nuclear energy opinion essay

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.

 / 

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

Why Nuclear Power Must Be Part of the Energy Solution

By Richard Rhodes • July 19, 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related Articles

In a dammed and diked mekong, a push to restore the flow.

By Stefan Lovgren

Will New Leader End Progress in Saving Indonesia’s Forests?

By Fred Pearce

A Nuclear Power Revival Is Sparking a Surge in Uranium Mining

By Jim Robbins

More From E360

In seawater, researchers see an untapped bounty of critical metals, tracking illicit brazilian beef from the amazon to your burger, how one south african community stopped shell oil in its tracks, dire straits: can a fishing ban save the elusive european eel, scientists are trying to coax the ocean to absorb more co2, marina silva on brazil’s fight to turn the tide on deforestation, solomon islands tribes sell carbon credits, not their trees, with sea turtles in peril, a call for new strategies to save them, jared kushner has big plans for delta of europe’s last wild river.

Back to the Future Josh Freed

Leslie and mark's old/new idea.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Climate Change Spurs New Call for Nuclear Energy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Atoms for Peace to Chernobyl

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1979: Three Mile Island power station. Source: Wikipedia

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

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

Chernobyl sarcophogi Magnum

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

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

But now we have to.

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

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

The Return of Nuclear Pioneers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click image to play or stop animation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Missing in Action: The United States Government

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Getting the U.S. Back in the Race

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

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

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

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

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

For Further Reading

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

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

The Road Ahead for Japanese Energy June 2014

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

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

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

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

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

Who Will Own the Nuclear Power Future?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1775 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Washington , DC 20036

• Media Relations

More Brookings Essays

Published 12/12/2014

© 2014 The Brookings Institution

• Terms and Conditions
• Brookings Privacy Policy

Press ESC to close

Nuclear Energy Advantages and Disadvantages: An Important IELTS Writing Task 2 Topic

Nuclear energy improves air quality by providing large quantities of carbon-free energy. It empowers people in 28 States in the u.s. and leads to many non-electric projects, ranging from the healthcare profession to space research.

The US Department of Energy’s Nuclear Energy Office or DOE conducts its studies mainly on sustaining the current reactor fleet, creating innovative modern reactor technology, and enhancing the nuclear fuel cycle to improve the reliability of our energy supplies and boost the US economy.

Below are some of the main advantages and disadvantages of nuclear energy in the format of nuclear energy task 2 of the IELTS exam .

IELTS Sample: Nuclear Energy Advantages and Disadvantages

Producing energy from nuclear plants significantly increases the risk but promises great benefits. In action, a relatively small volume of nuclear fuel can reliably create a very large amount of energy and contain very little polluting content. Nevertheless, the financial costs of constructing and decommissioning a nuclear power plant are extremely high and the waste generated will stay radioactive hazardous to people and the environment for hundreds of years.

Also Read: How to Write Agree and Disagree Essays in IELTS? Tips to Write the Perfect Essay

Nuclear Energy Advantages and Disadvantages: Tabular Form

Benefits of nuclear energy, great energy capacity.

Upon full combustion, 1 kg of enriched uranium by up to 4 per cent (which is used in reactor material) discharges equivalent energy to that collected by burning about 100 tonnes of high-quality coal combustion or 60 tonnes of oil.

Reusability

The fission component (Uranium-235) is not totally burned in nuclear fuel and can be recycled after regeneration. A total transition to a closed fuel cycle is possible in the near future which means that no waste will be generated.

Reducing Greenhouse Gases

Intensive production of nuclear technology can be used as a way of countering global warming. Each year, nuclear power stations in Europe emit 700 million tonnes of CO2 and those in Japan cause 270 million tonnes of CO2 to be avoided. Per year, operating Russian nuclear power plants prohibit the release of 210 million tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Russia ranks 4th in the world

Also Read: IELTS Essay in Writing Task 2: Here’s How to Organize it Well

Economic Development

The construction of nuclear power plants stimulates economic prosperity and new jobs. 1 position in nuclear power plant building generates 10 to 15 positions in associated industries. The creation of nuclear technology leads to the growth of science and to national cognitive capacities.

IELTS Opinion Essay Topic: Nuclear Energy is a Better Choice for Meeting the Increasing Demand

The option of nuclear energy as a resource is questionable. Presently, this energy is recommended as a favoured alternative to satisfy the immense need. Many people believe that nuclear technology is the safest form of electricity generation since it is less fragile than others. They are expected to emit less carbon dioxide than other forms of sources used to create the current.

Break the Paragraph

As there is less development of greenhouse emissions, there is reduced risk to the atmosphere due to the elimination of acid rain, global warming, etc. As an example, before using this source to generate the new, China’s emission rate was unmanageable, but after using it, it decreased by 80 per cent. Previously, China used fossil fuels, which emitted a large number of greenhouse emissions, and in the process, they became very dangerous both to the atmosphere and to humans.

In contrast, it is very clear that the nuclear power plant offers multiple advantages to the public in terms of noise, energy supply and therefore does not conflict with the daily lifestyle of the local region.

In the next five decades, humanity will require more energy than has been used in the whole intervening period. Early forecasts about the rise of energy demand and the advancement of alternative energy technology have not come true: the pace of consumption is increasing even faster, although new energy sources will become readily available at reasonable rates no later than 2050. The shortage of fossil fuels is now more and more important than ever.

Keep your eyes here to keep learning about more such IELTS topics and keep yourself a step ahead of other IELTS aspirants. Best of luck!

Also Read: Importance of Art in Society: IELTS Essay Sample for IELTS Writing Task 2 Explained for Band 8

One Comment

While reading the previous article, I was hoping if I could get information on this topic too. And luckily, this site is always here to have your back and help you to know all the details while you’re preparing for your exams so you can successfully get through your exam. Such great articles like always!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Share Article:

You might also like

Describe Something Important that has been Kept in Your Family: A Cue Card Sample Topic for IELTS Speaking

How to Use an IELTS Calculator? Calculate Your Overall IELTS Exam Score

What is a Good IELTS Score? Is 7.5 a Good IELTS Score? Here’s All You Need to Know

Other stories, nuclear energy is a better choice for meeting increasing demand: ielts topic, canada permanent resident visa: facts you should not miss about the canada pr visa process.

30,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

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

Verification Code

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

Thanks for your comment !

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

• School Education /

Essay on Nuclear Energy in 500+ words for School Students 

• Updated on  
• Dec 30, 2023

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

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

Table of Contents

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

Also Read: Find List of Nuclear Power Plants In India

History Overview

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

Also Read: What are the Different Types of Energy?

Nuclear Technology 

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

Also Read: Nuclear Engineering Course: Universities and Careers

Advantages of Nuclear Energy

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

1. High Energy Density

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

2. Low Greenhouse Gas Emissions

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

3. Base Load Power

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

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

Disadvantages of Nuclear Energy

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

1. Radioactive Waste

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

2. Nuclear Accidents

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

3. High Initial Costs

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

Also Read: What is the IAEA Full Form?

Safety Measures and Regulations of Nuclear Energy

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

Also Read: What is the Full Form of AEC?

Concerns of Nuclear Proliferation

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

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

Future Prospects and Innovations of Nuclear Energy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related Articles

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

Deepika Joshi

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

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

Contact no. *

Connect With Us

30,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today.

