research paper for nuclear power

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

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

Nuclear power in the 21st century: Challenges and possibilities

Akos horvath.

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

Elisabeth Rachlew

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

Current status

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

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

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

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

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

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

Future evolution

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

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

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

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

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

Open and closed fuel cycle

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

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

Radiotoxicity of radioactive waste

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

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

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

Generation IV development

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and those for fuel cycle issues pertain to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Options for nuclear fusion beyond 2050

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Critical issues in fusion plasma physics based on magnetic confinement

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

Critical issues in fusion plasma technology

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

The goals of ITER

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Box 1 Explanations of abbreviations used in this article

Biographies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6 www.sckcen.be/pateros/ .

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

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

Contributor Information

Akos Horvath, Email: [email protected] .

Elisabeth Rachlew, Email: es.htk@kre .

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

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals

Nuclear energy articles from across Nature Portfolio

Related subjects.

• Nuclear fuel
• Nuclear fusion and fission
• Nuclear waste

Latest Research and Reviews

Highest fusion performance without harmful edge energy bursts in tokamak

Damaging energy bursts in a tokamak are a major obstacle to achieving stable high-fusion performance. Here, the authors demonstrate the use of adaptive and machine-learning control to optimize the 3D magnetic field to prevent edge bursts and maximize fusion performance in two different fusion devices, DIII-D and KSTAR.

A high-density and high-confinement tokamak plasma regime for fusion energy

A stable tokamak plasma has been demonstrated with a high plasma density and a high energy confinement quality, both of which are simultaneously important for fusion reactors.

• A. M. Garofalo
• J. M. Hanson

Radionuclide tracing based in situ corrosion and mass transport monitoring of 316L stainless steel in a molten salt closed loop

In situ corrosion monitoring is essential to unveil corrosion mechanisms and safeguard materials’ health. Here, the authors develop a radionuclide tracing based in situ corrosion monitoring technique that can monitor corrosion attack depth and corrosion product transport in flowing molten salts.

• Aeli P. Olson
• Adrien Couet

The impact of low-mode symmetry on inertial fusion energy output in the burning plasma state

Recent improvements in the indirect-drive inertial confinement fusion experiments include the achievement of burning plasma state. Here the authors report the scaling of neutron yield in a burning plasma of Deuterium-Tritium fusion reaction by including the mode-2 asymmetry.

• J. E. Ralph
• G. B. Zimmerman

Isotope engineering achieved by local coordination design in Ti-Pd co-doped ZrCo-based alloys

Hydrogen isotope effect in metal-hydrogen systems disturbs precise Deuterium/Tritium (D/T) ratio control. Here, the authors demonstrate a local coordination strategy that comprises thermodynamic destabilization with vibration enhancement of interstitial isotopes for isotope engineering.

• Jiacheng Qi

Momentum informed muon scattering tomography for monitoring spent nuclear fuels in dry storage cask

• JungHyun Bae
• Rose Montgomery
• Stylianos Chatzidakis

News and Comment

The quest for safer nuclear fuels

As researchers explore innovative ways to make nuclear fuels more accident-tolerant, this report investigates the use of manganese ions as dopants for uranium oxide (UO 2 ) fuels.

• S. Olivia Gunther
• Bianca Schacherl

Long-term, sustainable solutions to radioactive waste management

Nuclear power plays a pivotal role in ensuring a scalable, affordable, and reliable low-carbon electricity supply. Along with other low-carbon energy technologies, nuclear energy is essential for reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, addressing climate change and air pollution, and achieving a sustainable economy. Whilst significant progress has been made in reducing the volume of final radioactive waste, its management remains one of the most important challenges when considering the continued use and expansion of nuclear energy. This recently published collection highlights the latest technological and scientific advances aimed to improve the safe, long-term, and sustainable management of wastes produced from nuclear power generation.

• Kristina Kvashnina
• Francis Claret
• Tiankai Yao

A boost for laser fusion

Inertial confinement represents one of two viable approaches for producing energy from the fusion of hydrogen isotopes. Scientists have now achieved a record yield of fusion energy when directly irradiating targets with only 28 kilojoules of laser energy.

• Vladimir Tikhonchuk

A milestone in fusion research is reached

Ignition of a millimetre-sized pellet containing a mix of deuterium–tritium, published in 2022, puts to rest questions about the capability of lasers to ignite thermonuclear fuel.

Burning plasma surprise

In a burning plasma, fusion-born α particles are the dominant source of heating. In such conditions, the deuterium and tritium ion energy distribution deviates from the expected thermal Maxwellian distribution.

• Stefano Atzeni

True to its name

• Stefanie Reichert

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

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.

Advertisement

Implementing nuclear power plants (NPPs): state of the art, challenges, and opportunities

• State-of-the-art paper
• Published: 12 October 2021
• Volume 7 , article number  11 , ( 2022 )

Cite this article

• Hosam Elhegazy   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8454-0690 1 &
• Mariam Kamal 2  

1173 Accesses

7 Citations

Explore all metrics

Energy savings are a key issue in modern society. Nuclear energy may be a solution to provide clean power. Nuclear power plants (NPPs) use nuclear fission to generate electricity. There are numerous challenges to overcome for successful implementation of NPPs. This study presents an up-to-date overview of the principal research topics and trends within the NPP research domain, with the purpose of identifying opportunities and obstacles in NPP projects. Some of the challenges, including technological challenges, economic challenges, institutional/governance challenges, and social challenges, are examined, and the future of NPPs is discussed, including (i) the history of NPPs; (ii) the benefits of NPPs; (iii) major challenges in NPP construction; (iv) a review of the current state of the art for implementing NPPs; (v) the most important opportunity for implementing NPPs; (vi) the economics (life cycle costing) of nuclear energy; (vii) a comparison of NPP and renewable energy operations; (viii) different operational constraints for NPPs compared to other power plants; and (ix) nuclear energy for sustainable development. Issues in NPP construction and possible solutions are also addressed.

Graphical abstract

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

World Nuclear Power in the Context of Sustainable Development

The Importance of Having Nuclear Power Technologies for Sustainable Energy Development

Ghana’s nuclear power and its potential to curtail carbon dioxide emission

Data availability.

All data, models, and code generated or used during the study appear in the submitted article.

IEA (2014) World energy balances

Nuclear Power Economics and Project Structuring - 2017 Edition, World Nuclear Association, 2017

Pinciroli L, Baraldi P, Shokry A, Zio E, Seraoui R, Mai C (2021) A semi-supervised method for the characterization of degradation of nuclear power plants steam generators. Prog Nucl Energy 131(103580):1–10

Google Scholar  

Graphite Reactor (2013). https://web.archive.org/web/20131102212003/http://www.ornl.gov/ornl/news/communications/graphite-reactor .

Graphite reactor photo gallery (2013). https://web.archive.org/web/20131102212004/http://web.ornl.gov/ornlhome/history/Graphite_Reactor/

Russia's nuclear fuel cycle (2020). https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-o-s/russia-nuclear-fuel-cycle.aspx .

Queen switches on nuclear power (2008). http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/17/newsid_3147000/3147145.stm .

