essay on nuclear power stations

Nuclear Power Advantages and Disadvantages Essay

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bibliography

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

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

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

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

The Advantages and Disadvantages of Nuclear Energy

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

What Is Nuclear Energy?

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

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

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

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

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

Advantages of Nuclear Energy

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

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

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

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

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

Disadvantages of Nuclear Energy

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

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

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

You might also like: The Nuclear Waste Disposal Dilemma

Who Wins the Nuclear Debate?

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

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

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

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

This story is funded by readers like you

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

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

About the Author

Martina Igini

Top 7 Smart Cities in the World in 2024

What the Future of Renewable Energy Looks Like

The Environmental Impacts of Lithium and Cobalt Mining

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

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

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

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

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

Advantages of Nuclear Energy

Clean energy source.

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

Creates Jobs

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

Supports National Security

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

Challenges of Nuclear Energy

Public awareness.

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

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

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

Used Fuel Transportation, Storage and Disposal

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

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

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

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

Constructing New Power Plants

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

Microreactor (left) - Small Modular Reactor (right)

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

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

High Operating Costs

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

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

*Update June 2024

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.

Nuclear Energy

Explore global data on nuclear energy production and the safety of nuclear technologies..

As the world attempts to transition its energy systems away from fossil fuels towards low-carbon energy sources, we have a range of energy options: renewable energy technologies such as hydropower, wind, and solar, as well as nuclear power. Nuclear energy and renewable technologies typically emit very little CO 2 per unit of energy production and are also much better than fossil fuels at limiting local air pollution.

However, while some countries invest heavily in increasing their nuclear energy supply, others are shutting down their plants. Therefore, nuclear energy's role in the energy system is very specific to each country.

How much of our energy comes from nuclear power? How is its role changing over time? In this article, we look at levels and changes in nuclear energy generation worldwide and its safety record in comparison to other sources of energy.

Nuclear energy generation

Global generation of nuclear energy.

Nuclear energy – alongside hydropower – is one of our oldest low-carbon energy technologies.

Nuclear power generation has existed since the 1960s but saw massive growth globally in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. The interactive chart shows how global nuclear generation has changed over the past half-century.

Following fast growth during the 1970s to 1990s, global generation has slowed significantly. In fact, we see a sharp dip in nuclear output following the Fukushima tsunami in Japan in 2011 [we look at the impacts of this disaster later in this article] , as countries took plants offline due to safety concerns.

But we also see that production has once again increased in recent years.

Nuclear energy generation by country

The global trend in nuclear energy generation masks the large differences in its role at the country level.

Some countries get no energy from nuclear — or aim to eliminate it completely — while others get most of their power from it.

This interactive chart shows the amount of nuclear energy generated by country. France, the USA, China, Russia, and South Korea all produce relatively large amounts of nuclear power.

Nuclear in the energy and electricity mix

What share of primary energy comes from nuclear.

We previously considered nuclear output in terms of energy units — how much each country produces in terawatt-hours. However, to understand how large a role nuclear plays in the energy system, we need to consider total energy consumption.

This interactive chart shows the share of primary energy that comes from nuclear sources.

Note that this data is based on primary energy calculated by the 'substitution method', which attempts to correct for the inefficiencies in fossil fuel production. It does this by converting non-fossil fuel sources to their 'input equivalents': the amount of primary energy that would be required to produce the same amount of energy if it came from fossil fuels. Here, we describe this adjustment in more detail.

In 2019, just over 4% of global primary energy came from nuclear power.

Note that this is based on nuclear energy's share in the energy mix. Energy consumption represents the sum of electricity, transport, and heating. We look at the electricity mix below.

What share of electricity comes from nuclear?

In the section above, we examined the role of nuclear power in the total energy mix, which includes electricity, transport, and heating. Electricity is only one component of energy consumption.

Since transport and heating tend to be harder to decarbonize – they are more reliant on oil and gas – nuclear and renewables tend to have a higher share in the electricity mix versus the total energy mix.

This interactive chart shows the share of electricity that comes from nuclear sources.

Globally, around 10% of our electricity comes from nuclear power. However, some countries, such as Belgium, France, and Ukraine, rely heavily on it.

Safety of nuclear energy

Energy has been critical to the human progress we’ve seen over the last few centuries. As the United Nations rightly says , “Energy is central to nearly every major challenge and opportunity the world faces today.”

But while energy brings us massive benefits, it’s not without its downsides. Energy production can negatively impact human health and the environment in three ways.

The first is air pollution : millions of people die prematurely every year as a result of air pollution . Fossil fuels and the burning of biomass – wood, dung, and charcoal – are responsible for most of those deaths.

The second is accidents . This includes accidents that happen in the mining and extraction of fuels — coal, uranium, rare metals, oil, and gas — as well as accidents that occur in transporting raw materials and infrastructure, constructing power plants, or maintaining them.

The third is greenhouse gas emissions : fossil fuels are the main source of greenhouse gases, the primary driver of climate change. In 2020, 91% of global CO 2 emissions came from fossil fuels and industry. 1

No energy source is completely safe. All have short-term impacts on human health, either through air pollution or accidents, and they all have long-term impacts by contributing to climate change.

But, their contribution to each differs enormously. Fossil fuels are both the dirtiest and most dangerous in the short term and emit the most greenhouse gases per unit of energy. Thankfully, this means there are no trade-offs here: low-carbon energy sources are also the safest. From the perspective of both human health and climate change, it matters less whether we transition to nuclear power or renewable energy and more that we stop relying on fossil fuels.

Nuclear and renewables are far, far safer than fossil fuels

Before we consider the long-term impacts of climate change, let’s look at how each source stacks up in terms of short-term health risks.

To make these comparisons fair, we can’t just look at the total deaths from each source: fossil fuels still dominate our global electricity mix, so we would expect that they would kill more people.

Instead, we compare them based on the estimated number of deaths they cause per unit of electricity . This is measured in terawatt-hours. One terawatt-hour is about the same as the annual electricity consumption of 150,000 citizens in the European Union. 2

This includes deaths from air pollution and accidents in the supply chain. 3

Let’s look at this comparison in the chart. Fossil fuels and biomass kill many more people than nuclear and modern renewables per unit of electricity. Coal is, by far, the dirtiest.

Even then, these estimates for fossil fuels are likely to be very conservative. They are based on power plants in Europe, which have good pollution controls, and older models of the health impacts of air pollution. As I discuss in more detail at the end of this article, global death rates from fossil fuels based on the most recent research on air pollution are likely to be even higher.

Our perceptions of the safety of nuclear energy are strongly influenced by two accidents: Chernobyl in Ukraine in 1986 and Fukushima in Japan in 2011. These were tragic events. However, compared to the millions that die from fossil fuels every year , the final death tolls were very low. To calculate the death rates used here, I assume a death toll of 433 from Chernobyl and 2,314 from Fukushima. 4 If you are interested in this, I look at how many died in each accident in detail in a related article .

The other source heavily influenced by a few large-scale accidents is hydropower. Its death rate since 1965 is 1.3 deaths per TWh. This rate is almost completely dominated by one event: the Banqiao Dam Failure in China in 1975, which killed approximately 171,000 people. Otherwise, hydropower was very safe, with a death rate of just 0.04 deaths per TWh — comparable to nuclear, solar, and wind.

Finally, we have solar and wind. The death rates from both of these sources are low but not zero. A small number of people die in accidents in supply chains – ranging from helicopter collisions with turbines, fires during the installation of turbines or panels, and drownings on offshore wind sites.

People often focus on the marginal differences at the bottom of the chart – between nuclear, solar, and wind. This comparison is misguided: the uncertainties around these values mean they are likely to overlap.

The key insight is that they are all much safer than fossil fuels.

Nuclear energy, for example, results in 99.9% fewer deaths than brown coal, 99.8% fewer than coal, 99.7% fewer than oil, and 97.6% fewer than gas. Wind and solar are just as safe.

Putting death rates from energy in perspective

Looking at deaths per terawatt-hour can seem abstract. Let’s try to put it in perspective.

Let’s consider how many deaths each source would cause for an average town of 150,000 people in the European Union, which – as I’ve said before – consumes one terawatt-hour of electricity per year. Let’s call this town ‘Euroville’.

If Euroville were completely powered by coal, we’d expect at least 25 people to die prematurely every year from it.  Most of these people would die from air pollution.

This is how a coal-powered Euroville would compare with towns powered entirely by each energy source:

• Coal: 25 people would die prematurely every year;
• Oil: 18 people would die prematurely every year;
• Gas: 3 people would die prematurely every year;
• Hydropower: In an average year, 1 person would die;
• Wind: In an average year, nobody would die. A death rate of 0.04 deaths per terawatt-hour means every 25 years, a single person would die;
• Nuclear: In an average year, nobody would die – only every 33 years would someone die.
• Solar: In an average year, nobody would die – only every 50 years would someone die.

The safest energy sources are also the cleanest

The good news is that there is no trade-off between the safest sources of energy in the short term and the least damaging for the climate in the long term. As the chart below shows, they are one and the same.

In the chart on the left-hand side, we have the same comparison of death rates from accidents and air pollution that we just looked at. On the right, we have the amount of greenhouse gases emitted per unit of electricity production.

These are not just the emissions from the burning of fuels but also the mining, transportation, and maintenance over a power plant’s lifetime. 5

Coal, again, is the dirtiest fuel. It emits much more greenhouse gases than other sources – more than a hundred times more than nuclear.

Oil and gas are also much worse than nuclear and renewables but to a lesser extent than coal.

Unfortunately, the global electricity mix is still dominated by fossil fuels: coal, oil, and gas account for around 60% . If we want to stop climate change, we have a great opportunity: we can transition away from them to nuclear and renewables and reduce deaths from accidents and air pollution as a side effect. 6

This transition will not only protect future generations but also have huge health benefits for the current one.

Methodology and notes

Global average death rates from fossil fuels are likely to be even higher than reported in the chart above.

The death rates from coal, oil, and gas that we use in these comparisons are sourced from the paper of Anil Markandya and Paul Wilkinson (2007) in the medical journal The Lancet . To date, these are the best, peer-reviewed references I could find on these sources. These rates are based on electricity production in Europe.

However, there are three key reasons why I think that these death rates are likely to be very conservative, and the global average death rates could be substantially higher.

• European fossil fuel plants have strict pollution controls . Power plants in Europe tend to produce less pollution than the global average and much less than plants in many low-to-middle-income countries. This means that the pollution generated per unit of electricity will likely be higher in other parts of the world.
• In other countries, more people will live closer to power plants and, therefore, be exposed to more pollution . If two countries produce the same amount of coal power and both have the same pollution controls, the country where power plants are closer to urban centers and cities will have a higher death toll per TWh. This is because more people will be exposed to higher levels of pollution. Power plants in countries such as China tend to be closer to cities in many countries than in Europe, so we would expect the death rate to be higher than the European figures found by Markandya and Wilkinson (2007). 7
• More recent research on air pollution suggests the health impacts are more severe than earlier research suggested . The analysis by Markandya and Wilkinson was published in 2007. Since then, our understanding of the health impacts of air pollution has increased significantly. More recent research suggests the health impacts are more severe. My colleague, Max Roser, shows this evolution of the research on air pollution deaths in his review of the literature here . Another reason to suspect that the global average rates are much higher is the following: if we take the death rates from Markandya and Wilkinson (2007) and multiply them by global electricity production, the resulting estimates of total global deaths from fossil fuel electricity are much lower than the most recent research. If I multiply the Markandya and Wilkinson (2007) death rates for coal, oil, and gas by their respective global electricity outputs in 2021, I get a total death toll of 280,000 people . 8 This is much lower than the estimates from more recent research. For example, Leliveld et al. (2018) estimate that 3.6 million die from fossil fuels yearly. 9 Vohra et al. (2021) even estimate more than double this figure: 8.7 million. 10 Not all of these deaths from fossil fuel air pollution are due to electricity production. But we can estimate how many deaths do. In a recent paper, Leliveld and his colleagues estimated the breakdown of air pollution deaths by sector. They estimate that 12% of all air pollution deaths (from fossil fuel and other sources) come from electricity production. 11

By my calculations, we would expect that 1.1 million to 2.55 million people die from fossil fuels used for electricity production each year. 12 The estimates we get from Markandya and Wilkinson (2007) death rates undercount by a factor of 4 to 9. This would suggest that actual death rates from fossil fuels could be 4 to 9 times higher. That would give a global average death rate from coal of 93 to 224 deaths per TWh . Unfortunately, we do not have more up-to-date death rates for coal, oil, and gas to reference here, but improved estimates are sorely needed. The current death rates shown are likely to be underestimated.

We need a timely global database on accidents in energy supply chains

The figures we reference on nuclear, solar, and wind accidents are based on the most comprehensive figures we have to date. However, they are imperfect; no timely dataset tracking these accidents exists. This is a key gap in our understanding of the safety of energy sources – and how their safety changes over time.

To estimate death rates from renewable energy technologies, Sovacool et al. (2016) compiled a database of energy-related accidents across academic databases and news reports. They define an accident as “an unintentional incident or event at an energy facility that led to either one death (or more) or at least $50,000 in property damage,” consistent with definitions in the research literature.

This raises several questions about which incidents should and shouldn’t be attributed to a given energy technology. For example, this database included deaths related to an incident in which water from a water tank ruptured during a construction test at a solar factory. It’s not clear whether these supply chain deaths should or shouldn’t be attributed to solar technologies.

Therefore, the comparability of these incidents across the different energy technologies is difficult to assess with high certainty. Another issue with this analysis by Sovacool et al. (2016) is that its database search was limited to English or non-English reports that had been translated. Therefore, some of these comparisons could be slightly over- or underestimated. It is, however, unlikely that the position of these technologies would change significantly – renewable and nuclear technologies would consistently come out with a much lower death rate than fossil fuels. Consistent data collection and tracking of incidents across all energy technologies would greatly improve these comparisons.

We need improved estimates of the health impacts of the mining of minerals and materials for all energy sources

The figures presented in this research that I rely on do not include any health impacts from radiation exposure from mining metals and minerals used in supply chains.

While we might think that this would only impact nuclear energy, analyses suggest that the carcinogenic toxicity of other sources – including solar, wind, hydropower, coal, and gas are all significantly higher across their supply chains. 13

These figures only measure workers' potential exposure to toxic elements. They do not estimate potential death rates, so we do not include them in our referenced figures above.