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

January 2024

September 2024

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Have something on your mind?

Make your study abroad dream a reality in January 2022 with

India's Biggest Virtual University Fair

Essex Direct Admission Day

Why attend .

Don't Miss Out

• IELTS Scores
• Life Skills Test
• Find a Test Centre
• Alternatives to IELTS
• General Training
• Academic Word List
• Topic Vocabulary
• Collocation
• Phrasal Verbs
• Writing eBooks
• Reading eBook
• All eBooks & Courses

Nuclear Power Essays

by Edgars (Basel, CH)

Would you prefer to share this page with others by linking to it?

• Click on the HTML link code below.
• Copy and paste it, adding a note of your own, into your blog, a Web page, forums, a blog comment, your Facebook account, or anywhere that someone would find this page valuable.

Band 7+ eBooks

"I think these eBooks are FANTASTIC!!! I know that's not academic language, but it's the truth!"

Linda, from Italy, Scored Band 7.5

IELTS Modules:

Other resources:.

• All Lessons
• Band Score Calculator
• Writing Feedback
• Speaking Feedback
• Teacher Resources
• Free Downloads
• Recent Essay Exam Questions
• Books for IELTS Prep
• Useful Links

Recent Articles

Useful Language for IELTS Graphs

May 16, 24 04:44 AM

Taking a Gap Year

May 14, 24 03:00 PM

IELTS Essay: Loving Wildlife and Nature

May 10, 24 02:36 AM

Important pages

IELTS Writing IELTS Speaking IELTS Listening   IELTS Reading All Lessons Vocabulary Academic Task 1 Academic Task 2 Practice Tests

Connect with us

Copyright © 2022- IELTSbuddy All Rights Reserved

IELTS is a registered trademark of University of Cambridge, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia. This site and its owners are not affiliated, approved or endorsed by the University of Cambridge ESOL, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia.

Welcome Guest!

• IELTS Listening
• IELTS Reading
• IELTS Writing
• IELTS Writing Task 1
• IELTS Writing Task 2
• IELTS Speaking
• IELTS Speaking Part 1
• IELTS Speaking Part 2
• IELTS Speaking Part 3
• IELTS Practice Tests
• IELTS Listening Practice Tests
• IELTS Reading Practice Tests
• IELTS Writing Practice Tests
• IELTS Speaking Practice Tests
• All Courses
• IELTS Online Classes
• OET Online Classes
• PTE Online Classes
• CELPIP Online Classes
• Free Live Classes
• Australia PR
• Germany Job Seeker Visa
• Austria Job Seeker Visa
• Sweden Job Seeker Visa
• Study Abroad
• Student Testimonials
• Our Trainers
• IELTS Webinar
• Immigration Webinar

Nuclear Energy is a Better Choice for Meeting Increasing Demand – IELTS Writing Task 2

Updated On Jan 17, 2024

Share on Whatsapp

Share on Email

Share on Linkedin

Limited-Time Offer : Access a FREE 10-Day IELTS Study Plan!

It is usually important to agree or disagree with a certain fact or piece of information in opinion essays. Your argument must support one of two opposing views in the essay.

Given below is an example of an IELTS Writing task 2 opinion essay. Let’s understand how to frame the essay from the ideas we have.

Nuclear energy is a better choice for meeting increasing demand. Do you agree or disagree?

Essay Type: Opinion Essay (Agree or Disagree)

Introduction 

Sentence 1: Introduction of nuclear energy.

Sentence 2: State whether nuclear energy is a better choice for meeting increasing demand.

Paragraph 1: One of the best substitutes for fossil fuels is Nuclear energy. It generates a lot of energy from a very small amount of fuel and emits very little Co2 and other harmful pollutants.

Paragraph 2: One of the major risks of using nuclear power is the creation of radioactive wastes that might be an environmental issue.

Restate your opinion with a clear and direct sentence (totally agree).

Sample Essay

Nuclear energy is the all-powerful alternative to fossil fuels, and it is the finest choice to satisfy the rapidly increasing demand across the world. In my opinion, I completely agree with the fact that Nuclear energy is a pretty appropriate choice and a good replacement for fossil fuels. I will explain my views on why nuclear energy is a superior option in the subsequent paragraphs.

One of the best substitutes for fossil fuels is Nuclear energy. It generates a lot of energy from a very small amount of fuel and emits very little Co2 and other harmful pollutants. It also has a very good safety record as hundreds of nuclear power plants worldwide have been operating for more than fifty years without any serious accidents. Moreover, several nations are using nuclear energy as an alternative source to generate electricity as they don’t emit harmful gases that lead to acid rain or global warming. In fact, nuclear energy has saved many lives in the past, which may have been lost if we had built fossil-fuel plants instead of nuclear reactors.

One of the major threats of using nuclear power is the creation of radioactive wastes that might be an environmental issue. The radioactive materials might also be fatal. However, these nuclear power plants are built very carefully to prevent such releases. As a result, even the two worst nuclear accidents in history (Chernobyl and Fukushima) have harmed very few people in number compared to fossil fuel pollution.

Although nuclear fuel is not renewable like fossil fuels, they have high productivity with no geographical limitations. The sustainability of nuclear power is a very big concern as it will be an environmental tragedy if a dangerous crash occurs.

To reiterate, nuclear energy is a reliable and powerful source of electricity with zero emissions. Besides, nuclear energy is still more viable than fossil fuels and is relatively safe.

Get Evaluated for FREE:

Do you have an essay on this topic? Please post it in the comments section. One of our IELTS trainers will evaluate your essay from an examiner’s point of view and reply to the comment. This service is completely FREE of cost.

SUBMIT YOUR ESSAY

Band 9 Sample Essay

There is no denying the fact that nuclear power comes with massive potential that can be used positively to improve mankind. Nuclear technology has become one of the potent resources and fulfills the demands of people accordingly. In my opinion, nuclear power has demonstrated more benefits for constructive purposes for varying factors of life. I shall illustrate my perspective in the below paragraphs.

To begin with, there are plenty of advantages that can be gained by developing more nuclear stations. First and foremost, nuclear technology is extensively used in the fields of science and medicine, such as X-rays, to diagnose significant internal fractures and injuries. Another noteworthy example is radiotherapy that is universally used to cure patients suffering from deadly diseases, such as malignant cancerous tumours, and more.

In addition to this, the green power stations, being eco-friendly, do not have any contribution to air pollution. Moreover, it can be used to produce electricity without wasting any restricted natural resources, be it gas or coal. To represent it better, everybody knows that nuclear gas is a renewable resource and that it cannot go extinct; hence, it can be effortlessly used in diverse major sectors. With this gas, there will be no issues of carbon emission. Furthermore, this way, there will be no issues of climate change, or the air quality will not further deteriorate. Consequently, a lot of countries are comprehending to integrate nuclear power as the solution to high demands of gas, oil, electricity and decrease the issues with climate changes as well as pollution.

While it is true nuclear power is being used for negative factors too, such as nuclear bombs, the benefits it offers evidently surpass the drawbacks.

Conclusively, nuclear technology definitely has a lot of positive uses and provides a promising future. From my point of view, it would be better if this power is used for its true benefits and the betterment of the world.