The history of nuclear generations (2014). https://www.amacad.org/content/publications/pubContent.aspx?d=1038

Goldberg SM, Rosner R (2011) Nuclear reactors: generation to generation. Am Acad Arts Sci

Vegel B, Quinn JC (2017) Economic evaluation of small modular nuclear reactors and the complications of regulatory fee structures. Energy Policy 104:395–403

Article   Google Scholar  

Rohatgi US, Jo JH, Lee JC, Bari RA (2002) Impact of the nuclear option on the environment and the economy. Nucl Technol 137(3):252–264

World Nuclear Association (2015) Nuclear shares of electricity generation. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Facts-and-Figures/Nuclear-generation-by-country/

Top ten nuclear power plants by capacity (2020). https://www.power-technology.com/features/feature-largest-nuclear-power-plants-world/

Ramana M (2009) Nuclear power: economic, safety, health, and environmental issues of near-term technologies. Annu Rev Environ Resour 34:127–152

Plans for new reactors worldwide (2021). https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx

World Nuclear Association (2020) Nuclear generation by country. https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/facts-and-figures/nuclear-generation-by-country.aspx

Sovacool BK, Nugent D, Gilbert A (2014) Construction cost overruns and electricity infrastructure: an unavoidable risk? Electr J 27(4):112–120

Sovacool BK, Gilbert A, Nugent D (2014) An international comparative assessment of construction cost overruns for electricity infrastructure. Energy Res Soc Sci 3:152–160

IEA (2020) World energy balances and statistics

Gilbert A, Sovacool BK, Johnstone P, Stirling A (2017) Cost overruns and financial risk in the construction of nuclear power reactors: a critical appraisal. Energy Policy 102:644–649

Wright ER, Cho K, Hastak M (2012) Advanced construction technologies for the nuclear construction industry. Constr Res Congr 2359–2368

Kim W, Ryu D, Jung Y (2014) Application of linear scheduling method (LSM) for nuclear powerplant (NPP) construction. Nucl Eng Des 270:65–75

Sugimoto Y, Seki H, Samo T, Nakamitsu N (2016) 4D CAD-based evaluation system for crane deployment plans in construction of nuclear power plants. Autom Constr 71:87–98

Alsharif S, Karatas A (2016) A framework for identifying causal factors of delay in nuclear power plant projects. In: International conference on sustainable design, engineering and construction

Saitoh H, Otsuka T, Yoshikawa N, Kanno N, Takanashi S, Oozawa Y, Hirata M, Takeshita M, Sakuragi K, Kurihara S, Tsunashima Y, Aoki N, Tanaka K (2019) Development of a mitigation system against hydrogen-air deflagrations in nuclear power plants. J Loss Prev Process Ind 60:9–16

Zhang T, Shen D, Zheng S, Liu Z, Qu X, Tao D (2020) Predicting unsafe behaviors at nuclear power plants: an integration of theory of planned behavior and technology acceptance model. Int J Ind Ergon 80

Liu J, Zou Y, Wang W, Zhang L, Qing T, Zheng T, Ding Q (2021) A study on assigning performance shaping factors of the SPAR-H method for adequacy human reliability analysis of nuclear power plants. Int J Ind Ergon 81(103051):1–16

Lee G, Lee SJ, Lee C (2021) A convolutional neural network model for abnormality diagnosis in a nuclear power plant. Appl Soft Comput J 99(106874):1–13

Khatua S, Mukherjee V (2021) Administrative dose control for occupationally-exposed workers in Korean nuclear power plants. Ann Nucl Energy 151(107899):1–16

Starý M, Novotný F, Horák M, Stará M (2020) Sampling robot for primary circuit pipelines of decommissioned nuclear facilities. Autom Constr 119

"The radiological accident in Goiania," International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, VIENNA, 1988.

International Atomic Energy Agency (1992) TECDOC 666—Technical and economic evaluation of potable water production through desalination of seawater by using nuclear energy and other means Vienna

Kang T-W, Han Y-U, Na EH, Koo B-J, Park W-P (2021) Deposition of Fukushima nuclear power plant accident-derived radiocesium in the soils of Jeju Island, Korea, and evidence for longand short-lived radionuclides in rainwater. Chemosphere 264(128457):1–10

Nuerlan A, Wan J, Wang P, Zhao F (2021) Decoupling control of both turbine power and reactor power in a marine use multi-reactor and multi-turbine nuclear power plant. Prog Nucl Energy 132:103598

Abouelnaga AE, Metwally A, Aly N, Nagy M, Agamy S (2010) Assessment the safety performance of nuclear power plants using Global Safety Index (GSI). Nucl Eng Des 240:2820–2830

Vahman N, Amrollahi R, Sohrabi M, Ghasemi M (2021) Assessment of management measures on station blackout accident in Unit-1 Bushehr nuclear power plant. Ann Nucl Energy 151:107915

Jiaxu Z, Qiang S, Juan L, Zhiwei F, Wei S, Jiayun C, Chunming Z, Jianshe C (2012) The Performance-Based Fire Protection in the Nuclear Power Plant Design. In: International symposium on safety science and engineering in China, 2012 (ISSSE-2012)

Khamis I, Kavvadias K (2013) Nuclear desalination: practical measures to prevent pathways of contamination. Desalination 321:55–59

Lehtveer M, Hedenus F (2014) Nuclear power as a climate mitigation strategy–technology and proliferation risk. J Risk Res 18(3):273–290

Hsu P-L, Lo C-K (2021) A systematic process for developing fire scenarios in risk assessment for nuclear power plants. Ann Nucl Energy 152(108017):1–17

Babilas E, Ušpuras E, RimkeviIius S, Dundulis G, Vaišnoras M (2015) Safety assessment of low-contaminated equipment dismantling at nuclear power plants. Sci Technol Nucl Install 1–11

Wheatley S, Sovacool BK, Sornette D (2016) Reassessing the safety of nuclear power. Energy Res Soc Sci 15:96–100

Wheatley S, Sovacool B, Sornette D (2017) Of disasters and dragon kings: a statistical analysis of nuclear power incidents and accidents. Risk Anal 37(1):99–115

Zhang C, Tang P, Cooke N, Buchanan V, Yilmaz A, Germain SWS, Boring RL, Akca-Hobbins S, Gupta A (2017) Human-centered automation for resilient nuclear power plant outage control. Autom Constr 82:179–192

Bohanec M, Vrbanić I, Bašić I, Debelak K, Štrubelj L (2020) A decision-support approach to severe accident management in nuclear power plants. J Decis Syst 1–13

Lukacs M, Williams LG (2020) Nuclear safety issues for fusion power plants. Fusion Eng Des 150

Katona T, Bíró AJ, Rátkai S, Tóth A (2003) Lifetime-management and operational lifetime extension at Paks nuclear power plant. In: Transactions of the 17th international conference on structural mechanics in reactor technology (SMiRT 17), Prague, Czech Republic

Zheltonozhsky V, Myznikov D, Slisenko V, Zheltonozhskaya M, Chernyaev A (2021) Determination of the long-lived 10Be in construction materials of nuclear power plants using photoactivation method. J Environ Radioact 227(106509):1–6

El Wely IC, Chetaine A (2021) Analysis of physical protection system effectiveness of nuclear power plants based on performance approach. Ann Nucl Energy 152(107980):1–7

Katona TJ, Rátkai S, Pammer Z (2011) Reconstitution of time-limited ageing analyses for justification of long-term operation of Paks NPP. Nucl Eng Des 241:638–643

Woo T-H, Lee U-C (2011) Safeguard assessment for life extension in nuclear power plants (NPPs) using a production function. Nucl Eng Des 241:826–831