However, including these figures would not change the relative results overall. Fossil fuels – coal, in particular – have a higher carcinogenic toxicity than both nuclear and renewables. Hence, the relative difference between them would actually increase rather than decrease. The key insight would still be the same: fossil fuels are much worse for human health, and both nuclear and modern renewables are similarly safe alternatives.

However, estimates of the health burden of rare minerals in energy supply chains are still an important gap to fill so that we can learn about their impact and ultimately reduce these risks moving forward.

What was the death toll from Chernobyl and Fukushima?

Nuclear energy is an important source of low-carbon energy. But, there is strong public opposition to it, often because of concerns around safety.

These concerns are often sparked by memories of two nuclear accidents: the Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine in 1986 and Fukushima in Japan in 2011. 14

These two events were by far the largest nuclear accidents in history, the only disasters to receive a level 7 (the maximum classification) on the International Nuclear Event Scale.

How many people died in these nuclear disasters, and what can we learn from them?

How many died from the nuclear accident in Chernobyl?

In April 1986, the core of one of the four reactors at the Chernobyl nuclear plant in Ukraine melted down and exploded. It was the worst nuclear disaster in human history.

There are several categories of deaths linked to the disaster – for some, we have a good idea of how many died; for others, we have a range of plausible deaths.

Direct deaths from the accident

30 people died during or very soon after the incident.

Two plant workers died almost immediately in the explosion from the reactor. Overall, 134 emergency workers, plant operators, and firemen were exposed to levels of radiation high enough to suffer from acute radiation syndrome (ARS). 28 of these 134 workers died in the weeks that followed, which takes the total to 30. 15

Later deaths of workers and firemen

A point of dispute is whether any more of the 134 workers with ARS died as a result of radiation exposure. In 2008, several decades after the incident, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) published a large synthesis of the latest scientific evidence. 15 It reported that a further 19 ARS survivors had died by 2006 . However, many of these deaths were not related to any condition caused by radiation exposure. Seven were related to diseases not related to cancers, including tuberculosis, liver disease, and stroke; six were from heart attacks, one from a trauma incident, and five died from cancers. 16 It’s difficult to say how many of these deaths could be attributed to the Chernobyl accident – it’s not implausible it played a role in at least some of them, especially the five cancer deaths.

Thyroid cancer deaths in children through contaminated milk

Most of the population was not exposed to levels of radiation that would put them at risk of negative health impacts. However, the slow response to the disaster meant that some individuals were exposed to the short-lived radionuclide Iodine-131 ( 131 I) through milk contamination. Radioactive fallout settled on pasture grass across the region; this contaminated milk supplies and leafy vegetables that were consumed in the days immediately after the incident.

This exposure to 131 I has not been linked to increased cancer risk in the adult population, but several studies have shown an increased incidence of thyroid cancer in those who were children and adolescents around this time. Figuring out how many cases of thyroid cancer in this young population were caused by the accident is not straightforward. This is because there was a large increase in screening efforts in the aftermath of the disaster. It’s not uncommon for thyroid cancer cases to go undetected – and have no negative impact on an individual’s life. Increased screening, particularly in child populations, would result in finding many cases of cancer that would normally go undetected.

In 2018, UNSCEAR published its latest findings on thyroid cancers attributed to the Chernobyl disaster. Over the period from 1991 to 2015, there were 19,233 cases of thyroid cancer in patients who were younger than 18 at the time of the disaster across Ukraine, Belarus, and exposed regions of Russia. UNSCEAR concluded that around one-quarter of these cases could be linked to radiation exposure. That would mean 4,808 thyroid cancer cases. 17

By 2005, it was reported that 15 of these thyroid cancer cases had been fatal . 18 However, it was likely that this figure would increase: at least some of those still living with thyroid cancer will eventually die from it.

Therefore, giving a definitive number is impossible, but we can look at survival rates and outcomes to get an estimate. Thankfully, the prognosis for thyroid cancer in children is very good. Many patients that have undergone treatment have seen either partial or complete remission. 19 Large-scale studies report a 20-year survival rate of 92% for thyroid cancer. 20 Others show an even better prognosis, with a survival rate of 98% after 40 years. 21

If we combine standard survival rates with our number of radiation-induced cancer cases – 4,808 cases – we might estimate that the number of deaths could be in the range of 96 to 385 . This comes from the assumption of a survival rate of 92% to 98% (or, to flip it, a mortality rate of 2% to 8%). 22 This figure comes with significant uncertainty.

Deaths in the general population

Finally, there has been significant concern about cancer risks to the wider population across Ukraine, Belarus, Russia, and other parts of Europe. This topic remains controversial. Some reports in the early 2000s estimated much higher death tolls, ranging from 16,000 to 60,000. 23 In its 2005 report, the WHO estimated a potential death toll of 4,000. 24 These estimates were based on the assumption that many people were exposed to elevated levels of radioactivity and that radioactivity increases cancer risk, even at very low levels of exposure (the so-called ‘ linear no-threshold model ’ of radiation exposure).

More recent studies suggest that these estimates were too high. In 2008, the UNSCEAR concluded that radioactive exposure to the general public was very low and that it does not expect adverse health impacts in the countries affected by Chernobyl or the rest of Europe. 25 In 2018, it published a follow-up report, which came to the same conclusion.

If the health impacts of radiation were directly and linearly related to the level of exposure, we would expect to find that cancer rates were highest in regions closest to the Chernobyl site and would decline with distance from the plant. However, studies do not find this. Cancer rates in Ukraine, for example, were not higher in locations closer to the site 26 This suggests that there is a lower limit to the level at which radiation exposure has negative health impacts. And that most people were not exposed to doses higher than this.

Combined death toll from Chernobyl

To summarize the previous paragraphs:

• 2 workers died in the blast.
• 28 workers and firemen died in the weeks that followed from acute radiation syndrome (ARS).
• 19 ARS survivors had died later by 2006 ; most were from causes not related to radiation, but it’s not possible to rule all of them out (especially five that were cancer-related).
• 15 people died from thyroid cancer due to milk contamination . These deaths were among children who were exposed to 131 I from milk and food in the days after the disaster. This could increase to between 96 and 384 deaths; however, this figure is highly uncertain.
• There is currently no evidence of adverse health impacts on the general population in affected countries or wider Europe .

Combined, the confirmed death toll from Chernobyl is less than 100. We still do not know the true death toll of the disaster. My best approximation is that the true death toll is in the range of 300 to 500, based on the available evidence. 27

How many died from the nuclear accident in Fukushima?

In March 2011, an accident occurred at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Ōkuma, Fukushima, Japan. This accident was caused by the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami – the most powerful earthquake recorded in Japan’s history.

Despite being such a large event, only one death has been attributed to the disaster. This includes both the direct impact of the accident itself and the radiation exposure that followed. However, it’s estimated that several thousand died indirectly from the stress and disruption of evacuation.

Direct and cancer deaths from the accident

No one died directly from the disaster. However, 40 to 50 people were injured as a result of physical injury from the blast or radiation burns.

In 2018, the Japanese government reported that one worker has since died from lung cancer as a result of radiation exposure from the event.

Over the last decade, many studies have assessed whether there has been any increased cancer risk for local populations. There appears to be no increased cancer risk or other radiation-related health impacts .

In 2016, the World Health Organization noted that there was a very low risk of increased cancer deaths in Japan. 28 Several reports from the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation came to the same conclusion: they report that any increase in radiation exposure for local populations was very low, and they do not expect any increase in radiation-related health impacts. 29

Deaths from evacuation

A more difficult question is how many people died indirectly through the response and evacuation of locals from the area around Fukushima. Within a few weeks of the accident, more than 160,000 people had moved away, either from official evacuation efforts or voluntarily from fear of further radioactive releases. Many were forced to stay in overcrowded gyms, schools, and public facilities for several months until more permanent emergency housing became available.

The year after the 2011 disaster, the Japanese government estimated that 573 people had died indirectly as a result of the physical and mental stress of evacuation. 30 Since then, more rigorous assessments of increased mortality have been done, and this figure was revised to 2,313 deaths in September 2020.

These indirect deaths were attributed to the overall physical and mental stress of evacuation, being moved out of care settings, and disruption to healthcare facilities.

It’s important to remember that the region was also trying to deal with the aftermath of an earthquake and tsunami. This makes it difficult to completely separate the indirect deaths related to the nuclear disaster disruptions from those of the tsunami itself.

Combined, the confirmed death toll from Fukushima is therefore 2,314.

What can we learn from these nuclear disasters?

The context and response to these disasters were very different, and this is reflected in what killed people in the aftermath.

Many more people directly died from Chernobyl than from Fukushima. There are several reasons for this.

The first was reactor design . The nuclear reactors at Chernobyl were poorly designed to deal with this meltdown scenario. Its fatal RBMK reactor had no containment structure, allowing radioactive material to spill into the atmosphere. Fukushima’s reactors did have steel-and-concrete containment structures, although it’s likely that at least one of these was also breached.

Crucially, the cooling systems of both plants worked very differently; at Chernobyl, the loss of cooling water as steam actually served to accelerate reactivity levels in the reactor core, creating a positive feedback loop toward the fatal explosion. The opposite is true of Fukushima, where the reactivity reduced as temperatures rose, effectively operating as a self-shutdown measure.

The second factor was the government's response . In the case of Fukushima, the Japanese government responded quickly to the crisis, with evacuation efforts extending rapidly from a 3-kilometer (km) to a 10-km to a 20-km radius while the incident at the site continued to unfold. In contrast, the response in the former Soviet Union was one of denial and secrecy.

It’s reported that in the days that followed the Chernobyl disaster, residents in surrounding areas were uninformed of the radioactive material in the air around them. In fact, it took at least three days for the Soviet Union to admit an accident had taken place, and did so after radioactive sensors at a Swedish plant were triggered by dispersing radionuclides. As we saw above, it’s estimated that approximately 4,808 thyroid cancer cases in children and adolescents could be linked to radiation exposure from contaminated milk and foods. This could have been prevented by an earlier response.

Finally, while an early response from the Japanese government may have prevented a significant number of deaths, many have questioned whether the scale of the evacuation effort – where more than 160,000 people were displaced – was necessary. 31 As we see from the figures above, evacuation stress and disruption are estimated to have contributed to several thousand early deaths. Only one death has been linked to the impact of radiation. We don’t know what the possible death toll would have been without any evacuation. That’s why a no-evacuation strategy if a future accident was to occur, seems unlikely. However, many have called for governments to develop early assessments and protocols of radiation risks, the scale of evacuation needed, and infrastructure to ensure that the disruption to displaced people is kept to a minimum. 32

Nuclear is one of the safest energy sources

No energy source comes with zero negative impact. We often consider nuclear energy more dangerous than other sources because these low-frequency but highly visible events come to mind.

However, when we compare the death rates from nuclear energy to other sources, we see that it’s one of the safest. The numbers that have died from nuclear accidents are very small in comparison to the millions that die from air pollution from fossil fuels every year . As the linked post shows, the death rate from nuclear power is roughly comparable to that of most renewable energy technologies.

Since nuclear is also a key source of low-carbon energy, it can play a key role in a sustainable energy mix alongside renewables.

​​Pierre Friedlingstein, Matthew W. Jones, Michael O'Sullivan, Robbie M. Andrew, Dorothee, C. E. Bakker, Judith Hauck, Corinne Le Quéré, Glen P. Peters, Wouter Peters, Julia Pongratz, Stephen Sitch, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Rob B. Jackson, Simone R. Alin, Peter Anthoni, Nicholas R. Bates, Meike Becker, Nicolas Bellouin, Laurent Bopp, Thi Tuyet Trang Chau, Frédéric Chevallier, Louise P. Chini, Margot Cronin, Kim I. Currie, Bertrand Decharme, Laique M. Djeutchouang, Xinyu Dou, Wiley Evans, Richard A. Feely, Liang Feng, Thomas Gasser, Dennis Gilfillan, Thanos Gkritzalis, Giacomo Grassi, Luke Gregor, Nicolas Gruber, Özgür Gürses, Ian Harris, Richard A. Houghton, George C. Hurtt, Yosuke Iida, Tatiana Ilyina, Ingrid T. Luijkx, Atul Jain, Steve D. Jones, Etsushi Kato, Daniel Kennedy, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Jürgen Knauer, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Arne Körtzinger, Peter Landschützer, Siv K. Lauvset, Nathalie Lefèvre, Sebastian Lienert, Junjie Liu, Gregg Marland, Patrick C. McGuire, Joe R. Melton, David R. Munro, Julia E.M.S Nabel Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka, Yosuke Niwa, Tsuneo Ono, Denis Pierrot, Benjamin Poulter, Gregor Rehder, Laure Resplandy, Eddy Robertson, Christian Rödenbeck, Thais M Rosan, Jörg Schwinger, Clemens Schwingshackl, Roland Séférian, Adrienne J. Sutton, Colm Sweeney, Toste Tanhua, Pieter P Tans, Hanqin Tian, Bronte Tilbrook, Francesco Tubiello, Guido van der Werf, Nicolas Vuichard, Chisato Wada Rik Wanninkhof, Andrew J. Watson, David Willis, Andrew J. Wiltshire, Wenping Yuan, Chao Yue, Xu Yue, Sönke Zaehle, Jiye Zeng. Global Carbon Budget 2021, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 2021.

Per capita electricity consumption in the EU-27 in 2021 was around 6,400 kWh.

1 terawatt-hour is equal to 1,000,000,000 kilowatt-hours. So, we get this figure by dividing 1,000,000,000 by 6,400 ≈ 150,000 people.

The following sources were used to calculate these death rates.

Fossil fuels and biomass = these figures are taken directly from Markandya, A., & Wilkinson, P. (2007). Electricity generation and health . The Lancet , 370(9591), 979-990.

Nuclear = I have calculated these figures based on the assumption of 433 deaths from Chernobyl and 2314 from Fukushima. These figures are based on the most recent estimates from UNSCEAR and the Government of Japan. In a related article , I detail where these figures come from.

I have calculated death rates by dividing this figure by the cumulative global electricity production from nuclear from 1965 to 2021, which is 96,876 TWh.