• All-powerful

Meaning : having a complete or sole power

Eg : The older man was the all-powerful leader in the village.

Meaning : obtain something from (a specified source).

Eg : The English word “Rice” is derived from the Latin word “Oryza Sativa”.

Meaning : to make a choice especially

Eg : Since Mary scored less marks, she opted for arts courses.

Meaning : consistently good in quality or performance; able to be trusted.

Eg : I was looking for a reliable source of learning material to prepare for the GRE exam.

Meaning : to introduce (an atom or group) as a substituent also or to take place of

Eg : The baker used chocolate sauce as a substitute for cocoa powder.

Meaning : higher in rank, status, or quality

Eg : The shopkeeper suggested purchasing a superior product.

• Appropriate

Meaning : suitable or proper in the circumstances.

Eg : I couldn’t find any appropriate website for the online preparation of IELTS.

Meaning : coming after something in time; following.

Eg : The Apple Manufacturers will introduce a new series of iPhones in the subsequent years.

Meaning : a person or thing likely to cause damage or danger.

Eg : Jack’s pet dog seemed to be a threat to his new born baby.

Meaning : capable of working successfully; feasible.

Eg : The new agricultural proposal is a viable solution to the farmers’ woes

Practice IELTS Writing Task 2 based on Essay types

Start Preparing for IELTS: Get Your 10-Day Study Plan Today!

Post your Comments

Posted on Dec 12, 2023

Nuclear power is a good choice for meeting demand in now a day. In my opinion, I completely agree with the fact that nuclear energy is a pretty appropriate choice and a good replacement for fossil fuels. I will explain my views on why nuclear energy is a superior option in the subsequent paragraphs. Nuclear energy is one of the best substitutes for fossil fuels. It generates a lot of energy from small amount of fuel and emits very little co2 and other harmful pollutants. Fossil fuels are extracted in vast quantity, so it may be extinct somewhere in time .so, alternate source of energy is nuclear energy. Nuclear power is found in vast amount. One of the major disadvantages of using nuclear power is the creation of radioactive wastes that may be an environmental issue. The other problems of usage of nuclear power are the accidental explosion caused from it. The radioactive materials might also be fatal. However, the nuclear plants are very carefully to prevent such releases. As a result, even the two worst nuclear accidents in history (Chernobyl and Fukushima) have harmed very few people in number compared to fossil fuel pollution. To reiterate, nuclear energy is a reliable and powerful source of electricity with zero emissions. Besides, nuclear energy is still more viable than fossil fuels and is relatively safe. While it is true nuclear power is being used for negative factors too, such as nuclear bombs, the benefits it offers evidently surpass the drawbacks. Conclusively, nuclear technology definitely has a lot of positive uses and provides a promising future. From my point of view, it would be better if this power is used for its true benefits and the betterment of the world .

IELTS Expert

Posted on Dec 13, 2023

Overall Band: 6 Cohesive devices are used to some good effect but cohesion within sentences is mechanical. The meaning is generally clear in spite of a rather restricted range and a lack of precision in word choice.

To increase your IELTS Writing Band Score, Avail a FREE IELTS WRITING demo with our Band 9 Expert here.

Posted on Nov 10, 2021

One of the most popular way to produce energy are the nuclear power stations and some people think that, considering the high request of energy, is better than other sources. I disagree with this idea because I believe there are greenest solutions. There are several reasons why nuclear energy is not the best possibility to cover the demand. While it is true that the amount of energy produced is higher compared to other sources, it is also true that nuclear power stations cause different problems. Residues are radioactive, this means that they are toxic and it is very difficult to dispose of them. If something goes wrong while disposing of toxic waste serious and dangerous consequences will verify. The other huge issue is the possible explosion of a nuclear reactor. It is still stick in our mind the disaster of cernobyl and what it caused, the radioactivity was spread in all Europe and a vast quantity of people died in that occasion. There are other ways to provide the right amount of energy sufficient for the entire world. The scientific progress went so far that now we can produce energy from sea plants. Now with the renewable sources we can have the energy we need, however politicians should do more about it. It is possible to produce energy with the waves of the oceans for example. Another way is using the wind or the solar energy absorbed by solar panels around the world, also geothermal stations can provide energy. In conclusion, my view is that with the combined use of these green sources of energy we would see a sustainable planet without the risk of others explosion of nuclear power stations.

Janice Thompson

Overall band score: 5

Concentrate on grammatical numbers, prepositions, tenses and degrees of comparison

Recent Articles

Raajdeep Saha

Nehasri Ravishenbagam

Our Offices

Gurgaon city scape, gurgaon bptp.

Step 1 of 3

Great going .

Get a free session from trainer

Have you taken test before?

Please select any option

Get free eBook to excel in test

Please enter Email ID

Get support from an Band 9 trainer

Please enter phone number

Already Registered?

Select a date

Please select a date

Select a time (IST Time Zone)

Please select a time

Mark Your Calendar: Free Session with Expert on

Which exam are you preparing?

Great Going!

77 Nuclear Power Essay Topics & Examples

If you’re looking for nuclear power essay topics, you may be willing to discuss renewable energy sources, sustainable development, and climate change as well. With the paper titles collected by our team , you’ll be able to explore all these issues!

🏆 Best Nuclear Energy Essay Topics & Examples

👍 good nuclear energy research paper topics, ❓ questions about nuclear power.

• Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power The first pro of nuclear energy is that it emits little pollution to the environment. The next con of nuclear energy is the occurrence of a meltdown.
• Why Nuclear Energy Is Not Good? Even those who say net production is cost effective for unit of nuclear energy produced may not be saying the truth because most of these estimate forget that nuclear energy is recipient of many government […]
• Nuclear Energy Effectiveness Although water is used to cool nuclear plants, we can conclude that nuclear energy is the most cost effective method of producing electricity.
• Nuclear Power in India The demand for electricity in India is increasing and there is a need to increase the level of supply to meet the demand and the best option is to invest more in nuclear power, considering […]
• Iranian Public Opinion on Nuclear Power and Economy Other research topics included the Israel-Palestine conflict, the war in Iraq, the Iranian system of government, and Iran’s relation to the US and the West.
• Combined-Cycle Gas Plant: The Nuclear Power Plant Replacement This essay will make the case for the use of a combined-cycle gas plant as the best option for replacing a state’s nuclear power plant, as well as explain why a carbon tax or cap-and-trade […]
• The Nuclear Power Passages: Rhetorical Analysis At that, the writer also provides some data utilized by the former vice president and some information to show the negative side of power plants.
• Metropolitan Edison Company vs. People Against Nuclear Energy In addition, the commission published a hearing notice which entailed an invitation to parties that were interested to submit their briefs explaining the impacts of the accident to the psychological harm or any other indirect […]
• Biological Effect of Man-Made Disasters in Nuclear Power Plants When it is disrupted in the reproductive organs, the changes are passed on to the offspring as mutations, which are mostly harmful to the organism and related to many deaths in the course of the […]
• Nuclear Energy: High-Entropy Alloy One of the tools for reducing the level of greenhouse gas emissions is the development of nuclear energy, which is characterized by a high degree of environmental efficiency and the absence of a significant impact […]
• Tsunami Handling at a Nuclear Power Plant The information presented in this research paper has been analyzed and proved to be the actual content obtained by various parties that participate in the study of tsunamis.
• Nuclear Energy: Impact of Science & Technology on Society In spite of the fact that hopes of adherents of the use of atomic energy substantially were not justified, the majority of the governments of the countries of the world do not wish to refuse […]
• Nuclear Energy and The Danger of Environment Nuclear energy can be a benefit in the medium and long term perspective, but the communal and public awareness of nuclear energy breeds anxieties about nuclear technology that must be directed to attain the public […]
• Nuclear Power Plants’ Safety Strategy Implementation Thus, incidents that occur on nuclear power plants are critical and pose a significant risk to the life and health of workers.
• Nuclear Power: Is It Sustainable? Another controversial aspect of nuclear power is its effects on human health and the environment. Finally, the use of nuclear energy is a significant political and ethical concern.
• Nuclear Energy: Safe, Economical, Reliable Thus, nuclear energy is viable and safe in meeting the current and future demand for energy across the world. Nuclear energy has significant implications for the environment and population health in case of an accident […]
• Nuclear Power Plant’s Life Cycle Costing Drivers As such, the article offers an in-depth discussion on the need for effective management of the life cycle of a nuclear power plant.
• Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation: Business Principles The first 3 are enablers of the system of management while the fourth component is process-oriented, which helps in the development, production, and delivery of services coupled with products of an organization to the market […]
• Nuclear Power as a Primary Energy Source The energy crisis the world faces currently is one of the most urgent and disturbing questions countries have to deal with.
• Nuclear Energy and Its Risks The situation became difficult when the power in the reactors reduced and could not be enough to be used by the operators.
• Nuclear Power & Environment The use of nuclear energy is one of the issues that are debated by environmental scientists, economists as well as engineers.
• Nuclear Power Exploitation to Generate Electricity Nuclear power plants expose the society to significant dangers in the event of a major disaster in the nuclear power plant.
• Fossil Fuel, Nuclear Energy, and Alternative Power Sources It is important to keep in mind that the amount of coal is decreasing and there is no guarantee that people will be able to discover more.
• Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation’s Employee Training Program The problem is the need to incorporate training and development as part of the human resource management policies of the Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation.
• Nuclear Power Station Advantages and Disadvantages The use of nuclear power to produce electricity increases the energy dependence of a country. It has demonstrated that nuclear power is capable of producing enough electricity to satisfy the growing global energy demands.
• Harmful Health Effects of Nuclear Energy The risk of developing thyroid cancer following exposure to nuclear radiations increased with a decrease in the age of the subject.
• Sustainable Energy Source – Nuclear Energy One of the groups led by World Nuclear Association, believes that nuclear energy is a reliable and efficient source of energy.
• Nuclear Power — Mega Trend The developmental milestone of the discovery of nuclear fission in the early 30’s paved way to the advent of nuclear power as a source of energy.
• Nuclear Power Use Controversies As a result, a person in the industrial world needs to have a wide knowledge of its environment. For example, technological adaptation is tied to interest of the public and the government.
• The Chronicle of North Korea’s Nuclear Power and Diplomacy Lastly, the paper analyzes the Six-Party talk in terms of its successes and failures with special focus on the current status of the nuclear development program in North Korea.
• A Cost Benefit Analysis of the Environmental and Economic Effects of Nuclear Energy in the United States The nature of damage posed to the environment depends on the nature of the nuclear plant being used and also the extraction process of fossil fuel themselves.
• Nuclear Energy Fusion and Harnessing Physicists use the equation E=MC2 to calculate the amount of energy that is generated as a result of the fusion of nucleus.
• Nuclear Energy Usage and Recycling The resulting energy is used to power machinery and generate heat for processing purposes. The biggest problem though is that of energy storage, which is considered to be the most crucial requirement for building a […]
• The Effect of Nuclear Energy on the Environment In response to the concerns, this paper proposes the use of thorium reactors to produce nuclear energy because the safety issues of uranium.
• The Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation The Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation, ENEC, brought together six UAE member states, the International Atomic Energy Agency and other countries such as the United States of America. The assertions made above indicate that UAE relies […]
• Nuclear Power Crisis in Japan and Its Implications Nuclear power is perceived in Indonesia, Vietnam, and Thailand and perhaps somewhere else in Asia as an ingredient in a resolution aimed at achieving the requirement of an exceptionally huge amplification of power manufacturing capacity […]
• Nuclear Energy Benefits and Demerits The aim of the research is to provide substantial proof that nuclear energy is not efficient and sustainable. It is also argued that the whole process and the impacts of nuclear energy production make the […]
• Balanced Treatment of the Pros and Cons of Nuclear Energy Thus, the use of nuclear power presupposes a number of positive short-term and log-term consequences for the economy of the country and the environment of the planet.
• Nuclear Power and Its Effects on Economy, Environment and Safety Of all these, the nuclear power is the latest, realized in the dawn of the 20th century following the discovery some crucial radioactive elements and reactions like uranium and nuclear fission respectively, both of which […]
• The Environmental Impact of Nuclear Energy The country has the opportunity to enhance its capacity to generate electricity from nuclear following the approval of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build and operate between three to four units of the Vogtle […]
• Should Production of Nuclear Power Be Stopped? A good example of a disaster caused by nuclear power accident is the accident in Chernobyl in April 1986, the accident was the worst in history and it led to mass displacement of people and […]
• Sources of Energy: Nuclear Power and Hydroelectric Power The main source of power in the world is the Sun. The Sun is the sole source of energy that plants use in the process of photosynthesis in order to manufacture their food.
• Nuclear Power’ Two Opposing Sides Thus, should possession of nuclear weapons be based on the desired end as to justify the means? It is acceptable to purport that nuclear power may be used if such is meant to promote peace […]
• Japan’s Nuclear Disaster: Fukushima’s Legacy The cladding, the reactor vessel, the containment building, and a dry-wall building were the barriers to protect the nuclear power plant.
• Dangers of Nuclear Power The external supply of power to the nuclear plant was disrupted by the earthquake. In addition, organization of the nuclear plant was responsible for some problems that were experienced.
• Nuclear Power Advantages and Disadvantages The claim is thought to include cost of installations and time taken to construct the nuclear plants. In this case, they fail to note that the cost of electricity from nuclear energy is cheaper than […]
• Why Developed Countries Should Not Produce Nuclear Power Though nuclear power generation is slowly gaining prominence in the world, especially since the world is seeking more sources of green energy, nuclear energy is a unique source of energy because it bears unique characteristics […]
• Nuclear Energy in Australia The irony of the matter is that Australia does not use these reserves to produce nuclear energy; two main reasons that has contributed to the un-exploitation are availability of rich coal deposits in the country, […]
• Impact of Nuclear Energy in France Through the process, heat energy is released from the bombardment of the nucleus and the neutrons. The need to manage the nuclear waste affected the economic parameters attached to nuclear energy.
• Nuclear Energy Benefits One of the factors why nuclear energy is an effective source of energy is that it is cost effective. The other factor that makes nuclear energy cost effective is that the risks associated with this […]
• Nuclear Power Provides Cheap and Clean Energy The production of nuclear power is relatively cheap when compared to coal and petroleum. The cost of nuclear fuel for nuclear power generation is much lower compared to coal, oil and gas fired plants.
• Living With Chernobyl – The Future of Nuclear Power: Summary In the documentary, journalist Cliff Orloff and Olga Shalygin made the journey to the affected zone with the aim of establishing the truth of the predictions made.
• What Is Nuclear Power in Simple Terms?
• What Is the Main Purpose of Nuclear Energy?
• What Is a Nuclear Power Plant and How Does It Work?
• How Many Countries Use Nuclear Power?
• What Happens When a Nuclear Power Plant Is Hit?
• Why Should Nuclear Power Plants Be Closed?
• Where Is Nuclear Energy Used?
• Why Is Management of Nuclear Energy Easier Said Than Done?
• Why Nuclear Power Is Hazardous for Both Humans and Nature?
• Why Are Megaprojects, Including Nuclear Power Plants, Implemented Over Budget and Late?
• Why Should Australia Master Nuclear Power?
• Why Did Some People Change Their Attitude Toward Nuclear Energy After the Fukushima Accident?
• Why Does Iran Need Nuclear Power?
• What Are the Implications of China as an Emerging Nuclear Power?
• What Are the Prospects for the Environmental Sciences of Nuclear Energy?
• What Role Can Nuclear Power Play in Mitigating Global Warming?
• What Are the Advantages and Disadvantages of a Nuclear Power Plant?
• What Is the Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation Employee Training Program?
• What Does Nuclear Energy Require?
• What Are Transaction Costs in Regulation and Subcontracting at a Nuclear Power Plant?
• What Is the Value of Modular Nuclear Power Plants in the Finite Time Horizon of Decision Making??
• How Is Nuclear Energy Stored?
• What Is the Truth About Jaitapur Nuclear Power Plant?
• How Strong Is Nuclear Energy?
• Is Nuclear Cheaper Than Solar?
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, February 29). 77 Nuclear Power Essay Topics & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/nuclear-power-essay-topics/

