reactor would give you a fatal dose of radiation in 10 seconds if placed 3 meters away. Plutonium is also of concern, as it increases an exposed person's potential in developing liver, bone, or lung cancer. [5] There is also a negative political perception associated with nuclear plants and nuclear weapons, so expansive growth of nuclear energy is difficult to accomplish. In addition, nuclear power plants could also be ideal targets for terrorists due to the fissile plutonium components of the waste, which could be reused as bomb fuel. [2] Also a terrorist attack on a large reactor would cause a widespread radiation catastrophe at a scale similar to Chernobyl. The final disadvantage is the plant's concentrated level of capital. Although the fuel cost to produce power using nuclear energy is relatively low, there is still the necessity of having highly skilled workers to build, maintain and monitor the operations to ensure the safety and process of the plant.

© Jesse Kuet. The author warrants that the work is the author's own and that Stanford University provided no input other than typesetting and referencing guidelines. The author grants permission to copy, distribute and display this work in unaltered form, with attribution to the author, for noncommercial purposes only. All other rights, including commercial rights, are reserved to the author.

[1] " BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2017 ," British Petroleum, June 2017.

[2] Q. Schiermeier, "Energy Alternatives: Electricity without Carbon," Nature 454 , 816 (2008).

[3] T. Thomas, " "Advantages of Nuclear Energy Use ," Physics 241, Stanford University, Winter 2016.

[4] G. Cravens, Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy (Knopf, 2008).

[5] D. M. Taylor, "Environmental Plutonium in Humans," Appl. Radiat. Isotopes 46 , 1245 (1995).

• My IEC Login Forgot password ?

• Advanced search
• Online learning

The pros and cons of nuclear energy in the all-electric society

Nuclear energy can help to balance the grid as we move to an all-electric society but needs to used safely.

To meet zero-emission targets, the world is expected to find ways of stepping up its clean energy production. While wind and solar energies are leading the push, experts agree that electricity grids also require stable and resilient power sources to ensure a continuous energy flow. Renewable energies generated by solar and wind power are intermittent by nature, meaning that when the sun doesn’t shine or the wind doesn’t blow, no power is generated. Other sources of energy can compensate for their variability – and choosing an option which does not emit greenhouse gases is key – if zero emissions targets are to be met.

One solution is nuclear energy. Nuclear power is an energy source that does not emit carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases and can balance the grid when solar and wind are insufficient. According to the IEA , “Nuclear energy can help make the energy sector's journey away from unabated fossil fuels faster and more secure.”

Different countries, different views

France, one of the countries that has much invested in nuclear power, has been leading the battle to label the energy clean, by highlighting the benefits of its zero carbon emissions and eluding the issue of nuclear waste. In the wake of the 2011 Fukushima disaster, some countries, including Germany, opted to stop investing in nuclear energy altogether. For these countries, the risks of using nuclear power outweighed the benefits.

Nuclear power's role in the energy system, therefore, tends to be country specific. IEA statistics reveal that nuclear power accounts for about 10% of global electricity generation, rising to nearly 20% in advanced economies. According to the World Nuclear Association , the US and UK generate 20% of their electricity from nuclear energy, while France, unsurprisingly, reaches as high as 70%.

Small modular reactors are all the rage

Despite these plans, nuclear power plant projects face challenges such as high upfront costs, long lead times and often poor records of on-time delivery. Both the UK's Hinkley Point power station (now set for completion in 2026) and the Flaman Ville 3 project in Normandy have experienced significant delays and cost overruns.

Small modular reactors (SMRs) offer a potential solution, despite generating more radioactive waste than conventional nuclear plants, according to some reports . These advanced reactors have a power capacity of up to 300 million Watts of electric capacity (MWe) per unit, about one-third of traditional reactors. SMRs are more affordable, easier and faster to construct. They can even be factory-built and transported to their final location in a modular fashion.

Several countries are investing heavily in SMR technologies. France is investing EUR 1 billion, and Canada has launched a CAD 30 million new SMR funding programme.

Standards are key for safety

Safety has always been a primary concern for nuclear power plants and past accidents like those at Chernobyl and Fukushima have only compounded these concerns. Germany closed its last remaining facility in 2023. Other countries, like Switzerland, have also decided to stop the nuclear effort.

That’s where the work of the IEC comes in. It cooperates with the International Atomic Energy Agency ( IAEA ) which sets global safety standards for nuclear energy. Experts from IEC Technical Committee 45 participate in the IAEA’s technical working group on nuclear power plant instrumentation and control, advising on nuclear plant technology and human-system interfaces.

One of its subcommittees, SC 45A , publishes international standards covering the entire lifecycle of electrical and electronic control systems of nuclear power plants, from design to decommissioning. “We define safety as ensuring protection from non-intentional mistakes and security as ensuring protection against intentional attacks,” explains SC 45A expert (and previous Secretary) Jean-Paul Bouard. IEC 61513 , for instance, specifies the general requirements for instrumentation and control systems used to ensure the safety of nuclear power plants. The IEC also developed cyber security standard IEC 62645 to minimize the impact of intentional attacks on nuclear plants. This standard covers program-level, architectural-level and system-level requirements.

 Read the full article in e-tech .

Why is international collaboration crucial to a sustainable future? SDGs

The rise and rise of QR codes Digital transformation

Digital twins for electrical energy systems Digital transformation Energy

Building partnerships for a sustainable future: free webinar IEC Community SDGs

Blog digest

Sign up to receive selected stories

 / 

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

Slowly but surely, u.s. school buses are starting to electrify.

