essays on nuclear energy

Press centre

Nuclear technology and applications.

Climate change
Environment
Food and agriculture
Nuclear science

Nuclear safety and security

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

Safeguards and verification

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

Technical Cooperation Programme

How it works
How to participate

Coordinated research activities

Legislative assistance

Key programmes

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

Review missions and advisory services

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

Laboratory services

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

Education and training

Training courses
Online learning

Scientific and technical publications

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

General interest material

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

Official documents

Information circulars

NUCLEUS information resources

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

Other resources

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

Management team

Director General
Deputy Directors General

Organizational structure

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

Procurement

Procurement overview

Search form

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

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

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

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

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

What is nuclear fission?

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

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

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

Nuclear fission (Graphic: A. Vargas/IAEA)

How does a nuclear power plant work?

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

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

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

Mining, enrichment and disposal of uranium

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

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

What is the Nuclear Fuel Cycle?

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

Nuclear waste

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

Radioactive Waste Management

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

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

Nuclear power and climate change

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

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

What is the role of the IAEA?

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

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

Related resources

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

Scientific resources

Information Circulars
Standards and guides
Safeguards and Additional Protocol

Stay in touch

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

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

Verification Code

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

Thanks for your comment !

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

School Education /

Essay on Nuclear Energy in 500+ words for School Students

Updated on
Dec 30, 2023

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

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

Table of Contents

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

Also Read: Find List of Nuclear Power Plants In India

History Overview

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

Also Read: What are the Different Types of Energy?

Nuclear Technology

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

Also Read: Nuclear Engineering Course: Universities and Careers

Advantages of Nuclear Energy

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

1. High Energy Density

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

2. Low Greenhouse Gas Emissions

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

3. Base Load Power

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

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

Disadvantages of Nuclear Energy

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

1. Radioactive Waste

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

2. Nuclear Accidents

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

3. High Initial Costs

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

Safety Measures and Regulations of Nuclear Energy

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

Also Read: What is the Full Form of AEC?

Concerns of Nuclear Proliferation

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

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

Also Read: How to Prepare for UPSC in 6 Months?

Future Prospects and Innovations of Nuclear Energy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deepika Joshi

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

Connect With Us

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. take the first step today..

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

January 2024

September 2024

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Have something on your mind?

Make your study abroad dream a reality in January 2022 with

India's Biggest Virtual University Fair

Essex Direct Admission Day

Why attend .

Don't Miss Out

Back to the Future Josh Freed

Leslie and mark's old/new idea.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Climate Change Spurs New Call for Nuclear Energy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Atoms for Peace to Chernobyl

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1979: Three Mile Island power station. Source: Wikipedia

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

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

Chernobyl sarcophogi Magnum

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

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

But now we have to.

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

Nuclear Commercial Power Reactors, 1958-2014

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

The Return of Nuclear Pioneers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click image to play or stop animation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

chinese nuclear power plant construction

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

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

Missing in Action: The United States Government

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Getting the U.S. Back in the Race

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

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

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

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

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

For Further Reading

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

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

The Road Ahead for Japanese Energy June 2014

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

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

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

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

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

Who Will Own the Nuclear Power Future?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1775 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Washington , DC 20036

Media Relations

More Brookings Essays

Published 12/12/2014

Terms and Conditions
Brookings Privacy Policy

Nuclear Energy

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

Engineering, Physics

Loading ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Articles & Profiles

Media credits.

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

Illustrators

Educator reviewer, last updated.

October 19, 2023

User Permissions

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

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

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

Interactives

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

Related Resources

Presentations made painless

Get Premium

101 Nuclear Energy Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

Inside This Article

Nuclear energy is a controversial topic that sparks debate among scientists, policymakers, and the general public. With the potential for both significant benefits and risks, there is no shortage of essay topics to explore in this field. Whether you are a student looking to write a research paper or an individual interested in learning more about nuclear energy, here are 101 essay topic ideas and examples to get you started:

The history of nuclear energy development
The science behind nuclear energy
The benefits of nuclear energy
The risks of nuclear energy
Nuclear energy vs. renewable energy sources
Nuclear energy and climate change
Nuclear energy and national security
The role of nuclear energy in the future energy mix
Nuclear energy and economic development
The Fukushima nuclear disaster
The Chernobyl nuclear disaster
Nuclear energy and public perception
Nuclear energy and waste management
Nuclear energy and nuclear proliferation
The cost of nuclear energy
The safety of nuclear power plants
The role of nuclear energy in reducing carbon emissions
The ethics of nuclear energy
Nuclear energy and environmental impact
The future of nuclear fusion
The potential of small modular reactors
The role of nuclear energy in space exploration
The impact of nuclear energy on wildlife
Nuclear energy and water usage
The role of nuclear energy in healthcare (e.g., medical isotopes)
The social implications of nuclear energy development
Nuclear energy and energy independence
The role of nuclear energy in disaster response
Nuclear energy and the military
The challenges of decommissioning nuclear power plants
The role of nuclear energy in developing countries
Nuclear energy and human health
The impact of nuclear energy on Indigenous communities
Nuclear energy and sustainable development
The role of nuclear energy in addressing energy poverty
Nuclear energy and the energy transition
The role of nuclear energy in combating air pollution
Nuclear energy and job creation
The impact of nuclear energy on land use
The role of nuclear energy in achieving energy security
Nuclear energy and geopolitical considerations
The impact of nuclear energy on water resources
The role of nuclear energy in disaster preparedness
Nuclear energy and social justice
The role of nuclear energy in urban planning
The impact of nuclear energy on Indigenous knowledge systems
Nuclear energy and food security
The role of nuclear energy in reducing energy poverty
Nuclear energy and the circular economy
The impact of nuclear energy on air quality
The role of nuclear energy in reducing greenhouse gas emissions
Nuclear energy and energy access
The challenges of nuclear energy governance
Nuclear energy and energy justice
The role of nuclear energy in sustainable development
Nuclear energy and energy affordability
The impact of nuclear energy on human rights
Nuclear energy and energy democracy
The role of nuclear energy in community development
Nuclear energy and energy resilience
The challenges of nuclear energy regulation
Nuclear energy and energy sovereignty
The role of nuclear energy in climate adaptation
Nuclear energy and energy equity
The impact of nuclear energy on vulnerable populations
Nuclear energy and energy transition pathways
The role of nuclear energy in the post-carbon economy
Nuclear energy and energy infrastructure
The challenges of nuclear energy policy
Nuclear energy and energy governance
The role of nuclear energy in energy sector transformation
Nuclear energy and energy system integration
The impact of nuclear energy on energy security
Nuclear energy and energy sector reform
The role of nuclear energy in energy planning
Nuclear energy and energy market dynamics
The challenges of nuclear energy financing
Nuclear energy and energy sector regulation
The role of nuclear energy in energy sector development
Nuclear energy and energy sector transformation pathways
The impact of nuclear energy on energy sector sustainability
Nuclear energy and energy sector resilience
The role of nuclear energy in energy sector innovation
Nuclear energy and energy sector disruption
The challenges of nuclear energy integration
Nuclear energy and energy sector transition
The role of nuclear energy in energy sector modernization
Nuclear energy and energy sector transformation strategies
The impact of nuclear energy on energy sector competitiveness
Nuclear energy and energy sector diversification
The role of nuclear energy in energy sector optimization
Nuclear energy and energy sector performance
The challenges of nuclear energy deployment
Nuclear energy and energy sector transformation initiatives
The role of nuclear energy in energy sector transformation processes
Nuclear energy and energy sector transformation trends
Nuclear energy and energy sector transformation challenges
The role of nuclear energy in energy sector transformation dynamics
Nuclear energy and energy sector transformation opportunities
The challenges of nuclear energy adoption

These essay topic ideas and examples cover a wide range of aspects related to nuclear energy, from its history and science to its benefits and risks. Whether you are interested in exploring the environmental impact of nuclear energy or its role in sustainable development, there is no shortage of topics to delve into. So pick a topic that interests you, conduct thorough research, and start writing your essay on nuclear energy today!

Want to create a presentation now?

Instantly Create A Deck

Let PitchGrade do this for me

Hassle Free

We will create your text and designs for you. Sit back and relax while we do the work.

Explore More Content

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.

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

History & Culture

History & Culture
Mind, Body, Wonder
Paid Content
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

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

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.

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

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

By Fred Pearce

More From E360

The race to save glacial ice records before they melt away, turning brownfields to blooming meadows, with the help of fungi, to foil a deadly pest, scientists aim for a beetle-resistant ash tree, could the global boom in greenhouses help cool the planet, biodiversity, in north macedonia, an ancient lake faces modern threats, how a ‘citizen map’ is helping brazil prepare for next big flood, a key court ruling could weaken u.s. environmental protections, as ‘zombie’ deer disease spreads, scientists look for answers, despite criticism, the last of the rattlesnake roundups hang on, pollution paradox: how cleaning up smog drives ocean warming, how an el niño-driven drought brought hunger to southern africa.

Essay on Nuclear Energy

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

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Nuclear Energy

Introduction.

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

Production of Nuclear Energy

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

Benefits of Nuclear Energy

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

Drawbacks of Nuclear Energy

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

250 Words Essay on Nuclear Energy

Introduction to nuclear energy.

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

Production and Efficiency

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

Environmental Implications

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

Security and Ethical Concerns

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

Future of Nuclear Energy

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

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

500 Words Essay on Nuclear Energy

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

The Mechanics of Nuclear Energy

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

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

Pros and Cons of Nuclear Energy

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

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

The Future of Nuclear Energy

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

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

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

Essays on Nuclear Energy

Brief description of nuclear energy, importance of writing essays on this topic, tips on choosing a good topic, essay topics, concluding thought, the pros and cons when discussing the use of nuclear energy, nuclear energy: the future of humanity's energy source, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

An Issue of Safety of Nuclear Energy

Nuclear waste: an american disaster, the history and use of nuclear energy, ernest rutherford, the father of nuclear physics, let us write you an essay from scratch.

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Niels Bohr's Biography

Technetium-99m, the manhattan project - a top secret nuclear energy research program, a study on the effects of nuclear waste on the environment, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

Iaea Safeguards - Serving Nuclear Non-proliferation

Potential consequences of nuclear politics in south asia, the effects of fukushima daihatsu nuclear disaster, attitudes of the australian public to nuclear power, countering myths and misinformation around nuclear power, nuclear power economic: cost, comparison and waste, the role of nuclear energy in the global energy transition, the promise of nuclear energy for climate change, bridging perception and reality in nuclear energy, nuclear energy: safety, security, and ethical considerations, nuclear innovation: balancing challenges and opportunities, relevant topics.

