against nuclear energy essay

Take Action
Other Ways to Give
Social Justice

Green Living

For Green Businesses
Green American Magazine

10 Reasons to Oppose Nuclear Energy

Image: nuclear energy plant smokestacks.

Green America is active in addressing the climate crisis by transitioning the US electricity mix away from its heavy emphasis on coal-fired and natural gas power. But all of that work will be wasted if we transition from fossil fuels to an equally dangerous source – nuclear energy. Nuclear fission power is not a climate solution. It may produce lower-carbon energy, but this energy comes with a great deal of risk.

Solar power, wind power, geothermal power, hybrid and electric cars, and aggressive energy efficiency are climate solutions that are safer, cheaper, faster, more secure, and less wasteful than nuclear power. Our country needs a massive influx of investment in these solutions if we are to avoid the worst consequences of climate change, enjoy energy security, jump-start our economy, create jobs, and work to lead the world in development of clean energy.

Currently there are 444 nuclear fission power plants in 30 countries worldwide, with another 63 plants potentially under construction. Those plants should not be built for the following reasons:

Ten Strikes Against Nuclear Energy

1. nuclear waste:.

The waste generated by nuclear reactors remains radioactive for tens to hundreds of thousands of years (1). Currently, there are no long-term storage solutions for radioactive waste, and most is stored in temporary, above-ground facilities. These facilities are running out of storage space, so the nuclear industry is turning to other types of storage that are more costly and potentially less safe (2).

2. Nuclear proliferation:

There is great concern that the development of nuclear energy programs increases the likelihood of proliferation of nuclear weapons. As nuclear fuel and technologies become globally available, the risk of these falling into the wrong hands is increasingly present. To avoid weapons proliferation, it is important that countries with high levels of corruption and instability be discouraged from creating nuclear programs, and the US should be a leader in nonproliferation by not pushing for more nuclear power at home (3).

3. National security

Nuclear power plants are a potential target for terrorist operations. An attack could cause major explosions, putting population centers at risk, as well as ejecting dangerous radioactive material into the atmosphere and surrounding region. Nuclear research facilities, uranium enrichment plants, and uranium mines are also potentially at risk for attacks that could cause widespread contamination with radioactive material (9).

4. Accidents

In addition to the risks posed by terrorist attacks, human error and natural disasters can lead to dangerous and costly accidents. The 1986 Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine led to the deaths of 30 employees in the initial explosion and has has had a variety of negative health effects on thousands across Russia and Eastern Europe. A massive tsunami bypassed the safety mechanisms of several power plants in 2011, causing three nuclear meltdowns at a power plant in Fukushima, Japan, resulting in the release of radioactive materials into the surrounding area. In both disasters, hundreds of thousands were relocated, millions of dollars spent, and the radiation-related deaths are being evaluated to this day. Cancer rates among populations living in proximity to Chernobyl and Fukushima, especially among children, rose significantly in the years after the accidents (4)(5).

5. Cancer risk

In addition to the significant risk of cancer associated with fallout from nuclear disasters, studies also show increased risk for those who reside near a nuclear power plant, especially for childhood cancers such as leukemia (6)(7)(8). Workers in the nuclear industry are also exposed to higher than normal levels of radiation, and as a result are at a higher risk of death from cancer (10).

6. Energy production

The 444 nuclear power plants currently in existence provide about 11% of the world’s energy (11). Studies show that in order to meet current and future energy needs, the nuclear sector would have to scale up to around 14,500 plants. Uranium, the fuel for nuclear reactors, is energy-intensive to mine, and deposits discovered in the future are likely to be harder to get to to. As a result, much of the net energy created would be offset by the energy input required to build and decommission plants and to mine and process uranium ore. The same is true for any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions brought about by switching from coal to nuclear (12).

7. Not enough sites

Scaling up to 14,500 nuclear plants isn’t possible simply due to the limitation of feasible sites. Nuclear plants need to be located near a source of water for cooling, and there aren’t enough locations in the world that are safe from droughts, flooding, hurricanes, earthquakes, or other potential disasters that could trigger a nuclear accident. The increase in extreme weather events predicted by climate models only compounds this risk.

Unlike renewables, which are now the cheapest energy sources, nuclear costs are on the rise, and many plants are being shut down or in danger of being shut down for economic reasons. Initial capital costs, fuel, and maintenance costs are much higher for nuclear plants than wind and solar, and nuclear projects tend to suffer cost overruns and construction delays. The price of renewable energy has fallen significantly over the past decade, and it projected to continue to fall (14).

9. Competition with renewables

Investment in nuclear plants, security, mining infrastructure, etc. draws funding away from investment in cleaner sources such as wind, solar, and geothermal. Financing for renewable energy is already scarce, and increasing nuclear capacity will only add to the competition for funding.

10. Energy dependence of poor countries

Going down the nuclear route would mean that poor countries, that don't have the financial resources to invest in and develop nuclear power, would become reliant on rich, technologically advanced nations. Alternatively, poor nations without experience in the building and maintaining of nuclear plants may decide to build them anyway. Countries with a history of nuclear power use have learned the importance of regulation, oversight, and investment in safety when it comes to nuclear. Dr. Peter Bradford of Vermont Law, a former member of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, writes, "A world more reliant on nuclear power would involve many plants in countries that have little experience with nuclear energy, no regulatory background in the field and some questionable records on quality control, safety and corruption." (15). The U.S. should lead by example and encourage poor countries to invest in safe energy technology.

Please also see the piece Nuclear Energy is not a Climate Solution

(1) Bruno, J., and R. C. Ewing. "Spent Nuclear Fuel." Elements 2.6 (2006): 343-49

(2) United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Dry Cask Storage”. USNRC (2016)

(3) Miller, Steven E., and Scott D. Sagan. "Nuclear Power without Nuclear Proliferation?" Daedalus 138.4 (2009): 7-18

(4) Tsuda, Toshihide, Akiko Tokinobu, Eiji Yamamoto, and Etsuji Suzuki. "Thyroid Cancer Detection by Ultrasound Among Residents Ages 18 Years and Younger in Fukushima, Japan." Epidemiology (2016): 316-22.

(5) Astakhova, Larisa N., Lynn R. Anspaugh, Gilbert W. Beebe, André Bouville, Vladimir V. Drozdovitch, Vera Garber, Yuri I. Gavrilin, Valeri T. Khrouch, Arthur V. Kuvshinnikov, Yuri N. Kuzmenkov, Victor P. Minenko, Konstantin V. Moschik, Alexander S. Nalivko, Jacob Robbins, Elena V. Shemiakina, Sergei Shinkarev, Svetlana I. Tochitskaya, Myron A. Waclawiw, and Andre Bouville. "Chernobyl-Related Thyroid Cancer in Children of Belarus: A Case-Control Study." Radiation Research 150.3 (1998): 349

(6) Schmitz-Feuerhake I, Dannheim B, Heimers A, et al. Leukemia in the proximity of a boiling-water nuclear reactor: Evidence of population exposure by chromosome studies and environmental radioactivity. Environmental Health Perspectives 105 (1997): 1499-1504

(7) Spix C, Schmiedel S, Kaatsch P, Schulze-Rath R, Blettner M. "Case–control study on childhood cancer in the vicinity of nuclear power plants in Germany 1980–2003." European Journal of Cancer 44.2 (2008): 275–284

(8) Baker PJ, Hoel DG. "Meta-analysis of standardized incidence and mortality rates of childhood leukemia in proximity to nuclear facilities." European Journal of Cancer Care 16.4 (2007):355–363

(9) Ferguson, Charles D., and Frank A. Settle. "The Future of Nuclear Power in the United States." Federation of American Scientists (2012)

(10) Richardson, DB, Elisabeth Cardis, Robert Daniels, Michael Gillies, Jacqueline A O’Hagan, Ghassan B Hamra, Richard Haylock, Dominique Laurier, Klervi Leuraud, Monika Moissonnier, Mary K Schubauer-Berigan, Isabelle Thierry-Chef, Ausrele Kesminiene. "Risk of Cancer from Occupational Exposure to Ionising Radiation: Retrospective Cohort Study of Workers in France, the United Kingdom, and the United States" BMJ (2015)

(11) "World Statistics." nei.org. Nuclear Energy Institute.,Web. 04 Oct. 2016.

(12) Pearce, Joshua M. "Thermodynamic Limitations to Nuclear Energy Deployment as a Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Technology." International Journal of Nuclear Governance , Economy and Ecology 2.1 (2008): 113.

(13) "World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2014." World Nuclear Industry Status Report . World Nuclear Industry, July 2014. Web. 4 Oct. 2016.

(14) "Lazard's Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis - Version 9.0. " Lazard.com . Lazard. 2015.

(15) Lynas, Mark, and Peter Bradford. "Should the World Increase Its Reliance on Nuclear Energy?" The Wall Street Journal . Dow Jones & Company, 08 Oct. 2012. Web. 10 Jan. 2017.

Related News

What is the FABRIC Act?

There has been a steady rise in pesticide use across all cocoa producing countries from Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire to Indonesia.

Beyond lead: toxins in toys, investing in green energy, 10 ways to build community, economic activism is what makes our work powerful. you make our work possible, donate to our matching gift challenge.

News & Media
Get Updates
Order our Magazine
Jobs & Internships
Membership FAQs
Privacy Policy
Center for Sustainability Solutions
Green Business Network
Green Pages

1612 K Street NW, Suite 1000, Washington DC 20006

Phone: (800) 584-7336 Tax ID/EIN: 52-1660746

Terms and Conditions
Site Credits

Connect With Us

Share full article

Supported by

Farhad Manjoo

Nuclear Power Still Doesn’t Make Much Sense

By Farhad Manjoo

Opinion Columnist

Whenever I write about the plummeting costs and growing capabilities of wind power, solar power and batteries, I’m usually met with a barrage of radioactive responses from the internet’s overheated nuclear reactors — social-media-savvy environmental activists who insist that nuclear power should play a leading role in the world’s transition away from fossil fuels.

The sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow, they point out, but nuclear power plants produce carbon-free energy day and night, rain or shine. Their argument that nuclear power is unfairly maligned has been bolstered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine; Germany, which shut down many of its nuclear plants in the past decade while building natural gas pipelines to Russia , now faces a deep energy crunch. It has had to burn more coal to keep the lights on.

I’m not a never-nuke, but I’ve had my doubts about atomic power. Still, I wanted to keep an open mind. So last week I flew to London to attend the World Nuclear Symposium , an annual conference put on by the nuclear industry’s global trade group, the World Nuclear Association. I heard an earful from industry executives, analysts, lobbyists and government officials who are giddy about nuclear power’s prospects for powering the world of tomorrow.

I’ll give the pronuclear folks this: They do make a good case that nuclear has gotten a too-bad rap . Nuclear power is relatively safe, reliable and clean; compared to the planetary destruction wrought by fossil fuels, nuclear power looks like a panacea. Patrick Fragman, the C.E.O. of the large American nuclear manufacturer Westinghouse, said his industry had to “unwind decades of brainwashing of public opinion in many countries” about the dangers of nuclear power.