By Jonathan Mingle

With Hotter, Drier Weather, California’s Joshua Trees Are in Trouble

By Jim Robbins

On Gulf Coast, an Activist Rallies Her Community Against Gas Exports

By Jocelyn C. Zuckerman

More From E360

Fortress conservation: can a congo tribe return to its forest, food & agriculture, how agroforestry could help revitalize america’s corn belt, biodiversity, e360 film contest winner, a solitary herder cares for his goats and the bay area hills, as ‘doomsday’ glacier melts, can an artificial barrier save it, e360 film contest, for 60,000 years, australia’s first nations have put fire to good use, faced with heavier rains, cities scramble to control polluted runoff, in montana’s northern plains, swift foxes are back from the brink, as canadian river shrivels, northern communities call for a highway, in warming world, global heat deaths are grossly undercounted, the ‘internet of animals’ could transform what we know about wildlife.

Home — Essay Samples — Science — Nuclear Power — The Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power

The Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power

• Categories: Nuclear Power

About this sample

Words: 1456 |

Published: Sep 25, 2018

Words: 1456 | Pages: 3 | 8 min read

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

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

Dr Jacklynne

Verified writer

• Expert in: 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

3 pages / 1308 words

1 pages / 606 words

1 pages / 469 words

1 pages / 667 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

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 [...]

The production of energy for domestic consumption in Australia is currently dominated by coal, oil and gas, with only a minor component from renewable sources. Although Australia has significant reserves of uranium and is one of [...]

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 [...]

Sonography is beginning to be an important but great source of technology in the medical field. “Sonography is a diagnostic medical procedure that uses high frequency sound waves to produce dynamic visual images of organs, [...]

A voltage regulator is used to regulate voltage level. When a steady, reliable voltage is needed, then voltage regulator is the preferred device. It generates a fixed output voltage that remains constant for any changes in an [...]

The light bulb greatly changed the world in many ways that continue to affect how individuals experience their lives today. Long ago using natural sources, for example, candles, lamps, and firewood were common ways of [...]

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

• 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.

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

Who is Oppenheimer? The controversial man behind the atomic bomb

• Environment
• Paid Content

History & Culture

• History & Culture
• Destination Guide
• 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

Create an account

Create a free IEA account to download our reports or subcribe to a paid service.

Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System

About this report.

With nuclear power facing an uncertain future in many countries, the world risks a steep decline in its use in advanced economies that could result in billions of tonnes of additional carbon emissions. Some countries have opted out of nuclear power in light of concerns about safety and other issues. Many others, however, still see a role for nuclear in their energy transitions but are not doing enough to meet their goals.

The publication of the IEA's first report addressing nuclear power in nearly two decades brings this important topic back into the global energy debate.

Key findings

Nuclear power is the second-largest source of low-carbon electricity today.

Nuclear power is the second-largest source of low-carbon electricity today, with 452 operating reactors providing 2700 TWh of electricity in 2018, or 10% of global electricity supply.

In advanced economies, nuclear has long been the largest source of low-carbon electricity, providing 18% of supply in 2018. Yet nuclear is quickly losing ground. While 11.2 GW of new nuclear capacity was connected to power grids globally in 2018 – the highest total since 1990 – these additions were concentrated in China and Russia.

Global low-carbon power generation by source, 2018

Cumulative co2 emissions avoided by global nuclear power in selected countries, 1971-2018, an aging nuclear fleet.

In the absense of further lifetime extensions and new projects could result in an additional 4 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions, underlining the importance of the nuclear fleet to low-carbon energy transitions around the globe. In emerging and developing economies, particularly China, the nuclear fleet will provide low-carbon electricity for decades to come.

However the nuclear fleet in advanced economies is 35 years old on average and many plants are nearing the end of their designed lifetimes. Given their age, plants are beginning to close, with 25% of existing nuclear capacity in advanced economies expected to be shut down by 2025.

It is considerably cheaper to extend the life of a reactor than build a new plant, and costs of extensions are competitive with other clean energy options, including new solar PV and wind projects. Nevertheless they still represent a substantial capital investment. The estimated cost of extending the operational life of 1 GW of nuclear capacity for at least 10 years ranges from $500 million to just over $1 billion depending on the condition of the site.

However difficult market conditions are a barrier to lifetime extension investments. An extended period of low wholesale electricity prices in most advanced economies has sharply reduced or eliminated margins for many technologies, putting nuclear at risk of shutting down early if additional investments are needed. As such, the feasibility of extensions depends largely on domestic market conditions.

Age profile of nuclear power capacity in selected regions, 2019

United states, levelised cost of electricity in the united states, 2040, european union, levelised cost of electricity in the european union, 2040, levelised cost of electricity in japan, 2040, the nuclear fade case, nuclear capacity operating in selected advanced economies in the nuclear fade case, 2018-2040, wind and solar pv generation by scenario 2019-2040, policy recommendations.