Fast Fashion
Air Pollution
Deforestation
Water Pollution
Plastic Bags
Endangered Species
Global Warming
Ocean Pollution

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

Chemistry Nuclear Energy

What is the essence of matter? What is the mechanism for the interaction and formation of the different substances by atoms? These are some of the basic questions that have occupied many scientists, philosophers and others for centuries. Atomic theory is the scientific explanation of the atoms and matter. It developed from the ancient Greek concept of indivisible points to today’s quantum mechanical principle. In this way, various discoveries and experiments have played their part in developing atomic theory and its application, for example, nuclear energy. In this essay, the paper will introduce some of the major individuals and events in the history of atomic theory, as well as the pros and cons of nuclear energy.

Atomic theory is an accurate scientific description of the atoms and materials. It has transformed from the ancient Greek concept of indivisible corpuscles into a contemporary quantum mechanical model. One of the key figures and milestones in the development of atomic theory is John Dalton (1766- 1844). It was the first modern atomic theory proposed in 1807 based on his experiments, consistent with the laws of conservation of matter, definite and multiple proportions. As he said, matter is made up of small indivisible atoms that are from different elements which combine in fixed proportions to give rise to compounds(Thackray)

J.J. Thomson (1856-1940): He found the electron in 1897 by observing the bending of cathode rays when exposed to a magnet (Smith). He suggested the plum pudding model of an atom in which electrons are inside a positively charged sphere (Smith). Ernest Rutherford (1871-1937): In 1970, he did the renowned gold foil experiment, which proved that most of an atom’s mass and positive charge is contained in a small nucleus enveloped by a cloud of electrons (McCormmach). He also found the proton and the radioactivity (McCormmach). Niels Bohr (1885-1962): In 1913, he suggested the Bohr model of the electrons that threw light on emission and absorption spectra for the hydrogen atoms. He proposed that electrons revolve about the nucleus in discrete turn levels and can leap from one stage to another through the emission or absorption of photons (Falconer). Erwin Schrödinger (1887-1961) wrote the wave equation for an electron in 1926 when quantum mechanics began (Falconer). He proved the electron to be in a wave-like behaviour and has a probability distribution around its nucleus rather than being fixed (Brown, Priest).

Nuclear energy is splitting nuclei resulting from fusion reactions, also known as atomic fission (Tollefson). It can be used as a good power source but has environmental and safety concerns. Among the historical discoveries that have contributed to our knowledge about atoms is radioactivity, which was discovered in the late 19th and early20 20th century by Henri Becquerel, Marie Curie and Pierre Curier. Some elements, including uranium and radium, can even radiate into other components (Tollefson). This resulted in the understanding that atoms are not unitary but consist of smaller units, such as protons, neutrons, and electrons.

It starts with the positive sides before proceeding to the negatives: nuclear energy is a carbon-free, reliable and high-voltage source of electricity. In contrast to fossil fuels, it does not emit any greenhouse gases or air pollutants during its operation. It has a modest land footprint compared to other renewable energy sources like wind and solar. As a baseload power for the electric grid, it does not need weather and daylight as the preconditions (Arefin et al.). In turn, the cons are due to nuclear energy being technically a nonrenewable energy source since uranium used as the primary fuel for its production is limited and needs mining, in which case processing can be included (Arefin et al.). Second, nuclear energy has an impressive initial cost due to the construction and maintenance of the atomic power stations as well as producing radioactive waste that is harmful and difficult for safe elimination, in addition to running the risk of a catastrophic scenario if any accidents, malfunctions or terrorist attacks occur (Arefin et al.).

The Chornobyl disaster (Aitsi-Selmi and Murray, 1986), also considered the worst nuclear accident in history, occurred at the Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant located in Ukraine, which was then a part of the USSR. Still, several explosions and fires hit reactor number four, exploding large quantities of radioactive material into the air. The disaster killed almost 400,0 people and affected tens of millions in Europe (Aitsi-SelmiMurray). Even today, the zone around the plant is very polluted enough to be uninhabitable.

The Fukushima disaster (2011) is the second worst nuclear accident in history that happened at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Japan after a 9.0 log earthquake. Tsunami is mentioned as number two concerning magnitude, only surpassed by the Chornobyl disaster, which triggered an explosive release of long-lived; the natural disasters destroyed the cooling systems and backup generators of the plant, which began The accident contaminated the air and, water and soil with so much radiation that hundreds of thousands were evacuated. Decontamination and plant dismantling have continued for decades (Watt).

The last is the Three Mile Island accident (1979), also known as one of the most severe cases in US history, which took place at Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station in Pennsylvania by Oe et al. In the case of a partial meltdown in one reactor, this was caused by several failures throughout secondary systems and some human mistakes. Both accidents released a small amount of radioactive gas into the environment, but it did not result in any fatalities or significant health effects. The occurrence made many people sensitive and anxious about nuclear power safety (Oe et al.)

To conclude, atomic theory is an incredible scientific accomplishment influencing how we understand the physical world and its manifestations. Since Dalton to Schrödinger, many scientists have helped build up and use atomic theory like nuclear energy. But nuclear power also presents very significant threats and hazards: pollution of the environment, radioactive waste as well as atomic accidents. Thus, using nuclear energy responsibly and fairly while researching alternative energy sources for a sustainable future is very important.

Works Cited

Aitsi-Selmi, Amina, and Virginia Murray. “The Chernobyl Disaster and Beyond: Implications of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030.” PLOS Medicine , vol. 13, no. 4, Apr. 2016, p. e1002017, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002017.