But the argument for significantly ramping up the production of nuclear power — especially in places where overall energy consumption isn’t growing, like in the United States and Europe — falls short. That’s because the nuclear industry has long been hobbled by two problems that its boosters can’t really wish away: Nuclear is far slower to build than most other forms of power, and it’s far more expensive, too. And now there is a third problem on the horizon. As battery technology improves and the price of electricity storage plummets, nuclear may be way too late, too — with much of its value eclipsed by cheaper, faster and more flexible renewable power technologies.

In order to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels — the goal set in the Paris Agreement to avert the worst effects of global warming — experts say that we need to reduce global carbon dioxide emissions to a net of zero by 2050 . Responding to such a climate emergency with nuclear power is like calling on a sloth to put out a house fire. The 63 nuclear reactors that went into service around the world between 2011 and 2020 took an average of around 10 years to build. By comparison, solar and wind farms can be built in months; in 2020 and 2021 alone, the world added 464 gigawatts of wind and solar power-generation capacity, which is more power than can be generated by all the nuclear plants operating in the world today .

The nuclear industry has been notorious for cost overruns and delays. The only nuclear reactors under construction in the United States — a Westinghouse project at the Plant Vogtle power station in Georgia — were started in 2013 and projected to be finished in 2017 . They are still not done — and an initial budget of $14 billion has more than doubled to over $28 billion. In 2017, utilities in South Carolina canceled two reactors midway through construction after cost projections ballooned from $11.5 billion to more than $25 billion.

And after all this build time, you get a very expensive source of energy. In a common energy industry measure known as “levelized cost,” nuclear’s minimum price is about $131 per megawatt-hour , which is at least twice the price of natural gas and coal, and four times the cost of utility-scale solar and onshore wind power installations. And the high price of nuclear power doesn’t include its extraneous costs, such as the staggering price of disasters. Cleanup and other costs for the 2011 Fukushima disaster, caused by an earthquake and a tsunami off the Japanese coast, may approach a trillion dollars .

Nuclear boosters say that these problems can be solved. There was much talk at the conference about streamlining regulations and reducing costs and build times by constructing smaller, more advanced and less disaster-prone reactors. Once we start building more, the industry will start seeing the benefits of scale and efficiency, several industry insiders told me.

“The best way to become good at building nuclear power plants is to build nuclear power plants,” said Sama Bilbao y Léon, the director general of the World Nuclear Association. John Kotek, an executive at the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry’s American trade group, pointed out that the U.S. Navy builds nuclear-powered submarines and aircraft carriers in a matter of years — suggesting that quick build times for small reactors could be doable.

Perhaps. But the much-vaunted small reactors are still novel, mainly untested technology. In another era, it may have been worth taking a gamble on these systems in order to avert climate disaster.

But Mark Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford and a longtime proponent of renewable energy, told me that such a bet makes less sense today, when wind and solar power keep getting better — because any new money put in nuclear is money you aren’t spending on renewable projects that could lower emissions immediately.

There’s an opportunity cost “of waiting around for a nuclear reactor to be built when you could have spent that money on wind or solar and got rid of emissions much faster,” Jacobson said. This cost may be particularly onerous when you consider the rapid advancement in battery technology, which can help address the main shortcoming of renewable power: its intermittency. The price of lithium-ion batteries has dropped by about 97 percent since they were introduced in 1991, and prices are projected to keep falling .

Jacobson is one of several researchers who have argued that such advances will render nuclear power essentially obsolete. As we build more renewable energy systems — onshore and offshore wind, solar power everywhere — and improve technologies to store energy (through batteries and other ideas ), wind and solar can meet most of our energy needs, says Jacobson. In a 2015 paper, he argued that the world can be powered through renewable energy alone . His findings have been hotly disputed , but other researchers have come to similar conclusions .

On the other hand, the International Energy Agency’s projections for reaching net-zero energy still rely on nuclear. The agency says that nuclear capacity will need to double by 2050, with two-thirds of that growth occurring in developing economies. Still, even with nuclear’s doubling, the I.E.A. says nuclear power will contribute less than 10 percent of global electricity in 2050; over the same period, the agency says renewable generation will grow eightfold, contributing 90 percent of electric power in 2050.

Clearly, then, nuclear’s problems don’t mean we should shut down all nuclear plants; existing plants are quite valuable in our energy mix as we ramp up solar and wind. And in places like China, India and other regions where demand for energy is growing, new nuclear plants may have a big role to play — and if the small, advanced reactors become viable, perhaps we’ll see some of those, too.

But it’s unlikely that nuclear can play anything close to a dominant role; its share of electricity production is quite likely to fall over time.

Which isn’t really a surprise. A quick glance at daily headlines suggests nuclear power is plagued by too many problems for comfort. I landed in London at around the same time that international energy regulators were making emergency plans for maintaining the safety of Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, which had come under shelling from Russian troops. In South Korea, operators of the Kori nuclear power plant were cutting production in anticipation of a massive typhoon. And this summer in France, which gets about 70 percent of its electricity from nuclear power, plant operators had to cut production because hot weather had raised the temperature of river water used to cool the reactors — kind of a big problem on a planet that keeps heating up.

Tyson Slocum, the director of the energy program at the advocacy group Public Citizen, summed up these problems neatly: “Nuclear power has simply been eclipsed,” he said. “It was an incredible zero-emission resource for its day. But for much of the energy system today, that day has long passed.”

Office Hours With Farhad Manjoo

Farhad wants to chat with readers on the phone . If you’re interested in talking to a New York Times columnist about anything that’s on your mind, please fill out this form. Farhad will select a few readers to call.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here's our email: [email protected] .

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram .

Farhad Manjoo became an Opinion columnist for The Times in 2018. Before that, they wrote the State of the Art column. They are the author of “True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society.” @ fmanjoo • Facebook

Take 10% OFF— Expires in h m s Use code save10u during checkout.

Chat with us

Live Chat Talk to a specialist
Self-service options
Search FAQs Fast answers, no waiting
Ultius 101 New client? Click here
Messenger

International support numbers

For reference only, subject to Terms and Fair Use policies.

How it Works

Learn more about us

Future writers
Explore further

Ultius Blog

Sample argumentative essay against the production of nuclear power.

Select network

This sample argumentative essay explores nuclear power production, how it is increasingly growing in number, and issues with safety and health. As one of the hottest debates of our time, there is no shortage of situations to which this type of document apply. Particularly in the academic world, this is a discussion worthy of everything from brief essays to full dissertations .

Advantages and disadvantages of nuclear power

Nuclear power generation does emit relatively low amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2). The emissions of greenhouse gasses and therefore the contribution of nuclear power plants to global warming is therefore relatively little. This technology is readily available; it does not have to be developed first. It is possible to generate a high amount of electrical energy in one single plant. (Rohrer)

Disadvantages

The problem of radioactive waste is still an unsolved one. The waste from nuclear energy, also know as fusion energy , is extremely dangerous and it has to be carefully looked after for several thousand years (10,000 years according to United States Environmental Protection Agency standards). Nuclear power plants, as well as nuclear waste, could be preferred targets for terrorist attacks. No atomic energy plant in the world could withstand an attack similar to 9/11 in New York. Such a terrorist act would have catastrophic effects for the whole world.

During the operation of nuclear power plants, radioactive waste is produced, which in turn can be used for the production of nuclear weapons. In addition, the same know-how used to design nuclear power plants can to a certain extent be used to build nuclear weapons (nuclear proliferation). (Rohrer) For all intents and purposes, the argument against the production of nuclear power seems to be the strongest.

Meeting the world’s energy needs

Nuclear energy does not contribute much to the world’s overall energy needs . This is one argument against the production of nuclear powers.

In fact, “Electricity generation uses 40% of the world's primary energy. Nuclear provides 14% of world electricity” (World Nuclear Association).

With about 160 nuclear power resources in the United States and approximately 440 commercial nuclear power reactors globally, there is a lot of information available regarding nuclear energy generation (World Nuclear Association). While most countries do not rely solely on nuclear energy, there are about 13 countries that get about 25% of their electricity by means of nuclear energy (NEI). The top contenders are:

France – 76.3%
Ukraine – 56.5%
Slovakia – 55.9%
Hungary – 52.7%

Nuclear power disasters

Another argument against the production of nuclear power is the risk of horrific nuclear explosions in power plants. In 1986, a nuclear power plant in Europe suffered from an accident that has become known as one of the most devastating in regards to nuclear power activity in world history. The Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant exploded on April 26 when a sudden surge of power occurred during a systems test (The Chernobyl Gallery). Thirty-one people died and countless more were affected by exposure to radioactive substances released in the disaster.

"Nearly 400 million people resided in territories that were contaminated with radioactivity at a level higher than 4 kBq/m2 (0.11 Ci/km2) from April to July 1986. Nearly 5 million people (including, more than 1 million children) still live with dangerous levels of radioactive contamination in Belarus, Ukraine, and European Russia." (The Chernobyl Gallery)

The Mayak Nuclear Facility and the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi disasters

The second most disastrous nuclear disaster in history occurred in 1957. The Mayak Nuclear Facility in Kyshtym, Russia suffered a fate similar to that in the Chernobyl disaster.

"As a result of disregarding basic safety standards, 17,245 workers received radiation overdoses between 1948 and 1958. Dumping of radioactive waste into the nearby river from 1949 to 1952 caused several breakouts of radiation sickness in villages downstream." (Rabl)

There are many more nuclear power production incidents such as the Chernobyl and Kyshtym disasters that have had devastating effects on the environment, the human population, and even entire cities. Most recently, the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi disaster comes to mind. Accidents are rated based on a numbered system called the International Nuclear Events Scale, or INES. Events range from a Level 1, which is considered an Anomaly, to a Level 7, which is a Major Accident (Rogers). Some of the more disastrous incidents that have occurred are as follows:

1952 - Chalk River, Canada - Level 5
1957 - Windscale Pile, UK - Level 5
1979 - Three Mile Island, US - Level 5
1980 - Saint Laurent des Eaux, France - Level 4
1993 - Tomsk, Russia - Level 4
2011 - Fukushima, Japan - Level 5

Nuclear waste's impact on health and safety

The disposal of nuclear waste is yet another argument against the production of nuclear power.

“Nuclear waste is the material that nuclear fuel becomes after it is used in a reactor” (Rogers).

This waste is essentially an isotope of the Uranium Oxide fuel, or UO2, that nuclear reactors are powered by. This substance is highly radioactive and, if not disposed of properly, can leak into the environment, which subsequently can cause irreparable damage to the environment and people coming into contact with it.

The process of nuclear waste disposal is a lengthy process that can take years to mediate. Once the waste is captured, it must never become exposed to the outside world. The most method of disposal is underwater storage until the radiation in the waste decays and it can be moved to concrete tanks.