"77 Nuclear Power Essay Topics & Examples." IvyPanda , 29 Feb. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/nuclear-power-essay-topics/.

IvyPanda . (2024) '77 Nuclear Power Essay Topics & Examples'. 29 February.

IvyPanda . 2024. "77 Nuclear Power Essay Topics & Examples." February 29, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/nuclear-power-essay-topics/.

1. IvyPanda . "77 Nuclear Power Essay Topics & Examples." February 29, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/nuclear-power-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "77 Nuclear Power Essay Topics & Examples." February 29, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/nuclear-power-essay-topics/.

• Hazardous Waste Essay Topics
• North Korea Titles
• Wind Energy Essay Topics
• Evacuation Essay Topics
• Alternative Energy Paper Topics
• Solar Energy Essay Ideas
• Nazism Topics

Nuclear Energy

Nuclear energy is the energy in the nucleus, or core, of an atom. Nuclear energy can be used to create electricity, but it must first be released from the atom.

Engineering, Physics

Loading ...

Nuclear energy is the energy in the nucleus , or core, of an atom . Atoms are tiny units that make up all matter in the universe , and energy is what holds the nucleus together. There is a huge amount of energy in an atom 's dense nucleus . In fact, the power that holds the nucleus together is officially called the " strong force ." Nuclear energy can be used to create electricity , but it must first be released from the atom . In the process of  nuclear fission , atoms are split to release that energy. A nuclear reactor , or power plant , is a series of machines that can control nuclear fission to produce electricity . The fuel that nuclear reactors use to produce nuclear fission is pellets of the element uranium . In a nuclear reactor , atoms of uranium are forced to break apart. As they split, the atoms release tiny particles called fission products. Fission products cause other uranium atoms to split, starting a chain reaction . The energy released from this chain reaction creates heat. The heat created by nuclear fission warms the reactor's cooling agent . A cooling agent is usually water, but some nuclear reactors use liquid metal or molten salt . The cooling agent , heated by nuclear fission , produces steam . The steam turns turbines , or wheels turned by a flowing current . The turbines drive generators , or engines that create electricity . Rods of material called nuclear poison can adjust how much electricity is produced. Nuclear poisons are materials, such as a type of the element xenon , that absorb some of the fission products created by nuclear fission . The more rods of nuclear poison that are present during the chain reaction , the slower and more controlled the reaction will be. Removing the rods will allow a stronger chain reaction and create more electricity . As of 2011, about 15 percent of the world's electricity is generated by nuclear power plants . The United States has more than 100 reactors, although it creates most of its electricity from fossil fuels and hydroelectric energy . Nations such as Lithuania, France, and Slovakia create almost all of their electricity from nuclear power plants . Nuclear Food: Uranium Uranium is the fuel most widely used to produce nuclear energy . That's because uranium atoms split apart relatively easily. Uranium is also a very common element, found in rocks all over the world. However, the specific type of uranium used to produce nuclear energy , called U-235 , is rare. U-235 makes up less than one percent of the uranium in the world.

Although some of the uranium the United States uses is mined in this country, most is imported . The U.S. gets uranium from Australia, Canada, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Uzbekistan. Once uranium is mined, it must be extracted from other minerals . It must also be processed before it can be used. Because nuclear fuel can be used to create nuclear weapons as well as nuclear reactors , only nations that are part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) are allowed to import uranium or plutonium , another nuclear fuel . The treaty promotes the peaceful use of nuclear fuel , as well as limiting the spread of nuclear weapons . A typical nuclear reactor uses about 200 tons of uranium every year. Complex processes allow some uranium and plutonium to be re-enriched or recycled . This reduces the amount of mining , extracting , and processing that needs to be done. Nuclear Energy and People Nuclear energy produces electricity that can be used to power homes, schools, businesses, and hospitals. The first nuclear reactor to produce electricity was located near Arco, Idaho. The Experimental Breeder Reactor began powering itself in 1951. The first nuclear power plant designed to provide energy to a community was established in Obninsk, Russia, in 1954. Building nuclear reactors requires a high level of technology , and only the countries that have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty can get the uranium or plutonium that is required. For these reasons, most nuclear power plants are located in the developed world. Nuclear power plants produce renewable, clean energy . They do not pollute the air or release  greenhouse gases . They can be built in urban or rural areas , and do not radically alter the environment around them. The steam powering the turbines and generators is ultimately recycled . It is cooled down in a separate structure called a cooling tower . The steam turns back into water and can be used again to produce more electricity . Excess steam is simply recycled into the atmosphere , where it does little harm as clean water vapor . However, the byproduct of nuclear energy is radioactive material. Radioactive material is a collection of unstable atomic nuclei . These nuclei lose their energy and can affect many materials around them, including organisms and the environment. Radioactive material can be extremely toxic , causing burns and increasing the risk for cancers , blood diseases, and bone decay .