In this context, countries that intend to retain the option of nuclear power should consider the following actions:

• Keep the option open:  Authorise lifetime extensions of existing nuclear plants for as long as safely possible. 
• Value dispatchability:  Design the electricity market in a way that properly values the system services needed to maintain electricity security, including capacity availability and frequency control services. Make sure that the providers of these services, including nuclear power plants, are compensated in a competitive and non-discriminatory manner.
• Value non-market benefits:  Establish a level playing field for nuclear power with other low-carbon energy sources in recognition of its environmental and energy security benefits and remunerate it accordingly.
• Update safety regulations:  Where necessary, update safety regulations in order to ensure the continued safe operation of nuclear plants. Where technically possible, this should include allowing flexible operation of nuclear power plants to supply ancillary services.
• Create a favourable financing framework:  Create risk management and financing frameworks that facilitate the mobilisation of capital for new and existing plants at an acceptable cost taking the risk profile and long time-horizons of nuclear projects into consideration.
• Support new construction:  Ensure that licensing processes do not lead to project delays and cost increases that are not justified by safety requirements.
• Support innovative new reactor designs:  Accelerate innovation in new reactor designs with lower capital costs and shorter lead times and technologies that improve the operating flexibility of nuclear power plants to facilitate the integration of growing wind and solar capacity into the electricity system.
• Maintain human capital:  Protect and develop the human capital and project management capabilities in nuclear engineering.

Executive summary

Nuclear power can play an important role in clean energy transitions.

Nuclear power today makes a significant contribution to electricity generation, providing 10% of global electricity supply in 2018.  In advanced economies 1 , nuclear power accounts for 18% of generation and is the largest low-carbon source of electricity. However, its share of global electricity supply has been declining in recent years. That has been driven by advanced economies, where nuclear fleets are ageing, additions of new capacity have dwindled to a trickle, and some plants built in the 1970s and 1980s have been retired. This has slowed the transition towards a clean electricity system. Despite the impressive growth of solar and wind power, the overall share of clean energy sources in total electricity supply in 2018, at 36%, was the same as it was 20 years earlier because of the decline in nuclear. Halting that slide will be vital to stepping up the pace of the decarbonisation of electricity supply.

A range of technologies, including nuclear power, will be needed for clean energy transitions around the world.  Global energy is increasingly based around electricity. That means the key to making energy systems clean is to turn the electricity sector from the largest producer of CO 2 emissions into a low-carbon source that reduces fossil fuel emissions in areas like transport, heating and industry. While renewables are expected to continue to lead, nuclear power can also play an important part along with fossil fuels using carbon capture, utilisation and storage. Countries envisaging a future role for nuclear account for the bulk of global energy demand and CO 2 emissions. But to achieve a trajectory consistent with sustainability targets – including international climate goals – the expansion of clean electricity would need to be three times faster than at present. It would require 85% of global electricity to come from clean sources by 2040, compared with just 36% today. Along with massive investments in efficiency and renewables, the trajectory would need an 80% increase in global nuclear power production by 2040.

Nuclear power plants contribute to electricity security in multiple ways.  Nuclear plants help to keep power grids stable. To a certain extent, they can adjust their operations to follow demand and supply shifts. As the share of variable renewables like wind and solar photovoltaics (PV) rises, the need for such services will increase. Nuclear plants can help to limit the impacts from seasonal fluctuations in output from renewables and bolster energy security by reducing dependence on imported fuels.

Lifetime extensions of nuclear power plants are crucial to getting the energy transition back on track

Policy and regulatory decisions remain critical to the fate of ageing reactors in advanced economies.  The average age of their nuclear fleets is 35 years. The European Union and the United States have the largest active nuclear fleets (over 100 gigawatts each), and they are also among the oldest: the average reactor is 35 years old in the European Union and 39 years old in the United States. The original design lifetime for operations was 40 years in most cases. Around one quarter of the current nuclear capacity in advanced economies is set to be shut down by 2025 – mainly because of policies to reduce nuclear’s role. The fate of the remaining capacity depends on decisions about lifetime extensions in the coming years. In the United States, for example, some 90 reactors have 60-year operating licenses, yet several have already been retired early and many more are at risk. In Europe, Japan and other advanced economies, extensions of plants’ lifetimes also face uncertain prospects.

Economic factors are also at play.  Lifetime extensions are considerably cheaper than new construction and are generally cost-competitive with other electricity generation technologies, including new wind and solar projects. However, they still need significant investment to replace and refurbish key components that enable plants to continue operating safely. Low wholesale electricity and carbon prices, together with new regulations on the use of water for cooling reactors, are making some plants in the United States financially unviable. In addition, markets and regulatory systems often penalise nuclear power by not pricing in its value as a clean energy source and its contribution to electricity security. As a result, most nuclear power plants in advanced economies are at risk of closing prematurely.

The hurdles to investment in new nuclear projects in advanced economies are daunting

What happens with plans to build new nuclear plants will significantly affect the chances of achieving clean energy transitions.  Preventing premature decommissioning and enabling longer extensions would reduce the need to ramp up renewables. But without new construction, nuclear power can only provide temporary support for the shift to cleaner energy systems. The biggest barrier to new nuclear construction is mobilising investment.  Plans to build new nuclear plants face concerns about competitiveness with other power generation technologies and the very large size of nuclear projects that require billions of dollars in upfront investment. Those doubts are especially strong in countries that have introduced competitive wholesale markets.

A number of challenges specific to the nature of nuclear power technology may prevent investment from going ahead.  The main obstacles relate to the sheer scale of investment and long lead times; the risk of construction problems, delays and cost overruns; and the possibility of future changes in policy or the electricity system itself. There have been long delays in completing advanced reactors that are still being built in Finland, France and the United States. They have turned out to cost far more than originally expected and dampened investor interest in new projects. For example, Korea has a much better record of completing construction of new projects on time and on budget, although the country plans to reduce its reliance on nuclear power.