Keeping on the topic of nuclear waste disposal, the dangers of exposure to nuclear waste are catastrophic. In regards to plants, animals, and humans, exposure to radioactive waste can cause cancer, genetic problems, and death. Which brings to mind the nature and prospects of nuclear fusion- often called the "perfect" source of power - emitting neither radioactive waste nor greenhouse gasses that add to the global warming problem .

But because there is always the possibility of error in nuclear waste production, storage and disposal, there is always the risk that waste is somehow being exposed to the environment. The symptoms of exposure range from the following:

Nausea and vomiting - within 10 minutes to 6 hours;
Headache - within 2 hours to 24 hours;
Dizziness and disorientation - immediately to 1 week;
Hair loss, infections, low blood pressure - immediately to within 1 to 4 weeks. (Mayo Clinic Staff)

With the vast array of symptoms, illnesses, and effects of exposure to nuclear waste, it is easy to see why this is such a strong argument against the production of nuclear power.

Nuclear weapons' impact on the environment

The development and usage of nuclear weapons have become a hot topic of debates and essay assignments in recent years. It has always been, but even more so in the 20th and 21st centuries. Seldom do most people make the connection between nuclear weapons and nuclear power production. It was once deemed that the production of nuclear power for the sole purpose of electricity production. In the 1950s, President Dwight Eisenhower first came to the realization that the two concepts could be connected.

"In 1954 utilities which were to operate commercial nuclear reactors were given further incentive when Congress amended the Atomic Energy Act so that utilities would receive uranium fuel for their reactors from the government in exchange for the plutonium produced in those reactors." (NEIS) 1

As the process of linking nuclear power production and nuclear weapon development has become more evident, so has the fact that the connection is more political than historical. The political and microeconomic aspects of energy production are vast. Because of how little the world relies on nuclear power for energy production, it only makes sense that many countries would instead use nuclear energy solely for the production of nuclear weapons. This leaves this type of energy production in the hands of terrorist-friendly countries and organizations. These entities often camouflage their intentions with “peaceful” nuclear production (NEIS).

Alternative renewable energy sources

As the world’s population continues to grow at exacerbated rates, so does its need for renewable and sustainable energy sources. In years past, nuclear power was a feasible solution to the problem. Yet another argument against the production of nuclear power lay in the fact that there are many more options available. The world has taken notice to the natural energy that lights upon us everyday care of Mother Nature. Sun, wind, and water offer many opportunities at alternative energy sources without the aid of the environmentally detrimental energy that nuclear power provides (World Nuclear Association).

There is a rather large list of potential alternative energy sources that could prove to be healthier and safer options to nuclear power. These options include:

Rivers and hydroelectricity
Wind energy
Solar energy
Ocean energy
Decentralized energy.

(World Nuclear Association)

The problem with these types of energy sources is the act of harnessing them. It makes sense that if the world is willing to accommodate the cost of nuclear power exploration that it would also be willing to harness much safer means of energy production that can be found in natural resources.

The argument against the production of nuclear power is a strong one and one popularly presented in opinion pieces and research papers alike . The production of nuclear power is dangerous and comes with many negative ramifications. Nuclear disasters are tragedies that are unlike any other in history and are unnecessary. The consequences of nuclear waste exposure are immeasurable and create long lasting legacies of destruction, fear, and pain.

Despite efforts from the US Department of Defense to move toward energy efficiency , the correlation between nuclear power production and nuclear weapon promotion will inevitably be the world’s ultimate demise. There are too many other renewable and sustainable energy sources available that nuclear power production should no longer be an option.

The world does not rely on nuclear energy heavily enough for it to be a necessity. The majority of countries that once sought the “peaceful” exploration of nuclear energy production now use it with malicious intent. As politics take precedence in all things global, the protection of the planet and its inhabitants has taken the backseat. The world once survived with nuclear power. Hopefully, we will see those days again.

Works Cited

EIA. "U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis." How Much Electricity Does a Nuclear Power Plant Generate? 3 Dec. 2015. Web. 02 June 2016. http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=104.

Mayo Clinic Staff. "Radiation Sickness." Symptoms. 2016. Web. 03 June 2016. http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/radiation-sickness/basics/symptoms/con-20022901.

NEI. "World Statistics." Nuclear Energy Institute. Web. 02 June 2016. http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/World-Statistics.

Rabl, Thomas. "The Nuclear Disaster of Kyshtym 1957 and the Politics of the Cold War | Environment & Society Portal." The Nuclear Disaster of Kyshtym 1957 and the Politics of the Cold War | Environment & Society Portal. 2012. Web. 03 June 2016. http://www.environmentandsociety.org/arcadia/nuclear-disaster-kyshtym-1957-and-politics-cold-war.

Rogers, Simon. "Nuclear Power Plant Accidents: Listed and Ranked since 1952." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 2011. Web. 03 June 2016. http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/mar/14/nuclear-power-plant-accidents-list-rank.

Rohrer, Jurg. "Time for Change." Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power. 2011. Web. 03 June 2016. http://www.timeforchange.org/pros-and-cons-of-nuclear-power-and-sustainability.

The Chernobyl Gallery. "What Is Chernobyl? | The Chernobyl Gallery." The Chernobyl Gallery What Is Chernobyl Comments. 2013. Web. 03 June 2016. http://chernobylgallery.com/chernobyl-disaster/what-is-chernobyl/.

World Nuclear Association. "Renewable Energy and Electricity." 2016. Web. 03 June 2016. http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/renewable-energy-and-electricity.aspx.

World Nuclear Association. "World Energy Needs and Nuclear Power." May 2016. Web. 02 June 2016. http://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/world-energy-needs-and-nuclear-power.aspx.

https://www.ultius.com/ultius-blog/entry/sample-argumentative-essay-against-the-production-of-nuclear-power.html

Chicago Style

Ultius, Inc. "Sample Argumentative Essay against the Production of Nuclear Power." Ultius | Custom Writing and Editing Services. Ultius Blog, 05 Jul. 2016. https://www.ultius.com/ultius-blog/entry/sample-argumentative-essay-against-the-production-of-nuclear-power.html

Copied to clipboard

Click here for more help with MLA citations.

Ultius, Inc. (2016, July 05). Sample Argumentative Essay against the Production of Nuclear Power. Retrieved from Ultius | Custom Writing and Editing Services, https://www.ultius.com/ultius-blog/entry/sample-argumentative-essay-against-the-production-of-nuclear-power.html

Click here for more help with APA citations.

Ultius, Inc. "Sample Argumentative Essay against the Production of Nuclear Power." Ultius | Custom Writing and Editing Services. July 05, 2016 https://www.ultius.com/ultius-blog/entry/sample-argumentative-essay-against-the-production-of-nuclear-power.html.

Click here for more help with CMS citations.

Click here for more help with Turabian citations.

Ultius is the trusted provider of content solutions and matches customers with highly qualified writers for sample writing, academic editing, and business writing.

Tested Daily

Click to Verify

About The Author

This post was written by Ultius.

Writer Options
Custom Writing
Business Documents
Support Desk
+1-800-405-2972
Submit bug report
A+ BBB Rating!

Ultius is the trusted provider of content solutions for consumers around the world. Connect with great American writers and get 24/7 support.

Refund & Cancellation Policy

Free Money For College!

Yeah. You read that right —We're giving away free scholarship money! Our next drawing will be held soon.

Our next winner will receive over $500 in funds. Funds can be used for tuition, books, housing, and/or other school expenses. Apply today for your chance to win!

* We will never share your email with third party advertisers or send you spam.

** By providing my email address, I am consenting to reasonable communications from Ultius regarding the promotion.

Past winner

Name Samantha M.
From Pepperdine University '22
Studies Psychology
Won $2,000.00
Award SEED Scholarship
Awarded Sep. 5, 2018

Thanks for filling that out.

Check your inbox for an email about the scholarship and how to apply.

Nuclear energy cannot lead the global energy transition

With nuclear energy, when things go wrong, they go very, very wrong.

On March 11, 2011, a magnitude 9 earthquake and a subsequent 15-metre tsunami struck Japan, which triggered a nuclear disaster at TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. Three of the six plant’s reactors were affected, resulting in meltdowns and the release of a significant amount of radioactive material into the environment.

Today, 13 years later, Japan is still experiencing the impacts of this disaster. Immediately after the earthquake struck, more than 160,000 people were evacuated. Of them, nearly 29,000 still remain displaced.

Keep reading

Swiss women win landmark case on climate change in european court, photos: greek valley that became a lake stirs drought debate, ‘on borrowed time’: world marks new global heat record in march, climate activist greta thunberg detained twice at dutch protest.

Disastrous health effects due to exposure to radioactivity are still a serious concern for many, and environmental impacts on land, water, agriculture, and fisheries are still visible. The cost of the damage, including victim compensation, has been astronomical; $7bn has been spent annually since 2011, and work continues.

Last year, Japan’s plan to start releasing more than a million tonnes of treated wastewater into the Pacific Ocean sparked anxiety and anger, including among community members who rely on fishing for their livelihoods, from Fukushima to Fiji.

Yet, Japan and the rest of the world appear not to have learned much from this devastating experience. On March 21, Belgium hosted the first Nuclear Energy Summit attended by high-level officials from across the globe, including Japanese Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs Masahiro Komura. The event was meant to promote the development, expansion and funding of nuclear energy research and projects.

The summit came after more than 20 countries, including Japan, announced plans to triple nuclear energy capacity by 2050 at last year’s UN Climate Change Conference (COP28).

All of these developments go against growing evidence that nuclear energy is not an efficient and safe option for the energy transition away from fossil fuels.

Despite advancements in waste-storage technology, no foolproof method for handling nuclear waste has been devised and implemented yet. As nuclear power plants continue to create radioactive waste, the potential for leakage, accidents, and diversion to nuclear weapons still presents significant environmental, public health, and security risks.

Nuclear power is also the slowest low-carbon energy to deploy, is very costly and has the least impact in the short, medium and long term on decarbonising the energy mix. The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report pointed out that nuclear energy’s potential and cost-effectiveness of emission reduction by 2030 was much smaller than that of solar and wind energy.

Large-scale energy technologies like nuclear power plants also require billions of dollars upfront, and take a decade to build due to stricter safety regulations. Even the deployment of small modular reactors (SMR) has a high price tag. Late last year, a flagship project by NuScale funded by the US government to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars had to be abandoned due to rising costs.

In addition to that, according to a report released by Greenpeace in 2023, even in the most favourable scenario and with an equal investment amount, by 2050, the installation of a wind and solar power infrastructure would produce three times more cumulative electricity and emit four times less cumulative CO2 compared to a water nuclear reactor in the same period.

And the climate crisis is not just about CO2 emissions. It is about a whole range of environmental justice and democracy issues that need to be considered. And nuclear energy does not have a stellar record in this regard.

For instance, uranium mining – the initial step in nuclear energy production – has been linked to habitat destruction, soil and water contamination, and adverse health effects for communities near mining sites. The extraction and processing of uranium require vast amounts of energy, often derived from nonrenewable sources, further compromising the environmental credentials of nuclear power.