Hydropower = The paper by Sovacool et al. (2016) provides a death rate for hydropower from 1990 to 2013. However, this period excludes some very large hydropower accidents that occurred before 1990. I have therefore calculated a death rate for hydropower from 1965 to 2021 based on the list of hydropower accidents provided by Sovacool et al. (2016), which extends back to the 1950s. Since this database ends in 2013, I have also included the Saddle Dam accident in Laos in 2018, which killed 71 people.

The total number of deaths from hydropower accidents from 1965 to 2021 was approximately 176,000. 171,000 of these deaths were from the Banqian Dam Failure in China in 1975.

I have calculated death rates by dividing this figure by cumulative global electricity production from hydropower from 1965 to 2021, which is 138,175 TWh.

Solar and wind = these figures are taken directly from Sovacool, B. K., Andersen, R., Sorensen, S., Sorensen, K., Tienda, V., Vainorius, A., … & Bjørn-Thygesen, F. (2016). Balancing safety with sustainability: assessing the risk of accidents for modern low-carbon energy systems . Journal of Cleaner Production , 112, 3952-3965. In this analysis, the authors compiled a database of as many energy-related accidents as possible based on an extensive search of academic databases and news reports and derived death rates for each source over the period from 1990 to 2013. Since this database has not been extended since then, it’s not possible to provide post-2013 death rates.

UNSCEAR (2008). Sources and effects of Ionizing Radiation. UNSCEAR 2008 Report to the General Assembly with Scientific Annexes. Available online .

Report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. General Assembly Official Records, Sixty-eighth session, Supplement No. 46. New York: United Nations, Sixtieth session, May 27–31, 2013.

The main figures used in this analysis come from the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Lifecycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Options , published in 2022.

These figures are similar to those published by the IPCC and other energy organizations.

Schlömer S., T. Bruckner, L. Fulton, E. Hertwich, A. McKinnon, D. Perczyk, J. Roy, R. Schaeffer, R. Sims, P. Smith, and R. Wiser, 2014: Annex III: Technology-specific cost and performance parameters. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

The figures for some technologies — such as solar — vary significantly depending on where they’re manufactured (and the country's electricity mix). Estimates range from around 23 grams CO 2 per kWh to 82 grams.

The carbon intensity of these technologies' production is likely to improve over time. The Carbon Brief provides a clear discussion of the significance of more recent lifecycle analyses in detail here .

Since oil is not conventionally used for electricity production, it is not included in the IPCC’s reported figures per kilowatt-hour. Figures for oil have, therefore, been taken from Turconi et al. (2013). It reports emissions in kilograms of CO2eq per megawatt-hour. Emissions factors for all other technologies are consistent with IPCC results. The range it gives for oil is 530–900: I have taken the midpoint estimate (715 kgCO2eq/MWh, or 715 gCO2eq/kWh).

Turconi, R., Boldrin, A., & Astrup, T. (2013). Life cycle assessment (LCA) of electricity generation technologies: Overview, comparability and limitations . Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews , 28, 555-565.

Burgherr, P., & Hirschberg, S. (2014). Comparative risk assessment of severe accidents in the energy sector . Energy Policy, 74, S45-S56.

McCombie, C., & Jefferson, M. (2016). Renewable and nuclear electricity: Comparison of environmental impacts. Energy Policy, 96, 758-769.

Hirschberg, S., Bauer, C., Burgherr, P., Cazzoli, E., Heck, T., Spada, M., & Treyer, K. (2016). Health effects of technologies for power generation: Contributions from normal operation, severe accidents and terrorist threat . Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 145, 373-387.

Luderer, G., Pehl, M., Arvesen, A., Gibon, T., Bodirsky, B. L., de Boer, H. S., … & Mima, S. (2019). Environmental co-benefits and adverse side-effects of alternative power sector decarbonization strategies . Nature Communications, 10(1), 1-13.

Hertwich, E. G., Gibon, T., Bouman, E. A., Arvesen, A., Suh, S., Heath, G. A., … & Shi, L. (2015). Integrated life-cycle assessment of electricity-supply scenarios confirms global environmental benefit of low-carbon technologies . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(20), 6277-6282.

Xie, L., Huang, Y., & Qin, P. (2018). Spatial distribution of coal-fired power plants in China. Environment and Development Economics, 23(4), 495-515.

Coal: 24.62 deaths per TWh * 10,042 TWh = 247,000 deaths; Oil: 18.43 deaths per TWh * 852 TWh = 16,000 deaths; Gas: 2.82 deaths per TWh * 6,098 TWh = 17,000 deaths. This sums to a total of 280,000 people.

Lelieveld, J., Klingmüller, K., Pozzer, A., Burnett, R. T., Haines, A., & Ramanathan, V. (2019). Effects of fossil fuel and total anthropogenic emission removal on public health and climate . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(15), 7192-7197.

Vohra, K., Vodonos, A., Schwartz, J., Marais, E. A., Sulprizio, M. P., & Mickley, L. J. (2021). Global mortality from outdoor fine particle pollution generated by fossil fuel combustion: Results from GEOS-Chem . Environmental Research, 195, 110754.

Chowdhury, S., Pozzer, A., Haines, A., Klingmueller, K., Münzel, T., Paasonen, P., ... & Lelieveld, J. (2022). Global health burden of ambient PM2.5 and the contribution of anthropogenic black carbon and organic aerosols . Environment International, 159, 107020.

Leliveld et al. (2019) estimate that 8.8 million people die from all sources of air pollution each year. If we multiply this figure by 12%, we get 1.1 million people. Vohra et al. (2021) estimate that the death toll is 2.4 times higher than Leliveld et al. (2019). This would give a figure of 2.55 million deaths [1.1 million * 2.4]

UNECE (2021). Lifecycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Options . United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.

The third incident that often comes to mind was the Three Mile Island accident in the US in 1979. On the seven-point International Nuclear Event Scale, this was rated as a level five event (“Accident with Wider Consequences”).

No one died directly from this incident, and follow-up epidemiological studies have not found a clear link between the incident and long-term health impacts.

Hatch, M. C., Beyea, J., Nieves, J. W., & Susser, M. (1990). Cancer near the Three Mile Island nuclear plant: radiation emissions . American Journal of Epidemiology , 132(3), 397-412.

Hatch, M. C., Wallenstein, S., Beyea, J., Nieves, J. W., & Susser, M. (1991). Cancer rates after the Three Mile Island nuclear accident and proximity of residence to the plant . American Journal of Public Healt h, 81(6), 719-724.

The UNSCEAR (2008) report lists the causes of death in each survivor in Table D4 of the appendix.

25% of 19,233 is 4808 cases.

This figure was included in the UNSCEAR’s 2008 report. I found no updated figure for fatalities in its 2018 report.

Reiners, C. (2011). Clinical experiences with radiation-induced thyroid cancer after Chernobyl. Genes, 2(2), 374-383.

Hogan, A. R., Zhuge, Y., Perez, E. A., Koniaris, L. G., Lew, J. I., & Sola, J. E. (2009). Pediatric thyroid carcinoma: incidence and outcomes in 1753 patients. Journal of Surgical Research, 156(1), 167-172.

Hay, I. D., Gonzalez-Losada, T., Reinalda, M. S., Honetschlager, J. A., Richards, M. L., & Thompson, G. B. (2010). Long-term outcome in 215 children and adolescents with papillary thyroid cancer treated during 1940 through 2008. World Journal of Surgery , 34(6), 1192-1202.

2% of 4808 is 96, and 8% is 385.

Cardis et al. (2006). Estimates of the cancer burden in Europe from radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl accident. International Journal of Cancer. Available online .

Fairlie and Sumner (2006). An independent scientific evaluation of health and environmental effects 20 years after the nuclear disaster providing critical analysis of a recent report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the World Health Organisation (WHO). Available online .

IAEA, WHO (2005/06). Chernobyl’s Legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts .

As it details in its report: “The vast majority of the population were exposed to low levels of radiation comparable, at most, to a few times the annual natural background radiation levels and need not live in fear of serious health consequences. This is true for the populations of the three countries most affected by the Chernobyl accident, Belarus, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine, and even more so for the populations of other European countries.”

“To date, there has been no persuasive evidence of any other health effect in the general population that can be attributed to radiation exposure”

Leung, K. M., Shabat, G., Lu, P., Fields, A. C., Lukashenko, A., Davids, J. S., & Melnitchouk, N. (2019). Trends in solid tumor incidence in Ukraine 30 years after chernobyl . Journal of Global Oncology , 5 , 1-10.

When we report on the safety of energy sources – in this article – I take the upper number of 433 deaths to be conservative.

World Health Organization (2016). FAQs: Fukushima Five Years On. Available online .

To quote UNSCEAR directly: “The doses to the general public, both those incurred during the first year and estimated for their lifetimes, are generally low or very low. No discernible increased incidence of radiation-related health effects are expected among exposed members of the public or their descendants.”

Report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. General Assembly Official Records , Sixty-eighth session, Supplement No. 46. New York: United Nations, Sixtieth session, May 27–31, 2013.

The Yomiuri Shimbun, 573 deaths ‘related to nuclear crisis’, The Yomiuri Shimbun, 5 February 2012, https://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20120204190315/http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T120204003191.htm.

Hayakawa, M. (2016). Increase in disaster-related deaths: risks and social impacts of evacuation . Annals of the ICRP, 45(2_suppl), 123-128.

Normile (2021). Nuclear medicine: After 10 years advising survivors of the Fukushima disaster about radiation, Masaharu Tsubokura thinks the evacuations posed a far bigger health risk . Science .

Cite this work

Our articles and data visualizations rely on work from many different people and organizations. When citing this article, please also cite the underlying data sources. This article can be cited as:

BibTeX citation

Reuse this work freely

All visualizations, data, and code produced by Our World in Data are completely open access under the Creative Commons BY license . You have the permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited.

The data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors. We will always indicate the original source of the data in our documentation, so you should always check the license of any such third-party data before use and redistribution.

All of our charts can be embedded in any site.

Our World in Data is free and accessible for everyone.

Help us do this work by making a donation.

• Random article
• Teaching guide
• Privacy & cookies

by Chris Woodford . Last updated: August 20, 2024.

A tomic energy has had a mixed history in the half-century or so since the world's first commercial nuclear power plant opened at Calder Hall (now Sellafield ) in Cumbria, England in 1956. Huge amounts of world energy have been produced from atoms ever since, but amid enormous controversy. Some people believe nuclear power is a vital way to tackle climate change ; others insist it is dirty, dangerous, uneconomic, and unnecessary. Either way, it helps if you understand what nuclear energy is and how it works—so let's forget the politics for a moment and take a closer look at the science. Photo: Nuclear power plants need large supplies of cooling water, which is why they're often built in coastal areas. Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station near Phoenix, Arizona uses these spray ponds as a form of backup cooling. Credit: Photographs in the Carol M. Highsmith Archive, Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division .

What is atomic energy?

Photo: Carefully controlled: Before it was closed in the 1970s, NASA's scientific nuclear reactor at Plum Brook Station in Sandusky Ohio was used for developing materials for the space program. The site has now been renamed NASA Armstrong (for astronaut Neil Armstrong) and does other kinds of cutting-edge space research. Picture courtesy of NASA Glenn Research Center (NASA-GRC) and Internet Archive .

How much energy can one atom make?

Photo: Albert Einstein—godfather of nuclear energy. Photo courtesy of US Library of Congress .

Artwork: Atoms are made of protons (red), neutrons (blue), electrons (green), and energy binding them together (yellow). By splitting large unstable atoms into smaller and more stable ones, we can release some of this "binding energy." That's where nuclear power plants get their energy from.

What is a chain reaction? What if you could make lots of atoms split up one after another? In theory, you could get them to release a huge amount of energy. If breaking up billions of atoms sounds like a real bore (like breaking billions of eggs to make an omelet), there's one more handy thing that helps: some radioactive isotopes will go on splitting themselves automatically in what's called a chain reaction , producing power for pretty much as long as you want. Suppose you take a really heavy atom—a stable kind of uranium called uranium-235. Each of its atoms has a nucleus with 92 protons and 143 neutrons. Fire a neutron at uranium-235 and you turn it into uranium-236: an unstable version of the same atom (a radioactive isotope of uranium) with 92 protons and 144 neutrons (remember that you fired an extra one in). Uranium-236 is too unstable to hang around for long so it splits apart into two much smaller atoms, barium and krypton, releasing quite a lot of energy and firing off three spare neutrons at the same time. Now the brilliant thing is that the spare neutrons can crash into other uranium-235 atoms, making them split apart too. And when each of those atoms splits, it too will produce spare neutrons. So a single fission of a single uranium-235 atom rapidly becomes a chain reaction—a runaway, nuclear avalanche that releases a huge amount of energy in the form of heat. Photo: Chain reaction! Fire a neutron (1) at a large uranium-235 atom (2). You make an even larger, unstable radioactive isotope of uranium, uranium-236, that promptly splits into two smaller and more stable atoms krypton and barium (3). In the process, heat energy is released and there are three spare neutrons left over (4). The neutrons can go on to react with more uranium-235 atoms (5) in a hugely energetic chain reaction. Other fission reactors are possible when a neutron hits uranium-235, producing either two or four spare neutrons. That's why (confusingly) you'll sometimes read in books that uranium-235 fission produces "two or three" spare neutrons (and an average of 2.47) per reaction. What's the difference between a nuclear power plant and a nuclear bomb? In a nuclear bomb, the chain reaction isn't controlled, and that's what makes nuclear weapons so terrifyingly destructive. The entire chain reaction happens in a fraction of a second, with one splitting atom producing two, four, eight, sixteen, and so on, releasing a massive amount of energy in the blink of an eye. In nuclear power plants, the chain reactions are very carefully controlled so they proceed at a relatively slow rate, just enough to sustain themselves, releasing energy very steadily over a period of many years or decades. There is no runaway, uncontrolled chain reaction in a nuclear power plant. How does a nuclear power plant work?