Hanna B, Son TC, Dinh N (2021) AI-guided reasoning-based operator support system for the nuclear power plant management. Ann Nucl Energy 154(108079):1–15

Lee K, Lee K-H, Lee JI, Jeong YH, Lee P-S (2013) A new design concept for offshore nuclear power plants with enhanced safety features. Nucl Eng Des 254:129–141

Wilding PR, Murray NR, Memmott MJ (2020) The use of multi-objective optimization to improve the design process of nuclear power plant systems. Ann Nucl Energy 137(107079):1–12

Cai Z-B, Li Z-Y, Yin M-G, Zhu MH, Zhou Z-R (2020) A review of fretting study on nuclear power equipment. Tribol Int 144

Krivanek R (2020) Factors limiting lifetime of nuclear power plants with pressurized-water reactors. Nucl Eng Des 370

Economics of Nuclear Power (2020). https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx

Hashemian HM, Kiger CJ, Morton GW, Shumaker BD (2011) Wireless sensor applications in nuclear power plants. Nucl Technol 173(1):8–16

Zerger B, Noël M (2011) Nuclear power plant construction: what can be learned from past and on-going projects? Nucl Eng Des 241:2916–2926

Kwon SH, Jang KP, Bang J-W, Lee JH, Kim YY (2014) Prediction of concrete compressive strength considering humidityand temperature in the construction of nuclear power plants. Nucl Eng Des 275:23–29

Lee S, Yoon B, Shin J (2016) Effects of nuclear energy on sustainable development and energy security: sodium-cooled fast reactor case. Sustainability 8(979):1–16

Abudeif A, Raef A, Abdel Moneim A, Mohammed M, Farrag A (2017) Dynamic geotechnical properties evaluation of a candidate nuclear power plant site (NPP): P- and S-waves seismic refraction technique, North Western Coast. Egypt. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 99:124–136

Basu PC (2019) Site evaluation for nuclear power plants—the practices. Nucl Eng Des 352:1–12

Devanand A, Kraft M, Karimi IA (2019) Optimal site selection for modular nuclear power plants. Comput Chem Eng 125:339–350

Li C, Zhai C, Kunnath S, Ji D (2019) Methodology for selection of the most damaging ground motions for nuclear power plant structures. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 116:345–357

Liu R-F, Chen C-K, Yang P-Y (2020) Safety aspects of spent fuel management in nuclear power plants during transition to decommissioning. Ann Nucl Energy 144(107469):1–8

Berthélemy M, Leon SBY (200) Nuclear power—analysis. https://www.iea.org/reports/nuclear-power

Hultman NE (2011) The political economy of nuclear energy. Adv Rev 2(3):397–411

Guang Y, Wenjie H (2009) An analysis of China’s nuclear power plant programme supply chain from the perspective of life cycle. In: International conference on environmental science and information application technology

Kim S, Ko W, Youn S, Gao R (2015) Nuclear fuel cycle cost estimation and sensitivity analysis of unit costs on the basis of an equilibrium model. Nucl Eng Technol 47(3):306–314

Woo TH (2012) Dynamical modeling investigation for economy of nuclear power plants (NPPs) in global nuclear energy market. Electr Power Energy Syst 43:369–374

Carlsson J, Shropshire DE, Heek AV, Futterer MA (2012) Economic viability of small nuclear reactors in future European cogeneration markets. Energy Policy 43:396–406

Khamis I, Kavvadias K (2012) Trends and challenges toward efficient water management in nuclear power plants. Nucl Eng Des 248:48–54

Wang H, Weng D, Lu X, Lu L (2013) Life-cycle cost assessment of seismically base isolated structures in nuclear power plants. Nucl Eng Des 262:429–434

Wright ER, Cho K, Hastak M (2014) Assessment of critical construction engineering and management aspects of nuclear power projects. J Manag Eng 04014016:1–11

Jung Y, Moon B-S, Kim Y-M, Kim W (2015) Integrated cost and schedule control systems for nuclear power plant construction: leveraging strategic advantages to owners and EPC firms. Sci Technol Nucl Install 1–13

Ruth M, Antkowiak M, Gossett S (2011) Nuclear and renewable energy synergies workshop: report of proceedings. Joint Institute for Strategic Energy Analysis

Pearce JM (2012) Limitations of nuclear power as a sustainable energy source. Sustainability 4:1173–1187

Karakosta C, Pappas C, Marinakis V, Psarras J (2013) Renewable energy and nuclear power towards sustainable development: characteristics and prospects. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 22:187–197

Jenkins J, Zhou Z, Ponciroli R, Vilim R, Ganda F, Sisternes FD, Botterud A (2018) The benefits of nuclear flexibility in power system operations with renewable energy. Appl Energy 222:872–884

Heptonstall PJ, Gross RJK (2020) A systematic review of the costs and impacts of integrating variable renewables into power grids. Nat Energy

Energy flow charts: charting the complex relationships among energy, water, and carbon (2020). https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/

Chu S, Majumdar A (2012) Opportunities and challenges for a sustainable energy future. Nature 488:294–303

Kim M, Lee I, Jung Y (2017) International project risk management for nuclear power plant (NPP) construction: featuring comparative analysis with fossil and gas power plants. Sustainability 9(469):1–22

Adamantiades A, Kessides I (2009) Nuclear power for sustainable development: Current status and future prospects. Energy Policy 37:5149–5166

Gunderson R, Yun S-J (2021) Building energy democracy to mend ecological and epistemic rifts: an environmental sociological examination of Seoul’s one less nuclear power plant initiative. Energy Res Soc Sci 72(101884):1–9

Mallah S (2011) Nuclear energy option for energy security and sustainable development in India. Ann Nucl Energy 38:331–336

Greenspan E (2012) A phased development of breed-and-burn reactors for enhanced nuclear energy sustainability. Sustainability 4:2745–2764

Verbruggen A, Laes E, Lemmens S (2014) Assessment of the actual sustainability of nuclear fission power. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 32:16–28

McDonald CF (2014) Power conversion system considerations for a high efficiency small modular nuclear gas turbine combined cycle power plant concept (NGTCC). Appl Therm Eng 73:82–103

Onda Y, Taniguchi K, Yoshimura K, Kato I, Takahashi J, Wakiyama Y, Coppin F, Smith H (2020) Radionuclides from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in terrestrial systems. Nat Rev Earth Environ 1:644–660

Ballish S (2015) Nuclear energy. The Ohio State University. https://u.osu.edu/engr2367nuclearpower/2015/07/30/nuclear-power-plants/

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author, Hosam Elhegazy, gratefully acknowledge support from Future University in Egypt (FUE) and University of Cincinnati (UC).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Structural Engineering and Construction Management Department, Faculty of Engineering and Technology, Future University in Egypt, Cairo, Egypt

Hosam Elhegazy

Structural Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt

Mariam Kamal

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hosam Elhegazy .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Elhegazy, H., Kamal, M. Implementing nuclear power plants (NPPs): state of the art, challenges, and opportunities. Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 7 , 11 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-021-00611-z

Download citation

Received : 23 June 2021

Accepted : 04 August 2021

Published : 12 October 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-021-00611-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Energy sustainability
• Renewable energy
• Nuclear power plants
• Nuclear industry
• Nuclear energy
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Addressing Texas grid reliability: Time to go nuclear?

May 13, 2024

By Texas summer standards, the heat in August 2023 seemed relentless but not without precedent. A string of 100-plus-degree days gripped the state, and the sound of air conditioning was constant.