Nuclear energy also uses centralised technology, governance, and decision-making processes, concentrating the distribution of power in the hands of the few.

For an equitable energy transition , energy solutions need not only to be safe, but justly sourced and fairly implemented. While nuclear power plants require kilometres of pipelines, long-distance planning, and centralised management, the manufacturing and installation of solar panels and wind turbines is becoming more and more energy efficient and easier to deploy.

If implemented correctly, regulation and recycling programnes can address critical materials and end-of-life disposal concerns. Community-based solar and wind projects can create new jobs, stimulate local economies, and empower communities to take control of their energy future as opposed to contributing more money to the trillion-dollar fossil fuel industry.

Although the 2011 disaster in Fukushima may seem like a distant past, its effects today on the health of its environment, people and community are reminders that we must not be dangerously distracted with the so-called promises of nuclear energy.

We must not transition from one broken system to another.

Wealthy countries have an ethical historical responsibility to support global finance reform and provide ample funding for renewable energy in lower-income countries. To keep our world safe and fair, not only do we need to tax and phase out fossil fuels immediately, but it is essential that we power up with renewable energy, such as wind and solar, fast, widely, and equitably.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

The importance of storytelling in fighting climate change

In a webinar on April 19, we'll explore how climate organizations are currently using storytelling in their work, the impacts of these stories, and lessons learned from other movements.

Knowledge is power

Stay in the know about climate impacts and solutions. Subscribe to our weekly newsletter.

By clicking submit, you agree to share your email address with the site owner and Mailchimp to receive emails from the site owner. Use the unsubscribe link in those emails to opt out at any time.

Yale Climate Connections

Coming to grips with pros and cons of more nuclear power

SueEllen Campbell

SueEllen Campbell created and for over a decade curated the website "100 Views of Climate Change," a multidisciplinary collection of pieces accessible to interested non-specialists. She is especially interested... More by SueEllen Campbell

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.

Nuclear Commercial Power Reactors, 1958-2014

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.

chinese nuclear power plant construction

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

Terms and Conditions
Brookings Privacy Policy

Skip to main content
Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Why even environmentalists are supporting nuclear power today

Uri Berliner

The Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant was scheduled to be shuttered in 2025. But California Governor Gavin Newsom now wants to expand its lifespan. Michael Macor/The San Francisco Chronicle via Getty Images hide caption

The Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant was scheduled to be shuttered in 2025. But California Governor Gavin Newsom now wants to expand its lifespan.

Resistance to nuclear power is starting to ebb around the world with support from a surprising group: environmentalists.

This change of heart spans the globe, and is being prompted by climate change, unreliable electrical grids and fears about national security in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

In California, the state's last remaining power plant — Diablo Canyon, situated on the Pacific Coast between San Francisco and Los Angeles — long scheduled to be scrapped, may now remain open. Governor Gavin Newsom, a longtime opponent of the plant, is seeking to extend its lifespan through at least 2029.

It's a remarkable turnaround in a state where anti-nuclear activists and progressive Democratic lawmakers have fought with great success to rid the state of nuclear power.

Last week, Japan's prime minister said the country is restarting idled nuclear plants and considering building new ones. This is a sharp reversal for the country that largely abandoned nuclear after the tsunami-led disaster at the Fukushima plant in 2011.

Germany pulled the plug on nuclear after Fukushima, too. But this summer there's been an intense debate in Germany over whether to restart three plants in response to the country's severe energy crisis prompted by the Russia-Ukraine war.

Data centers, backbone of the digital economy, face water scarcity and climate risk

Backers of nuclear power note that it is a source of emissions-free reliable power. And they believe their case has been strengthened due to the threat of climate change and the need to stabilize unreliable electrical grids.

In California the moment of truth came in 2020 when residents had to endure a series of rolling power outages, said Michael Shellenberger, an environmentalist and author who supports nuclear.

"The state is constantly on the verge of blackouts," Shellenberger said.

Environmentalists for nuclear power

The turnabout on Diablo Canyon is noteworthy because California is the birthplace of America's anti-nuclear movement. The case against nuclear power stems primarily from fears about nuclear waste and potential accidents as well as its association with nuclear weapons.

The two operating generators at Diablo Canyon had been set to shut down by 2025. And for years the momentum to shutter the plant seemed inevitable, with anti-nuclear sentiment in California remaining high. Even the utility that operates Diablo Canyon, PG&E, wanted to pull the plug.

Why suppressing wildfires may be making the Western fire crisis worse

So it is striking that the most vehement arguments to keep Diablo Canyon running haven't come the nuclear industry. Instead, they have been put forward by a most unlikely collection of pro-nuclear advocates.

It seemed quixotic, even hopeless , in 2016, when Shellenberger along with the pioneering climate scientist James Hansen and Stewart Brand, founder of the crunchy Whole Earth Catalog , began advocating to save Diablo Canyon.

"We were basically excluded from polite conversation for even talking about keeping the plant open," recalled Shellenberger. Promoting nuclear as an important tool in fighting climate change would get him dismissed by fellow environmentalists as a conspiracy theorist or, falsely, as a corporate shill, he added.

Two moms — a scientist and an engineer — join hands to save nuclear

At the same time, Kristin Zaitz and Heather Hoff were forming an advocacy group called Mothers for Nuclear , a local grassroots effort to keep Diablo Canyon operating. To say their views were not widely embraced would be a serious understatement.

"We felt like we were on an island all by ourselves," said Zaitz. "We had people wishing that we would die, wishing we would get cancer...making weird videos about us that made me feel like, am I unsafe, is my family unsafe?"

Kristin Zaitz, left, and Heather Hoff of Mothers for Nuclear and Kristin's daughter Sasha make their views clear in front of California's state house. Viridiana Gutiérrez Urseguia hide caption

Kristin Zaitz, left, and Heather Hoff of Mothers for Nuclear and Kristin's daughter Sasha make their views clear in front of California's state house.

In many ways Zaitz and Hoff are also the most unlikely of nuclear advocates. They both describe themselves as eco-friendly liberals, moms concerned about preserving wild spaces, recycling and climate change.

At Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, not far from Diablo Canyon, they both studied engineering and both took jobs at the plant – Hoff is a materials scientist and Zaitz is a civil engineer – despite misgivings about nuclear energy.

Nuclear power is gaining support after years of decline. But old hurdles remain

"I was nervous about nuclear before I started working there," said Hoff. "And it took a lot of years to change my mind...and eventually realize that nuclear really aligned with my environmental and humanitarian goals."

To promote those goals Zaitz and Hoff talk to community groups and professional societies, they promote nuclear power on social media and generate conversations walking around their hometowns wearing t-shirts that say, "Why nuclear? Ask me."

They see their role as going beyond just facts to make an emotional connection to people suspicious of nuclear, especially fellow environmentalists.

"It's the largest source of carbon free electricity in the United States," said Zaitz. "Most people don't know that it produces a lot of electricity on a relatively tiny land footprint."

Overcoming the stigma of "The Simpsons"

It's only reasonable to push back and say it's not surprising that Zaitz and Hoff support Diablo Canyon – after all, they work there. And, yes, they acknowledge they want to keep their jobs. But they say with their skills and experience they could find similar jobs elsewhere.

"This is how we feel we can contribute as environmentalists," said Hoff of their advocacy.

A lot of their work involves trying to combat a longstanding stigma against nuclear power, especially in popular culture, where its image is abysmal. Like on "The Simpsons," where Homer Simpson works in a slipshod plant and nuclear waste is dumped in a children's playground.

"We need to point people to accurate information so they can make up their own minds," said Zaitz.

Nuclear power has a safer track record than coal or natural gas

They don't shy away from the fact that for many people nuclear power is scary. "We say we were scared too," said Hoff. "It's okay to be scared. But that doesn't mean it's dangerous."

In terms of deaths from accidents or pollution, nuclear is far safer than coal or natural gas - the largest sources of electricity in the U.S.

Diablo Canyon got a boost last year when researchers from MIT and Stanford said keeping the plant open until 2035 would cut carbon emissions from California's power sector by more than 10% and save $2.6 billion in electricity costs.

Kristin Zaitz prepares to perform a concrete inspection at Diablo Canyon. Thomas Voss hide caption

Kristin Zaitz prepares to perform a concrete inspection at Diablo Canyon.

The most important reason to keep the plant running is to help assure the reliability of the state's power grid, said John Parsons of MIT's Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research and one of the study's co-authors. "And it's a zero carbon source of power so it can keep emissions low while also providing low cost power and reliable power."

Diablo's storied history of arrests & more

Despite recent gains by the plant's backers, opposition to Diablo Canyon remains stout and has a storied history dating back decades. In 1981 singer-songwriter Jackson Browne was a rrested at the plant with some four dozen anti-nuclear protestors.

Governor Newsom's plan to keep Diablo Canyon operating still faces a number of obstacles, including opposition from some of his fellow Democrats in the state legislature. It must clear state and federal funding and regulatory obstacles. And diehard grass roots opponents of the plant are not giving up.

"Diablo Canyon is not safe and it's old, too. It's almost 40 years old," said Linda Seeley, a spokesperson for San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace , a watchdog group that has opposed the plant for decades.

She said that it's especially risky because of its location in an earthquake prone area. Critics like Seeley also also call Governor Newsom's plan to keep the plant operating a corporate giveaway, noting that it includes a $1.4 billion forgivable loan to the plant's operator, PG&E.

And finally she said it's unwise to forget the nuclear disasters of the past. While Japan just announced it is restarting idled nuclear plants, Naoto Kan, the prime minister at the time of the Fukushima accident, has a different perspective, she said. In May, he wrote to Governor Newsom advising him to shut down Diablo Canyon as soon as possible.

pro nuclear
anti nuclear
diablo canyon
Ca Governor Gavin Newsom
nuclear power
climate change

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.

76 Nuclear Energy Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

🏆 best nuclear energy topic ideas & essay examples, 📌 simple & easy nuclear energy essay titles, 👍 good essay topics on nuclear energy.