Without nuclear investment, achieving a sustainable energy system will be much harder

A collapse in investment in existing and new nuclear plants in advanced economies would have implications for emissions, costs and energy security.  In the case where no further investments are made in advanced economies to extend the operating lifetime of existing nuclear power plants or to develop new projects, nuclear power capacity in those countries would decline by around two-thirds by 2040. Under the current policy ambitions of governments, while renewable investment would continue to grow, gas and, to a lesser extent, coal would play significant roles in replacing nuclear. This would further increase the importance of gas for countries’ electricity security. Cumulative CO 2 emissions would rise by 4 billion tonnes by 2040, adding to the already considerable difficulties of reaching emissions targets. Investment needs would increase by almost USD 340 billion as new power generation capacity and supporting grid infrastructure is built to offset retiring nuclear plants.

Achieving the clean energy transition with less nuclear power is possible but would require an extraordinary effort.  Policy makers and regulators would have to find ways to create the conditions to spur the necessary investment in other clean energy technologies. Advanced economies would face a sizeable shortfall of low-carbon electricity. Wind and solar PV would be the main sources called upon to replace nuclear, and their pace of growth would need to accelerate at an unprecedented rate. Over the past 20 years, wind and solar PV capacity has increased by about 580 GW in advanced economies. But in the next 20 years, nearly five times that much would need to be built to offset nuclear’s decline. For wind and solar PV to achieve that growth, various non-market barriers would need to be overcome such as public and social acceptance of the projects themselves and the associated expansion in network infrastructure. Nuclear power, meanwhile, can contribute to easing the technical difficulties of integrating renewables and lowering the cost of transforming the electricity system.

With nuclear power fading away, electricity systems become less flexible.  Options to offset this include new gas-fired power plants, increased storage (such as pumped storage, batteries or chemical technologies like hydrogen) and demand-side actions (in which consumers are encouraged to shift or lower their consumption in real time in response to price signals). Increasing interconnection with neighbouring systems would also provide additional flexibility, but its effectiveness diminishes when all systems in a region have very high shares of wind and solar PV.

Offsetting less nuclear power with more renewables would cost more

Taking nuclear out of the equation results in higher electricity prices for consumers.  A sharp decline in nuclear in advanced economies would mean a substantial increase in investment needs for other forms of power generation and the electricity network. Around USD 1.6 trillion in additional investment would be required in the electricity sector in advanced economies from 2018 to 2040. Despite recent declines in wind and solar costs, adding new renewable capacity requires considerably more capital investment than extending the lifetimes of existing nuclear reactors. The need to extend the transmission grid to connect new plants and upgrade existing lines to handle the extra power output also increases costs. The additional investment required in advanced economies would not be offset by savings in operational costs, as fuel costs for nuclear power are low, and operation and maintenance make up a minor portion of total electricity supply costs. Without widespread lifetime extensions or new projects, electricity supply costs would be close to USD 80 billion higher per year on average for advanced economies as a whole.

Strong policy support is needed to secure investment in existing and new nuclear plants

Countries that have kept the option of using nuclear power need to reform their policies to ensure competition on a level playing field.  They also need to address barriers to investment in lifetime extensions and new capacity. The focus should be on designing electricity markets in a way that values the clean energy and energy security attributes of low-carbon technologies, including nuclear power.

Securing investment in new nuclear plants would require more intrusive policy intervention given the very high cost of projects and unfavourable recent experiences in some countries.  Investment policies need to overcome financing barriers through a combination of long-term contracts, price guarantees and direct state investment.

Interest is rising in advanced nuclear technologies that suit private investment such as small modular reactors (SMRs).  This technology is still at the development stage. There is a case for governments to promote it through funding for research and development, public-private partnerships for venture capital and early deployment grants. Standardisation of reactor designs would be crucial to benefit from economies of scale in the manufacturing of SMRs.

Continued activity in the operation and development of nuclear technology is required to maintain skills and expertise.  The relatively slow pace of nuclear deployment in advanced economies in recent years means there is a risk of losing human capital and technical know-how. Maintaining human skills and industrial expertise should be a priority for countries that aim to continue relying on nuclear power.

The following recommendations are directed at countries that intend to retain the option of nuclear power. The IEA makes no recommendations to countries that have chosen not to use nuclear power in their clean energy transition and respects their choice to do so.

• Keep the option open:  Authorise lifetime extensions of existing nuclear plants for as long as safely possible.
• Value non-market benefits:  Establish a level playing field for nuclear power with other low carbon energy sources in recognition of its environmental and energy security benefits and remunerate it accordingly.
• Create an attractive financing framework:  Set up risk management and financing frameworks that can help mobilise capital for new and existing plants at an acceptable cost, taking the risk profile and long time horizons of nuclear projects into consideration.
• Support new construction:  Ensure that licensing processes do not lead to project delays and cost increases that are not justified by safety requirements. Support standardisation and enable learning-by-doing across the industry.
• Support innovative new reactor designs:  Accelerate innovation in new reactor designs, such as small modular reactors (SMRs), with lower capital costs and shorter lead times and technologies that improve the operating flexibility of nuclear power plants to facilitate the integration of growing wind and solar capacity into the electricity system.