Can a nuclear power plant explode like a nuclear bomb one reason many people oppose nuclear power is because they think nuclear plants are like enormous nuclear bombs, just waiting to explode and wipe out civilization. it's true that nuclear plants and nuclear bombs are both based on nuclear reactions in which atoms split apart, but that's generally where the similarity begins and ends. artwork: nuclear explosion: oil painting of a pacific nuclear test at bikini atoll in the 1950s by war artist charles bittinger courtesy of the us naval history and heritage command , (classified as public domain ). to start with, very different grades of uranium are used in power plants and nuclear bombs (some bombs use plutonium, but that's another story). bombs need extremely pure ( enriched ) uranium-235, which is made by removing contaminants (notably another isotope of uranium, uranium-238) from naturally occurring uranium. unless the contaminants are removed, they stop a nuclear chain reaction from occurring. power plants can work with less purified, much more ordinary uranium providing they add another substance called a moderator . the moderator, typically made of carbon or water , effectively "converts" the less pure uranium so it will allow a chain reaction to happen. (i won't go into the details here, but it works by slowing down neutrons so they are less readily absorbed by any uranium-238 impurities and have a greater chance of causing fission in the all-important uranium-235.) all we really need to know about the moderator is that it makes a chain reaction possible in relatively impure uranium—and without it the reaction stops. so what happens if the reaction inside a power plant starts to run out of control if that happens, so much energy is released that the reactor overheats and may even explode—but in a relatively small, entirely conventional explosion, not an apocalyptic nuclear bomb. in that situation, the moderator burns or melts, the reactor is destroyed, and the nuclear reaction stops; there is no runaway chain reaction. the worst situation is called a meltdown : the reactor melts into a liquid, producing a hot, radioactive glob that drops deep down into the ground, potentially contaminating water supplies. the conventional explosion can also toss a cloud of radioactive material high into the sky, causing air pollution and potentially contaminating a huge area all around. there are various other important differences that stop nuclear power plants from turning into nuclear bombs. in particular, nuclear bombs have to be assembled in a very precise way and detonated so that they implode (pushing the nuclear material together so it reacts properly). these conditions don't occur in a nuclear power plant. a different kind of power plant called a fast-breeder reactor works a different way, producing its own plutonium fuel in a self-sustaining process. its chain reaction is much closer to what happens in a nuclear bomb and it doesn't work through a moderator. that's why a fast-breeder reactor could, theoretically, run out of control and cause a nuclear explosion. photo: nuclear nightmare: in the days following the chernobyl nuclear power explosion in the ukraine in 1986, a cloud of radioactive "fallout" spread throughout europe. in this sequence of pictures, you can see the cloud (the pink area) on day 2, day 6, and day 10 after the accident. it's important to note that what happened here was a conventional explosion that threw radioactive material high into the air: it wasn't anything like a nuclear bomb. pictures by lawrence livermore national laboratory courtesy of us department of energy. nuclear power—good or bad.

There are currently 415 operating nuclear reactors in 32 countries, with a total installed generating capacity of 373,735 megawatts (MW) (373GW) International Atomic Energy Agency, 2024

Chart: Nuclear plants (orange slice) supply about 8 percent of the energy used in the United States (that's all energy, not just electricity). Fossil fuels (gray slices) supply almost 9 times more. The outer ring shows data for 2023 (yellow numbers), while the inner ring shows 2015 data (white numbers), so you can see there's a steady shift away from coal to nuclear and renewables (although natural gas has also grown hugely). Each fuel percentage is rounded so the total may not add to exactly 100%. Source: Energy Information Administration , US Department of Energy, April 2023.

Less electricity was generated by coal than nuclear in the United States in 2020 US Energy Information Administration, 2021

Chart: While many countries have turned away from nuclear power, China maintains a huge commitment to the technology. It currently has 55 operating reactors and 23 more under construction. Source: China continues rapid growth of nuclear power capacity , Energy Information Administration, US Department of Energy, May 2024.

If you liked this article...

Don't want to read our articles try listening instead, find out more, you might also like these articles....

Other websites

• Decommissioning nuclear reactors is a long-term and costly process : It can take several decades and up to a billion dollars to clean up a nuclear plant. A fascinating article from the US Energy Information's Today in Energy blog, November 17, 2017.
• The world's largest nuclear plants differ by age, number of reactors, and utilization : A good summary of the current state of world nuclear power from the US Energy Information's Today in Energy blog, February 6, 2017.
• Nuclear power stations and reactors operational around the world: listed and mapped : Where are all the world's nuclear power plants? What type of reactor do they use? When were they first opened? This March 2011 article from The Guardian presents a list of all the world's (non-scientific) reactors and plots them on a Google Map. Although that article is very user-friendly, the most up-to-date source is the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA): Power Reactor Information Systems (PRIS) database.
• Nuclear Reactors and Nuclear Bombs: What Defines the Differences? : PBS Newshour, April 6, 2011. Explains the differences in the uranium fuel used by reactors and bombs.
• Nuclear Reactors, the China Syndrome, and Waste Storage by Richard Muller. This is a brief online introduction to nuclear energy—effectively a shortened version of the ideas covered in Richard's book "Physics for Future Presidents," listed below. (Archived link via the Wayback Machine.)
• Hyperphysics: Nuclear : A series of good, short introductions to nuclear physics and its various applications.
• First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation : Today in Energy, December 26, 2023. With a new reactor starting up at Georgia's Vogtle plant, is the United States getting back into nuclear power?
• Less electricity was generated by coal than nuclear in the United States in 2020 : Today in Energy, March 18, 2021. Coal-fired electricity generation has fallen by an enormous 61 percent since 2008.
• Twelve U.S. states generate more than 30% of their electricity from nuclear power : Today in Energy, March 26, 2020. If you think nuclear is a mini source of power, take a look at this analysis of which US states really depend on it, from the US Energy Information's Today in Energy blog. Illinois and South Carolina get over half its electricity from nuclear, for example.
• Nuclear power doesn't stack up without a carbon price, industry group says by Sarah Martin. The Guardian, June 3, 2019. Nuclear power cannot compete with gas and coal unless their hidden environmental costs are priced into the comparison.
• Nuclear Power Can Save the World by Joshua S. Goldstein, Staffan A. Qvist and Steven Pinker. The New York Times, April 6, 2019. Three scientists argue the carbon-cutting case for nuclear power.
• A Bittersweet Milestone for the World's Safest Nuclear Reactors by Peter Fairley. IEEE Spectrum, September 20, 2017. A look at new Westinghouse AP1000 reactors currently being built in China.
• The Murky Future of Nuclear Power in the United States by Diane Cardwell. The New York Times. February 18, 2017. Safety concerns have prevented nuclear power from ever becoming cost-effective.
• Amid a Graying Fleet of Nuclear Plants, a Hunt for Solutions by Henry Fountain. The New York Times. March 21, 2016. Is it possible to build a new generation of nuclear plants before our current plants reach the end of their lives?
• The Forgotten History of Small Nuclear Reactors by M.V. Ramana. IEEE Spectrum. April 27, 2015. Do nuclear power plants necessarily have to be so big and expensive?
• Nuclear Power: Go Big or Go Home by Dave Levitan. IEEE Spectrum, September 19, 2012. Nuclear power is on the rise in some countries and on the fall elsewhere, so what's the picture overall?

For older readers

• Nuclear Power: A Very Short Introduction by Maxwell Irvine. Oxford University Press, 2011. A slim (144-page) volume designed to cut through the heated arguments about nuclear power.
• Nuclear Energy What Everyone Needs to Know by Charles Ferguson. Oxford University Press, 2011. A well-informed, accessible, and reasonably balanced introduction presented in a kind of "frequently asked questions" (FAQ) format.
• Nuclear Or Not?: Does Nuclear Power Have a Place in a Sustainable Energy Future? by Prof. David Elliott (ed). Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. An objective review of the arguments for and against nuclear power, presented in a series of essays.
• Nuclear? : In this chapter from his book Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air (UIT Cambridge, 2009), physicist David MacKay considers how nuclear power stacks up as a sustainable power source.
• Physics for Future Presidents by Richard Muller. New York, W.W. Norton, 2008. Quite a lot of Richard Muller's excellent book is devoted to different nuclear topics, from weapons and waste to fission and fusion. Although pro-nuclear, it sets out its arguments in a very measured way and you can take them or leave them. There is a very good assessment of whether nuclear energy and waste is as dangerous as some people think when you consider other types of risks.

For younger readers

• Nuclear Power: Is it too risky? by Jim Pipe. Franklin Watts, 2010. A short (32-page) book with arguments for and against all the different types of energy, including nuclear, presented side by side.
• Nuclear Power: Energy Debate by Ewan Mcleish. Wayland, 2009. A short (48-page) library-style volume presenting another balanced look at the pros and cons of nuclear power.
• Energy by Chris Woodford. New York/London, England: Dorling Kindersley, 2007: This is my own very colorful little introduction to the world of energy for ages 9-12 or so. Nuclear is considered as one of many different types of energy.
• Power and Energy by Chris Woodford. New York: Facts on File, 2004. Another one of my energy books. This is a more detailed and more wordy one suitable for ages from about 10–16, and with more emphasis on how humans have harnessed different energy sources through the ages.

Text copyright © Chris Woodford 2009, 2024. All rights reserved. Full copyright notice and terms of use .

Rate this page

Tell your friends, cite this page, more to explore on our website....

• Get the book
• Send feedback

• ENVIRONMENT

What is nuclear energy and is it a viable resource?

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

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

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

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

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

Types of nuclear reactors

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

Nuclear energy history

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

Nuclear power, climate change, and future designs

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

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

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

Nuclear power risks

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

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

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

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

Become a subscriber and support our award-winning editorial features, videos, photography, and much more.

For as little as $2/mo.

Related Topics

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

You May Also Like

This pill could protect us from radiation after a nuclear meltdown

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

This young nuclear engineer has a new plan for clean energy

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

Who is Oppenheimer? The controversial man behind the atomic bomb

• Environment
• Paid Content

History & Culture

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

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

 / 

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

Why Nuclear Power Must Be Part of the Energy Solution

By Richard Rhodes • July 19, 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related Articles

On gulf coast, an activist rallies her community against gas exports.

By Jocelyn C. Zuckerman

Can a California Oilfield Be Retrofitted to Store Solar Energy?

By Stephen Robert Miller

In a Dammed and Diked Mekong, a Push to Restore the Flow

By Stefan Lovgren

More From E360

E360 film contest winner, in california, a solitary herder cares for his goats and the hills, as ‘doomsday’ glacier melts, can an artificial barrier save it, e360 film contest, for 60,000 years, australia’s first nations have put fire to good use, faced with heavier rains, cities scramble to control polluted runoff, in montana’s northern plains, swift foxes are back from the brink, as canadian river shrivels, northern communities call for a highway, in warming world, global heat deaths are grossly undercounted, biodiversity, the ‘internet of animals’ could transform what we know about wildlife, grim dilemma: should we kill one owl species to save another, with co2 levels rising, world’s drylands are turning green, as world’s springs vanish, ripple effects alter ecosystems.

• MyAccount and app homepage
• Manage energy account Manage your energy 24/7: view and pay bills, give readings and more.
• Get the app Make payments, track your energy use, send readings and more.
• View bills and payments View your bills, payments, refunds and credits in MyAccount.
• Submit a meter reading Give a reading every time we ask for one to get accurate bills.
• Make a payment
• Get a quote homepage
• Our energy tariffs Compare different types of tariffs to see which one suits you.
• Tariff terms and conditions See our terms and conditions when you take out one of our tariffs.
• Tariff Information Find your tariff's unit rates, standing charges and end date.
• EV tariffs Save with our exclusive GoElectric tariffs for electric car owners.
• Green Home Hub homepage
• Energy efficiency Use our hub to find tips and access products.
• Boilers and heating From air source heat pumps to energy efficient boilers.
• Solar panels and batteries Find out more about powering you home with a solar panel system.
• Insulation Save with insulation – don't lose heat through your walls and roof.
• Electric cars Find out about car leasing, charging points and EV tariffs.
• Smart meters homepage
• Get a smart meter Find out how a smart meter can help you save energy and money.
• Buy a new in-home display Get a new in-home display for your smart meter – or fix a problem.
• Use your in-home display How to use your smart meter's in-home display – and fix problems.
• Help and support homepage
• Help centre Answers to bills, payments, meter readings, moving, debt and more.
• Get in touch Find out how to get in touch by WhatsApp, text and phone.
• Emergency numbers Find the 24-hour phone numbers for gas and electricity emergencies.
• Warm Home Discount Find out how you get a one-off payment under the Warm Home Discount scheme.
• Priority services
• Ways to pay your bill
• Prepayment meter
• Making a complaint
• Get a quote Find our cheapest business energy prices online – get a quick quote.
• Compare business tariffs Compare tariff types to see which one suits your business.
• Manage your account homepage
• MyAccount login Manage your energy account: pay bills, submit readings, and more 24/7.
• Submit meter reading Get accurate bills for your business – give regular readings.
• Renew your contract Choose your new business energy tariff in just a few clicks.
• Move/add premises We'll handle your energy when you move premises. Just give us details!
• Ways to pay your bill Choose from various payment options for your business energy bills.
• Smart meters
• Energy tariffs homepage
• Our business tariffs Compare different types of tariffs to see which one suits your business.
• Business tariff T&Cs View our business tariffs T&Cs here including the key terms.
• Help, advice and support homepage
• Contact us Find out how to get in touch by email or phone.
• Find your answer See our frequently asked questions about business energy accounts.
• Making a complaint Let us know if you've a problem – we'll do our best to put it right!
• Small Business Energy Blog
• Electric vehicles homepage
• EVs for business Find out how we can help your business switch to electric vehicles.
• Electric charging points See our scalable charge point solutions to suit your business.
• EV Salary Sacrifice Scheme Achieve your sustainability targets with a Salary Sacrifice Scheme.
• Air conditioning units
• Net zero for business homepage
• Net Zero energy solutions
• Carbon offsetting
• Buying energy homepage
• Energy sources
• Fixed price contracts
• Flex purchasing
• Ask for a quote
• Selling energy homepage
• Renewable certificates
• Contract management
• Get in touch
• Metering and infrastructure homepage
• MHHS reform
• Electric Vehicle chargers
• New connections and disconnections
• Metering services
• Smart and AMR Meters
• Existing customers homepage
• Billing and payments
• Meter readings
• Energy view
• Renew your contract
• Partner Hub
• Business FAQ
• Talk Power homepage
• Talk Power blogs
• Talk Power webinars
• Subscribe to Talk Power
• How we generate electricity homepage
• Wind power We're one of the UK's leaders in developing wind projects.
• Nuclear energy We're leading the move to a cleaner, low emission electric future.
• Solar power Find out about our ambitious solar projects across the UK.
• Research and Development Learn how we're helping Britain achieve Net Zero through innovation.
• Careers homepage
• All jobs Choose a rewarding career with EDF, and help us achieve Net Zero.
• Graduate scheme Join our graduate programmes and help Britain achieve Net Zero.
• Placements Spend a year in our business on an industrial placement.
• Apprenticeships Opportunities to build a career whilst helping fight climate change.
• Equity, diversity and inclusion
• Benefits and rewards
• Sustainability
• Hinkley Point C homepage
• Hinkley Point C We're building two nuclear reactors to power 6m homes.
• Hinkley Point C news The latest Hinkley Point C press releases, photography and films.
• Local community We aim to create local benefits, while minimising disruption.
• HPC careers Join us and develop a career that can help Britain achieve Net Zero.
• Suppliers and contracts We work with international, national and local firms – join us!
• Skills and education programmes
• Media centre
• Financial reports

What are the advantages of nuclear energy?