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. We will write a custom essay specifically for you by our professional experts 808 writers online Learn More
Energy Disruption: Causes and Effects of the Fukushima Nuclear Reactors Leak The Fukushima nuclear disaster that occurred in March, 2011in Japan as the result of the earthquake and tsunami led to a number of the serious problems and energy disruption.
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.
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.
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 […]
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 […]
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 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 […]
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.
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.
Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation Managerial Accounting The flagship project and the construction of the first reactor of the four scheduled reactors began in 2011. In the execution of the role of management accountants, ENEC encounters challenges due to the use of […]
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.
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 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.
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 […]
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.
Corporate Governance Strategy for Emirates Energy Nuclear Corporation To establish the difference privatization will bring to the company in terms of resources and manpower To establish the feasibility of this undertaking in comparison to other companies that manage nuclear transmission such as Exelon […]
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 […]
Understanding the Significance of Nuclear Energy
The Nuclear Energy and Its Impact on the Environment and Economic Growth
The Use of Nuclear Energy as an Alternative to Global Energy Crisis
The Impact of Nuclear Energy in the Environment and Economic Growth
The Economic Consequences of Shifting Away From Nuclear Energy
The Issue of Climate Change and Nuclear Energy
The Importance of Controlling the Use of Nuclear Energy
The Environmental Benefits Of Utilizing Nuclear Energy Rather Than Fossil Fuel Energy
The Problem Of Nuclear Energy
Understanding How Nuclear Energy Is Produced from the Atom Level
The Process Of Producing Nuclear Energy From Thorium
The Dangers of Atomic Weapons and Nuclear Energy
The Theory of Nuclear Energy and Its Applications in the Industry
The Tommyknockers and Nuclear Energy
The Future of the U. S. Nuclear Energy Industry
The Nuclear Energy Advantage Of The United States
The Controversy Regarding The Utilization Of Nuclear Energy
The Future Industry In Energy: Dropping The Concept Of Nuclear Energy
The Hope For Nuclear Energy As A Source Of Power
The Role of Nuclear Energy in Our Lives Today
The Environmental Benefits of Utilizing Nuclear Energy
The Argument For Nuclear Energy
The Ethical and Philosophical Implications of Harnessing Nuclear Energy
The United States Should Use Nuclear Energy
Why Do We Still Have Nuclear Energy And Fossil Energy
The Phenomenon Of Decreased Usage Of Nuclear Energy
The Politics of Nuclear Energy in Western Europe
The Negative Issues Surrounding the Use of Nuclear Energy as an Alternative Source of Renewable Energy
Thorium As An Alternative Form Of Nuclear Energy
The Advantages of Using Nuclear Energy as a Source of Power
The Complicated, Expensive, and Dangerous Use of Nuclear Energy
Why European Countries Are Holding Off On Nuclear Energy
The Socio-Political Economy of Nuclear Energy in China and India
The Development of Nuclear Energy and It Importance in the World Today
Should Nuclear Energy Developed Thailand
Why the United States Should Stop Using Nuclear Energy
The History, Advancements and Modern Uses of Nuclear Energy
Transparency and View Regarding Nuclear Energy Before and After the Fukushima Accident: Evidence on Micro-data
The Hazards in the Coal Mines and the Benefits of Nuclear Energy
Use Of Nuclear Energy In Modern World
The Scientific Discoveries on the Nuclear Energy During the 19th Century
The Pros and Cons When Discussing the Use of Nuclear Energy
The Potential Benefits and Risks of Using Nuclear Energy to Produce Electricity
The Manhattan Project Was a Top Secret Nuclear Energy
The Nuclear Energy Controversy: Finding a Place for the Nuclear Waste
The Effects Of Nuclear Energy On The Environment
Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, January 24). 76 Nuclear Energy Essay Topic Ideas & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/nuclear-energy-essay-topics/

"76 Nuclear Energy Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." IvyPanda , 24 Jan. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/nuclear-energy-essay-topics/.

IvyPanda . (2023) '76 Nuclear Energy Essay Topic Ideas & Examples'. 24 January.

IvyPanda . 2023. "76 Nuclear Energy Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." January 24, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/nuclear-energy-essay-topics/.

1. IvyPanda . "76 Nuclear Energy Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." January 24, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/nuclear-energy-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "76 Nuclear Energy Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." January 24, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/nuclear-energy-essay-topics/.

Alternative Energy Paper Topics
Wind Energy Essay Topics
Energy Essay Ideas
Nuclear Power Questions
Solar Energy Essay Ideas
Nuclear Weapon Essay Topics
Scientist Paper Topics
Pollution Essay Ideas
Air Pollution Research Ideas
Experiment Questions
Technology Essay Ideas
Global Warming Essay Titles
Environmental Protection Titles
Greenhouse Gases Research Ideas
Environment Research Topics

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

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

Verification Code

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

Thanks for your comment !

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

School Education /

Essay on Nuclear Energy in 500+ words for School Students

Updated on
Dec 30, 2023

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

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

Table of Contents

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

Also Read: Find List of Nuclear Power Plants In India

History Overview

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

Also Read: What are the Different Types of Energy?

Nuclear Technology

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

Also Read: Nuclear Engineering Course: Universities and Careers

Advantages of Nuclear Energy

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

1. High Energy Density

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

2. Low Greenhouse Gas Emissions

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

3. Base Load Power

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

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

Disadvantages of Nuclear Energy

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

1. Radioactive Waste

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

2. Nuclear Accidents

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

3. High Initial Costs

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

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.

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.

Connect With Us

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

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

January 2024

September 2024

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Have something on your mind?

Make your study abroad dream a reality in January 2022 with

India's Biggest Virtual University Fair

Essex Direct Admission Day

Why attend .

Don't Miss Out

Essay on Nuclear Energy

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

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Nuclear Energy

Introduction.

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

Production of Nuclear Energy

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

Benefits of Nuclear Energy

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

Drawbacks of Nuclear Energy

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

Also check:

Advantages and Disadvantages of Nuclear Energy
Paragraph on Nuclear Energy

250 Words Essay on Nuclear Energy

Introduction to nuclear energy.

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

Production and Efficiency

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

Environmental Implications

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

Security and Ethical Concerns

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

Future of Nuclear Energy

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

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

500 Words Essay on Nuclear Energy

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

The Mechanics of Nuclear Energy

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

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

Pros and Cons of Nuclear Energy

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

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

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

The Future of Nuclear Energy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy studying!

Nukes in space: A bad idea in the 1960s, an even worse one now

by Michael Mulvihill, The Conversation

The US and Japan are sponsoring a resolution for debate by the United Nations security council which—if passed—will reaffirm international commitments to the 1967 outer space treaty (OST) forbidding the deployment and use of nuclear weapons in space.

The call, headed by US ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield and Japan's foreign minister Yoko Kamikawa, follows troubling reports that Russia could be developing a nuclear capable anti-satellite weapon . As an expert on space and nuclear weapons, I find these reports concerning but not surprising because nuclear anti-satellite weapons have been proposed since the cold war in the 1960s.

So far, little is known about this weapon. The White House has said it is not operational and does not pose an immediate threat. Russian president Vladmir Putin, meanwhile, stated that Moscow had no intention to pursue a weapon that puts Russia in contravention of their commitment to the OST.

The 1967 treaty is ratified by 114 nations including the US and Russia. The treaty's Article IV , which bans the deployment of nuclear weapons in space, emerged from grave concerns about the impact of nuclear tests carried out in space by the US and Russia in the early 1960s.

The most well known is Starfish Prime , a nuclear test carried in low Earth orbit above the South Pacific in July 1962.

Nuclear explosions in space

I am a researcher at RAF Fylingdales, a ballistic missile early warning system (BMEWS) station on the north Yorkshire moors. I produced the Fylingdales Archive , which charts the station's 60-year history of scanning space for signs of nuclear attack and tracking the increasing amount of satellites in low Earth orbit.

The performance of BMEWS electronic warfare subsystems were tested during Starfish Prime to understand resilience against blackouts caused by nuclear explosions in space.

Unlike nuclear explosions on Earth, where the energy released super-heats the atmosphere into a fireball, nuclear explosions in space release their energy as high-energy charged particles, X-rays, intense flows of neutrons and electromagnetic pulse (Emp). Emp occurs when gamma rays from the nuclear explosion strips electrons from gases in the upper atmosphere. This blinds radar, knocks out communications and destructively overloads power networks.

Starfish Prime

Emp was first observed during the Starfish Prime nuclear test. The test weapon was launched by a Thor missile from the Johnston Island in the north Pacific on July 8 1962.

Just after 11pm Honolulu time, Starfish Prime detonated 400km above Johnston Island. The thermonuclear explosion had a yield of 1.45 megatons. This is 1,000 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

The flash from the detonation could be seen across the Pacific, filling the sky with brilliant aurora displays from Hawii to New Zealand . Reports from Honolulu described the aurora as comprising blood red and pinks.

But the pulse from the explosion was larger than anticipated. It caused electrical damage in Hawaii nearly 1,000km away by damaging electricity supply, knocking out streetlights, disrupting telephone networks and triggering burglar alarms.

The impact on satellites in low Earth orbit was profound. High-energy particles from the explosion formed radiation belts around the Earth. These were made more intense by high-energy particles, from Russian nuclear weapon tests in space above Kazakhstan, conducted in October 1962, merging with radiation from Starfish Prime.

Over the following months, the radiation damaged and destroyed one-third of satellites in Earth orbit. This included AT&T's Telstar satellite , which was launched two days after Starfish Prime on July 10 1962. Telstar transmitted the first live transatlantic television pictures on 23 July 1962 before succumbing to Starfish Prime's radiation the following November.

The impact of nuclear weapon testing in space galvanized the US and USSR governments to agree to the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty , agreed in August 1963, and the adoption of the OST in 1967.

What would happen today?

During the Starfish Prime nuclear test there were just 22 active satellites in orbit. Today there are almost 10,000 active satellites with just over 8,000 in LEO . These support all aspects of life on Earth, including banking, health care, food supply, communications, navigation, climate monitoring, earth science and humanitarian aid.

The US has far more satellites in orbit than any other nation, comprising 2926 active payloads to Russia's 167. They include Space X's Starlink space-internet services, which with US Department of Defense , has been supporting the Ukrainian military in its combat operations against Russian forces.

Consequently, the Starlink constellation of satellites is cited as a potential target for a Russian nuclear attack in space that would use NEMP produced by a nuclear detonation to destroy the Starlink satellite constellations by frying their electronics. The residual radiation, like Telstar, would over time destroy the electronics of surviving spacecraft—rendering their orbits dangerous to other satellites.

But a nuclear attack on space infrastructure would also indiscriminately affect life on Earth. And it would have a disproportionate impact on vulnerable nations in the global south , who rely the most on space systems for optimizing resources such as food security and water supply management. It would also destroy space systems of Russia's ally China—rendering its Tiangong space-station uninhabitable by damaging onboard life-support systems.

It's also important to note that satellites of Nato member states are protected under Article 5 of the alliance's charter, which compels members to respond collectively to an attack on any other member state. An attack could provoke retaliation against Russian military and strategic infrastructure on Earth with conventional weapons. But it would also risk further nuclear escalation.

So deploying nuclear weapons in space is not a new concept . But Starfish Prime demonstrated that it has no military value and it presents indiscriminate dangers to life on Earth as a result of damage to satellites infrastructure.

Juliana Seuss , a space security expert with the Royal United Services Institute, stresses that such a weapon could be used when Russia has "exhausted many other options, and when the loss of allies was no longer a relevant deterrent."

Instead, they feed a macabre political theater of nuclear threat and innuendo, serving Russia by shoring up its fading space power. Meanwhile, in the US, these stories stokes nuclear anxiety and undermines confidence in the Biden administration.

This is why it was important for the UN to reaffirm their 50-year international commitment to the OST and mitigating wide-ranging harm from nuclear weapon in space.