Arefin, Md Arman, et al. “A Comprehensive Review of Nuclear-Renewable Hybrid Energy Systems: Status, Operation, Configuration, Benefit, and Feasibility.” Frontiers in Sustainable Cities , vol. 3, Sept. 2021, https://doi.org/10.3389/frsc.2021.723910.

Brown, M. Bryson, and Graham Priest. “Chunk and Permeate II: Bohr’s Hydrogen Atom.” European Journal for Philosophy of Science , vol. 5, no. 3, Jan. 2015, pp. 297–314, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-014-0104-7.

Falconer, Isobel. “Corpuscles, Electrons and Cathode Rays: J.J. Thomson and the ‘Discovery of the Electron.’” The British Journal for the History of Science , vol. 20, no. 3, July 1987, pp. 241–76, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007087400023955.

McCormmach, Russell. J. J. Thomson and the Structure of Light . No. 4, Dec. 1967, pp. 362–87, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007087400002922. Accessed 15 May 2023.

Oe, Misari, et al. “Mental Health Consequences of the Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima Nuclear Disasters: A Scoping Review.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , vol. 18, no. 14, July 2021, p. 7478, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18147478.

Smith, George E. “J. J. Thomson and the Electron: 1897?1899 an Introduction.” The Chemical Educator , vol. 2, no. 6, Dec. 1997, pp. 1–42, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00897970149a. Accessed 6 Dec. 2021.

Thackray, Arnold W. “The Emergence of Dalton’s Chemical Atomic Theory: 1801-08.” The British Journal for the History of Science , vol. 3, no. 1, June 1966, pp. 1–23, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007087400000169. Accessed 4 May 2020.

Tollefson, Jeff. “Nuclear-Fusion Breakthrough: This Physicist Helped to Achieve the First-Ever Energy Gain.” Nature , vol. 624, no. 7992, Dec. 2023, pp. 500–1, https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03923-5.

Watt, Lori. “ Making Japanese Citizens: Civil Society and the Mythology of The Shimin in Postwar Japan (Review).” The Journal of Japanese Studies , vol. 39, no. 1, 2013, pp. 172–75, https://doi.org/10.1353/jjs.2013.0000. Accessed 13 Sept. 2020.

Cite This Work

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

Related Essays

Alcohol withdrawal concept analysis paper, how the u.s. can defeat the coronavirus, loss, grief and dying, pediatric nurse profession, classical physics compare, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic considerations, popular essay topics.

American Dream
Artificial Intelligence
Black Lives Matter
Bullying Essay
Career Goals Essay
Causes of the Civil War
Child Abusing
Civil Rights Movement
Community Service
Cultural Identity
Cyber Bullying
Death Penalty
Depression Essay
Domestic Violence
Freedom of Speech
Global Warming
Gun Control
Human Trafficking
I Believe Essay
Immigration
Importance of Education
Israel and Palestine Conflict
Leadership Essay
Legalizing Marijuanas
Mental Health
National Honor Society
Police Brutality
Pollution Essay
Racism Essay
Romeo and Juliet
Same Sex Marriages
Social Media
The Great Gatsby
The Yellow Wallpaper
Time Management
To Kill a Mockingbird
Violent Video Games
What Makes You Unique
Why I Want to Be a Nurse
Send us an e-mail

Nuclear power has an advantage not reflected in its average price. It’s price stability, and for some users that matters

Professor & Director, Centre for Applied Energy Economics and Policy Research, Griffith University

Disclosure statement

Magnus Söderberg does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Griffith University provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

Much of the debate about nuclear power in the month since the Coalition announced its plan to install reactors in seven states has been about cost.

But some things matter more to electricity users than the average price they pay for electricity.

For big industrial users who either buy their power wholesale, or renegotiate their fixed-term price contracts frequently, it is important that the wholesale price is fairly steady.

Nuclear power plants produce power at a fairly steady pace, which leads to a more steady market price. Power systems built around wind and solar produce cheaper power, but with more uncertain output and much greater variability in price .

This greater variability can be smoothed to some extent by adding storage such as pumped hydro and large-scale batteries, but to the extent that it remains, uncertain prices make investments in power-hungry projects harder to justify.

The greater the uncertainty, the more investment moves to other firms, other less energy-intensive industries and other countries.

This has been confirmed in a study of the behaviour of thousands of Chinese firms between 2008 and 2018.

Variable prices cut the value of firms

I presented preliminary results from a project using data from Queensland during Australian Energy Week last month.

Those results suggest that higher volatility in wholesale electricity prices lowers the share price of listed firms in the metals and mining industries.

Intraday price volatility has doubled over the past five to ten years. I find this has cost the firms that suffered it 5% of their share market value.

The metals and mining industries are valued at about A$40 billion, meaning a 5% reduction corresponds to $74 per Australian, each year.

Without nuclear, prices vary more

Now back to nuclear. Since nuclear power can generate electricity regardless of the weather, an advantage it has is lower price volatility.

We can see this by investigating what has happened in other countries when a sizeable proportion of the nuclear capacity has been taken offline.

Two recent examples from Europe illustrate this.

The first is from Germany which shut down three nuclear reactors on December 31, 2021, halving Germany’s nuclear power capacity overnight.

The second example is taken from France. There, stress corrosion cracking was discovered in several reactors and in April 2022, it had taken out 28 of France’s 56 reactors.

In Germany, shutting down the reactors pushed up price volatility by 5% to 15%. France experienced a few extreme price spikes, which also drove up the volatility.