The overseer of much of the state’s electricity grid, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), issued eight conservation appeals during the month, encouraging retail electricity customers to reduce use of air conditioning and large appliances. Some days it was barely enough. Output from solar and wind facilities was low while thermal energy sources (natural gas, coal and nuclear) struggled to keep up with record-setting electricity demand, or load.

As the energy capital of the nation kept a wary eye on power reserves, ERCOT officials warned they might need to resort to rolling blackouts to keep the system from breaking.

In recent years, low-cost renewable energy sources such as wind and solar have flourished. However, when the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine, and there are inadequate thermal resources to fill the gap, the grid can become vulnerable.

An expanding economy and population, a growing footprint of manufacturing facilities and data centers and more frequent episodes of extreme heat and cold have contributed to Texas electricity consumption rising at an annual rate exceeding the national average.

Nuclear power advocates say that at a time of increasing use of renewables and heightened concerns over climate change, nuclear should become a more readily available part of the mix. Nuclear is reliable, energy dense and scalable. It also has zero carbon emissions. Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant No. 2 in Glen Rose, Texas, 85 miles southwest of Dallas, began operations in 1993. Since then, no other nuclear power plant has opened in the state.

Share of renewable energy triples

The share of renewables for Texas’ overall electricity consumption tripled from 2010 to 2023, a product of federal tax credits, falling installation and materials costs, bountiful wind and solar resources, and state-incentive-backed transmission capacity growth. Wind and solar accounted for roughly one-third of electricity produced in 2023 ( Chart 1 ).

Downloadable chart

However, this does not mean renewables supplied nearly a third of energy needs every day. Renewables present a unique set of challenges to managing the power grid, including a frequent mismatch between peak load and peak supply.

As load peaks in the early evening during the summer, solar production declines, forcing natural gas-fired generation plants to rapidly increase output ( Chart 2 ). The reverse occurs in the early morning, when gas facilities ramp up (as households start their day) and trail off as solar output emerges with the rising sun.

Similarly, load follows an uneven pattern on the coldest winter days, again not aligning well with the timing of solar output and often prompting the need for gas plants to ramp up quickly. ( Chart 3 ).

Meanwhile, wind also presents resource availability challenges. When the wind doesn’t blow, the enormous and growing level of installed wind capacity is unavailable, and another power source has to take its place. Such uneven cycles on gas plants accelerate wear on the facilities, contributing to unplanned outages and maintenance downtime.

The thinning margin between thermal plant capacity and peak load has produced periods of high and volatile wholesale electricity prices across the state. Statewide wholesale electricity prices, which typically average below $100 per megawatt-hour, shot past $1,000 per megawatt-hour 15 times during summer 2021. Prices crossed the $1,000 threshold 182 times in summer 2023 with the greater prevalence of renewables and ERCOT’s cautious power reserve management.

These conditions have also created an opportunity during peak load periods for utility-scale batteries, whose capacity in Texas soared over the past two years. Battery technology is uniquely suited to discharge during critical periods, when solar and wind output fades. However, the current state of technology prevents their use as a source of baseload power, that is, dependably available and capable of running 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Keeping the grid running 

Nuclear provides a minor portion of Texas’ current generating portfolio. Texas’ two nuclear plants, combining for more than 5 gigawatts of nameplate (or total) output, fulfill the role of baseload power. To put that capacity in perspective, the state has 22 gigawatts of installed solar capacity and more than 38 gigawatts of installed wind capacity.  

Conventional light-water nuclear reactors are not well equipped to meet the flexible energy needs of a grid with robust intermittent resources, since reactors are not designed to ramp up or down quickly in response to demand. A significant expansion of conventional nuclear capacity would increase the steady baseload supporting the electric grid and reduce the amplitude of the daily power demand cycle currently required of natural gas plants.

However, new nuclear facility developers confront high costs, regulatory requirements and pockets of public opposition.

While fuel and operating costs for conventional nuclear plants are relatively inexpensive, construction costs are enormous and the federal permitting process stretches over several years while billions of dollars in expenses are incurred, making cost recovery highly uncertain. Expansion of Plant Vogtle in Georgia, completed in 2023, marked the first nuclear reactor to receive regulatory approval in 30 years. It was seven years late and $17 billion over budget.

When considering capital costs, nuclear appears uncompetitive compared with alternatives. The financial advisory firm Lazard found the unsubsidized levelized cost of energy for a nuclear plant can be more than twice that of a combined-cycle natural gas plant, one that generates electricity from both primary generation and from converting waste steam to power. (Levelized cost is the net present cost over the lifetime of a generating facility, generally spanning 30 to 50 years).

In a reversal of long-term trends, public support in the U.S. for nuclear has increased over the past decade, with a narrow majority supporting it. Opponents remain fearful of risks following incidents such as the Fukushima Daiichi accident , when a Japanese power plant released radioactive material following an earthquake in March 2011.

As aging U.S. power generation facilities face rounds of permit extensions at state and federal levels, 12 reactors nationwide have been decommissioned over the past 10 years, most in response to local opposition.

Small modular reactors among new technologies

Despite barriers to approval, nuclear backers cite the power source’s carbon-free operations, reliability, generation capacity and energy density. Development of advanced nuclear reactor technology may address many of the challenges that have stymied growth of conventional nuclear. 

The Department of Energy launched its Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program in 2020 to aid nuclear research and development in the hope of spurring new technology, including smaller and more flexible nuclear reactor options. The program has since announced multiyear awards totaling about $4.6 billion to three projects, including a demonstration project planned for Texas. 

The Texas effort, expected to be completed by 2030, involves small modular reactors. Such units can be manufactured at one site then shipped and assembled at the point of use. A site can start hosting one module and add additional modules, allowing long-term scalability.

Typically, a small modular reactor has up to 300 megawatts of capacity and requires far less acreage than a traditional large reactor. Some designs are expected to be more flexible and should have the ability to ramp up and down to meet shifting load requirements, unlike conventional units.

One of the promises of the modular reactors is far lower upfront capital investment than conventional nuclear facilities. But there are concerns that the modular reactors may not be as cost effective as imagined, and cost per megawatt remains high compared with fossil fuel generation. In November 2023, another demonstration program fund recipient canceled its project, citing significant increases in previously projected costs.

While much of the cost increase can be attributed to inflation that plagued many infrastructure programs in 2023, concerns remain about the cost/benefit of modular reactors in Texas and elsewhere.

Management of nuclear waste is another challenge. Annually, traditional nuclear reactors in the U.S. produce about 2,000 metric tons of spent fuel in the aggregate, which is currently stored at the power plants in temporary pools or dry casks .

The long-term goal is permanent storage at an approved, central geologic repository, but progress on site selection has been at a standstill for two decades. Although modular reactors would likely produce far less spent fuel, concerns have surfaced that some units would create many more times the amount of spent fuel per unit of electricity generated than traditional reactors. 

In addition to the federal efforts to spur advanced nuclear deployment, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott announced the formation of the Advanced Nuclear Reactor Working Group in 2023. The group is charged with assessing the feasibility of making the state a leader in nuclear power. With a team comprised of academics, business leaders and nuclear engineering experts, the working group seeks to understand how advancements such as modular reactors can be leveraged to improve affordability, reliability and safety in Texas’ energy sector. Results from their evaluation will be announced in December 2024.