Radioactive waste is what is left over from the operation of a nuclear reactor . Radioactive waste is mostly protective clothing worn by workers, tools, and any other material that have been in contact with radioactive dust. Radioactive waste is long-lasting. Materials like clothes and tools can stay radioactive for thousands of years. The government regulates how these materials are disposed of so they don't contaminate anything else. Used fuel and rods of nuclear poison are extremely radioactive . The used uranium pellets must be stored in special containers that look like large swimming pools. Water cools the fuel and insulates the outside from contact with the radioactivity. Some nuclear plants store their used fuel in dry storage tanks above ground. The storage sites for radioactive waste have become very controversial in the United States. For years, the government planned to construct an enormous nuclear waste facility near Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for instance. Environmental groups and local citizens protested the plan. They worried about radioactive waste leaking into the water supply and the Yucca Mountain environment, about 130 kilometers (80 miles) from the large urban area of Las Vegas, Nevada. Although the government began investigating the site in 1978, it stopped planning for a nuclear waste facility in Yucca Mountain in 2009. Chernobyl Critics of nuclear energy worry that the storage facilities for radioactive waste will leak, crack, or erode . Radioactive material could then contaminate the soil and groundwater near the facility . This could lead to serious health problems for the people and organisms in the area. All communities would have to be evacuated . This is what happened in Chernobyl, Ukraine, in 1986. A steam explosion at one of the power plants four nuclear reactors caused a fire, called a plume . This plume was highly radioactive , creating a cloud of radioactive particles that fell to the ground, called fallout . The fallout spread over the Chernobyl facility , as well as the surrounding area. The fallout drifted with the wind, and the particles entered the water cycle as rain. Radioactivity traced to Chernobyl fell as rain over Scotland and Ireland. Most of the radioactive fallout fell in Belarus.

The environmental impact of the Chernobyl disaster was immediate . For kilometers around the facility , the pine forest dried up and died. The red color of the dead pines earned this area the nickname the Red Forest . Fish from the nearby Pripyat River had so much radioactivity that people could no longer eat them. Cattle and horses in the area died. More than 100,000 people were relocated after the disaster , but the number of human victims of Chernobyl is difficult to determine . The effects of radiation poisoning only appear after many years. Cancers and other diseases can be very difficult to trace to a single source. Future of Nuclear Energy Nuclear reactors use fission, or the splitting of atoms , to produce energy. Nuclear energy can also be produced through fusion, or joining (fusing) atoms together. The sun, for instance, is constantly undergoing nuclear fusion as hydrogen atoms fuse to form helium . Because all life on our planet depends on the sun, you could say that nuclear fusion makes life on Earth possible. Nuclear power plants do not have the capability to safely and reliably produce energy from nuclear fusion . It's not clear whether the process will ever be an option for producing electricity . Nuclear engineers are researching nuclear fusion , however, because the process will likely be safe and cost-effective.

Nuclear Tectonics The decay of uranium deep inside the Earth is responsible for most of the planet's geothermal energy, causing plate tectonics and continental drift.

Three Mile Island The worst nuclear accident in the United States happened at the Three Mile Island facility near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, in 1979. The cooling system in one of the two reactors malfunctioned, leading to an emission of radioactive fallout. No deaths or injuries were directly linked to the accident.

Articles & Profiles

Media credits.

The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit. The Rights Holder for media is the person or group credited.

Illustrators

Educator reviewer, last updated.

October 19, 2023

User Permissions

For information on user permissions, please read our Terms of Service. If you have questions about how to cite anything on our website in your project or classroom presentation, please contact your teacher. They will best know the preferred format. When you reach out to them, you will need the page title, URL, and the date you accessed the resource.

If a media asset is downloadable, a download button appears in the corner of the media viewer. If no button appears, you cannot download or save the media.

Text on this page is printable and can be used according to our Terms of Service .

Interactives

Any interactives on this page can only be played while you are visiting our website. You cannot download interactives.

Related Resources

Essay on Nuclear Energy

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

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Nuclear Energy

Introduction.

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

Production of Nuclear Energy

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

Benefits of Nuclear Energy

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

Drawbacks of Nuclear Energy

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

Also check:

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

250 Words Essay on Nuclear Energy

Introduction to nuclear energy.

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

Production and Efficiency

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

Environmental Implications

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

Security and Ethical Concerns

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

Future of Nuclear Energy

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

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

500 Words Essay on Nuclear Energy

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

The Mechanics of Nuclear Energy

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

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

Pros and Cons of Nuclear Energy

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

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

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

The Future of Nuclear Energy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

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

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

Nuclear Power Essay IELTS 2024: Writing Task 2 Latest Samples

• Updated On April 30, 2024
• Published In IELTS Preparation 💻

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

Table of Contents

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

Crack IELTS in 4 Weeks! IELTS 8 Band Guarantee

Ace IELTS with Band Guarantee. Get access to Live Classes & 100+ Mock Test. Join Free IELTS Masterclass Now!

Nuclear Power Essay IELTS Sample Answer

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

Writing Task 2

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

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

Crack IELTS Exam in first attempt

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

Structure of Essay in Writing Task 2

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

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

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

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

Frequently Asked Questions

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

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

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

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

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

3. How many countries have nuclear power plants?

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

4. Why do people oppose nuclear power?

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

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

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

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

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

Know more about IELTS

Get free speaking practice samples.

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

Get Free Reading Practice Samples

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

Get Free Writing Practice Samples

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

Get Free Listening Practice Samples

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

IELTS Important Information

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

IELTS Test Centre and Dates in India

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

Manisha Angre

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

Related Posts

A Guide on Most Common English Words Used in Daily Life

Top IELTS Tips and Tricks For Best IELTS Scores 2024

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

Trending now.

'Hugely expensive' nuclear a 'Trojan horse' for coal, NSW Liberal says as energy policy rift exposed

A senior NSW Liberal Party figure says nuclear power generation is too expensive and a "Trojan horse" for the coal industry in his state, prompting the former state government to reject it.

Matt Kean, a former NSW treasurer and energy minister, told the ABC's Q+A on Monday that nuclear failed his assessment on cost and supply, comments which put him at odds with federal colleagues pushing the technology.

On the program, he asked: "Is it going to drive down electricity bills? Is it going to ensure the system remains reliable? Is it going to set us up for a more prosperous future?

"On all of those three questions, nuclear did not meet the threshold for us in New South Wales."

The comments expose a rift in the party on the issue, with federal leader Peter Dutton signalling nuclear will be a central plank in the opposition's energy policy.

On Sunday, shadow treasurer Angus Taylor told the ABC's Insiders that nuclear energy production was capable of delivering a return on government investment.

But multiple state Liberal figures have argued against removing bans on nuclear mining and nuclear enrichment facilities.

A fortnight ago, NSW opposition leader Mark Speakman told Q+A that investing in nuclear energy was not a path to lowering costs or securing electricity supply in the short term.

"We can't wait for nuclear," he said.

"We should be going ahead with our electricity road map, which will have heavy reliance on renewables."

'Trojan horse for coal'

On Monday, Mr Kean described nuclear as "hugely costly" and a front for those against renewable energy.

"As we looked more into it, we found nuclear was a Trojan horse for the coal industry, wanting to keep coal going, and it denied transition to an industry that allowed lower bills," he said.

Mr Kean, now serving as a shadow minister for health, says federal Liberal policy "is a matter for them", but "I think they need to explain" the viability of nuclear power.

"In New South Wales, there were three tests we applied for our energy policy and nuclear did not meet those tests," he said.

Mr Kean has long been a champion of renewable alternatives like solar and wind power, often putting him at odds with some in the party.

Last month, he quit Coalition for Conservation , a group he launched with other conservatives to promote action on climate change, when he says it became "singularly focused on nuclear energy".