In nearby southern Sweden and Poland, price volatility fell 10% to 25% during the same period.

As we keep expanding wind and solar, it is highly likely that electricity wholesale price volatility will climb further.

If Australia continues to rule out nuclear power, it is necessary to ask what else it can do to keep price volatility in check.

Electricity
Nuclear power

Sydney Horizon Educators – Faculty of Engineering (Targeted)

Dean, Faculty of Education

Lecturer in Indigenous Health (Identified)

Social Media Producer

PhD Scholarship

Time, money, and nuclear energy

More reactors, more targets, economics and geopolitics, what is nuclear energy’s role in mitigating climate change.

Open the PDF for in another window
Reprints and Permissions
Cite Icon Cite
Search Site

Toni Feder; What is nuclear energy’s role in mitigating climate change?. Physics Today 1 July 2024; 77 (7): 22–24. https://doi.org/10.1063/pt.odjy.wnyj

Download citation file:

Ris (Zotero)
Reference Manager

The US and two dozen other countries have pledged to triple the world’s nuclear energy capacity by 2050. Launched last fall at the United Nations Conference of the Parties (COP 28) in Dubai, the pledge is intended to help reach the goal of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions and limit global warming to 1.5 °C above preindustrial levels.

But is such a large increase in nuclear energy production feasible? Skeptics say that building nuclear reactors is too slow and costly to effectively mitigate climate change. And they say that security, safety, and proliferation risks need to be assessed in the context of today’s geopolitics. Proponents say that nuclear energy is necessary in the climate change equation and that to wield influence in the nuclear arena, the US and other Western nations must be at the forefront of nuclear energy development and exports.

Kathryn Huff was assistant secretary in the US Department of Energy’s Office of Nuclear Energy until May, when she rejoined the department of nuclear, plasma, and radiological engineering at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. “We cannot meet our net-zero goal for the whole economy by 2050 without significant increase in nuclear power,” says Huff. “It’s not a statement of what is likely or probable. It’s a statement of what is necessary.”

About 440 nuclear power reactors operate in 32 countries and Taiwan. They provide roughly 9% of electricity globally; in the US, that number is around 19%. China is building reactors at the fastest rate. Russia is the largest exporter of nuclear reactors; it is selling and setting them up in Egypt, Turkey, and other countries. Two commercial nuclear power reactors went on line in the past year at Plant Vogtle in Waynesboro, Georgia, bringing the US total number of operating reactors to 94.

In the drive to triple nuclear energy, some governments are giving much attention to small modular reactors (SMRs), which would produce a few hundred megawatts, making them about one-third the power of conventional gigawatt-scale reactors. Their appeal lies in the assumptions that they could be manufactured in assembly-line mode, which would keep costs down; could be distributed widely even to small users; and would have limited radiological release in an accident because of their size. Utilities or other customers could add to their stock of reactor modules as needed.

Historically, reactor projects in the US and other Western countries have been plagued by delays and cost overruns. The Vogtle reactors, for example, started up seven and eight years late and more than doubled in cost, from an initial estimate of $14 billion to a final cost of $34 billion. Ongoing projects in the UK, Finland, and France—the poster child for nuclear energy—are similarly late and more expensive than planned.

The Zaporizhzhya power plant in Ukraine has been targeted by Russia during the war. The incidents at the facility highlight the specter of increased potential for attacks—military and terrorist—on nuclear plants if more are built to tackle climate change.

INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY/ CC BY 2.0

Ted Jones is senior director for national security and international programs at the Nuclear Energy Institute, a US-based nuclear industry trade association. The lowest-cost route to reducing greenhouse gas emissions involves nuclear energy, he says. To reduce US emissions by 95% by 2050, nuclear energy should be increased to provide 43% of US electricity needs, according to models he cites by the company Vibrant Clean Energy. The models also expand the contributions of wind and solar energy and battery storage. Tripling nuclear electricity production requires rebuilding the supply chain and stopping the cost and time overruns associated with reactor construction. “It will be hard,” he says, “but it’s realistic to believe it will improve.”

Sharon Squassoni is a former US State Department analyst who is now a research professor of international affairs at George Washington University. The pledge to triple nuclear energy, combined with Russia’s attacks on the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant in Ukraine, prompted her to write the report New Nuclear Energy: Assessing the National Security Risks , which came out in April. More reactors around the world, she says, means more potential targets. And the danger is enhanced if those targets are in countries that have unstable governments.

In her report, Squassoni urges the US government to convene an international study on the national security risk of SMRs. She also says that the State Department should commission its International Security Advisory Board to study how national security risks posed by nuclear energy have changed over the last two decades. In addition to proliferation risks, she says, the study should assess nuclear terrorism, sabotage, and weaponization of nuclear power plants. She also recommends that the US weigh nuclear solutions to climate change against other low-carbon options.

Countries new to nuclear reactors will need to train workers. And the know-how and the access to uranium fuel could be diverted to weapons purposes, says Henry Sokolski, who previously worked at the Pentagon and is now executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center. He calls nuclear power plants “bomb starter kits.”

Dozens of SMR designs exist. They use various coolant types, including light water, liquid metal, high-temperature gas, and molten salt. For now, says Mark Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University, SMRs are still “vaporware. They don’t exist.” He and others note that historically, the size of reactors increased to get more electricity per dollar invested. Claims that the cost of electricity per plant will go down with SMRs “have not been validated,” says Sokolski. Last year NuScale Power’s plans to build a set of SMRs in Idaho to serve municipal utilities in Utah fell apart after the projected cost tripled.