Texas may also prove fertile ground for modular reactor deployment for industrial uses. The modular reactors may be particularly suited to serve on-site at the large and growing footprint of heavy manufacturing, petrochemical facilities and data centers. The first units—already ordered—are likely to appear toward the end of the decade.

Balancing costs and reliability

While developments in advanced nuclear technology hold promise for an energy grid to achieve a desired balance of low emissions and reliability, affordability may remain elusive. Additionally, widespread deployment of advanced nuclear is at least a decade away. Balancing electricity supply and demand with solar, wind, batteries and natural gas resources—and the associated price volatility for consumers—will remain a significant challenge in the interim.    

ERCOT’s electricity load set records in summer 2023, primarily because of consistently excessive heat. In the winter, the grid continues to face challenges, especially during sustained temperature drops, which spike demand across the state and impact the natural gas supply chain.

Even though wholesale electricity prices rise sharply during periods of tight supply and demand , most households don’t experience surging power bills because they have fixed-rate power contracts. However, volatile prices and rising load forecasts have increased forward electricity prices, which pushes retail prices higher over time. While the residential cost per kilowatt-hour in Texas ranged between 14 and 17 cents from 2015 to 2019 in real (inflation-adjusted) terms, it jumped to more than 30 cents in 2022 and has remained volatile since ( Chart 4 ).

For low-income households struggling to get by, rising utility bills represent a significant share of living expenses. For example, in 2023, 57 percent of Texas households with annual income under $50,000 reported forgoing meals or medication to pay energy bills.

In times of severe weather, such households may also be at particular risk of power loss. During the February 2021 statewide freeze, communities with higher shares of racial minorities were more than four times more likely than predominately white areas to experience blackouts, driving some to unsafe heating methods that led to carbon monoxide poisoning .

Charting a path forward

Nuclear energy offers several advantages over other types of power: It is cleaner than fossil fuels, it is more predictable and reliable than renewables, and its generation capacity is far greater than all alternatives. Nuclear reactors in Texas, either at the utility level or as co-generation assets for heavy manufacturing facilities, offer the prospect of solving many fundamental challenges for the grid.

However, significant upfront capital costs mean the returns for any plant developer are uncertain— particularly in ERCOT’s energy-only market, which pays power providers only for the electricity they deliver. In other regions, capacity markets, in which power providers are compensated for holding capacity in reserve, could help ensure cost recovery for nuclear plants and likely accelerate their development.

For the past two decades, Texas consumers have largely benefitted from cheaper electricity with the increased presence of cheaper renewables. However, consumers are no longer seeing benefits to the same extent as concerns about reliability quickly escalate. Amid volatile wholesale pricing, market signals and incentives to deploy more baseload resources within ERCOT are inadequate. An adjustment to the market or incentive structure could bring more nuclear capacity into the grid, but it’s likely to push electricity bills higher.

Ultimately, Texas and the U.S. will need a diverse set of fuel sources while grappling to balance sustainability, cost and reliability. Nuclear, already part of the mix, may end up playing a larger role in the future through new technology. Commercial small modular reactors and advanced reactor designs are relatively new concepts. It remains to be seen if new reactor technology can deliver on the promise of a scalable option.

About the authors

Garrett Golding is a senior business economist in the Research Department of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.

Emily Ryder Perlmeter is a senior advisor in Community Development at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.

Prithvi Kalkunte is an economic programmer in the Research Department at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.

More Like This

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

•  We're Hiring!
•  Help Center

Nuclear power

• Most Cited Papers
• Most Downloaded Papers
• Newest Papers
• Save to Library
• Last »
• Non-targeted Effects of Low Dose Radiation Follow Following
• Nuclear Safety Follow Following
• courses of Applied Chemistry & chemical Engineering Follow Following
• Exploration Follow Following
• Dopamine Follow Following
• Nuclear Energy Follow Following
• Plasma Follow Following
• Nuclear Non-Proliferation Policy Follow Following
• Nuclear Fusion Follow Following
• Safety Culture Follow Following

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• Academia.edu Publishing
•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Northwestern to lead Midwestern carbon-capture hub

• Sustainability

Recognizing that carbon dioxide (CO2) removal is a critical tool for thwarting the worst of climate change impacts, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has dedicated billions of dollars to explore the potential of direct air capture (DAC) technologies that can pull CO2 out of the atmosphere.

Regional DAC Hubs are a key part of DOE’s strategy and are supported with $100 million in DOE investments. Northwestern University is leading one of these hubs with nearly $4 million invested by DOE and partner companies. The award will be administered through the Paula M. Trienens Institute for Sustainability and Energy .

The DOE-funded projects will work to demonstrate the capture, processing, delivery and sequestration or end-use plans for captured carbon. Called the Midwest Nuclear DAC Hub (MINDAC), the Northwestern-led program will unite a diverse group of research and commercial partner institutions to test the feasibility of using a zero-emission nuclear fleet to power air handling units that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

MINDAC, which officially started on May 1, is one of only two DAC hubs located in the Midwest as well as one of two hubs with plans to harness nuclear energy as a power source.

Funded by the historic Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill and the Inflation Reduction Act, the Regional DAC Hubs Program will accelerate the demonstration and deployment of DAC technologies, supporting efforts to create jobs, reduce pollution and reinforce the United States’ global competitiveness in clean energy technologies.

After feasibility testing and engineering are complete, together these Hubs are expected to capture 1 million metric tonnes of C02 annually from the atmosphere. This is 250 times more CO2 than the largest operating DAC facility currently removes.

“While we need to amplify efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across all economic sectors, given the urgency and severity of climate change we need all options on the table — full speed ahead,” said Northwestern’s Jennifer Dunn , the principal investigator of the project. “These options include direct air capture. We are excited to work with all our MINDAC partners and the Department of Energy to build a viable carbon capture hub in our region.”

An expert on the environmental impacts of emerging technologies, Dunn is a professor of chemical and biological engineering at Northwestern’s McCormick School of Engineering , director of the Center for Engineering Sustainability and Resilience and a faculty affiliate of the Trienens Institute.

MINDAC’s co-principal investigators are: Ted Sargent , the Lynn Hopton Davis and Greg Davis Professor of Chemistry at Northwestern’s Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences , a professor of electrical and computer engineering at McCormick and co-executive director of the Trienens Institute; Omar Farha , the Charles E. and Emma H. Morrison Professor of Chemistry at Weinberg; and Brad Sageman , a professor of Earth and planetary sciences at Weinberg and co-director of the Trienens Institute. Mar Reguant , a professor of economics at Weinberg, will serve as a senior adviser. Ke Xie , a research assistant professor in Sargent’s laboratory, will serve as the Hub’s project manager.

“This initiative will make an important contribution as we develop solutions to tackle the global challenge of climate change,” Sargent said. “The issue requires diverse solutions — ones that can be used in combination with one another — and this includes direct air capture. As one of the world’s leading universities in engineering, materials science, chemistry and the social sciences, Northwestern will bring unparalleled expertise to this vital initiative.”

From intensifying storms to declining biodiversity to rising sea levels, the tragic effects of worsening climate change are becoming more visible each year. According to the United Nations, emissions need to decrease by 45% by 2030 in order to limit climate change to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Simply decreasing the volume of emissions is not enough. To hit this critical target, scientists estimate that billions of tons of CO2 also must be removed from the atmosphere.