Provided by The Conversation

Explore further

Feedback to editors

A microbial plastic factory for high-quality green plastic

2 hours ago

Can the bias in algorithms help us see our own?

4 hours ago

Humans have converted at least 250,000 acres of estuaries to cities and farms in last 35 years, study finds

5 hours ago

Mysterious bones may have belonged to gigantic ichthyosaurs

Hurricane risk perception drops after storms hit, study shows

Peter Higgs, who proposed the existence of the 'God particle,' has died at 94

Scientists help link climate change to Madagascar's megadrought

7 hours ago

Heat from El Niño can warm oceans off West Antarctica—and melt floating ice shelves from below

8 hours ago

Peregrine falcons expose lasting harms of flame retardant use

9 hours ago

The hidden role of the Milky Way in ancient Egyptian mythology

Relevant physicsforums posts, will we ever communicate with extraterrestial life in a reasonable time frame, our beautiful universe - photos and videos, u.s. solar eclipses - oct. 14, 2023 (annular) & apr. 08, 2024 (total), things to try while watching the solar eclipse.

Apr 8, 2024

Increase frequency of solar eclipses

Can there be slowly-falling accretion disks in black holes.

Apr 7, 2024

Is Russia looking to put nukes in space? It would undermine global stability and ignite an anti-satellite arms race

Feb 19, 2024

Russia's space weapon: Anti-satellite systems are indiscriminate, posing a risk to everyone's spacecraft

Feb 24, 2024

Q&A: If Russia is developing some kind of space-based weapon, Putin may never get to use it

Fixing space-physics mistake enhances satellite safety

Mar 4, 2024

Space may soon become a war zone – here's how that would work

Oct 21, 2019

Russia rejects space weapon claim as 'propaganda'

Jul 24, 2020

Recommended for you

A total solar eclipse races across North America as clouds part along totality

What do scientists hope to learn from total solar eclipse in US?

Huge star explosion to appear in sky in once-in-a-lifetime event

Apr 6, 2024

Three companies in the running for NASA's next moon rover

Apr 4, 2024

Rock sampled by NASA's Perseverance embodies why rover came to Mars

Apr 3, 2024

NASA wants to come up with a new clock for the moon, where seconds tick away faster

Let us know if there is a problem with our content.

Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form . For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines ).

Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request

Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.

Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.

E-mail the story

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Phys.org in any form.

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

More information Privacy policy

Donate and enjoy an ad-free experience

We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X's mission by getting a premium account.

E-mail newsletter

Skip to primary navigation
Skip to main content
Skip to footer

7-DAY UNLIMITED ACCESS

Sexual harassment allegations made against top Biden nuclear official

By Daniel Lippman | 04/08/2024 12:30 PM EDT

The No. 2 at the Department of Energy’s nuclear security agency is leaving his post amid complaints about his behavior.

The Department of Energy headquarters is seen.

Complaints from women about Frank Rose’s behavior have also been sent to the Department of Energy’s inspector general, according to two of eight current and former government officials. Francis Chung/POLITICO

When the Department of Energy announced last week that the No. 2 official of its nuclear security agency, Frank Rose, was leaving, his boss issued an internal memo calling him an “empathetic, candid, and action-oriented leader who always thought of the whole team.”

Left unsaid were the complaints about Rose’s behavior that had led to an internal investigation into allegations of sexual harassment and a hostile work environment, according to eight current and former government officials familiar with the matter, all of whom were granted anonymity to discuss personnel matters.

The investigation into Rose, the principal deputy administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration, was launched earlier this year by DOE’s Office of Hearings and Appeals, according to two of the officials, one a current and the other a former NNSA employee. POLITICO also obtained an email from one of the investigators from the office, in which that person asked a former NNSA employee for an interview.

The March email, which did not mention Rose by name, said the office “has been tasked with conducting an independent fact-finding review regarding allegations of harassment or hostile work environment at the NNSA.”

The transformation of the energy sector.

Policy. Science. Business.

Congress. Legislator. Politics.

The leader in energy and environment news.

Late-breaking news.

International edition
Australia edition
Europe edition

Russia-Ukraine war: Operators say another drone downed at Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant – as it happened

Russian-controlled power station says drone shot down over roof over reactor number six, which is currently shut down

1d ago Summary of the day
1d ago Residents of flood-struck Orsk stage protest against local government
2d ago US House speaker faces revolt by hard-right Republicans over Ukraine aid package
2d ago 80% of Ukraine’s coal, gas power plants hit by Russian attacks, says minister
2d ago Russian missile hits industrial facility in Ukraine's Zaporizhzhia, governor says
2d ago Operators at nuclear plant says another drone downed, falls on roof
2d ago Summary of the day so far
2d ago US threatens sanctions for China banks aiding Russia, amid Russian diplomatic visit to Beijing
2d ago Kremlin blames Ukraine for nuclear power station attack, Kyiv denies involvement
2d ago German lawmaker accused of taking Russian cash denies wrongdoing
2d ago German military presence in Lithuania will escalate tensions, says Kremlin
2d ago Russia's foreign minister visits Beijing, emphasises ties with China
2d ago 'This cannot happen': atomic watchdog chief condemns Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant attack
2d ago Opening summary

The Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, Europe's largest, pictured in June 2023, was hit on Sunday by military drones.

Operators at nuclear plant says another drone downed, falls on roof

The Russian-controlled Zaporizhzhia nuclear power station has just announced that another drone was shot down over the roof of reactor number six, according to the Reuters news agency.

“Today, a kamikaze drone was shot down over the plant. It fell on the roof of Unit 6,” the plant said, below a picture of reactor No. 6.

Reactor number six is now shut down, according to the plant.

Summary of the day

It has just turned 6pm in Ukraine and Russia. Here are the key events you might have missed from the day:

Russian strikes on Ukraine’s southern Zaporizhzhia region killed three people on Monday, in a second day of deadly attacks on the area, its governor has said. “Three people were killed and three people were wounded in the Pologivskyi district” of Zaporizhzhia, Governor Ivan Federov said on social media.

At least six people have been injured after a Russian missile attack on Monday hit an industrial facility in Ukraine’s southern city, the regional governor has said. He did not provide any details regarding the type of facility. The Guardian is unable to independently verify this account.

Russia has hit up to 80 per cent of Ukraine’s conventional power plants and half its hydroelectric plants in recent weeks, in the heaviest attacks since the war began, Ukrainian energy minister German Galushchenko has said. “Up to 80% of thermal generation was attacked. More than half of hydro generation and a large number of substations,” Galushchenko told journalists in Kyiv. “This is the largest attack on Ukraine’s energy sector” since war began, the minister said, adding that he suspects that Russia has modified their weapons to now use Iranian-style explosive drones and missiles that cause more damage per attack.

The Russian-controlled Zaporizhzhia nuclear power station has just announced that another drone was shot down over the roof of reactor number six , according to Reuters. “Today, a kamikaze drone was shot down over the plant. It fell on the roof of Unit 6,” the plant said, below a picture of reactor No. 6. Reactor No. 6 is now shut down, according to the plant.

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has condemned a drone strike on one of six nuclear reactors at the Russian-controlled Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in Ukraine. “This cannot happen,” director general Rafael Grossi wrote on a social media post, adding, “No one can conceivably benefit or get any military or political advantage from attacks against nuclear facilities. This is a no go.”

The Kremlin continues to blame Ukraine for the attacks on the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power station, calling them “very dangerous”, but a senior Ukrainian intelligence officer has denied Kyiv’s involvement. The Guardian is unable to independently verify either account.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov arrived in Beijing on Monday to display the strength of ties with close diplomatic ally China , amid Moscow’s war against Ukraine. Despite its backing of Russia in the Ukraine war, China’s foreign ministry spokesperson Mao Ning told reporters Monday that “China has an objective and fair position on the Ukraine issue … We have been actively promoting peace talks and political solutions. China is not a creator or party to the Ukraine crisis, and we have not and will not do anything to profit from it.”

The US Treasury Secretary has threatened sanctions on China’s banks which aid Russia’s military capacity, amid Russia’s diplomatic visit to China. She told reporters, as she wrapped up four days of talks with China, that “any banks that facilitate significant transactions that channel military or dual-use goods to Russia’s defence industrial base expose themselves to the risk of US sanctions.”

The Kremlin has warned that a planned German military presence in Lithuania would escalate tensions. The Nato military alliance and EU member Lithuania, which borders Russia and its ally Belarus, said earlier it would partly finance permanently hosting of 5,000 German troops from 2027.

More than 10,400 homes across Russia have been flooded, triggering record water levels in the Ural mountains, Russia’s emergency ministry have said. “An increase in air temperatures, active snow melt and river openings are predicted,” Russia’s emergency ministry said. “More than 10,400 residential buildings remain flooded in 39 regions.” Russia’s government declared a federal emergency on Sunday over flood-hit areas, state media reported.

Residents of Orsk, the Ural Mountains city most affected by some of Russia’s worst flooding in decades, staged protests against local authorities’ perceived inaction on Monday. “Shame! Shame! Shame!” the crowd of about 100 is heard chanting in a video circulating on Telegram. The chants from the protest are believed to be directed at the local administration over low compensation for property damage and the burst dam’s structural deficiencies, according to reports from the Moscow Times.

A member of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) accused of taking money from a pro-Russian media site has denied any wrongdoing. German magazine Der Spiegel and Czech newspaper Denik N reported that Bystron had received money from the portal Voice of Europe, which was sanctioned by the Czech government late last month due to suspected Russian influence. Petr Bystron, a member of the German parliament and an AfD candidate in European parliament elections set for June, has “vehemently denied” the allegations, an AfD spokesperson told Reuters.

Residents of flood-struck Orsk stage protest against local government

Residents of Orsk, the Ural Mountains city most affected by some of Russia’s worst flooding in decades, staged protests against local authorities’ perceived inaction on Monday.

“Shame! Shame! Shame!” the crowd of around 100 is heard chanting in a video circulating on Telegram.

Much of Orsk is submerged underwater, after the Ural River swelled and burst through a dam on Friday, forcing thousands to evacuate. Russia has declared a regionwide state of emergency and officials have opened a criminal case against the local authorities for “negligence and violation of construction safety rules” over the burst dam.

The chants from the protest are believed to be directed at the local administration over low compensation for property damage and the burst dam’s structural deficiencies, according to reports from the Moscow Times, an English and Russian-language online newspaper.

US House speaker faces revolt by hard-right Republicans over Ukraine aid package

House speaker Mike Johnson returned to work on Monday facing mounting pressure to advance a Ukraine aid package as well as the threat of an intra-party revolt if he does so.

The Republican speaker has indicated the House will take up the issue of Ukraine funding this week, as the chamber reconvenes after a two-week recess. But many hard-right members of Johnson’s conference remain staunchly opposed to additional Ukraine aid, and one of them has already threatened to oust the speaker, complicating the potential timing of a floor vote.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said on Sunday that Kyiv will lose the war against Russia if the US congress does not approve military aid to battle Moscow’s invasion.