Economics is what makes reactors so hard to realize, says Peter Bradford, who served on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from 1977 to 1982, has chaired state utility regulatory commissions, and has taught courses on nuclear law and energy policy. The industry and the US government have a pattern, he says: “Every time a promised nuclear renaissance fails, they come up with some other reactor concept. SMRs are just the latest. But they never solve the cost problem.” Still, governments and the nuclear industry remain eager to commit immense sums of taxpayer and customer money, he says. “I scratch my head at that.”

Cooling towers at the Vogtle plant in Georgia, where two new reactors went on line in the past year. The plant hosts 4 of the now 94 operating reactors in the US. The reactors’ huge time and cost overruns exemplify challenges facing the expansion of nuclear capacity.

Many physicists support nuclear energy, says M. V. Ramana, a professor at the University of British Columbia’s School of Public Policy and Global Affairs. His focus is on nuclear energy, especially SMRs, and he has written a forthcoming book on nuclear energy and climate change. He was the lone critic on a panel discussion about SMRs at the American Physical Society’s April meeting, he says, and many in the audience were “less than open” to his views. He surmises that physicists “have a fundamental belief that the technology used to make nuclear weapons must also have a good use and that ‘we have to redeem ourselves by taming the atom.’ ”

Given the costs of reactors and the snail’s pace of construction, the tripling of nuclear energy is not going to happen, says Ramana. “It’s moot.” Instead, he sees the focus on nuclear energy as a distraction. “From the viewpoint of climate change,” he says, “reactors are a diversion, and the money from the government is money that could go to renewables and to energy storage.” At COP 28 in Dubai, 133 countries, including the US, committed to tripling the world’s installed renewable-energy generation by 2030.

But US commitments to build nuclear reactors are motivated both by climate change mitigation aims and by geopolitical influence. At a 23 April press conference on Squassoni’s recent report, Jane Nakano, a senior fellow in the program for energy security and climate change at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said that for national security reasons and political influence, the US may have no choice but to pursue SMRs.

“If the US fails to build reactors, we will not only fail to meet climate goals, but we may cede our nuclear energy leadership to our adversaries,” says the University of Illinois’s Huff. “That does have real risks.” Leadership in nuclear technology allows the US to drive the global conversation about safety, safeguards, and security, she explains.

Ramana disagrees: “Such zero-sum thinking will ensure that the climate crisis becomes worse.”

Citing articles via

Online ISSN 1945-0699
Print ISSN 0031-9228
For Researchers
For Librarians
For Advertisers
Our Publishing Partners
Physics Today
Conference Proceedings
Special Topics

pubs.aip.org

Connect with AIP Publishing

This feature is available to subscribers only.

What is nuclear energy and how does it work?

A graphic showing silhouettes of four teenagers standing on either side of a nuclear power plant with steam rising from it.

In June, the Coalition released the locations and timelines of proposed nuclear power plant sites, as part of its telegraphed stance on moving Australia towards nuclear as an energy source.

The debate quickly moved to costings, gigawatts and energy grids . But if this is all new to you, it can be hard to find a reputable source for the most basic of facts.

We break down a couple of your most commonly asked questions on nuclear energy, with the help of three experts.

What is nuclear energy?

In a nutshell, nuclear power plants create electricity by producing steam that's used to power a turbine .

"This is the same process that's used in a coal-fired power station, and the process of spinning a turbine is exactly the same as when you look at a wind turbine," said Bjorn Sturmberg, a senior research fellow at Australian National University.

"If you think of a mouse on a cartoon hamster wheel, you're just spinning something, and that gives you electricity."

While the process of using steam to spin turbines is the same as coal- or gas-fired power station, the heat source is different, said Edward Obbard, director of the University of New South Wales's Nuclear Innovation Centre.

" The heat to drive a nuclear power station comes from breaking up uranium atoms in the core of the reactor … then that hot nuclear fuel is used to boil water, like in a giant kettle," he said.

Uranium is a super-dense substance, and Dr Sturmberg said that makes it easy to split apart.

"That large atom is like a really blown-up balloon, you only need to give it a really little prick to burst that balloon into smaller pieces."

The process of breaking apart atoms to create energy is called nuclear fission. It's different from nuclear fusion, which is when two smaller atoms are smashed together to create a bigger atom.

"This is what happens in the sun, and in all other stars, and is what how they produce light. Humans have tried to harness the process [of nuclear fusion] … to create electricity. But so far, we've not had success," Dr Sturmberg said.

How many countries use nuclear energy?

There are 32 countries with operational nuclear reactors , with another 50 countries considering or starting their industries.

A chart showing nuclear power plants frequently finish building years later than expected.

The World Nuclear Association found nuclear energy accounted for about 10 per cent of the global energy mix , but as international nuclear energy lawyer Helen Cook said, some countries rely on nuclear more heavily.

"France today generates about 70 per cent of its electricity from nuclear, and historically produced even more, up to about 85 per cent," said Ms Cook, who is also a board member of tech company Silex.

"The United States has the world's largest fleet, with 94 operating reactors."

What's a small modular reactor?

Edward Obbard acknowledged there's a lot of confusion around small-scale and large-scale reactors.

"The whole small modular reactor [SMR] thing has been talked up until we almost think that there are different kinds of technology. They're not; they're just small ," he said.