The turbine hall at our nuclear power station Sizewell B in Suffolk.

The top five advantages of nuclear energy:

• It’s a low-carbon energy source
• It has a small carbon footprint compared to alternatives like fossil fuels
• It’s key to combating climate change and reaching net zero
• It’s safe and reliable – providing us with power whatever the weather
• Countries that use nuclear and renewable energy together are the most successful at combating climate change

Why do we use nuclear energy

In the UK and many other countries worldwide, there’s a huge increasing demand for energy. We need to keep powering our homes, workplaces, and cities – but we also need to make sure we’re being responsible for the planet and protecting it for generations to come. Nuclear power is a low-carbon energy source that’s reliable, so it’s part of the solution for providing us with a long-term energy source that can meet our demand for energy while also keeping carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions low.

A low-carbon energy source

Although nuclear power stations take considerable investment to build, they last a long time and don't cost a lot to run compared to other types of energy sources. This means they're cost-effective in the long run. Most of the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions associated with nuclear power stations happen during construction and fuel processing, not when electricity is being generated.

How we produce nuclear energy

The dry fuel storage at our nuclear power station Sizewell B

It’s all about chemistry. Nuclear energy is generated when we split uranium atoms in a process known as nuclear fission. We do this by conducting the reaction inside reactor vessels which are big, tough steel capsules with fuel rods inside.

When a neutron hits a uranium atom, the atom splits and releases two or three more neutrons, which produces heat.

We then add water that becomes so heated it creates steam. The steam then powers a turbine and causes it to spin which produces mechanical energy, we convert that into electrical energy and that’s what feeds into our National Grid.

A single uranium fuel pellet – which is about the size of a peanut – can produce as much energy as 800kg of coal. This makes nuclear a much more efficient, low-carbon alternative to using fossil fuels.

Discover more about the nuclear fission process by shrinking to the size of an atom in this 360 tour inside a nuclear reactor!

A long-term, low-carbon, reliable energy solution

Nuclear energy can help meet our country's demands for energy because it’s reliable whatever the weather. Uranium is a raw material that's widely available, which makes nuclear power is a long-term, low-carbon solution. In the UK, the existing network of nuclear reactors produces 20% of our total electricity and has been running safely for more than 60 years.

Nuclear supports net zero

To achieve zero carbon emissions by 2050 (which is known as net-zero) we need to quadruple low-carbon power generation. Renewable sources of energy like wind and solar rely on the weather, so as well as these amazing technologies, we also need reliable sources like nuclear that is not weather dependent in order to keep the lights on. Because there are currently 444 commercial nuclear reactors operating around the world(3), we know nuclear energy is a great solution for power at a large scale, and the technology can help maintain the stability of our electricity grid.

Nuclear energy is safe

Safety is at the heart of everything we do. In our 42 year operating history, there has never been an incident involving the release of radiation offsite from any of our UK nuclear power stations. Nuclear power is one of the most highly regulated industries. In the UK, the industry is regulated by the Independent Office for Nuclear Regulation and the Environment Agency or the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA).

EDF's experience with nuclear energy

We're part of the EDF Group – with 58 nuclear reactors in France and a total of 78 reactors across the world. In France, EDF Energy has 50 years' experience in the design, maintenance, operation and decommissioning of nuclear plants. Nuclear energy has a strong safety record. A mixture of safety regulations, technology, and lessons learned from historical accidents means the risk of future accidents is low. The probability of a large radiological release at a new nuclear power station is extremely remote, and we at EDF are committed to maintaining that strong safety record.

Want to become even more of an expert in nuclear energy?

Watch Wes Nelson and Dr. Alex George’s Electric Adventure where they drive an all-electric Tesla Model X and go on a tour inside our Sizewell B power station!

Electric Adventures - Fission Impossible

Find out what it’s really like to work inside a nuclear power station from our engineering apprentice Beth.

What’s it like to work at a nuclear power plant?

Bust those myths! Learn the truth about nuclear in this myth-busting article.

Busting myths about nuclear energy

Related articles

Power up your home: the all-new Tesla Powerwall 3 battery arrives soon!

Types of renewable energy

What you need to know about the planned RTS meter shutdown

Switch language:

Nuclear power: The pros and cons of the energy source

What are the pros and cons of nuclear power? Power-technology.com weighs up opinions on the controversial source of energy.

• Share on Linkedin
• Share on Facebook

Advantages and Disadvantages of Nuclear Energy

Unlocking the high energy output of nuclear plants.

Few energy industry topics are discussed as vigorously as nuclear power. For some, nuclear is an underutilised source of energy. Cheap to produce and low carbon, they say nuclear should be a larger part of the world’s energy mix as it transitions away from fossil fuels to low-carbon and renewable energy.

Free Report

Delve into the renewable energy prospects for morocco.

• The 2020 target compared to what was achieved  
• The 2030 target and current progress  
• Energy strategy to 2050  
• Green hydrogen  
• Predictions for the way forward   

You will receive an email shortly. Please check your inbox to download the Report.

Go deeper with GlobalData

Generation mPower’s SMR Technology: Offering a Potential for Nuclea...

Nuclear power - thematic research, data insights.

The gold standard of business intelligence.

Find out more

Related Company Profiles

Green peace, department of energy, odisha.

By downloading this Report, you acknowledge that GlobalData may share your information with GlobalData and that your personal data will be used as described in their Privacy Policy

Tick here to opt out of curated industry news, reports, and event updates

Visit our Privacy Policy for more information about our services, how GlobalData may use, process and share your personal data, including information on your rights in respect of your personal data and how you can unsubscribe from future marketing communications. Our services are intended for corporate subscribers and you warrant that the email address submitted is your corporate email address.

For others, nuclear is as bad if not worse than fossil fuels. They argue the potential of a nuclear meltdown like Chernobyl and Fukushima outweighs the positives of nuclear power, as do the excessive costs and difficulty in disposing of the nuclear waste produced.

How well do you really know your competitors?

Access the most comprehensive Company Profiles on the market, powered by GlobalData. Save hours of research. Gain competitive edge.

Your download email will arrive shortly

Not ready to buy yet? Download a free sample

We are confident about the unique quality of our Company Profiles. However, we want you to make the most beneficial decision for your business, so we offer a free sample that you can download by submitting the below form

Pro –  Low carbon

Unlike traditional fossil fuels like coal, nuclear power does not produce greenhouse gas emissions like methane and CO 2 .

Nuclear advocacy group the World Nuclear Association found that the average emissions for nuclear are 29 tonnes of CO 2 per gigawatt hour (GWh) of energy produces. This compares favourably with renewable sources like solar (85 tonnes per GWh) and wind (26 tonnes per GWh) and even more favourably with fossil fuels like lignite (1,054 tonnes per GWh) and coal (888 tonnes per GWh).

Nuclear produces roughly the same or less emissions as renewable sources so could be considered an environmentally friendly source of energy.

Con –  If it goes wrong…

Anti-nuclear campaigners will cite the three major nuclear meltdowns of recent times, Three Mile Island in 1979, Chernobyl in 1986 and most recently Fukushima in 2011.

Despite all the safety measures in place these nuclear plants, different factors caused them to go into meltdown, which was devastating for the environment and for local inhabitants who had to flee the affected areas.

The official immediate death toll for Chernobyl was reported as 54 people, although this is consistently disputed,  and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) established a figure of 4,000 projected deaths in the longer term. Is the potential of nuclear power worth the risk of powerful radiation leaks, mass evacuations and billions spent in repairs?

Pro –  Not intermittent

US President Donald Trump famously decried wind energy for its intermittency, saying: “When the wind stops blowing, that’s the end of your electric.”  The consistent criticism of renewable energy like wind and solar is that they only produce power when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining.

Nuclear, however, is not intermittent, as nuclear power plants can run without any interruptions for a year and more without interruptions or maintenance, making it a more reliable source of energy.

Con –  Nuclear waste

One side effect of nuclear power is the amount of nuclear waste it produces. It has been estimated that the world produces some 34,000m 3 of nuclear waste each year, waste that takes years to degrade.

Anti-nuclear environmental group Greenpeace released a report in January 2019 that detailed what it called a nuclear waste ‘crisis’ for which there is ‘no solution on the horizon’. One such solution was a concrete nuclear waste ‘coffin’ on Runit Island , which has begun to crack open and potentially release radioactive material.

Pro –  Cheap to run

Nuclear power plants are cheaper to run than their coal or gas rivals. It has been estimated that even factoring in costs such as managing radioactive fuel and disposal nuclear plants cost between 33 to 50% of a coal plant and 20 to 25% of a gas combined-cycle plant.

The amount of energy produced is also superior to most other forms. The US Department of Energy (DOE) estimates that to replace a 1GW nuclear power plant would require 2GW of coal or 3GW to 4GW from renewable sources to generate the same amount of electricity.

Con –  Expensive to build

The initial costs for building a nuclear power plant are steep. A recent virtual test reactor in the US estimate rose from $3.5bn to $6bn alongside huge extra costs to maintain the facility.

South Africa scrapped plans to add 9.6GW of nuclear power to its energy mix due to the cost, which was estimated anywhere between $34-84bn. So whilst nuclear plants are cheap to run and produce inexpensive fuel, the initial costs are off-putting.

Sign up for our daily news round-up!

Give your business an edge with our leading industry insights.

More Relevant

QatarEnergy unveils plan to build 2GW solar power in Qatar

Uk proposes £5.5bn subsidy for sizewell c nuclear plant, georgia power identifies sites for 500mw bess projects in us, cip’s buffalo plains project delivers first power to grid in canada, sign up to the newsletter: in brief, your corporate email address, i would also like to subscribe to:.

Future Power Technology : Power Technology Focus (monthly)

Thematic Take (monthly)

I consent to Verdict Media Limited collecting my details provided via this form in accordance with Privacy Policy

Thank you for subscribing

View all newsletters from across the GlobalData Media network.

Press centre

Nuclear technology and applications.

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

Nuclear safety and security

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

Safeguards and verification

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

Technical Cooperation Programme

• How it works
• How to participate

Coordinated research activities

• Legislative assistance

Key programmes

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

Review missions and advisory services

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

Laboratory services

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

Education and training

• Training courses
• Online learning

Scientific and technical publications

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

General interest material

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

Official documents

• Information circulars

NUCLEUS information resources

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

Other resources

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

Management team

• Director General
• Deputy Directors General

Organizational structure

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

Procurement

• Procurement overview

Search form

You are here.

• Biodiversity loss
• Assessing health effects
• Nuclear power and climate change
• Water and climate change
• Oceans and climate change
• Food security and climate change
• The IAEA and CoP

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

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

Nuclear power and climate change: Decarbonization

With the adoption of the Paris Agreement in 2015, almost all Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) agreed to prepare nationally determined contributions (NDCs) to control GHG emissions and limit the increase of global mean surface temperature by the end of the century to below 2°C relative to pre-industrial levels. Since then, increasing scientific understanding of the significant risks associated with warming of 2°C, along with increasing societal concern, have established the need for more urgent and ambitious action to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, by limiting warming to 1.5°C.

To reach this goal, carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions from electricity generation must fall to nearly zero by the middle of this century, even as electricity needs worldwide continue to grow and expand in end-uses such as transportation, heating and industrial energy use.

Nuclear power is a low-carbon source of energy. In 2018, nuclear power produced about 10 percent of the world’s electricity. Together with the expanding renewable energy sources and fuel switching from coal to gas, higher nuclear power production contributed to the levelling of global CO 2 emissions at 33 gigatonnes in 2019 1/ . Clearly, nuclear power – as a dispatchable low carbon source of electricity – can play a key role in the transition to a clean energy future.

As part of the capacity building process for energy system analysis and planning , the IAEA provides assistance to Member States for the evaluation of the role of nuclear energy in national climate change mitigation strategies through the Technical Cooperation programme and Coordinated Research Projects . For this purpose, a comprehensive set of IAEA tools and methodologies are available to Member States.

__________ 1/ Articles on global CO 2 emissions in 2019

How Can We Get Carbon Emissions to Net Zero?

IAEA Releases Nuclear Power Data and Operating Experience for 2023

IAEA Milestones Guidance Updated to Include Considerations for SMRs

IAEA DG Grossi to World Bank: Global Consensus Calls for Nuclear Expansion, This Needs Financial Support

Director General: "Brazil Needs Nuclear and Nuclear Needs Brazil"

• Publications

The Climate, Land, Energy and Water Framework

Nuclear Cogeneration for Climate Change Mitigation and Sustainable Development Goals

Nuclear Energy in Mitigation Pathways to Net Zero

Nuclear Energy in Climate Resilient Power Systems

Related resources.