Advanced economies consist of Australia, Canada, Chile, the 28 members of the European Union, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey and the United States.

Reference 1

Cite report.

IEA (2019), Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System , IEA, Paris https://www.iea.org/reports/nuclear-power-in-a-clean-energy-system, Licence: CC BY 4.0

Share this report

• Share on Twitter Twitter
• Share on Facebook Facebook
• Share on LinkedIn LinkedIn
• Share on Email Email
• Share on Print Print

Subscription successful

Thank you for subscribing. You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link at the bottom of any IEA newsletter.

• Energy Research Topics Topics: 249
• Renewable Energy Paper Topics Topics: 118
• Deforestation Paper Topics Topics: 60
• Alternative Energy Paper Topics Topics: 92
• Global Warming Paper Topics Topics: 184
• Recycling Topics Topics: 123
• Biodiversity Paper Topics Topics: 58
• Pollution Research Topics Topics: 236
• Earthquake Essay Topics Topics: 107
• Air Pollution Essay Topics Topics: 119
• Climate Change Essay Topics Topics: 317
• Climate Essay Topics Topics: 260
• Dump Research Topics Topics: 47
• Ecosystem Essay Topics Topics: 71
• Environment Research Topics Topics: 490

55 Nuclear Power Essay Topics

🏆 best essay topics on nuclear power, 🎓 most interesting nuclear power research titles, 💡 simple nuclear power essay ideas.

• Is Nuclear Power Renewable Energy?
• Environmental Impact for Nuclear Power Plant in Uganda
• The Power of Using Nuclear Energy
• Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation’s Communication
• Nuclear Power – A Safe and Efficient Alternative to Coal
• Analysis of Energy Sources: Fossil Fuels and Nuclear Power
• Main Benefits of the Nuclear Power
• Nuclear Power Must Be a Part of Future Energy Grids
• Abnormal Event Classifier for Nuclear Power Plants
• Nuclear Energy: Advantages and Drawbacks
• Advanced Nuclear Energy Options
• Nuclear Energy Used for Different Purposes
• The Future of Nuclear Power: Conference Management
• Iran’s Nuclear Energy and Relations with Israel
• The Nuclear Power Usage in the UAE
• Nuclear Waste Management, Nuclear Power, and Energy Choices
• History of Nuclear Power Plant Development
• Nuclear Power Reactors: A Study in Technological Lock-In
• The Economics of Long-Term Operation of Nuclear Power Plants
• Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System
• Economics of Nuclear Power and Climate Change Mitigation Policies
• Nuclear Power and Energy Security: A Revised Strategy for Japan
• Opportunities and Challenges of Nuclear Power Development in China
• Nuclear Power: The Dinosaur Competitor to Renewable Energy
• The Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power in Modern Energy Solutions
• Nuclear Power Technologies Development: Historical Track and Future Evolution
• The Economics of Nuclear Plant Modernization in U.S. Markets
• Nuclear Power Development: History and Outlook
• Weighing the Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power as Climate Urgency Grows
• Nuclear Power Development: Global Challenges and Strategies
• The Use of Nuclear Power in Deep Space Exploration
• Post-Fukushima: The Impacts on Japanese Public Opinion of Nuclear Power
• Nuclear Power as Foundation of a Clean Energy Future
• Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power
• The Role of Nuclear Power on Energy Security
• Nuclear Power: Latest Innovations and Technologies
• The Economics of Nuclear Power: Current Debates and Issues for Future Consideration
• Geopolitics of Nuclear Power and the New World Order
• The Future of Nuclear Power in a Low-Carbon World
• Nuclear Power: Balancing Benefits and Risks
• Radioactive Waste Management at Nuclear Power Plants
• Nuclear Power: Technology, Economics, and Geopolitics
• World Nuclear Power in the Context of Sustainable Development
• The Role of Nuclear Power in Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Nuclear Power: Future Energy Solution or Potential War Target?
• Status, Opportunities, and Challenges of Nuclear Power Development in Sub-Saharan Africa
• Nuclear Power Plants in War Zones: Risks and Remedies
• Regaining American Competitiveness in the Global Nuclear Power Market
• Innovation and Atomic Energy: Nuclear Power Regulation
• Nuclear Power: A False Solution to Climate Change
• The Rise of Nuclear Power in Africa: A Look at Regional Initiatives
• Nuclear Power in the Developing World: Past, Present, and Future
• Economics of Nuclear Power: The France-Germany Divide Explained
• The Links Between Nuclear Power and Nuclear Weapons
• Public Perception and Acceptance of Nuclear Power

Cite this post

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2024, September 1). 55 Nuclear Power Essay Topics. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/nuclear-power-essay-topics/

"55 Nuclear Power Essay Topics." StudyCorgi , 1 Sept. 2024, studycorgi.com/ideas/nuclear-power-essay-topics/.

StudyCorgi . (2024) '55 Nuclear Power Essay Topics'. 1 September.

1. StudyCorgi . "55 Nuclear Power Essay Topics." September 1, 2024. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/nuclear-power-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "55 Nuclear Power Essay Topics." September 1, 2024. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/nuclear-power-essay-topics/.

StudyCorgi . 2024. "55 Nuclear Power Essay Topics." September 1, 2024. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/nuclear-power-essay-topics/.

These essay examples and topics on Nuclear Power were carefully selected by the StudyCorgi editorial team. They meet our highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, and fact accuracy. Please ensure you properly reference the materials if you’re using them to write your assignment.