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, a SMR has a power capacity of 300 megawatts, which is about a third of a traditional-capacity reactor.

Unlike larger plants, which need a lot of water to cool, SMRs are small enough to cool themselves .

The idea with SMRs is that their size means they're faster and more cost-effective to build , Dr Obbard said.

"They're a kind of business model more than a new technology."

The drawback is that they don't actually create a whole lot of energy , Dr Obbard said.

The Clean Energy Finance Corporation announced the funding of one of the biggest batteries in the world, to be built in Victoria, which will store 300 megawatts of energy.

It'll cost $160 million, a fraction of the cost of building a new nuclear power station.

Why is nuclear energy so expensive?

Most of the cost of nuclear energy comes from building a plant in the first place .

Dr Obbard said much of that cost is associated with safety measures around cooling down a reactor or stopping operations in an emergency .

"That makes the whole power station huge and expensive, because you need all these safety systems and backup generators and emergency water supplies," he said.

"Nuclear is just so much more expensive to build up front, and then does have ongoing costs in terms of it's a really high tech, really high risk kind of facility to operate," Dr Sturmberg said.

"And you still need a fuel source of enriched uranium to power, and then you've got to deal with the waste," he added.

In a recent report , national science agency the CSIRO, estimated nuclear power to be at least 50 per cent more expensive than wind and solar power backed by batteries, and estimated it would cost at least $8.5 billion to build one large-scale reactor.

However, reactors can have a long lifespan. The average age of operational reactors in the US is 42 years, with the oldest clocking in at 55 years.

By comparison, wind turbines last between 20 and 30 years.

How much waste does nuclear power produce?

In short, not much .

"If you were to use nuclear energy for your entire life, so one person for his or her entire life, the high-level waste generated would fit inside a can of Coke," Helen Cook said.

She added that much of the waste can be reused in future nuclear projects.

According to the World Nuclear Association , about 90 per cent of low-level waste with very small amounts of radiation, can be reused. Around three per cent of high-level waste with big amounts of radiation can be reused.

Associate professor Edward Obbard acknowledged that radioactive waste was " very hazardous ", but that the "hazard is controlled through engineering to be safe".

"You still have to worry about it because you create that stuff, and so you have to make sure that there are people and organisations and expertise around to look after it."

Bjorn Sturmberg said it was important to remember that radioactive waste is dangerous to humans and animals , and remains so for a very long time .

"The critical thing about these radioactive materials is that they're going to stay radioactive for thousands of years. And humans have never really undertaken the task of managing such dangerous material over thousands of years," he said.

Is nuclear power a 'green' technology?

While the process is the same in a nuclear reactor and a coal-fired power plant (creating steam from heating water), the outcome is quite different.

Creating nuclear energy produces zero emissions.

"Coal-fired power plants emit harmful carbon dioxide and other harmful substances into the air while they are producing electricity. Whereas … nuclear energy and its operating phase produces none of that harmful stuff," lawyer Helen Cook said.

Nuclear powe r creates as many emissions as wind turbines , and fewer than solar panels .

Both coal and nuclear require digging up natural substances but the quantities required differ significantly.

A research paper by the New South Wales Parliamentary Library Service found the energy released by 1 kilogram of uranium was the same as burning 22,000 kilograms of coal.

Four nuclear power station chimneys emit steam

But then there's the question of water.

Dr Obbard said nuclear and coal power plants used roughly the same amount of water .

"Coal uses a hell of a lot of water to dig up the coal as well. If we switch our coal to nuclear power stations, we'll use a lot less water," he said.

Research by Stanford University found American nuclear reactors used about 480,000 Olympic pools' worth of water in 2015 alone.

The paper concluded nuclear power used much more water than solar , a point Bjorn Sturmberg is keen to make too.

"Renewables don't do any heating of water, and therefore they don't need a reservoir of water, they don't consume lots of water," he said.

X (formerly Twitter)
Alternative Energy
Energy Industry
Nuclear Energy

Every print subscription comes with full digital access

Science News

Advanced nuclear reactors need a different type of uranium. here’s 4 things to know .

Questions about the fuel, called high-assay low-enriched uranium, remain

Laboratory equipment used to produce high-assay low-enriched uranium.

Nuclear engineers are making fuel for advanced nuclear reactors known as HALEU, using equipment at Idaho National Laboratory (shown).

Idaho National Laboratory

What is HALEU?

Compared with standard reactor fuel, HALEU contains a larger proportion of a key variety of uranium, the isotope uranium-235. U-235 is fissile: Its nucleus splits into two upon absorbing a low-energy neutron, releasing energy in the process.

Naturally occurring uranium contains only about 0.7 percent U-235. Most of the remainder is the isotope U-238. To be used in a nuclear power plant, uranium must be enriched to contain more U-235. Standard reactor-grade uranium contains about 3 to 5 percent U-235. Uranium enriched to 20 percent or above is known as highly enriched uranium, which, unlike reactor-grade uranium, can be used to make nuclear weapons.

HALEU falls between those two extremes, with around 5 to 20 percent U-235. That means it can be used in ways that reactor-grade uranium can’t, but the United States and other countries don’t restrict its use as tightly as highly enriched uranium.

Three cylindrical pellets of HALEU fuel stand in front of laboratory equipment

Why are people so interested in it?

The HALEU hoopla has been fueled by the interest in advanced nuclear reactors. That term lumps together a wide variety of reactor designs that don’t fit the standard mold for reactors in the United States. Advanced reactors are often smaller than typical reactors and may use a substance other than normal water for cooling, such as liquid sodium. And advanced reactors commonly require HALEU, typically enriched to just under 20 percent.