Labor divisions over gas

The Labor Party also exposed divisions last week over energy after the federal government launched a new gas policy backing domestic production until at least 2050.

MPs told the ABC they were "blindsided" by the policy.

"We cannot draw out our reliance on fossil fuels any longer than is necessary," Ged Kearney, an assistant minister, said.

Mr Kean said gas has "an important role to play".

"But this announcement doesn't seem to have anything to do with transitioning to a net-zero economy and seems to have everything to do with placating the gas industry and propping up Jim Chalmers's budget," he said.

On Q+A, Mr Kean joined independent MP Allegra Spender and key crossbench Senator David Pocock in calling for miners to better contribute to the country's wealth.

"This is the right thing to do and I think it's up to us as Australians to stand up and say, 'we want this'," Ms Spender said.

"I think we need to be more brave and we need to stand up because Australians are asking us to do this."

Mr Kean said the federal government should "incentivise the mining industry to invest in Australia".

"However, when the profits go through the roof because of commodity shocks and stuff like that, the people of Australia should benefit from that," he said.

"That's why we need a tax system that incentivises investment but rewards the people of this country."

Watch the full episode of Q+A on ABC iview .

• X (formerly Twitter)
• Federal Government
• Government and Politics

• Enter-To-Win
• Classifieds

• >>.print" target="_blank"> -->
• Subscriber Services
• Community Events
• Dogs for Adoption
• Environment
• Police Fire
• School Closings
• Transportation
• Sports Home
• Fishing Report
• High School
• A&E Home
• Music, Theater, & Dance
• Peach Weekender
• Restaurant Reviews
• Toledo Magazine
• TV & Radio
• Business Home
• Agriculture
• Development
• Personal Finance
• Real Estate
• Stock Market
• Opinion Home
• Editorial Cartoons
• Keith Burris
• Letters to the Editor
• Submit a Letter
• Health & Well-Being Home
• B Partners Home
• Ability Center
• Arrowhead Behavioral
• Balance & Mobility
• Black Diamond
• Blue Ribbon Hemp
• Bolt Express
• Boyk Law Offices
• Epworth Church
• Fair Housing Center
• Fulton Cty Health Center
• Glass City Academy
• Hammill Medical
• Holiday Gift Guide
• HOPE Toledo
• Imagination Station
• Kids of Character
• Leadership Toledo
• Levis Commons
• Lourdes University
• Lucas County Recorder
• Luther Home of Mercy
• McLaren St. Luke's
• Mighty Earth
• Ministry of Hemp
• Mission Lean
• OSU Engineering
• Oswald Companies
• Phoenix Investors
• ProMedica Medical Mgmt
• Readers' Choice Awards
• Restaurants
• Ronald McDonald House
• Solheim Cup
• Spengler Nathanson
• Toledo Clinic
• Toledo Museum of Art
• Toledo Public Library
• University of Toledo
• UT Physicians
• USA Insulation
• Zenobia Shriners
• Meals with Maddie Home
• ENTER-TO-WIN
• BLADE REWARDS
• BLADE VAULT / REPRINTS
• CLASSIFIEDS
• BLADE HOMES
• SUBSCRIBER GUIDE
• ADVERTISING
• CAREER OPPORTUNITIES

To Talk With Putin or Iran, the West Turns to the World’s Nuclear Inspector

Rafael Grossi took over the International Atomic Energy Agency five years ago at what now seems like a far less fraught moment. With atomic fears everywhere, the inspector is edging toward mediator.

Credit... Hilary Swift for The New York Times

Supported by

• Share full article

By David E. Sanger

David E. Sanger is a White House and national security reporter and the author, with Mary K. Brooks, of “New Cold Wars: China’s Rise, Russia’s Invasion and America’s Struggle to Defend the West,” from which parts of this article are adapted.

• May 15, 2024

Rafael Grossi slipped into Moscow a few weeks ago to meet quietly with the man most Westerners never engage with these days: President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.

Mr. Grossi is the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog, and his purpose was to warn Mr. Putin about the dangers of moving too fast to restart the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, which has been occupied by Russian troops since soon after the invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

But as the two men talked, the conversation veered off into Mr. Putin’s declarations that he was open to a negotiated settlement to the war in Ukraine — but only if President Volodymyr Zelensky was prepared to give up nearly 20 percent of his country.

A few weeks later, Mr. Grossi, an Argentine with a taste for Italian suits, was in Tehran, this time talking to the country’s foreign minister and the head of its civilian nuclear program. At a moment when senior Iranian officials are hinting that new confrontations with Israel may lead them to build a bomb, the Iranians signaled that they, too, were open to a negotiation — suspecting, just as Mr. Putin did, that Mr. Grossi would soon be reporting details of his conversation to the White House.

In an era of new nuclear fears, Mr. Grossi suddenly finds himself at the center of two of the world’s most critical geopolitical standoffs. In Ukraine, one of the six nuclear reactors in the line of fire on the Dnipro River could be hit by artillery and spew radiation. And Iran is on the threshold of becoming a nuclear-armed state.

“I am an inspector, not a mediator,” Mr. Grossi said in an interview this week. “But maybe, in some way, I can be useful around the edges.”

It is not the role he expected when, after a 40-year career in diplomacy that was focused on the nuts and bolts of nonproliferation, he was elected director-general of the agency by the barest majority after the sudden death of his predecessor, Yukiya Amano . That was “before anyone could imagine that Europe’s largest nuclear power plant would be on the front line of a war,” he said in one of a series of conversations at the agency’s headquarters in Vienna, or that Israel and Iran would exchange direct missile attacks for the first time in the 45 years since the Iranian revolution.

Today he has emerged as perhaps the most activist of any of the I.A.E.A.’s leaders since the agency was created in 1957, an outgrowth of President Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” program to spread nuclear power generation around the globe. He has spent most of the past four and a half years hopping the globe, meeting presidents and foreign ministers, pressing for more access to nuclear sites and, often, more authority for an organization that traditionally has had little power to compel compliance.

But along the way, he has been both a receiver and sender of messages, to the point of negotiating what amounts to a no-fire zone immediately around Zaporizhzhia.

Mr. Grossi has his critics, including those who believe he acted beyond his authority when he stationed inspectors full-time in the embattled plant, at a moment when armed Russians with little knowledge of nuclear power were patrolling the control room. He was also betting that neither side would want to attack the plant if it meant risking the lives of United Nations inspectors.

It worked. Jake Sullivan, President Biden’s national security adviser, recalls being so concerned about a nuclear disaster early in the Ukraine conflict that he had the head of the National Nuclear Security Administration on the phone describing what would happen if a reactor was struck and a deadly radioactive cloud wafted across Europe. “It was a terrifying scenario,” he said later.

Two years later, “we are moving into a period of protracted status quo,” Mr. Grossi said. “But from the beginning I decided I could not just sit on the sidelines and wait for the war to end, and then write a report on ‘lessons learned.’ That would have been a shame on this organization.”

On the Battlefield, an Unusual Inspection

The I.A.E.A. was created to do two things: keep nuclear power plants safe and prevent their fuel and waste product from being spirited away to make nuclear weapons. Agency inspectors don’t search for or count the weapons themselves, though many in Congress — and around the world — believe that is its role.