This essay topic collection was updated on September 17, 2024 .

Press centre

Nuclear technology and applications.

• Climate change
• Environment
• Food and agriculture
• Nuclear science

Nuclear safety and security

• Human and organizational factors
• Governmental, legal and regulatory framework
• Nuclear installation safety
• Radiation protection
• Security of nuclear and other radioactive material
• Radioactive waste and spent fuel management
• Emergency preparedness and response

Safeguards and verification

• Basics of IAEA Safeguards
• Safeguards implementation
• Safeguards legal framework
• Assistance for States
• Member States Support Programmes

Technical Cooperation Programme

• How it works
• How to participate

Coordinated research activities

• Legislative assistance

Key programmes

• Atoms4NetZero
• International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles (INPRO)
• Together for More Women in Nuclear
• NUTEC Plastics
• Peaceful Uses Initiative
• Rays of Hope
• The SMR Platform and Nuclear Harmonization and Standardization Initiative (NHSI)
• Zoonotic Disease Integrated Action (ZODIAC)

Review missions and advisory services

• Catalogue of review missions and advisory services
• Peer review and advisory services calendar

Laboratory services

• Analytical reference materials
• Dosimetry calibration
• Dosimetry auditing
• Inter-laboratory comparisons
• Global Nuclear Safety and Security Network (GNSSN)

Education and training

• Training courses
• Online learning

Scientific and technical publications

• Full catalogue
• Safety Standards
• Nuclear Security Series
• Nuclear Energy Series
• Human Health Series
• Conference Proceedings
• Newsletters
• Nuclear Fusion Journal

General interest material

• IAEA Bulletin
• Nuclear Explained
• Photos (Flickr)
• Photo essays
• Briefs and factsheets
• IAEA Virtual Tours

Official documents

• Information circulars

NUCLEUS information resources

• International Nuclear Information System (INIS)
• Power Reactor Information System (PRIS)
• Advanced Reactors Information System (ARIS)
• Integrated Nuclear Fuel Cycle Information System (iNFCIS)
• Spent Fuel and Radioactive Waste Information System (SRIS)
• Nuclear Data Services (NDS)
• Research Reactor Database (RRDB)

Other resources

• Library – Nuclear Information Services
• Impact stories
• Press releases
• Media advisories
• Director General statements
• Photo library
• Press contacts
• Press enquiries
• General Conference
• Board of Governors
• Scientific and technical events
• Scientific Forum
• Medium-Term Strategy
• Partnerships
• Gender at the IAEA
• Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
• Multilingual content
• List of Member States

Management team

• Director General
• Deputy Directors General

Organizational structure

• Offices Reporting to the Director General
• Technical Cooperation
• Nuclear Energy
• Nuclear Safety and Security
• Nuclear Sciences and Applications
• Working at the IAEA
• Types of Employment

Procurement

• Procurement overview

Search form

You are here, what is nuclear energy the science of nuclear power.

If you would like to learn more about the IAEA’s work, sign up for our weekly updates containing our most important news, multimedia and more.

• Arabic (monthly)
• Chinese (monthly)
• English (weekly)
• French (monthly)
• Russian (monthly)
• Spanish (monthly)

Nuclear energy is a form of energy released from the nucleus, the core of atoms, made up of protons and neutrons. This source of energy can be produced in two ways: fission – when nuclei of atoms split into several parts – or fusion – when nuclei fuse together.

The nuclear energy harnessed around the world today to produce electricity is through nuclear fission, while technology to generate electricity from fusion is at the R&D phase. This article will explore nuclear fission. To learn more about nuclear fusion, click here .

What is nuclear fission?

Nuclear fission is a reaction where the nucleus of an atom splits into two or more smaller nuclei, while releasing energy.

For instance, when hit by a neutron, the nucleus of an atom of uranium-235 splits into two smaller nuclei, for example a barium nucleus and a krypton nucleus and two or three neutrons. These extra neutrons will hit other surrounding uranium-235 atoms, which will also split and generate additional neutrons in a multiplying effect, thus generating a chain reaction in a fraction of a second.

Each time the reaction occurs, there is a release of energy in the form of heat and radiation . The heat can be converted into electricity in a nuclear power plant, similarly to how heat from fossil fuels such as coal, gas and oil is used to generate electricity.

Nuclear fission (Graphic: A. Vargas/IAEA)

How does a nuclear power plant work?

Inside nuclear power plants, nuclear reactors and their equipment contain and control the chain reactions, most commonly fuelled by uranium-235, to produce heat through fission. The heat warms the reactor’s cooling agent, typically water, to produce steam. The steam is then channelled to spin turbines, activating an electric generator to create low-carbon electricity.

Find more details about the different types of nuclear power reactors on this page .

Pressurized water reactors are the most used in the world. (Graphic: A. Vargas/IAEA)

Mining, enrichment and disposal of uranium

Uranium is a metal that can be found in rocks all over the world. Uranium has several naturally occurring isotopes , which are forms of an element differing in mass and physical properties but with the same chemical properties. Uranium has two primordial isotopes: uranium-238 and uranium-235. Uranium-238 makes up the majority of the uranium in the world but cannot produce a fission chain reaction, while uranium-235 can be used to produce energy by fission but constitutes less than 1 per cent of the world’s uranium.