• How Can Nuclear Replace Coal as Part of the Clean Energy Transition?
• Transitions to low carbon electricity systems: Key economic and investments trends: Changing course in a post-pandemic world
• Climate Change and Nuclear Power 2022
• Climate Change and Nuclear Power 2022: Securing Clean Energy for Climate Resilience
• Climate Change and Nuclear Power 2020
• Nuclear Power for Sustainable Development
• Nuclear Power and Market Mechanisms under the Paris Agreement
• Nuclear Power and the Paris Agreement
• Interlinkage of Climate, Land, Energy and Water Use (CLEW)
• Climate Change and Nuclear Power 2018
• International Conference on Climate Change and the Role of Nuclear Power, 7-11 October 2019
• International Conference on Climate Change and the Role of Nuclear Power: Conference President’s Summary, 11 October 2019

Related pages

• Sustainable Development Goal 7: Affordable and clean energy
• Department of Nuclear Energy
• Department of Nuclear Sciences and Applications
• Department of Technical Cooperation

More on the IAEA

• Privacy Policy
• Logo Usage Guidelines

Scientific resources

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

Stay in touch

Home / Resources / The links between nuclear power and nuclear weapons

The links between nuclear power and nuclear weapons

Nuclear weapons and nuclear power share several common features and there is a danger that having more nuclear power stations in the world could mean more nuclear weapons.  CND will continue to campaign to stop new nuclear power stations from being built, as well as for an end to nuclear weapons. Can you help us?

The long list of links includes their histories, similar technologies, skills, health and safety aspects, regulatory issues and radiological research and development. For example, the process of enriching uranium to make it into fuel for nuclear power stations is also used to make nuclear weapons. Plutonium is a by-product of the nuclear fuel cycle and is still used by some countries to make nuclear weapons.

There is a danger that more nuclear power stations in the world could mean more nuclear weapons. Because countries like the UK are promoting the expansion of nuclear power, other countries are beginning to plan for their own nuclear power programmes too. But there is always the danger that countries acquiring nuclear power technology may subvert its use to develop a nuclear weapons programme. After all, the UK’s first nuclear power stations were built primarily to provide fissile material for nuclear weapons during the Cold War. Nuclear materials may also get into the wrong hands and be used to make a crude nuclear device or a so-called ‘dirty bomb’.

Some radioactive materials (such as plutonium-239 and uranium-235) spontaneously fission in the right configuration. That is, their nuclei split apart giving off very large amounts of energy. Inside a warhead, trillions of such fissions occur inside a small space within a fraction of a second, resulting in a massive explosion. Inside a nuclear reactor, the fissions are slower and more spread out, and the resulting heat is used to boil water, to make steam, to turn turbines which generate electricity.

However, the prime use of plutonium-239 and uranium-235, and the reason they were produced in the first place, is to make nuclear weapons.

Nuclear reactors are initially fuelled by uranium (usually in the form of metal-clad rods). Uranium is a naturally-occurring element like silver or iron and is mined from the earth. Plutonium is an artificial element created by the process of neutron activation in a reactor.

Nuclear secrecy

The connections between nuclear power and nuclear weapons have always been very close and are largely kept secret. Most governments take great pains to keep their connections well hidden.

The civil nuclear power industry grew out of the atomic bomb programme in the 1940s and the 1950s. In Britain, the civil nuclear power programme was deliberately used as a cover for military activities.

Military nuclear activities have always been kept secret, so the nuclear power industry’s habit of hiding things from the public was established right at its beginning, due to its close connections with military weapons. For example, the atomic weapons facilities at Aldermaston and Burghfield in Berkshire, where British nuclear weapons are built and serviced, are still deleted from Ordnance Survey maps, leaving blank spaces.

It was under the misleading slogan of ‘Atoms for Peace’, that the Queen ceremonially opened what was officially described as Britain’s first nuclear power station, at Calder Hall in Cumbria, in 1956. The newsreel commentary described how it would produce cheap and clean nuclear energy for everyone.

This was untrue. Calder Hall was not a civil power station. It was built primarily to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons. The electricity it produced was a by-product to power the rest of the site.

Fire at Windscale piles

In 1957, a major fire occurred at Windscale nuclear site (what is now known as Sellafield). The effects of the Windscale fire were hushed up at the time but it is now recognised as one of the world’s worst nuclear accidents. An official statement in 1957 said: ‘There was not a large amount of radiation released. The amount was not hazardous and in fact it was carried out to sea by the wind.’ The truth, kept hidden for over thirty years, was that a large quantity of hazardous radioactivity was blown east and south east, across most of England.

After years of accidents and leaks, several of them serious, and regular cover-up attempts by both the management and government, it was decided to change the plant’s name in 1981 to Sellafield, presumably in the hope that the public would forget about Windscale and the accident.

When, in 1983, Greenpeace divers discovered highly radioactive waste being discharged into the sea through a pipeline at Sellafield and tried to block it, British Nuclear Fuels Ltd (BNFL), who then operated the site, repeatedly took Greenpeace to the High Court to try to stop them and to sequestrate its assets. The first generation of British Magnox nuclear power stations were all secretly designed with the dual purpose of plutonium and electricity production in mind.

Some people think that because plutonium is no longer needed by the UK to make weapons as it already has huge stocks of weapons grade plutonium, there no longer is any connection between nuclear weapons and nuclear energy. This is incorrect: they remain inextricably linked. For example:

• All the processes at the front of the nuclear fuel cycle, i.e. uranium ore mining, uranium ore milling, uranium ore refining, and U-235 enrichment are still used for both power and military purposes.
• The UK factory at Capenhurst that makes nuclear fuel for reactors also makes nuclear fuel for nuclear (Trident and hunter-killer) submarines.
• Nuclear reactors are used to create tritium (the radioactive isotope of hydrogen) necessary for nuclear weapons.

Subsidising the arms industry

The development of both the nuclear weapons and nuclear power industries is mutually beneficial.  Scientists from Sussex University confirmed this once again in 2017, stating that the government is using the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station to subsidise Trident, Britain’s nuclear weapons system.

As part of a Parliamentary investigation into the Hinkley project, it emerged that without the billions of pounds ear-marked for building this new power station in Somerset, Trident would be ‘unsupportable’. Professor Andy Stirling and Dr Phil Johnstone argued that the nuclear power station will ‘maintain a large-scale national base of nuclear-specific skills’ essential for maintaining Britain’s military nuclear capability.

This could explain why Prime Minister Theresa May continues to support subsidising a project which looks set to cost the taxpayer billions. Subsidies which go to an industry which still can’t support itself sixty years after it was first launched.

What to do with the radioactive waste?

Radioactive nuclear waste is produced by all nuclear activities. For example, uranium mining produces a great deal of waste in the form of ore spoil like all mining. Since uranium is radioactive, so are its ore wastes. So also are all the processes of refining the ore, enriching the uranium, turning it into fuel for reactors, transportation, burning it in nuclear power stations, processing the used fuel, and its handling and storage. They all create more nuclear waste.

The reason is that everything that comes into contact with radioactive materials, including the containers in which they are stored or moved and even the buildings in which they are handled, become contaminated with radioactivity or are activated by radiation.

All radioactive waste is dangerous to human life as exposure to it can cause leukaemia and other cancers. It is usually categorised as low, intermediate or high-level waste. As the radioactivity level increases, so does the danger. Extremely high levels of radioactivity can kill anyone coming into contact with it – or just getting too close to it – within a matter of days or weeks.

Radioactive materials slowly lose their radioactivity and so can become in theory safe to handle but in most cases this is a very slow process. Plutonium-239, for instance, has a half-life of over 24,000 years which means it will remain lethal for over 240,000 years. Other radio-isotopes remain radioactive for millions or even billions of years.

The safe, long-term storage of nuclear waste is a problem that is reaching crisis point for both the civil nuclear industry and for the military.

During the Cold War years of the 1950s and 1960s, the development of the British atomic bomb was seen as a matter of urgency. Dealing with the mess caused by the production, operating and even testing of nuclear weapons was something to be worried about later, if at all.

For example, the Ministry of Defence does not really have a proper solution for dealing with the highly radioactive hulls of decommissioned nuclear submarines, apart from storing them for many decades. As a result, 19 nuclear-powered retired submarines are still waiting to be dismantled, with more expected each year. Yet Britain goes on building these submarines.

This callous disregard for the future has spilled over to the nuclear power industry. For example, at Dounreay, in the north of Scotland, nuclear waste and scrap from the experimental reactor and reprocessing plants were simply tipped down a disused shaft for over 20 years. No proper records of what was dumped were kept and eventually, in 1977, an explosion showered the area with radioactive debris. In April 1998, it was finally announced that excavation and safe removal of the debris had cost £355 million.

The problems of long term, secure storage of nuclear waste are unsolved and growing more acute year by year. Earlier attempts by the nuclear industry to get rid of it by dumping it in the sea were stopped by environmental direct action, trades union protests and now by law.

All details concerning military nuclear waste are regarded as official secrets. However, large and growing quantities of radioactive waste exist at the Rosyth and Devonport dockyards and in particular at the Aldermaston and Burghfield Atomic Weapons Establishments.

One feature of Aldermaston and Sellafield in particular is that they are old sites, and have grown up in an unplanned, haphazard way. New buildings are fitted in between old, sometimes abandoned, buildings. Some areas and buildings are sealed off and polluted by radioactivity. Local streams, and in the case of Sellafield the sea shore, are polluted. The demolition of old radioactive buildings is a delicate, slow and dangerous process. In the circumstances it is hardly surprising that the amount of nuclear waste can only be estimated.

Civil intermediate level solid waste is mainly stored at Sellafield awaiting a decision on a national storage facility.

Military intermediate level solid waste is stored where it is created: dockyards, AWE plants etc. Both civil and military high level solid waste is generally moved to Sellafield for temporary storage.

The major problems are with the long-term storage of intermediate and in particular high-level wastes. Since these are very dangerous and very long-lived, any storage facility has to be very secure (i.e. well-guarded) and safer over a longer period – some tens of thousands of years – than anything yet designed and built by humanity.

Because of this very long time scale, it can never be sealed up and forgotten. Containers corrode with time. There are earth movements. Water seeps through rocks. The waste will have to be stored in such a form that it cannot be stolen and misused and in such a way that it can be inspected and if necessary retrieved and moved.

Plans to dig a trial deep storage facility under the Sellafield site were thrown out in 1997. Geological evidence suggested that the local rock is too fissured and liable to be affected by water seepage.

This threw all the nuclear industry’s plans into confusion. Instead of having a storage site ready by 2010, the date has been put back more or less indefinitely. No alternative site has even been identified.

Apart from the technical, geological problems, few communities seek a huge, long-term nuclear waste storage site in their neighbourhood. Indeed the original choice of Sellafield was as much political as technical. With most local jobs depending on nuclear industry already, there would have been less local opposition than elsewhere.

Nuclear waste is a problem that the nuclear industry has failed to consider seriously for over sixty years but one that can no longer be put off for future generations to cope with.

The effects of any nuclear accidents, such as those at Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011, are also very long-lasting and will affect future generations. The problems of nuclear waste are nowhere near solution. The history of the nuclear industry does not inspire confidence.

Reprocessing

The initial rationale for reprocessing in the 1950s to the 1980s was the Cold War demand for fissile material to make nuclear weapons.

Reprocessing is the name given to the physico-chemical treatment of spent nuclear fuel carried on at Sellafield in Cumbria since the 1950s. This involves the stripping of metal cladding from spent nuclear fuel assemblies, dissolving the inner uranium fuel in boiling concentrated nitric acid, chemically separating out the uranium and plutonium isotopes and storing the remaining dissolved fission products in large storage tanks.

It is a dirty, dangerous, unhealthy, polluting and expensive process which results in workers employed at Sellafield and local people being exposed to high radiation doses.

A major objection to reprocessing is that the plutonium produced has to be carefully guarded in case it is stolen. Four kilos is enough to make a nuclear bomb. Perhaps even more worrying, it does not have to undergo fission to cause havoc: a conventional explosion of a small amount would also cause chaos. A speck of plutonium breathed into the lungs can cause cancer. If plutonium dust were scattered by dynamite, for example, thousands of people could be affected and huge areas might have to be evacuated for decades.

The many connections between nuclear power and nuclear weapons are clear. Nuclear power has obvious dangers and its production must be stopped. We need a safe, genuinely sustainable, global and green solution to our energy needs, not a dangerous diversion like nuclear power. CND will continue to campaign to stop new nuclear power stations from being built, as well as for an end to nuclear weapons.

" * " indicates required fields

Advantages and Disadvantages of Nuclear Power Stations

• Download PDF Copy

Nuclear power generation has its pros and cons, and it is critical to comprehend all sides to appreciate the capability of the energy source. Knowing and understanding the advantages and disadvantages will assist in determining if nuclear power is an excellent decision to meet the world's energy demands for the future. This article will explore nuclear power station advantages, such as cost-effectiveness and low emissions, and disadvantages, including the important environmental issues they raise.

Image Credit: Christian Schwier/Shutterstock.com

Nuclear power plants generate enormous heat produced during nuclear fission at the core of the nuclear plant. This is where ceramic pellets are housed and are made from uranium fuel. In comparison, around 150 liters of oil can generate energy that one ceramic pellet can.

The splitting apart of atoms into smaller atoms during nuclear fission releases energy, and heat is generated. This is then used to produce steam. The steam is then transferred to stimulate the rotation of the blade turbines to produce nuclear power.

Advantages of Nuclear Power

Overall low cost of operation.

Nuclear power is relatively one of the most cost-effective and reliable energy compared to other sources. Other than the initial cost of construction, the cost of generating electricity is cheaper and more sustainable than other forms of energy such as oil, coal, and gas. One of the additional benefits of nuclear power is that it experiences minimal risk of cost inflation instead of traditional power sources that regularly fluctuate over periods.

Consistent source of energy

Nuclear power has a consistent and predictable output. It is not affected by weather conditions compared to other sources such as wind and solar power.

Nuclear fission generates far more energy than fossil fuel combustion such as coal, oil, or gas. The process produces almost 8,000 times more power than typical fossil fuels, resulting in less material used and causing less waste. All-year-round energy production is feasible, allowing for favorable returns on initial investment due to no energy production delays.

It is estimated the world has enough uranium to produce electricity for the next 70-80 years. It does not seem like a long enough period, but in comparison to fossil fuels, they are expected to diminish in a far less period. Additionally, there are current investigations into alternative power sources for nuclear energy.

Generates low amounts of pollution

Related stories.

• Inevitable US Nuclear Phase-Out Part of a Broader Evolution
• Nuclear-Powered Space Exploration: Clean Propulsion for the Cosmos
• Home Hydrogen Fuelling Stations

Nuclear power is the lowest carbon emission energy source and a lower carbon footprint compared to other sources such as fossil fuels.