Mr. Grossi was born in 1961, four years after the agency’s creation. He started his career in the Argentine foreign service, but his real ambition was to run the I.A.E.A., with its vast network of highly trained inspectors and responsibility for nuclear safety around the globe. It was a burning ambition.

“I feel like I prepared for this my whole life,” he said in 2020.

Many might wonder why. It is the kind of work that traditionally involves lengthy meetings in bland conference rooms, careful measurements inside nuclear plants and setting up tamper-resistant cameras in key facilities to assure that nuclear material is not diverted to bomb projects.

The work is tense, but usually not especially dangerous.

So it was unusual when Mr. Grossi, exchanging his suit for a bulletproof vest, stepped out of an armored car in southeastern Ukraine in late summer 2022, as shells exploded in the distance. He had rejected an offer from the Russians to escort him in from their territory. As a very visible United Nations official, he did not want to lend any credence to Moscow’s territorial claims.

Instead, he took the hard route, through Ukraine, to a wasteland littered with mines and destroyed vehicles. As he neared the plant a Ukrainian guard stopped him, saying he could not go further, and was unimpressed with the fact that Mr. Zelensky himself had blessed the mission.

But after hours of arguments, Mr. Grossi ignored the guard and proceeded anyway, inspecting the plant and leaving a team of inspectors behind to put all but one of its reactors into cold shutdown.

On a rotation, small teams of U.N. inspectors have remained there every day since.

It was the kind of intervention the agency had never made before. But Mr. Grossi said the situation required an aggressive approach. Europe’s largest nuclear complex “sits on the front line,” Mr. Grossi said.

“Not near, or in the vicinity,” he emphasized. “ On the front line.”

In St. Petersburg, a Meeting With Putin

A month after that first visit to the plant, Mr. Grossi traveled to St. Petersburg to meet directly with Mr. Putin, planning to make his case that if the continued shelling took out cooling systems or other key facilities, Zaporizhzhia would be remembered as the Putin-triggered Chernobyl. To drive home the point, he wanted to remind Mr. Putin that, given the prevailing winds, there was a good chance that the radioactive cloud would spread over parts of Russia.

They met at a palace near the city, where Mr. Putin had risen through the political ranks. Mr. Putin treated the chief nuclear inspector graciously, and clearly did not want to be seen as obsessed by the war — or even particularly bothered by it.

Once they dispensed with pleasantries, Mr. Grossi got right to the point. I don’t need a complete cease-fire in the region, he recalled telling the Russian leader. He just needed an agreement that Mr. Putin’s troops would not fire on the plant. “He didn’t disagree,” Grossi said a few days later. But he also made no promises.

Mr. Putin, he recalled, didn’t seem confused or angry about what had happened to his humiliated forces in Ukraine, or that his plan to take the whole country had collapsed. Instead, Mr. Grossi noted, the Russian leader was focused on the plant. He knew how many reactors there were and he knew where the backup power supplies were located. It was as if he had prepared for the meeting by memorizing a map of the facilities. “He knew every detail,” Mr. Grossi said. “ It was sort of remarkable.”

For Mr. Putin, Zaporizhzhia was not just a war trophy. It was a key part of his plan to exercise control over all of Ukraine, and help intimidate or blackmail much of Europe.

When Mr. Grossi met Mr. Putin again, in Moscow earlier this spring, he found the Russian leader in a good mood. He was full of plans to restart the plant — and thus assert Russian control over the region, which Russia claims it has now annexed. Mr. Grossi tried to talk him out of taking the action, given the “fragility of the situation.” But Mr. Putin said the Russians were “definitely going to restart.”

Then the conversation drifted into whether there could be a negotiated settlement to the war. Mr. Putin knew that whatever he said would be conveyed to Washington. “I think it is extremely regrettable,” Mr. Grossi said a few days later, “that I am the only one talking to both” Russia and the United States.

In Iran, an Old Challenge Revived

Dealing with Iran’s leadership has been even more delicate, and in many ways more vexing, than sparring with Mr. Putin. Two years ago, not long after the I.A.E.A. board passed a resolution condemning Tehran’s government for failing to answer the agency’s questions about suspected nuclear activity, the Iranians began dismantling cameras at key fuel-production facilities.

At the time, Mr. Grossi said that if the cameras were out of action for six months or so, he would not be able to offer assurances that fuel had not been diverted to other projects — including weapons projects. That was 18 months ago and since then, the Iranian parliament has passed a law banning some forms of cooperation with agency inspectors. Meanwhile, the country is steadily enriching uranium to 60 percent purity — perilously close to what is needed to produce a bomb.

Mr. Grossi has also been barred from visiting a vast new centrifuge plant that Iran is building in Natanz, more than 1,200 feet below the desert surface, some experts estimate. Tehran says it is trying to assure that the new facility cannot be bombed by Israel or the United States, and it insists that until it puts nuclear material into the plant, the I.A.E.A. has no right to inspect it.

Last week, Mr. Grossi was in Tehran to take up all these issues with the foreign minister, Hossein Amir Abdollahian, and with the head of Iran’s atomic energy agency. It was just weeks since Iran and Israel had exchanged direct missile attacks, but Mr. Grossi did not detect any immediate decisions to speed up the nuclear program in response.

Instead, Iranian officials seemed pleased that they were being taken seriously as a nuclear and a missile power in the region, increasingly on par with Israel — which already has a small nuclear arsenal of its own, though one it does not officially acknowledge.

There was some discussion of what it would take to revive the 2015 nuclear deal that Iran signed with the Obama administration, though Biden administration officials say the situation has now changed so dramatically that an entirely new deal would be required.

“I suspect,’’ Mr. Grossi said this week, “I will be back in Tehran frequently.”

David E. Sanger covers the Biden administration and national security. He has been a Times journalist for more than four decades and has written several books on challenges to American national security. More about David E. Sanger

Our Coverage of the War in Ukraine

News and Analysis

Ukraine asked the Biden administration to provide more intelligence  on the position of Russian forces and military targets inside Russia, according to U.S. and Ukrainian officials.

President Volodymyr Zelensky signed into law a bill allowing some Ukrainian convicts to serve  in the country’s military in exchange for the possibility of parole at the end of their service, a move that highlights Kyiv’s desperate attempts to replenish its forces.

NATO allies are inching closer to sending troops into Ukraine to train Ukrainian forces . The move would be another blurring of a previous red line and could draw the United States and Europe more directly into the war.

World’s Nuclear Inspector: Rafael Grossi took over the International Atomic Energy Agency five years ago at what now seems like a far less fraught moment. With atomic fears everywhere, the inspector is edging toward mediator .

Frozen Russian Assets: As much as $300 billion in frozen Russian assets is piling up profits and interest income by the day. Now, Ukraine’s allies are considering how to use those gains to aid Kyiv .

Rebuilding Ukrainian Villages: The people of the Kherson region have slowly rebuilt their livelihoods since Ukraine’s military forced out Russian troops. Now they are bracing for another Russian attack .

How We Verify Our Reporting

Our team of visual journalists analyzes satellite images, photographs , videos and radio transmissions  to independently confirm troop movements and other details.

We monitor and authenticate reports on social media, corroborating these with eyewitness accounts and interviews. Read more about our reporting efforts .

Advertisement