DAC technologies can reduce this lingering legacy CO2 by literally pulling it out of the air. The CO2 then can be safely and permanently stored deep underground or upcycled into valuable products, contributing to a circular carbon economy.

“The Illinois Basin has a number of deep rock formations with favorable properties for CO2 storage,” Sageman said. “And successful CO 2 sequestration already has been demonstrated in the basin.”

For multiple reasons, the Midwest is uniquely positioned as an ideal location for a DAC Hub. Home to industry and high-traffic roadways, the Midwest region is a large emitter of CO2 in the United States. As a consequence of climate change, the region is subject to extreme temperature and precipitation fluctuations — with cold air masses from the far north converging with warm, humid air masses from the Gulf of Mexico.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Illinois also has the most nuclear power of any state in the nation , making nuclear energy an attractive and reliable zero-carbon energy source to power the capture process. Nuclear energy facilities also produce abundant waste heat, which can be integrated into capture facilities to further reduce energy costs.

“Incorporating carbon dioxide captured from air into building materials or plastics can sequester carbon,” Dunn said. “Alternatively, processes can convert captured carbon dioxide into fuels that can replace energy from fossil fuels. When the processes that capture carbon dioxide use nuclear power, the potential for carbon neutral or carbon negative products and fuels arises, which is very exciting.”

MINDAC’s feasibility study will develop a model to integrate carbon capture technologies, manufacturing at scale, CO2 utilization, and CO2 transportation and geological sequestration. To unify expertise in nuclear energy, DAC technologies, site development and manufacturing, Northwestern has partnered with a host of major research and industrial partners including Argonne National Laboratory, Constellation, Siemens, 3M, Energy Capital Ventures, LanzaTech, RepAir and Avnos.

Each partner will bring a specialized contribution to the team. Global leaders in DAC technologies, RepAir and Avnos will test the carbon capture and carbon removal systems. With the largest nuclear fleet in the nation, Constellation will explore the viability of its clean energy centers to supply carbon-free nuclear power to the MINDAC Hub. LanzaTech, a carbon capture and use company that uses synthetic biology to convert waste carbon into materials and higher-value products, will explore uses for the captured carbon.

“RepAir Carbon's electrochemical technology operates solely on electricity, without the need for heat, enabling ultra-low energy consumption,” said Amir Shiner, CEO of RepAir. “Today, as direct air capture requires a baseload, low-carbon power source, RepAir emerges as an ideal solution for integration with nuclear power supply. We are honored to be included in Northwestern's DAC hub and to be collaborating with such strong companies.”

Northwestern has a long legacy of leading DOE hubs and being at the forefront of carbon capture research. The newly launched Midwest Alliance for Clean Hydrogen (MachH2) serves as the most recent example, with Dunn as the project’s chief decarbonization officer. Farha also leads one of nine projects selected by the DOE to study carbon capture systems. His team studies metal-organic frameworks, porous materials with uniform structures that are promising solid sorbents — a sponge of sorts for capturing CO2 from air.

“Finding ways to remove and store carbon directly from the air is an absolute necessity in our fight against the climate crisis,” Secretary of Energy Jennifer M. Granholm said. “This investment in carbon capture technology research through universities and DOE laboratories will position America as a leader in this growing field, create good-paying jobs and help make our carbon-free future a reality.”

Editor’s Picks

This algorithm makes robots perform better

‘the night watchman’ named next one book selection, six northwestern faculty elected to american academy of arts and sciences, related stories.

Sugar-based catalyst upcycles carbon dioxide

Understanding how soil traps carbon, dirt-powered fuel cell runs forever.

Nuclear Power Research Paper

View sample nuclear power research paper. Browse other  research paper examples and check the list of history research paper topics for more inspiration. If you need a history research paper written according to all the academic standards, you can always turn to our experienced writers for help. This is how your paper can get an A! Feel free to contact our custom writing service for professional assistance. We offer high-quality assignments for reasonable rates.

Debate about the use of nuclear technology (and its destructive and constructive capabilities) continues to rage more than sixty years after the United States released a uranium bomb on Hiroshima and (three days later) a plutonium bomb on Nagasaki. As contentious an issue as nuclear weapons remains, proponents of nuclear power champion its ability to produce energy more cleanly than any other resource.

Academic Writing, Editing, Proofreading, And Problem Solving Services

Get 10% off with 24start discount code.

When the first nuclear weapons exploded over Japan in 1945, observers all over the world knew that human life had changed in an instant. In the years since, nuclear technology has struggled to define itself as a public good when the public seemed more inclined to view it as an evil. Its proponents argue that electricity made from nuclear reactors has the capability to power the world more cleanly than any other resource can. Opponents are less sure. As the debate rages, nuclear power has become an increasingly important part of world energy.

Beginning as a Bomb

By the late 1930s World War II threatened the globe. Leaders of every nation searched for any edge that would defeat the enemy forces. Scientists in the United States and Germany experimented with nuclear reactions. In Germany leaders felt that such a technology might be a decisive force in the war effort. In reaction, U.S. scientists enlisted U.S. physicist Albert Einstein to write a letter about their research to President Franklin D. Roosevelt. In his letter Einstein stressed the technology’s potential—particularly if it were developed by the enemy. In October 1939 Roosevelt authorized government funding for atomic research.

Eventually science and the military would be linked in a way never before seen. However, first scientists needed to demonstrate the viability of an atomic reaction. Of course, today the concept of force generated by separating atomic particles is fairly well known; however, in 1940 such a concept smacked of science fiction. In 1940 the U.S. physicists Enrico Fermi and Leo Szilard received a government contract to construct a reactor at Columbia University. Other reactor experiments took place in a laboratory under the west stands of Stagg Field at the University of Chicago. In December 1942 Fermi achieved what the scientists considered the first self-sustained nuclear reaction. It was time to take the reaction out of doors, and this process would greatly increase the scope and scale of the experiment.

Under the leadership of General Leslie Groves in February 1943, the U.S. military acquired 202,343 hectares of land near Hanford, Washington. This land was one of three primary locations of Project Trinity, which was assigned portions of the duty to produce useful atomic technology. The coordinated activity of these three locations under the auspices of the U.S. military became a path-breaking illustration of the planning and strategy that would define many modern corporations. Hanford used water power to separate plutonium and produce the grade necessary for weapons use. Oak Ridge in Tennessee coordinated the production of uranium. These production facilities then fueled the heart of the undertaking, contained in Los Alamos, New Mexico, under the direction of the U.S. physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer.

Oppenheimer supervised the team of nuclear theoreticians who would devise the formulas using atomic reactions within a weapon. Scientists from a variety of fields were involved in this complex theoretical mission. After theories were in place and materials delivered, the project became one of assembling and testing the technology in the form of a bomb. All of this needed to take place on the vast Los Alamos compound under complete secrecy. However, the urgency of war convinced many people that this well-orchestrated, corporate-like enterprise was the best way to save thousands of U.S. lives.

By 1944 World War II had wrought a terrible destruction on the world. The European theater of war would soon close with Germany’s surrender. Although Germany’s pursuit of atomic weapons technology had fueled the efforts of U.S. scientists, German surrender did not end the U.S. atomic project. The Pacific theater of war remained active, and Japan did not accept offers to surrender. Project Trinity moved forward, using the Japanese cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki as the test laboratories of initial atomic bomb explosions. The U.S. bomber Enola Gay released a uranium bomb on Hiroshima on 6 August 1945, and the U.S. bomber Bock’s Car released a plutonium bomb on Nagasaki three days later. Death tolls vary between 150,000 and 300,000, and most were Japanese civilians. The atomic age, and life with the bomb, had begun.