The majority of carbon dioxide emissions primarily occur during the fueling process and construction of the plant but not during electricity generation. The overall pollutant generation from nuclear plants is relatively modest compared with fossil fuel energy generation. 

Currently, nuclear energy usage cuts more than 555 million metric tons of carbon production each year. The greenhouse reduction is an excellent sign of how crossing over to nuclear energy will reduce the long-term impact on global climate change .

Disadvantages of Nuclear Power

Nuclear energy is a promising alternate and reliable energy resource for future electricity needs. However, there are numerous drawbacks to nuclear energy to consider, particularly its environmental impact in the future.

Expensive to Construct

Nuclear power plants are affordable to operate but are relatively expensive to construct. The expected cost of nuclear plant construction has increased from $2- $4 billion to $9 billion between 2002 and 2008 and often, their cost estimates are surpassed during construction.

Aside from the cost of constructing a power plant, nuclear reactors must allocate funds for waste that is generated, which must be stored in cooled facilities with strict security protocols. All the costs and expenditures make nuclear power rather costly upfront.

Generation of radioactive waste

While no emissions are produced in nuclear energy generation, a bi-product of radioactive waste is developed. The waste must be stored in secure facilities to avoid polluting the environment. Radiation is not harmful in small quantities, but radioactive waste from nuclear plants is hazardous.

Storage of radioactive waste is a significant concern and cost for nuclear power plants. There is no way to destroy nuclear waste; the only current solution is to seal and store it in deep underground facilities. As technology improves, there will hopefully be the development of better ways of storing radioactive waste in the near future.

Restricted fuel supply

Nuclear power plants are heavily dependent on thorium and uranium to generate electricity. Before the supply of thorium and uranium is depleted, a nuclear fusion or breeder reactor will have to be created, otherwise, power generation will not be possible. Currently, nuclear power is only an expensive short-term option for power generation due to diminishing resources.

Impact on the environment

The most significant impact on the environment stems from the destructive process of uranium mining. Both open-pit and underground mining can mine uranium.

Open-pit mining is generally a safe process for miners but generates radioactive waste while causing erosion and, on some occasions, polluting water supplies. Underground mining exposes miners to a far greater risk of radiation poisoning than open-pit mining. While also producing large amounts of the radioactive waste rock during both processing and extraction.

Is Nuclear Power the Future?

Nuclear power has numerous advantages and disadvantages, causing the contentious argument about whether to find alternatives or preserve the technology for future uses. Nuclear power energy has the potential to be particularly dangerous, however, the risk of disaster is relatively low.

While there is continued debate, enthusiasts of nuclear power have said that being more dependent on nuclear energy will reduce third-country energy reliance. However, reliance would still be necessary as nuclear power facilities still require raw materials such as uranium imported from Kazakhstan, Australia, or Canada.

Adding further contention is the negative connotation surrounding nuclear energy. Largely, individuals are only aware of nuclear disasters and not the potential low-carbon positives. This is where the concept of renewable energy is greatly favored. However, ideally combining the two procedures is expected to be a more feasible approach for future sustainability.

References and Further Reading

Eia.gov. 2021. Nuclear power plants - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) . [online] Available at: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/nuclear-power-plants.php .

EDF. 2022. What are the advantages of nuclear energy? . [online] Available at:  https://www.edfenergy.com/for-home/energywise/what-are-advantages-nuclear-energy

https://springpowerandgas.us/the-pros-cons-of-nuclear-energy-is-it-safe/. 2018. The Pros & Cons of Nuclear Energy: Is it safe? . [online] Available at:  https://springpowerandgas.us/the-pros-cons-of-nuclear-energy-is-it-safe/

Igini, M., 2022. The Advantages and Disadvantages of Nuclear Energy | Earth.Org - Past | Present | Future . [online] Earth.Org - Past | Present | Future. Available at: https://earth.org/the-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-nuclear-energy/

Orano.group. 2022. Is nuclear power a renewable energy . [online] Available at: https://www.orano.group/en/unpacking-nuclear/is-nuclear-power-a-renewable-energy

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are those of the author expressed in their private capacity and do not necessarily represent the views of AZoM.com Limited T/A AZoNetwork the owner and operator of this website. This disclaimer forms part of the Terms and conditions of use of this website.

Olivia Hudson

Olivia has recently graduated with a double bachelor's degree in Civil Engineering and Business Management from the RMIT University in Australia. During her studies, she volunteered in Peru to construct wind turbines for local communities that did not have access to technology. This experience developed into an active interest and passion in discovering new advancements in materials and the construction industry.  

Please use one of the following formats to cite this article in your essay, paper or report:

Hudson, Olivia. (2023, December 15). Advantages and Disadvantages of Nuclear Power Stations. AZoCleantech. Retrieved on September 04, 2024 from https://www.azocleantech.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=1551.

Hudson, Olivia. "Advantages and Disadvantages of Nuclear Power Stations". AZoCleantech . 04 September 2024. <https://www.azocleantech.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=1551>.

Hudson, Olivia. "Advantages and Disadvantages of Nuclear Power Stations". AZoCleantech. https://www.azocleantech.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=1551. (accessed September 04, 2024).

Hudson, Olivia. 2023. Advantages and Disadvantages of Nuclear Power Stations . AZoCleantech, viewed 04 September 2024, https://www.azocleantech.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=1551.

Tell Us What You Think

Do you have a review, update or anything you would like to add to this article?

Cancel reply to comment

• Trending News Stories
• Featured Equipment
• Latest Interviews

EDP Renewables Collaborates with Microsoft on Largest Solar Energy Portfolio in Singapore

Innovative Filtration System Converts CO2 Into Chemicals and Fuels

US Department of Energy Chooses Flow Batteries for Long-Term Energy Storage

AI Tool Offers New Insights Into Climate Change’s Impact on Heat Waves

A Scalable and Cost-Effective Solution for Industrial Decarbonization

Thermo Scientific™ MAX-iAQ Continuous Ambient Air Monitoring System

The Thermo Scientific™ MAX-iAQ™ is a fully automated ambient air monitoring solution with 20 detection points, specifically designed for the accurate detection of trace compounds in environments with high humidity.

LInspector Edge In-line Mass Profilometer

The LInspector Edge In-line Mass Profilometer is a cutting-edge electrode mass loading inspection machine.

IGA ECOsorp - for Gas and Vapor Sorption Analysis

Discover IGA Ecosorp from Hiden Isochema: a state-of-the-art analyzer for dynamic gas and vapor sorption analysis.

Transforming Concrete: Carbon Limit's CO2 Capture Innovation

AZoCleantech interviews Carbon Limit's Founder and CEO about the company's mission to reduce one billion tons of CO2 with CaptureCrete, an innovative concrete technology.

Driving Sustainability in Data Centers: A Conversation with ABB Electrification

Giampiero Frisio

Giampiero Frisio of ABB discusses AI's impact on data center sustainability and the integration of renewable energy for efficiency.

Ensuring Pipeline Integrity, Real-time Analysis of CO Purity for Quality, Assurance in Carbon Capture and Storage

Trevor Tilmann

In this interview, AZoCleantech talks to Trevor Tilman and Kelly McPartland about carbon capture and storage, analysis of CO2 purity and more.

Most Read Articles

Could Self-Driving Cars Reduce Air Pollution?

How Does Concrete Recycling Work? Latest Advancements and Opportunities

The Role of Biofuels in Decarbonizing Aviation and Shipping

The Key Players Overcoming Electric Vehicle Driving Range Limitations

The Role of Hydrogen in Decarbonization

Sponsored content, understanding the environmental impact of plastics biodegradation, the science behind urban air quality monitoring, monitoring pfas emissions and formation from fluorinated compounds, hydrogen: leading the decarbonization energy transition, newsletters you may be interested in.

Your AI Powered Scientific Assistant

Hi, I'm Azthena, you can trust me to find commercial scientific answers from AZoNetwork.com.

A few things you need to know before we start. Please read and accept to continue.

• Use of “Azthena” is subject to the terms and conditions of use as set out by OpenAI .
• Content provided on any AZoNetwork sites are subject to the site Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy .
• Large Language Models can make mistakes. Consider checking important information.

Great. Ask your question.

Azthena may occasionally provide inaccurate responses. Read the full terms .

While we only use edited and approved content for Azthena answers, it may on occasions provide incorrect responses. Please confirm any data provided with the related suppliers or authors. We do not provide medical advice, if you search for medical information you must always consult a medical professional before acting on any information provided.

Your questions, but not your email details will be shared with OpenAI and retained for 30 days in accordance with their privacy principles.

Please do not ask questions that use sensitive or confidential information.

Read the full Terms & Conditions .

Provide Feedback

• Skip to Navigation
• Skip to Content
• Skip to Footer
• Get involved

6 reasons why nuclear energy is not the way to a green and peaceful world

Nuclear power is often hailed as a magic bullet solution for the rapid and large-scale decarbonisation of our societies which we all know needs to happen if we have any hope of mitigating the worst effects of the unfolding climate emergency. Among politicians and industry groups, it is consistently favoured over meaningful investment in renewable energy systems, bolstered with misleading claims of its safety, efficiency, stability, and speed of deployment.

With the costs and efficiency of renewable energy solutions improving year on year, and the effects of our rapidly changing climate accelerating across the globe, we need to take an honest look at some of the myths being perpetuated by the nuclear industry and its supporters. Here are six reasons why nuclear power is not the way to a green and peaceful zero carbon future.

1. Nuclear energy delivers too little to matter

In order to tackle climate change, we need to reduce fossil fuels in the total energy mix well before 2050 to 0%.

According to scenarios from the World Nuclear Association and the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (both nuclear lobby organisations), doubling the capacity of nuclear power worldwide in 2050 would only decrease greenhouse gas emissions by around 4%. But in order to do that, the world would need to bring 37 new large nuclear reactors to the grid every year from now, year on year, until 2050.

The last decade only showed a few to 10 new grid connections per year . Ramping that up to 37 is physically impossible – there is not sufficient capacity to make large forgings like reactor vessels. There are currently only 57 new reactors under construction or planned for the coming one-and-a-half decade. Doubling nuclear capacity – different from the explosive growth of clean renewable energy sources like solar and wind – is therefore unrealistic. And that for only 4% when we already need to reduce 100%.

2. Nuclear power plants are dangerous and vulnerable

Nuclear factories and plants are easy targets for malevolent acts : terrorist threats, the risk of unintentional or voluntary airliner crashes, cyberattacks or acts of war. The enclosures of plants and certain ancillary buildings containing radioactive materials are not designed to withstand this type of attack or shock.

Nuclear power plants present unique hazards in terms of the potential consequences resulting from a severe accident. Nuclear reactors and their associated high level spent fuel stores are vulnerable to natural disasters, as Fukushima Daiichi showed , but they are also vulnerable in times of military conflict .

For the first time in history, a major war is being waged in a country with multiple nuclear reactors and thousands of tons of highly radioactive spent fuel. The war in southern Ukraine around Zaporizhzhia puts them all at heightened risk of a severe accident.

Nuclear power plants are some of the most complex and sensitive industrial installations, which require a very complex set of resources in ready state at all times to keep them operational. This cannot be guaranteed in a war .

Russia's invasion poses historic nuclear threat, with Ukraine's 15 commercial nuclear reactors including Europe's largest plant at risk of catastrophic damage that could render vast areas of Europe uninhabitable for decades, new analysis shows https://t.co/y3JNnPwA01 — Greenpeace PressDesk (@greenpeacepress) March 2, 2022

This can’t be guaranteed in a time of climate crisis and extreme weather events either. Nuclear power is a water-hungry technology. Nuclear power plants consume a lot of water for cooling. They are vulnerable to water stress, the warming of rivers, and rising temperatures, which can weaken the cooling of power plants and equipment. Nuclear reactors in the United States and France are often shut down during heatwaves , or see their activity drastically slowed.

3. Nuclear energy is too expensive

To protect the climate, we must abate the most carbon at the least cost and in the least time.

The cost of generating solar power ranges from $36 to $44 per megawatt-hour (MWh), the World Nuclear Industry Status Report said, while onshore wind power comes in at $29–$56 per MWh. Nuclear energy costs between $112 and $189 per MWh.

Over the past decade, the World Nuclear Industry Status Report estimates levelised costs – which compare the total lifetime cost of building and running a plant to lifetime output – for utility-scale solar have dropped by 88% and for wind by 69%. According to the same report, these costs have increased by 23% for nuclear.*

According to a November 2021 study released by Greenpeace France and the Rousseau Institute , power from the under-construction European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) at Flamanville in France would be 3 times as expensive as the country’s most competitive renewable sources.

4. Nuclear energy is too slow

Stabilising the climate is an emergency. Nuclear power is slow.

The 2021 World Nuclear Industry Status Report estimates that since 2009 the average construction time for reactors worldwide was just under 10 years, well above the estimate given by the World Nuclear Association (WNA) industry body of between 5 and 8.5 years.

The extra time that nuclear plants take to build has major implications for climate goals, as existing fossil-fueled plants continue to emit CO2 while awaiting substitution. The construction of a nuclear plant is a long and complex process that obviously releases CO2, as does the demolition of decommissioned nuclear sites . 

Uranium extraction, transport and processing is obviously not free of greenhouse gas emissions either . All in all, nuclear power stations score comparable with wind and solar energy. But this latter can be implemented much faster and on a much bigger scale. We cannot wait for another decade for emissions to go down. They need to go down now. With clean renewable sources and energy efficiency, we can do that.

5. Nuclear energy generates huge amounts of toxic waste 

The multiple stages of the nuclear fuel cycle produce large volumes of radioactive waste . No government has yet resolved how to safely manage this waste.

Some of this nuclear waste is highly radioactive and will remain so for several thousand years . Nuclear waste is a real scourge for our environment and for future generations, who will still have the responsibility of managing it in several centuries.

Countries like France are pushing hard for nuclear power at the EU level, hoping that when it comes to waste, out of sight is out of mind. But nuclear waste will never go away, and will never be sustainable.