To make natural uranium more likely to undergo fission, it is necessary to increase the amount of uranium-235 in a given sample through a process called uranium enrichment. Once the uranium is enriched, it can be used effectively as nuclear fuel in power plants for three to five years, after which it is still radioactive and has to be disposed of following stringent guidelines to protect people and the environment. Used fuel, also referred to as spent fuel, can also be recycled into other types of fuel for use as new fuel in special nuclear power plants.

What is the Nuclear Fuel Cycle?

The nuclear fuel cycle is an industrial process involving various steps to produce electricity from uranium in nuclear power reactors. The cycle starts with the mining of uranium and ends with the disposal of nuclear waste.

Nuclear waste

The operation of nuclear power plants produces waste with varying levels of radioactivity. These are managed differently depending on their level of radioactivity and purpose. See the animation below to learn more about this topic.

Radioactive Waste Management

Radioactive waste makes up a small portion of all waste. It is the by-product of millions of medical procedures each year, industrial and agricultural applications that use radiation and nuclear reactors that generate around 11 % of global electricity. This animation explains how radioactive waste is managed to protect people and the environment from radiation now and in the future.

The next generation of nuclear power plants, also called innovative advanced reactors , will generate much less nuclear waste than today’s reactors. It is expected that they could be under construction by 2030.

Nuclear power and climate change

Nuclear power is a low-carbon source of energy, because unlike coal, oil or gas power plants, nuclear power plants practically do not produce CO 2 during their operation. Nuclear reactors generate close to one-third of the world’s carbon free electricity and are crucial in meeting climate change goals.

To find out more about nuclear power and the clean energy transition, read this edition of the IAEA Bulletin .

What is the role of the IAEA?

• The IAEA establishes and promotes international standards and guidance for the safe and secure use of nuclear energy to protect people and the environment.
• The IAEA supports existing and new nuclear programmes around the world by providing technical support and knowledge management. Through the Milestones Approach , the IAEA provides technical expertise and guidance to countries that want to develop a nuclear power programme as well as to those who are decommissioning theirs.
• Through its safeguards and verification activities, the IAEA oversees that nuclear material and technologies are not diverted from peaceful use.
• Review missions and advisory services led by the IAEA provide guidance on the activities necessary during the lifetime of production of nuclear energy: from the mining of uranium to the construction, maintenance and decommissioning of nuclear power plants and the management of nuclear waste.
• The IAEA administers a reserve of low enriched uranium (LEU ) in Kazakhstan, which can be used as a last resort by countries that are in urgent need of LEU for peaceful purposes.

This article was first published on iaea.org on 2 August 2021.

Related stories

Nuclear Power Proves its Vital Role as an Adaptable, Reliable Supplier of Electricity during COVID-19

IAEA and NEA-OECD Discuss Key Nuclear Power Developments During Annual Meeting

Clean Energy Ministerial Focuses on Nuclear Future

IAEA's Grossi Calls for Nuclear Power for Net Zero Emissions as Climate ‘Clock is Ticking’

UAE and Belarus Introduced Nuclear Power Last Year. Who is Next?

IAEA and IEA Agree to Boost Cooperation on Nuclear Power for Clean Energy Transition

Related resources

• Nuclear power reactors
• Energy, Electricity and Nuclear Power Estimates for the Period up to 2050
• IAEA Projections for Nuclear Power Through 2050
• Nuclear Power: The Road to a Carbon Free Future
• Nuclear explained
• Nuclear power and climate change: Decarbonization
• Department of Nuclear Energy
• Division of Nuclear Power
• Nuclear fuel cycle
• Uranium production

More on the IAEA

• Privacy Policy
• Logo Usage Guidelines

Scientific resources

• Information Circulars
• Standards and guides
• Safeguards and Additional Protocol

Stay in touch

• Partner With Us
• Newsletter Sign Up
• Microgrid Projects
• Technologies

White Papers

• Generation/Fuels

Next-Gen Nuclear Milestone: NRC Approves Construction Permit for Natura Test Reactor

The movement to build small and advanced nuclear reactor energy generated some serious momentum this week.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a construction permit for a molten salt reactor pilot project at Abilene Christian University in Texas. Developer Natura Resources would deploy its MSR-1 system at ACU and operate the 1-MW in tandem with the school’s Nuclear Energy eXperimental Testing (NEXT) Laboratory .

The MSR-1 would not be commercially operational and would only be maintained at low power for research purposes. This marks the first NRC construction permit for a liquid-fueled advance reactor and only the second for any advanced reactor project.

American research to solve an American energy challenge

Nuclear fission power is carbon-free and operates with a high-capacity factor. Many proponents see small modular reactors (SMR) and next-gen nuclear technologies as ideal for meeting the rising demand of data centers, industrial electrification and sustainability goals.

“Natura recognized early on that the NRC is the gold standard of licensing of nuclear reactors,” Douglass Robison, founder and president of Natura Resources , said in a statement. “We made a conscious decision to work with the NRC to license our technology for deployment here in the (United States) rather than taking our technology outside their jurisdiction or attempting to avoid the licensing process entirely.“

Natura Resources has worked with Abilene Christian since 2020 and brought the school’s NEXXT Lab together with a joint effort from Texas A&M, University of Texas and Georgia Institute of Technology to form the Natura Resources Research Alliance.

The research gleaned from the campus research project should inform Natura’s work on its planned 100-MW systems. The pilot project will utilize graphite-moderated, fluoride salt flowing fluid to cool the reactor, which some theorize is safer than water-cooled technologies. If a system fails, under this theory, the salt solidifies around the reactive uranium and could prevent overheating, according to reports.