Atomic Futures

Experiments and tests with nuclear and hydrogen bombs continued for nearly twenty years after World War II. Many of the scientists who worked on the original experiments, however, hoped that the technology could have nonmilitary applications. Oppenheimer eventually felt that the public had changed its attitude toward scientific exploration because of the bomb. “We have made a thing,” he said in a 1946 speech, “a most terrible weapon, that has altered abruptly and profoundly the nature of the world . . . a thing that by all the standards of the world we grew up in is an evil thing.”

Many of the scientists involved believed that atomic technology requires controls unlike those of any previous innovation. Shortly after the bombings a movement began to establish a global board of scientists who would administer the technology with no political affiliation. However, wresting control of this new tool for global influence from the U.S. military proved impossible. The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), formed in 1946, placed the U.S. military and governmental authority in control of the weapons technology and other uses to which it might be put. With the “nuclear trump card,” the United States catapulted to the top of global leadership.

In the 1950s scientists turned their attention to applying nuclear reaction to peaceful purposes, notably power generation. The reaction is a fairly simple process. Similar to power generators fueled by fossil fuel, nuclear plants use the heat of thermal energy to turn turbines that generate electricity. The thermal energy comes from nuclear fission, which is made when a neutron emitted by a uranium nucleus strikes another uranium nucleus, which emits more neutrons and heat as it breaks apart. If the new neutrons strike other nuclei, chain reactions take place. These chain reactions are the source of nuclear energy, which then heats water to power the turbines.

Soon the AEC seized this sensibility and began plans for “domesticating the atom.” It was quite a leap, though, to make the U.S. public comfortable with the most destructive technology ever known. The AEC and other organizations sponsored a barrage of popular articles concerning a future in which roads were created through the use of atomic bombs, and radiation was employed to cure cancer.

In the media the atomic future included images of atomic-powered agriculture and automobiles. There were optimistic projections of vast amounts of energy being harnessed, without relying on limited natural resources like coal or oil. For many Americans this new technology meant control of everyday life. For the administration of U.S. president Dwight Eisenhower the technology meant expansion of U.S. economic and commercial capabilities.

As the Cold War took shape around nuclear weapons, the Eisenhower administration looked for ways to define a domestic role for nuclear power even as Soviet missiles threatened each American. Project Plowshares grew out of the administration’s effort to turn the destructive weapon into a domestic power producer. The list of possible applications was awesome: laser-cut highways passing through mountains; nuclear-powered greenhouses built by federal funds in the Midwest to enhance crop production; and irradiated soils to simplify weed and pest management. Although domestic power production, with massive federal subsidies, would be the long-term product of government effort, the atom could never fully escape its military capabilities. This was most clear when nuclear power plants experienced accidents.

Accidents Fuel Public Doubt

A number of nuclear power plant accidents occurred before the late 1970s, but they went largely unnoticed by the U.S. public. Nuclear power became increasingly popular, even though critics continued to argue issues of safety. In 1979 the United States experienced its first nuclear accident in a residential area outside of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The accident at Three Mile Island (TMI) nuclear power plant entirely altered the landscape of American power generation. Although involving only a relatively minor release of radioactive gas, this accident demonstrated the public’s lack of knowledge. Panic ripped through the state, and Harrisburg was partially evacuated.

Of course, the international community took notice of the TMI accident; however, it clearly did not present a grave threat to the world. The world’s other superpower had even greater difficulty with its atomic industry, which was plagued by accidents throughout this era. None, however, compared to the Chernobyl meltdown that occurred in Ukraine in 1986. During a test the fuel elements ruptured and resulted in an explosive force of steam that lifted off the cover plate of the reactor, releasing fission products into the atmosphere. A second explosion released burning fuel from the core and created a massive explosion that burned for nine days. It is estimated that the accident released thirty to forty times the radioactivity of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Hundreds of people died in the months after the accident, and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians and Russians had to abandon entire cities.

The implications of nuclear weapons and nuclear power had already been of great interest to environmental organizations before Chernobyl. After Chernobyl international environmental organizations such as Greenpeace dubbed nuclear power a transborder environmental disaster waiting to happen. Interestingly, even within the environmental movement, nuclear power maintained significant support due to its cleanness. Whereas almost every other method for producing large amounts of electricity creates smoke or other pollution, nuclear power creates only water vapor. Yet, at least in the public’s mind, there remained the possibility of atomic explosions.

Growth in the International Market

Although accidents decreased the U.S. domestic interest in nuclear power generation, the international community refused to be so quick to judge the technology. Since the early 1990s nuclear power has become one of the fastest-growing sources of electricity in the world. Nations that depend on nuclear power for at least one-quarter of their electricity include Belgium, Bulgaria, Hungary, Japan, Lithuania, Slovakia, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Slovenia, and Ukraine.

According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, nine countries possessed nuclear weapons capability (United States, China, France, Russia, and Britain, India, Pakistan Israel, Korea. Thirty nations have some 440 commercial nuclear power reactors. Currently fewer nuclear power plants are being built than were built during the 1970s and 1980s, but the newer plants are much more efficient and capable of producing significantly more power. Additionally, nuclear power is being used for needs other than public electricity. In addition to commercial nuclear power plants, there are more than 280 research reactors operating in fifty-six countries, with more under construction. These reactors have many uses, including research and training and the production of medical and industrial isotopes. Reactors are also used for marine propulsion, particularly in submarines. Over 150 ships of many varieties, including submarines, are propelled by more than two hundred nuclear reactors.

Finally, nuclear power has also become a volatile par of international politics. Nations such as North Korea and Iran have used their pursuit of “peaceful” nuclear technology to raise the ire of many western nations in hopes of forcing them into negotiations. Particularly in the case of Iran, many nations are suspicious of its claims of “peaceful” uses. Fearing their own security, Israel and other nations have demanded that Iran not be allowed to develop new nuclear technology of any sort. These fears seem to have made it more attractive for rogue nations to increase the threat level.

Regardless of the use to which it is put, nuclear energy continues to be plagued by its most nagging side effect: even if the reactor works perfectly for its service lifetime, the nuclear process generates dangerous waste. In fact, reactor wastes from spent fuel rods are believed to remain toxic for fifty thousand years. At present each nuclear nation makes its own arrangements for the waste. U.S. nuclear utilities now store radioactive waste at more than seventy locations while they await the fate of the effort to construct and open a nuclear waste repository inside Nevada’s Yucca Mountain.

Internationally, the situation is not much clearer. Opponents in Germany have obstructed nuclear waste convoys, and shipments of plutonium-bearing waste to Japan for reprocessing are often placed under dispute. Some observers have voiced concern that less-developed nations will offer themselves as waste dumps for the more-developed nations. The income from such an arrangement may be too much to turn down for many nations.

Rising energy prices of all sorts, however, brought the nuclear industry robust interest in the twenty-first century. In particular, new attention has been focused on reprocessing used nuclear materials. In this fashion, the very idea of “nuclear waste” has been redefined. Proponents argue that there is no such thing as waste if the spent rods can be reprocessed in order to fuel other types of plants. These efforts are particularly advanced in France, the global leader in nuclear power in 2009.