Read the latest on this developing story from our correspondent in Washington:

80% of Ukraine’s coal, gas power plants hit by Russian attacks, says minister

“Up to 80% of thermal generation was attacked. More than half of hydro generation and a large number of substations,” Galushchenko told journalists in Kyiv.

“This is the largest attack on Ukraine’s energy sector” since war began, the minister said.

The country’s largest nuclear power station in Zaporizhzhia has been under Russian control since near the start of the war.

Galushchenko said that “the scale and impact of these attacks is much greater” than earlier attacks over the winter from 2022 to 2023 when millions suffered in freezing temperatures without electricity and heating.

“We see that Russians modified the weapons,” the minister said, adding that they now use Iranian-style explosive drones and missiles that cause more damage per attack.

Russian missile hits industrial facility in Ukraine's Zaporizhzhia, governor says

A Russian missile attack on Monday hit an industrial facility in Ukraine’s southern city of injuring at least six people, local authorities said. Ivan Fedorov , the regional governor, did not provide any details regarding the type of facility in his message on the Telegram.

Last Friday, an unidentified industrial facility in the city was struck by a Russian missile strike which also damaged residential buildings and killed four people. It was not clear if Monday’s strike targeted the same site.

Separately, Russian officials accused Ukraine of launching drone strikes against the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, occupied by Moscow troops.

Moscow-installed officials have made a series of claims since last week. Kyiv said it has nothing to do with incidents at the power station reported by Russia and called them “armed provocations”.

Summary of the day so far

Us threatens sanctions for china banks aiding russia, amid russian diplomatic visit to beijing.

US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said on Monday, after four days of talks with China, that she has warned the country’s banks and exporters of aiding Russia’s military capacity.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov arrived in Beijing earlier on Monday, emphasising the two country’s close diplomatic ties. Russian state news agency TASS reported that the ministers would “discuss the situation in Ukraine .”

Yellen said at a press conference in Beijing,

I stressed that companies, including those in the PRC, must not provide material support for Russia’s war and that they will face significant consequences if they do. And I reinforced that any banks that facilitate significant transactions that channel military or dual-use goods to Russia’s defence industrial base expose themselves to the risk of U.S. sanctions.

Kremlin blames Ukraine for nuclear power station attack, Kyiv denies involvement

Kremlin spokesperson Dmistry Peskov repeated on Monday Moscow’s assertion that Ukraine was behind the attacks on the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power station, calling them “very dangerous”.

Russia said Ukraine struck the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power station controlled by Russian forces three times on Sunday and demanded the West respond, though Kyiv said it had nothing to do with the attacks.

A senior Ukrainian intelligence official denied Russia’s accusations on Monday. Andrii Yusov, the spokesperson for Ukraine’s military intelligence agency suggested there had been no attack, saying Russian forces routinely fabricate strikes on the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant.

However, the strikes on this occasion were confirmed by U.N.’s atomic watchdog agency, though it didn’t attribute responsibility for the attack to either side.

The Guardian is unable to independently verify either account. The plant has repeatedly been caught in the crossfire since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 and seized the facility shortly after.

The six nuclear reactors on site have been shut down for months, but it still needs power and qualified staff to operate crucial cooling systems and other safety features.

German lawmaker accused of taking Russian cash denies wrongdoing

A member of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) has denied any wrongdoing following a media report alleging that he had received money from a pro-Russian media site, the party said on Monday.

Petr Bystron , a member of the German parliament and an AfD candidate in European Parliament elections set for June, has “vehemently denied” the allegations, an AfD spokesperson told Reuters.

“The party leadership is in favour of a comprehensive investigation and therefore calls on all those who claim to have circumstantial evidence and proof to include it in the investigation,” the spokesperson said.

“At this point in time, the federal leadership (of the party) must assume Mr Bystron’s innocence.”

German magazine Der Spiegel and Czech newspaper Denik N reported that Bystron had received money from the portal Voice of Europe, which was sanctioned by the Czech government late last month due to suspected Russian influence.

The AfD, with 78 of 735 seats in Germany’s parliament, leads polls in several poorer, post-industrial eastern states where its anti-immigrant stance resonates. It opposes Germany’s backing for Ukraine in the war with Russia.

US military presence in Japan impedes any peace treaty with Tokyo, the Kremlin said on Monday.

Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida i s due to hold a summit in Washington this week with US President Joe Biden , the first state visit by a Japanese leader in nine years.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters on Monday, “The de facto defence alliance is already there and we know about the United States’ military potential that is stationed in Japan - by the way, close to our borders.”

“This has always been a stumbling block in trying to reach a settlement of our main problem, the peace treaty problem,” he said.

Russia, the main successor state to the Soviet Union, and Japan have never signed a peace treaty formally ending their hostilities during World War Two.

German military presence in Lithuania will escalate tensions, says Kremlin

Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Monday that a planned German military presence in Lithuania would escalate tensions.

The NATO military alliance and EU member Lithuania, which borders Russia and its ally Belarus, said earlier it would partly finance permanently hosting of 5,000 German troops from 2027.

Russia's foreign minister visits Beijing, emphasises ties with China

In this photo released by Russian Foreign Ministry Press Service on Monday, April 8, 2024, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, center, walks from the plane upon his arrival in Beijing, China.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov arrived in Beijing on Monday to display the strength of ties with close diplomatic ally China, amid Moscow’s war against Ukraine .

Russian state news agency TASS said the ministers would “discuss the situation in Ukraine and the Asia-Pacific region, issues of bilateral cooperation and interaction in the international arena,” quoting Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova .

Despite its backing of Russia in the Ukraine war, China’s foreign ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning told reporters Monday that “China has an objective and fair position on the Ukraine issue.” “We have been actively promoting peace talks and political solutions. China is not a creator or party to the Ukraine crisis, and we have not and will not do anything to profit from it,” Mao told reporters at a daily briefing.

“Relevant countries should not smear and attack the normal state-to-state relations between China and Russia... let alone shift the blame onto China and provoke bloc confrontation,” she added.

US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen , who is currently wrapping up a visit to China on Monday, said she had warned officials of the consequences of supporting Russia’s military procurement.

'This cannot happen': atomic watchdog chief condemns Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant attack

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) , Rafael Mariano Grossi, has condemned a drone strike on one of six nuclear reactors at the Russian-controlled Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine .

“This cannot happen,” Grossi wrote on a social media post. Adding, “No one can conceivably benefit or get any military or political advantage from attacks against nuclear facilities. This is a no go.”

Today, for the first time since Nov 2022 & after I set out 5 basic principles to avoid a serious nuclear accident w/ radiological consequences, @IAEAorg ’s #ISAMZ confirmed that at least 3 direct hits against ZNPP main reactor containment structures took place. This cannot happen. — Rafael MarianoGrossi (@rafaelmgrossi) April 7, 2024

Russia has blamed Ukriane for the strike, but Ukrainian intelligence sources have denied any involvement. The Guardian is unable to independently verify either account.

IAEA officials on site reported in a statement that “outside a laboratory, they saw blood stains next to a damaged military logistics vehicle, indicating at least one casualty.”

“This is a major escalation of the nuclear safety and security dangers,” director general Grossi said. “Such reckless attacks significantly increase the risk of a major nuclear accident and must cease immediately.”

While the team so far has not observed any structural damage to systems, structures, and components important to nuclear safety or security of the plant, Grossi warned of the dangers of such strikes on Sunday, saying, “Although the damage at unit 6 has not compromised nuclear safety, this was a serious incident that had the potential to undermine the integrity of the reactor’s containment system.”

More than 10,400 homes across Russia have been flooded, triggering record water levels in the Ural mountains, Russia’s emergency ministry said on Monday.

“An increase in air temperatures, active snow melt and river openings are predicted,” Russia’s emergency ministry said. “More than 10,400 residential buildings remain flooded in 39 regions.”

The Ural River several metres in just hours on Friday due to melting water, bursting through a dam embankment in the city of Orsk, 1,800 km (1,100 miles) east of Moscow.

Russia’s government declared a federal emergency on Sunday over flood-hit areas, state media reported.

Here are the latest photos coming through the wires:

Police officers stand guarding an area as people use rubber boats in a flooded street after part of a dam burst, in Orsk, Russia.

Opening summary

Hello and welcome to our continuing live coverage of Russia’s war on Ukraine .

Russian strikes on Ukraine’s southern Zaporizhzhia region has killed three people on Monday, in a second day of deadly attacks on the area, its governor said.

“Three people were killed and three people were wounded in the Pologivskyi district” of Zaporizhzhia, Governor Ivan Federov said on social media.

In other key developments over the weekend:

Russia claimed on Sunday that Kyiv had attacked the Moscow-occupied Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant with a drone, but Ukraine has denied being behind the attack. An intelligence official said Kyiv had nothing to do with any strikes on the station and suggested they were the work of Russians themselves. The Guardian has been unable to independently verify either account.

UN Nuclear watchdog urges restraint after Ukraine attacked the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant on Sunday. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was informed on Sunday by authorities at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant that a drone detonated on site today. “Such detonation is consistent with IAEA observations,” the nuclear watchdog said in a post on a social media. IAEA director general, Rafael Mariano Grossi , also said of the attack, “I urge to refrain from actions that … jeopardise nuclear safety.”

Earlier, the administration reported an Ukrainian strike on the dome of the plant’s sixth power unit that caused no damage, and an attack that damaged a truck parked near the station’s canteen, according to Russian state news agency TASS reports.

Russia has been accused of systematically using illegal chemical gas attacks against Ukrainian soldiers. Ukrainian troops claimed that they have been subjected to “almost daily” attacks from small drones dropping teargas and other chemicals. The use of such substances, which is known as CS, is banned during wartime under the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov will make an official visit to China to discuss war in Ukraine. Talks scheduled on Monday and Tuesday between Russia and China will consist of bilateral cooperation as well as “hot topics”, such as the crisis in Ukraine and the Asia-Pacific, the Russian foreign ministry has said. On Saturday, the US warned allies that China has provided geospatial intelligence to Moscow in its war against Ukraine. According to reports, China has provided Russia with satellite imagery for military purposes, as well as microelectronics and machine tools for tanks.

Three civilians were killed in a Russian attack on the frontline village of Guliaipole, in Ukraine’s southeastern Zaporizhzhia region, according to reports from the regional government. The Guardian could not independently verify these claims.

One civilian was killed and four others were injured after Ukrainian drones were intercepted in Belgorod. A woman was killed and four more people were wounded after air defences downed Ukrainian drones on the approach to Russia’s Belgorod city, according to a statement from the local governor posted on Telegram.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has said that Kyiv will lose the war against Russia if the US congress does not approve military aid to battle Moscow’s invasion. Republicans in Congress have been blocking tens of billions of dollars in military assistance for Kyiv for months.