This is one of the obvious reasons why nuclear power shouldn’t be eligible for green funding nor marketed as ‘sustainable’, as pointed out recently by countries like Austria, Denmark, Germany, Luxembourg, and Spain , who spoke against the inclusion of nuclear power in the EU’s green finance taxonomy . This is also one of the reasons why, on 9 March 2020, the EU Commission’s Technical Expert Group on Sustainable Finance (TEF) rejected nuclear energy because it did not meet the EU’s ‘Do No Significant Harm’ principle and recommended excluding nuclear power from the green taxonomy.

Revealed: French companies are exporting nuclear waste to Siberia, dumping barrels in unsafe conditions completely exposed to the elements. This isn't a throwback to the 1980s, this is happening in 2021. Nuclear is not, and never will be, a 'green' energy source. #NoNukes pic.twitter.com/Hs1TJjLkX5 — Greenpeace International (@Greenpeace) October 12, 2021

Nuclear waste management is costing taxpayers absurd amounts of money, costs for storage projects reaching into the billions. This is true both for Europe and North America. In 2019, a US Energy Department report showed the projected cost for long-term nuclear waste cleanup jumped more than $100 billion in just one year.

6. The nuclear industry is falling short of its promises  

The EPR nuclear reactor technology has been showcased by the French government and French nuclear operator EDF as a revolutionary technology announcing the dawn of a nuclear renaissance. The reality is that this technology isn’t any kind of technological leap. More importantly, the French EPR reactor located in Flamanville is more than 10 years overdue and nearly four times over budget . 

This so-called “next-generation nuclear reactor”, has also sustained multiple problems, delays and cost overruns in France, the United Kingdom , Finland and China .

Hypothetical new nuclear power technologies have been promised to be the next big thing for the last forty years, but in spite of massive public subsidies, that prospect has never panned out. That is also true for Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) . 

And for nuclear fusion, an idea that is as old as the nuclear industry , which somehow always seems to be fifty years away. The cost and uncertainty of fusion mean investing in thermonuclear reactors at the expense of other available clean energy options. This technology won’t arrive in time, if ever, and the money would be better invested elsewhere.

Let’s exert the utmost caution when presented with pro-nuclear opinions coming from experts and organisations regularly working with stakeholders from the nuclear sector and potentially tainted by vested interests. Nuclear energy has no place in a safe, clean, sustainable future. It is more important than ever that we steer away from false solutions and leave nuclear power in the past.

Mehdi Leman is a content editor for Greenpeace International based in France

About the author

Mehdi leman, manage your cookies preferences.

Please select which cookies you are willing to store.

These cookies are required for technical reasons so that you can visit our website and use the functions we offer. These cookies are used to recognise you between successive visits and thus provide you with a better experience, storing your consent preferences and the last Greenpeace.org website visited.

We use tracking and analysis tools to ensure continuous optimisation and demand-oriented design of our website. These cookies will allow us to collect statistical and anonymised data, such as how visitors use our website or which pages are accessed most frequently, to ultimately improve Greenpeace.org and provide you with a better experience of our website.

In addition to the Performance cookies mentioned above, we may also place in your browser cookies from third-party services (e.g. Facebook or Google) to track the effectiveness of our online marketing strategies and to deliver adverts more relevant to you and your interests. These cookies may also be used to serve advertising to you after you have left our site (retargeting cookies).

IELTS Mentor "IELTS Preparation & Sample Answer"

• Skip to content
• Jump to main navigation and login

Nav view search

• IELTS Sample

IELTS Writing Task 2/ Essay Topics with sample answer.

Ielts essay sample 36 - the threat of nuclear weapons maintains world peace, ielts writing task 2/ ielts essay:, the threat of nuclear weapons maintains world peace. nuclear power provides cheap and clean energy. the benefits of nuclear technology far outweigh the disadvantages..

• IELTS Essay

IELTS Materials

• IELTS Bar Graph
• IELTS Line Graph
• IELTS Table Chart
• IELTS Flow Chart
• IELTS Pie Chart
• IELTS Letter Writing
• Academic Reading

Useful Links

• IELTS Secrets
• Band Score Calculator
• Exam Specific Tips
• Useful Websites
• IELTS Preparation Tips
• Academic Reading Tips
• Academic Writing Tips
• GT Writing Tips
• Listening Tips
• Speaking Tips
• IELTS Grammar Review
• IELTS Vocabulary
• IELTS Cue Cards
• IELTS Life Skills
• Letter Types

• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Copyright Notice
• HTML Sitemap

We use cookies for analytics and to improve our site. You agree to our use of cookies by closing this message box or continuing to use our site. To find out more, including how to change your settings, see our Cookie Policy

The Independent Nuclear News Agency

Temelín goes 5g / czech nuclear station gets ‘first of kind’ mobile private network.

By David Dalton 2 September 2024

Connectivity will enable move away from ‘walkie-talkies’

British multinational telecommunications company Vodafone has launched a 5G mobile private network (MPN) at the Temelín nuclear power station in the Czech Republic in what it says is the first deployment of its kind in Europe.

Vodafone said the new 5G connectivity will enable a transition away from “walkie-talkie” communications in the station and pave the way for augmented reality glasses to support the work of technicians.

As part of a pilot phase for the power generation conglomerate ČEZ, Vodafone’s 5G MPN covers the power station’s outdoor space and selected areas of a production unit.

Vodafone said the results of the pilot project, and subsequent evaluation conducted by ČEZ, will inform the deployments of 5G MPNs at further sites.

Violeta Luca, chief executive officer of Vodafone Czechia said the MPN is entirely independent from the public network and ensures that all user data and infrastructure are securely managed within the power station’s own systems, which is vital for maintaining the highest standards of safety and reliability.

“This technology is a key enabler in advancing the secure digitalisation of such critical infrastructure,” Luca said.

Bohdan Zronek, director of ČEZ’s nuclear division said a selected part of the nuclear power plant’s communication network, as an element of critical infrastructure, must be completely separated from the external network.

“That is why we always maintain an alternative in the event of an outage, and the management system of course remains completely separate from the outside world.

“We are the first nuclear power plant in Europe to actually test a private 5G network, while other European operators work mostly with 4G.”

Temelín has two VVER V-320 nuclear power plants that began commercial operation in 2002 and 2033.

• Czech Republic

Most popular

Germany / Nuclear Policy Would Have Cost €332 Billion Less Than Energiewende, Research Suggests

Ghana / African Nation Signs Agreement For NuScale 12-Module Nuclear Power Plant

Czech Republic / Anti-Monopoly Office Confirms Appeals From Westinghouse And EDF Over Dukovany Nuclear Tender

Ukraine / Energoatom Pushes Ahead With Plans For Four Reactors At Former Soviet Site

Nuclear Fusion / Industry Association Calls For One-Time Supplemental Funding Of $3 Billion

Advanced Reactors / US Startup Last Energy Raises $40 Million For Ambitious Microreactor Project

Czech Republic / Dukovany-2 Nuclear Plant Set To Begin Operation At Higher Capacity

South Korea / KHNP ‘Edging Closer To More Deals’ After Winning Czech Nuclear Contract

Exclusive nuclear industry news and analysis.

Our Privacy and Cookies Policy

We use cookies to provide the best experience for you. To find out more check our cookies and privacy policy

NRC approves 20-year extension for North Anna 1 and 2

29 August 2024

The USA's Nuclear Regulatory Commission has renewed the operating licences of North Anna nuclear power plant's units 1 and 2 for a further 20 years - extending their lifetimes to a projected 80 years.

North Anna units 1 and 2 are 944 MWe pressurised water reactors which began commercial operation in 1978 and 1980. They had an initial lifetime of 40 years, which was extended by 20 years in 2003. With the fresh extension they will be licensed to operate to 2058 and 2060, respectively.

The application from Virginia Electric and Power Co, a subsidiary of Dominion Energy, for the plant in Louisa County, Virginia, resulted in a safety evaluation report issued in January 2022 and an environmental impact statement in July this year and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board concluded "no contested matters remained before it for resolution".

The two North Anna reactors mean eight units have now been given subsequent renewed licences to 80 years, with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission currently reviewing a further seven applications.

Dominion Energy's Chief Nuclear Officer, Eric Carr, said: "For more than 50 years, nuclear power has been the most reliable workhorse of our fleet and the largest source of carbon-free power in Virginia. North Anna operates around the clock, and generates the reliable, clean energy that powers our customers' homes and businesses every day. With this 20-year extension, our customers can continue counting on North Anna for reliable, carbon-free power for another generation to come."

There will be numerous upgrades at the plant as part of the latest extension, including "replacing the reactors' main generators and condensers, refurbishing reactor coolant pumps and converting instrument and control systems from analogue to digital. The company is also implementing 80 enhancements to station procedures, such as additional inspections and equipment testing".

In addition to securing the extended operating licences, Dominion Energy last month issued a Request for Proposals from small modular reactor vendors to evaluate the feasibility of developing an SMR at the North Anna site.

Researched and written by World Nuclear News

Related topics

Regulatory assessment of nuclear-powered cargo ships, westinghouse accident tolerant fuel in us licensing 'first', water leak within fukushima daiichi 2 reactor building, westinghouse smr design accepted for uk review, iaea centre of excellence launched at capenhurst, fire at zaporizhzhia cooling tower, us regulators approve nac's highly shielded transport system, kishida looks to restart kashiwazaki-kariwa units.

WNN is a public information service of World Nuclear Association

Related Stories

Dominion considers deploying SMR at North Anna Nuclear central in Virginia's energy plan

Related Information

Related links.

Former nuclear power station site has been sold

The Berkeley site was one of the first civil nuclear power stations in the world.

• 05:25, 31 AUG 2024

Never miss the latest local news again by signing up to our Daily Newsletter

We have more newsletters

A former nuclear power station site in Gloucestershire has been sold for £6.5m.

South Gloucestershire and Stroud (SGS) College announced the sale of the 40-acre park to Chiltern Vital Berkeley Limited (CVB) - a wholly owned subsidiary of Chiltern Vital Group - in January.

The Berkeley site was one of the first civil nuclear power stations in the world. Its adjoining nuclear research lab was fundamental for developing the UK’s nuclear fuel programme.

SGS saved the laboratory site from demolition in 2016 and created a science and technology park with low-carbon businesses and education providers. The park is also home to nearly 400 students at SGS’s University Technical College, which will remain in operation.

SGS said the government would “soon announce” the technology provider to develop small modular reactors (SMR) at the site. Rolls Royce is the first company being selected for its SMR final approval stage by the Office for Nuclear Regulation. Rolls Royce SMR is a partner of CVB and it is expected the site will become a new nuclear “supercluster”, SGS said.

Kevin Hamblin, chief of SGS, said: “We are delighted that CVB can now invest in the site to support research, development and skills training around new nuclear, AI and low carbon businesses. With the close proximity to Great British Nuclear’s Oldbury site it will create a low carbon ‘supercluster’ over the next decade. CVB and their partners will bring significant new investment and work opportunities and SGS will play a very prominent role to support the teaching of new skills.”

CVB said it was planning to establish Berkeley as the UK’s R&D “centre of excellence” for the next generation of small modular and micro reactor technology.

“South Gloucestershire and Stroud College have been exceptional custodians of the park, maintaining its reputation as a centre of excellence for education and skills training,” said Chris Turner, Chiltern Vital Group chief executive.

“Key to the regeneration of Berkeley will be the provision of nuclear-centric education and skills training. With news of the government’s SMR selection process expected shortly, GBN has identified that the UK will need approximately 150,000 new nuclear trained employees over the next decade.”

Rolls-Royce urged the government to complete the SMR selection process this year. Chris Cholerton, chief executive of Rolls-Royce SMR, added: “[The] announcement that CVG has purchased Berkeley Science and Technology Park brings the possibility of new nuclear at Berkeley a step closer.

“Our long-term SMR fleet roll-out will be enabled by private developers and government working collaboratively, and CVG brings significant experience in delivering transformational energy projects to the nuclear sector.”

• Gloucestershire
• Most Recent

• Israel-Gaza War
• War in Ukraine
• US Election
• US & Canada
• UK Politics
• N. Ireland Politics
• Scotland Politics
• Wales Politics
• Latin America
• Middle East
• In Pictures
• Executive Lounge
• Technology of Business
• Women at the Helm
• Future of Business
• Science & Health
• Artificial Intelligence
• AI v the Mind
• Film & TV
• Art & Design
• Entertainment News
• Destinations
• Australia and Pacific
• Caribbean & Bermuda
• Central America
• North America
• South America
• World’s Table
• Culture & Experiences
• The SpeciaList
• Natural Wonders
• Weather & Science
• Climate Solutions
• Sustainable Business
• Green Living

Nuclear power scheme given £5.5bn of funding

Up to £5.5bn of government money has been unlocked as part of a new nuclear power station subsidy scheme.

The money will be used for "development expenditure" including enabling works at Sizewell C in Suffolk, before a final investment decision is made.

The government has already spent £2.5bn on the project and while a final investment decision is yet to be made, the government says it is "committed" to carrying out the project.

However, campaign group Stop Sizewell C, said the money would dig further into a financial "black hole".

While building permission for the project has been granted for the 3.2 gigawatt site, it could take 12 years to construct if funding is secured.

Land between Aldeburgh and Southwold has been earmarked for the site .

A spokesperson for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ), said the project would play an "important role" in helping to achieve energy security and net zero.

"Subject to all the relevant approvals we aim to reach a final investment decision before the end of the year, and we have established a new subsidy scheme of up to £5.5 billion to provide certainty and ensure the project has access to the necessary financial support to remain on track.

"Any investment from the scheme will be subject to approvals and in line with the project's spending plans, as agreed by the Government and its co-shareholders."

While Sizewell C would be the main beneficiary, other organisations and individuals would be able to benefit from the scheme too.

'White elephant'

The new Labour government vowed to back this project and other nuclear developments earlier this year.

However, the scheme's opponents Stop Sizewell C claimed the project will be "slow" to build, harm nearby habitats and damage the tourism economy along the Suffolk Coast.

A spokesperson from the group, said the money was an "extraordinary statement".

"Sizewell C has already chewed through £2.5 billion, and now we learn that there is the potential for a staggering £5.5 billion more of our taxpayers' money to be thrown at this white elephant.

"Labour complained about a black hole in the country's finances yet now they are proposing to dig still further."

Follow Suffolk news on BBC Sounds , Facebook , Instagram and X .

Sizewell C funding decision may not be made this year

Sizewell c 'absolutely not inevitable' says campaigner, department for energy security and net zero.