In the energy industry many observers continue to believe that nuclear power remains the best hope to power the future. The issues of safety and waste removal need to be dealt with. However, in nations with scarce supplies of energy resources, nuclear power—even with its related concerns—remains the most affordable alternative.

Bibliography:

• Boyer, P. (1994). By the bomb’s early light. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
• Brennan, T. J., Palmer, K. L., Kopp, R. J., Krupnick, A. J., Stagliano, V., & Burtraw, D. (1996). A shock to the system—restructuring America’s electricity industry. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
• Brower, M. (1992). Cool energy: Renewable solutions to environmental problems (Rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Cantelon, P., & Williams, R. C. (1982). Crisis contained: Department of Energy at Three Mile Island. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
• Cooke, S. (2009). In mortal hands: A cautionary history of the nuclear age. New York: Bloomsbury.
• Darst, R. G. (2001). Smokestack diplomacy: Cooperation and conflict in East-West environmental politics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Erikson, K. (1994). A new species of trouble—the human experience of modern disasters. New York: W. W. Norton.
• Garwin, R. L., & Charpak, G. (2001). Megawatts and megatons: A turning point in the nuclear age. New York: Knopf.
• Hampton, W. (2001). Meltdown: A race against nuclear disaster at Three Mile Island: A reporter’s story. Cambridge, MA: Candlewick Press.
• Hughes, T. P. (1983). Networks of power: Electrification in Western society, 1880–1930. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Hughes, T. P. (1989). American genesis. New York: Penguin Books.
• Josephson, P. R. (2000). Red atom: Russia’s nuclear power program from Stalin to today. New York: W. H. Freeman.
• Mahaffey, J. (2009). Atomic awakening: A new look at the history and future of nuclear power. New York: Pegasus.
• May, E. R. (1993). American Cold War strategy. Boston: Bedford Books.
• May, E. T. (1988). Homeward bound. New York: Basic Books.
• McNeill, J. R. (2000). Something new under the sun: An environmental history of the twentieth-century world. New York: Norton.
• Melosi, M. V. (1985). Coping with abundance: Energy and environment in industrial America. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
• Moorhouse, J. C. (Ed.). (1986). Electric power: deregulation and the public interest. San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy.
• Nye, D. E. (1990). Electrifying America: Social meanings of a new technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Poole, R. W., Jr. (Ed.). (1985). Unnatural monopolies: The case for deregulating public utilities. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
• Smil, V. (1988). Energy in China’s modernization: Advances and limitations. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
• Smil, V. (1994). Energy in world history. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
• Tucker, W. (2008). Terrestrial energy: How nuclear energy will lead the green revolution and end America’s energy odyssey. New York: Bartleby.
• Weiner, D. R. (1988). Models of nature: Ecology, conservation, and cultural revolution in Soviet Russia. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER

Scotland's papers: Early prisoner release row and nuclear 'secret'

More from scotland's papers.

• The Scotsman
• Daily Record
• The Scottish Sun
• Scottish Daily Express
• The Telegraph
• The National
• The Courier
• The P&J
• Glasgow Times
• Edinburgh News

Your browser is set to private mode. To continue reading, please log in or subscribe.

Get unlimited access today for only

$9.99 / month

Subscribe now

New research aims to gauge brain power of the T. rex

In December 2022, Vanderbilt University neuroscientist Suzana Herculano-Houzel published a paper that caused an uproar in the dinosaur world.

After analyzing previous research on fossilized dinosaur brain cavities and the neuron counts of birds and other related living animals, Herculano-Houzel extrapolated that the fearsome Tyrannosaurus rex may have had more than 3 billion neurons — more than a baboon.

As a result, she argued, the predators could have been smart enough to make and use tools and to form social cultures akin to those seen in present-day primates.

The original “Jurassic Park” film spooked audiences by imagining velociraptors smart enough to open doors. Herculano-Houzel’s paper described T. rex as essentially wily enough to sharpen their own shivs. The bold claims made headlines, and almost immediately attracted scrutiny and skepticism from paleontologists.

In a paper published Monday in “The Anatomical Record,” an international team of paleontologists, neuroscientists and behavioral scientists argue that Herculano-Houzel’s assumptions about brain cavity size and corresponding neuron counts were off-base.

True T. rex intelligence, the scientists say, was probably much closer to that of modern-day crocodiles than primates — a perfectly respectable amount of smarts for a therapod to have.

“What needs to be emphasized is that reptiles are certainly not as dim-witted as is commonly believed,” said Kai Caspar, a biologist at Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf and co-author of the paper. “So whereas there is no reason to assume that T. rex had primate-like habits, it was certainly a behaviorally sophisticated animal.”

Brain tissue doesn’t fossilize, and so researchers examine the shape and size of the brain cavity in fossilized dinosaur skulls to deduce what their brains may have been like.

In their analysis, the authors took issue with Herculano-Houzel’s assumption that dinosaur brains filled their skull cavities in a proportion similar to bird brains. Herculano-Houzel’s analysis posited that T. rex brains occupied most of their brain cavity, analogous to that of the modern-day ostrich.

But dinosaur brain cases more closely resemble those of modern-day reptiles like crocodiles, Caspar said. For animals like crocodiles, brain matter occupies only 30% to 50% of the brain cavity. Though brain size isn’t a perfect predictor of neuron numbers, a much smaller organ would have far fewer than the 3 billion neurons Herculano-Houzel projected.

“T. rex does come out as the biggest-brained big dinosaur we studied, and the biggest one not closely related to modern birds, but we couldn’t find the 2 to 3 billion neurons she found, even under our most generous estimates,” said co-author Thomas R. Holtz, Jr., a vertebrate paleontologist at University of Maryland, College Park.

What’s more, the research team argued, neuron counts aren’t an ideal indicator of an animal’s intelligence.

Giraffes have roughly the same number of neurons that crows and baboons have, Holtz pointed out, but they don’t use tools or display complex social behavior in the way those species do.

“Obviously in broad strokes you need more neurons to create more thoughts and memories and to solve problems,” Holtz said, but the sheer number of neurons an animal has can’t tell us how the animal will use them.

“Neuronal counts really are comparable to the storage capacity and active memory on your laptop, but cognition and behavior is more like the operating system,” he said. “Not all animal brains are running the same software.”

Based on CT scan reconstructions, the T. rex brain was probably “ a long tube that has very little in terms of the cortical expansion that you see in a primate or a modern bird,” said paleontologist Luis Chiappe, director of the Dinosaur Institute at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County.

“The argument that a T. Rex would have been as intelligent as a primate — no. That makes no sense to me,” said Chiappe, who was not involved in the study.

Like many paleontologists, Chiappe and his colleagues at the Dinosaur Institute were skeptical of Herculano-Houzel’s original conclusions. The new paper is more consistent with previous understandings of dinosaur anatomy and intelligence, he said.

“I am delighted to see that my simple study using solid data published by paleontologists opened the way for new studies,” Herculano-Houzel said in an email. “Readers should analyze the evidence and draw their own conclusions. That’s what science is about!”

When thinking about the inner life of T. rex, the most important takeaway is that reptilian intelligence is in fact more sophisticated than our species often assumes, scientists said.

“These animals engage in play, are capable of being trained, and even show excitement when they see their owners,” Holtz said. “What we found doesn’t mean that T. rex was a mindless automaton; but neither was it going to organize a Triceratops rodeo or pass down stories of the duckbill that was THAT BIG but got away.”

©2024 Los Angeles Times. Visit at latimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Related Stories