Check out our new and free E-Book on SMRs and Microgrids

Prospects for a Small, Modular and Reactive Future

The advanced reactor deployment site built to house the Natura MSR-1 project, the Science and Engineering Research Center at ACU, was completed last year. The NRC approval allows the research team to begin fabrication of the reactor.

Zachry Nuclear Engineering will work on the engineering and design phase of the MSR-1 with hopes of completing that early in 2025. The U.S. Department of Energy will provide fuel and salt for the reactor project.

ACU’s research is working to advance technical readiness levels of critical equipment needed in molten salt reactor operation, including flow meters, flanges, seals, level sensors, salt monitors, instrumentation and other hardware.

“Another huge milestone for Natura Resources, ACU and all of our partners,” Rusty Towell, university professor and director of the NEXT Lab, said on his LinkedIn post announcing the NRC construction permit. “Massive team effort, and I’m thankful to be a part of this project that will bless the world.”

Indeed, many in the energy, commercial and industrial sectors envision next-gen and small nuclear as key directions forward to building a power generation system that can help meet net zero goals. Currently, the conventional nuclear energy fleet in the U.S. contains more than 90 generation units accounting for nearly 20% of the nation’s electricity resource mix.

That percentage of nuclear power in the electricity mix has dropped in recent years because only a few new reactor plants have been built in the U.S. over the past three decades. Meanwhile, the utility grid may be entering a power adequacy crisis because GWs of coal-fired capacity were retired and neither solar nor wind energy can provide the constancy required by industrial customer demand.

Nuclear energy also contributes more than half of the utility-scale carbon-free power generated in the U.S., according to federal statistics. Recently, Oracle founder Larry Ellison said his software and data company was planning to eventually utilize SMR reactors to power a new data center facility.

Data center industry believes in SMR nuclear

During the Data Center Frontier Trends Summit two weeks ago in Reston, Virginia, industry leaders talked about the compelling case for SMR nuclear to power an exponentially growing array of data centers necessitated by artificial intelligence and cloud-based capacity.

“Nuclear is way more versatile” and reliable than other carbon-free fuels, James Walker, CEO of Nano Nuclear Energy, said during a panel on the Data Center Nuclear Frontier . “China came to this conclusion years ago, and they are building nuclear like crazy. They need that consistent power.”

Nissan fission, of course, has its detractors who point to formidable financial, siting and safety challenges. The Vogle 3 and 4 expansion projects in Georgia, completed in recent years, cost close to $33 billion, but now generate more carbon-free electricity than any other resource in the U.S.

For many skeptics, nuclear energy also conjures fearful images of radioactivity and meltdowns such as Chernobyl, Fukushima and Three Mile Island, although the latter inflicted no lasting health issues or deaths for humans.

Non-weaponized nuclear energy in the U.S. has powered Navy submarines for decades. Reactors also have generated close to a fifth of total utility-scale electricity, with far fewer of the respiratory or other health issues derived from clouds of coal-fired emissions.

On the waste issue, as the U.S. Department of Energy has pointed out , decades of nuclear fission haven’t yielded more than a football field’s worth of waste nationwide.

Rod Walton, Managing Editor | Managing Editor

For Microgrid Knowledge editorial inquiries, please contact Managing Editor Rod Walton at  [email protected] .

I’ve spent the last 15 years covering the energy industry as a newspaper and trade journalist. I was an energy writer and business editor at the Tulsa World before moving to business-to-business media at PennWell Publishing, which later became Clarion Events, where I covered the electric power industry. I joined Endeavor Business Media in November 2021 to help launch EnergyTech, one of the company’s newest media brands. I joined Microgrid Knowledge in July 2023. 

I earned my Bachelors degree in journalism from the University of Oklahoma. My career stops include the Moore American, Bartlesville Examiner-Enterprise, Wagoner Tribune and Tulsa World, all in Oklahoma . I have been married to Laura for the past 33-plus years and we have four children and one adorable granddaughter. We want the energy transition to make their lives better in the future. 

Microgrid Knowledge and EnergyTech are focused on the mission critical and large-scale energy users and their sustainability and resiliency goals. These include the commercial and industrial sectors, as well as the military, universities, data centers and microgrids. The C&I sectors together account for close to 30 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S.

Many large-scale energy users such as Fortune 500 companies, and mission-critical users such as military bases, universities, healthcare facilities, public safety and data centers, shifting their energy priorities to reach net-zero carbon goals within the coming decades. These include plans for renewable energy power purchase agreements, but also on-site resiliency projects such as microgrids, combined heat and power, rooftop solar, energy storage, digitalization and building efficiency upgrades.

Latest in Generation/Fuels

Sign of the Times: Oracle Designing Future GW-Scale Data Center Powered by SMR Nuclear

The Data Center Nuclear Energy Frontier: What Makes It Happen?

A Plan to Create an Energy Infrastructure in Rwanda Focused on Small Nuclear-Based Microgrids

PowerSecure to Run Microgrid Generator with 100% Renewable Fuel

Microgrid Nuclear Reactor Momentum: Oklo's Customer Pipeline Grows 93%

The microgrid perspective.

Revolutionizing Defense: The Crucial Role of Microgrids and Schneider Electric in Department of Defense Energy Resiliency

Data Center Microgrids: Planning for Your Microgrid