The Russian government has declared a federal emergency over record floods in the Orenburg region. The floods, caused by rising water levels in the Ural River, forced over 4,000 people to evacuate, and has flooded more than 10,400, according to state media. Flooding in two more nearby regions has been deemed “inevitable” by the Kremlin. Russian authorities have opened a criminal case for “negligence and violation of construction safety rules” over the burst dam. The Orenburg regional governor said specialists assessed that the dam was built “for a different weight” and that the level of rainfall was “exceptional”.

Ukraine war live

Most viewed

IMAGES

Write a short essay on Importance of Nuclear Energy
Argumentative Essay
Can Nuclear Power Ever Be Completely Safe? (300 Words)
Advantages and disadvantages of nuclear power Free Essay Example
essay on nuclear energy and world peace in english
Nuclear Power Advantages And Disadvantages Essay Ielts

COMMENTS

Reconsidering the Risks of Nuclear Power
The Problems with Nuclear Energy . Nuclear energy isn't all good news, though. The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster is the latest testament to that. This disaster was a consequence of the combination of a tsunami and a powerful earthquake in March 2011. Although the chain fissile reactions were shut down automatically in response to the earthquake ...
We've been having the wrong debate about nuclear energy
At the V.C. Summer project in South Carolina, two new reactors were in their fifth year of construction when the power plant was abandoned - after $9 billion had been sunk into it. Construction delays, design problems, budget overruns, and bankruptcy of the company building the reactors all contributed to the demise.
What are the Pros and Cons of Nuclear Energy?
3 Reasons Why Nuclear Energy Is Terrible! (2015) by Kurzgesagt - In a Nutshell (4:09 min.). 1. Nuclear Weapons . In 1945, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki introduced the world to nuclear technology. Even since, people think of weapons of mass destruction when they hear the word "nuclear.". Some processes used to generate electricity using nuclear energy can also help build nuclear ...
10 Reasons to Oppose Nuclear Energy
Ten Strikes Against Nuclear Energy. 1. Nuclear waste: The waste generated by nuclear reactors remains radioactive for tens to hundreds of thousands of years (1). Currently, there are no long-term storage solutions for radioactive waste, and most is stored in temporary, above-ground facilities. These facilities are running out of storage space ...
Opinion
If you want to learn more about nuclear power, I recommend the article "Why Nuclear Power Must Be Part of the Energy Solution" at Yale Environment 360, and for an opposing view, the Washington ...
Nuclear Power Still Doesn't Make Much Sense
Still, even with nuclear's doubling, the I.E.A. says nuclear power will contribute less than 10 percent of global electricity in 2050; over the same period, the agency says renewable generation ...
Sample Argumentative Essay against the Production of Nuclear Power
Meeting the world's energy needs. Nuclear energy does not contribute much to the world's overall energy needs. This is one argument against the production of nuclear powers. In fact, "Electricity generation uses 40% of the world's primary energy. Nuclear provides 14% of world electricity" (World Nuclear Association).
Nuclear energy cannot lead the global energy transition
The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant is seen in the background, in Namie, Fukushima Prefecture, Japan on August 24, 2023 [File: Franck Robichon/EPA] On March 11, 2011, a magnitude 9 ...
Coming to grips with pros and cons of more nuclear power
One main argument in favor of nuclear power is that we'll need it to even-out the variations in energy from such things as solar and wind. Here's an interesting response to that argument: Three myths about renewable energy and the grid, debunked (Amory Lovins and M.V. Ramana, Yale Environment 360). Why are the pro and con views so divergent?
Back to the future: Advanced nuclear energy and the battle against
As Third Way's Josh Freed illuminates in the latest Brookings Essay, the Golden Age of nuclear energy in the United States has passed. A flood of young engineers are exploring safer and cleaner ...
Why even environmentalists are supporting nuclear power today
The case against nuclear power stems primarily from fears about nuclear waste and potential accidents as well as its association with nuclear weapons. The two operating generators at Diablo Canyon ...
Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System
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.
Nuclear Power Advantages and Disadvantages Essay
Introduction. Nuclear power is the energy generated by use of Uranium. The energy is produced via complex chemical processes in the nuclear power stations. Major chemical reactions that involve the splitting of atom's nucleus take place in the reactors. This process is known as fission (Klug and Davies 31-32).
77 Nuclear Power Essay Topics & Samples
77 Nuclear Power Essay Topics & Examples. Updated: Feb 29th, 2024. 8 min. 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!
PDF 2016 Essay Competition Winner Essays
Philippine statement by Honorable Mario G. Montejo, Secretary of Science and Technology, Republic of the Philippine on the Occasion of the High Level Meeting on Nuclear Safety and Security. Nuclear Security Summit Washington 2016. 2016. National progress report: Philippines.
76 Nuclear Energy Essay Topic Ideas & Examples
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.
A fresh look at nuclear energy
For example, the assumed height of Tsunami waves against Fukushima nuclear power plant #1 was 10 meters while over 14 meters Tsunami waves hit the power plant on March 11, 2011. About nuclear energy, we still have two unsolved problems from the technology and engineering viewpoint: nuclear decommissioning and how to manage nuclear wastes.
Nuclear Energy Essays: Examples, Topics, & Outlines
Nuclear Energy Ever since an Italian physicist, Enrico Fermi succeeded in producing the first nuclear chain reaction at the University of Chicago in December of 1942 the usefulness and the drawbacks of nuclear energy have been debated all over the world. While the opponents of nuclear energy point to its enormously destructive power unleashed in atomic bombs, and the potentially harmful ...
The Case Against Nuclear Energy Essay
7. WORDS. 2175. Cite. Nuclear Energy , Coal Mining , Overpopulation , Alternative Energy. View Full Essay. ¶ …. Nuclear Energy The modern world has been characterized with several environmental issues in the recent past including natural resource depletion, climate change, pollution, and overpopulation. However, climate change has attracted ...
Nuclear Energy Argumentative Essay by EduBirdie.com
First, nuclear energy saves lives. It may be counterintuitive, but a big study by NASA has shown that nuclear energy has prevented 1.8 million deaths between 1945 and 2015. It is ranked last in deaths per energy unit produced. This is because nuclear waste is stored somewhere, while gasses from oil or coal-burning plants just float around in ...
Analysis of Nuclear Energy
The Nuclear Fuel Cycle: According to Adamson, "the process that produces energy in a nuclear reactor is a slowed-down version of what happens in an atomic bomb (p.23)." The development of atomic energy for bombs involves a very rapid chain of reaction that occurs in a radioactive material, which releases huge amounts of energy in a fraction of ...
Europe is divided on nuclear power: Which countries are for and against
EU leaders said that the energy crisis and the bloc's reliance on overseas fuel sources were major reasons to pursue nuclear power, alongside its "potential to decarbonise energy systems" and ...
Essay on Nuclear Energy in 500+ words for School Students
Ans. Nuclear energy is the energy released during nuclear reactions. Its importance lies in generating electricity, medical applications, and powering spacecraft. 2. Write a short note on nuclear energy. Ans. Nuclear energy is exploited from the nucleus of atoms through processes like fission or fusion.
Essay on Nuclear Energy
Balancing its benefits against the associated risks requires careful consideration and responsible action. 500 Words Essay on Nuclear Energy Introduction to 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. ...
Arguments Against Nuclear Energy
Nuclear power is a source of energy, created through a reaction when a uranium atom is split, releasing heat that is used to produce electricity. It was initially used as an alternative to coal, as coal-burning facilities were becoming a hazard to the environment.…. 1246 Words.
America and its allies are entering a period of nuclear uncertainty
Consider a scenario in which Russia uses a tactical nuclear weapon against a European ally. One problem, say some officials, is that Britain's deterrent is vested entirely in the Trident D5 ...
Nukes in space: A bad idea in the 1960s, an even worse one now
Starfish Prime. Emp was first observed during the Starfish Prime nuclear test. The test weapon was launched by a Thor missile from the Johnston Island in the north Pacific on July 8 1962. Just ...
Sexual harassment allegations made against top Biden nuclear ...
04/05/2024 05:43 PM EDT. When the Department of Energy announced last week that the No. 2 official of its nuclear security agency, Frank Rose, was leaving, his boss issued an internal memo calling ...
Sexual harassment allegations made against top Biden nuclear official
When the Department of Energy announced last week that the No. 2 official of its nuclear security agency, Frank Rose, was leaving, his boss issued an internal memo calling him an "empathetic ...
Russia-Ukraine war: Operators say another drone downed at Zaporizhzhia
The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has condemned a drone strike on one of six nuclear reactors at the Russian-controlled Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in Ukraine.

Green Living

10 Reasons to Oppose Nuclear Energy

Ten Strikes Against Nuclear Energy

2. Nuclear proliferation:

3. National security

4. Accidents

5. Cancer risk

6. Energy production

7. Not enough sites

9. Competition with renewables

10. Energy dependence of poor countries

Related News

What is the FABRIC Act?

There has been a steady rise in pesticide use across all cocoa producing countries from Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire to Indonesia.

Connect With Us

Nuclear Power Still Doesn’t Make Much Sense

Office Hours With Farhad Manjoo

Ultius Blog

Advantages and disadvantages of nuclear power

Disadvantages

Meeting the world’s energy needs

Nuclear power disasters

The Mayak Nuclear Facility and the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi disasters

Nuclear waste's impact on health and safety

Nuclear weapons' impact on the environment

Alternative renewable energy sources

Works Cited

About The Author

Nuclear energy cannot lead the global energy transition

Keep reading

The importance of storytelling in fighting climate change

Knowledge is power

Coming to grips with pros and cons of more nuclear power

Share this:

SueEllen Campbell

Back to the Future Josh Freed

Climate Change Spurs New Call for Nuclear Energy

From Atoms for Peace to Chernobyl

The Return of Nuclear Pioneers

Missing in Action: The United States Government

Getting the U.S. Back in the Race

For Further Reading

Who Will Own the Nuclear Power Future?

Why even environmentalists are supporting nuclear power today

Data centers, backbone of the digital economy, face water scarcity and climate risk

Environmentalists for nuclear power

Why suppressing wildfires may be making the Western fire crisis worse

Two moms — a scientist and an engineer — join hands to save nuclear

Nuclear power is gaining support after years of decline. But old hurdles remain

Overcoming the stigma of "The Simpsons"

Nuclear power has a safer track record than coal or natural gas

Diablo's storied history of arrests & more

Create an account

Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System

Key findings

Global low-carbon power generation by source, 2018

Age profile of nuclear power capacity in selected regions, 2019

Executive summary

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

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

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

Offsetting less nuclear power with more renewables would cost more

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

Reference 1

Share this report

Subscription successful

76 Nuclear Energy Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

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

Essay on Nuclear Energy in 500+ words for School Students

History Overview

Nuclear Technology

Advantages of Nuclear Energy

Disadvantages of Nuclear Energy

Safety Measures and Regulations of Nuclear Energy

Concerns of Nuclear Proliferation

Future Prospects and Innovations of Nuclear Energy

Deepika Joshi

Connect With Us

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

Need help with?