With HALEU, “you’re able to make the core smaller and more energy-efficient in the space that you have, thus reducing construction costs,” says nuclear engineer Josh Jarrell of Idaho National Laboratory in Idaho Falls. And HALEU fuel can be used in forms that differ from the uranium dioxide fuel used in current reactors ( SN: 11/20/14 ). Some reactor designs use a metallic fuel, or poppy seed–sized coated pellets of uranium called TRISO. The different fuel options and different reactor designs can be a plus for safety, Jarrell says. “Depending on the design, they don’t actually require human involvement to shut down safely.”

At the moment, most advanced reactors in the United States exist only on paper. But DOE is funding two advanced reactor demonstration projects : TerraPower’s Natrium Reactor in Kemmerer, Wyo., and X-energy’s Xe-100 Reactor in Seadrift, Texas. Both require HALEU.

Where does HALEU come from?

There’s no established, large-scale commercial supplier of HALEU in the United States. And no matter how advanced a reactor is, it’s useless without fuel. Russia produces HALEU, but a U.S. law passed in May will prohibit most importation of uranium from Russia .

To ensure that advanced reactor projects have fuel, the U.S. government has been supporting efforts to produce the material . A Maryland-based company, Centrus Energy Corp., has begun producing some HALEU as part of a demonstration project in collaboration with DOE at an enrichment facility in Piketon, Ohio.

A uranium processing facility with tall tubes stretching up to the ceiling

As commercial enrichment operations get up to speed, a stopgap technique takes preexisting highly enriched uranium and blends it with other uranium to lower its enrichment. Idaho National Laboratory is currently performing this process using spent fuel from a retired nuclear reactor , with the target of producing 10 metric tons of HALEU. “The goal is to make sure we have a reasonable HALEU supply to allow some of these advanced reactor companies to demonstrate those first reactors,” Jarrell says. DOE has projected that more than 40 metric tons of HALEU will be needed by 2030, and additional HALEU will be required each year thereafter.

Other countries such as the United Kingdom are likewise making plans to produce HALEU.

What are the concerns?

Historically, HALEU has not been considered useful for weapons. But now that HALEU appears poised for widespread use, scientists are looking closer. A bomb made of HALEU with 19.75 percent enrichment could match the yield of the one that the United States dropped on Hiroshima in 1945 , physicist Edwin Lyman and colleagues report in the Science commentary ( SN: 8/6/20 ).

HALEU is not as easy to work with as highly enriched uranium — significantly larger quantities of the material would be needed to make a weapon. But the amount contained in a single reactor could be enough, says Lyman, of the Union of Concerned Scientists. “If you have a reactor that requires 300 or 400 kilograms of HALEU, that would be sufficient probably to make a crude nuclear weapon with a significant yield.”

If HALEU use becomes more widespread, Lyman and colleagues worry, countries that currently don’t have nuclear weapons could squirrel that HALEU away to make them, or terrorist organizations could steal HALEU and put it to nefarious use. Security standards for HALEU should be beefed up to consider this risk, they say.

Something weird is happening to Earth’s inner core

An artistic rendering shows a glowing orb of light with light beams streaming in

A black hole made from pure light is impossible, thanks to quantum physics

Red squiggles representing photons are sent into a loop representing the optical fiber in an interferometer, which surrounds Earth on a starry backdrop

Physicists measured Earth’s rotation using quantum entanglement

Art of four eggs, from left to right, getting progressively more cracked. In the far right egg, it's cracked to the point the yolk is slipping out.

The second law of thermodynamics underlies nearly everything. But is it inviolable?

A swirl of two particles represents the tauonium atom in an illustration. The atom has emerged from a particle detector represented by a series of concentric cylinders, centered around a beam line where electrons and positrons enter from either side.

Scientists propose a hunt for never-before-seen ‘tauonium’ atoms

Illustration showing three atoms, representing quantum memories, are connected by lines, representing entanglement, over a cityscape backdrop.

Two real-world tests of quantum memories bring a quantum internet closer to reality

An illustration shows water molecules arranged in hexagons and other shapes surrounded by ice

Here’s how ice may get so slippery

A sensor chip with multiple small pixels is shown

The neutrino’s quantum fuzziness is beginning to come into focus

Subscribers, enter your e-mail address for full access to the Science News archives and digital editions.

Not a subscriber? Become one now .

Nuclear Energy and Its Risks 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

Fukushima Daiichi nuclear energy disaster

20th Century Chernobyl nuclear meltdown

Risks verses reward of nuclear energy use

Fukushima Daiichi disaster of nuclear energy is the largest disaster since the year 1986 and measured at level seven on the scale of nuclear event. Several reactors had boiling water under the maintenance of Power Company located in Tokyo. When the earthquake occurred, reactor four had no fuel while reactor five and six were under maintenance. There was damage of reactors making them stop operation, which was risky to the people who lived nearby. The generators were used as sources of power supply for the systems of cooling machines.

The tsunami that occurred after the earthquake led to flooding of rooms where generators for emergency cases were stored. The flood led to failure of generators and pumps with cool water could not circulate to prevent nuclear reactor from melting. This caused overheating of the reactors because radioactive heat was very high. The seawater that had flooded was the only one that would cool the reactors to control meltdown. When the government ordered seawater to be used to ensure meltdown does not occur, it was too late. This made the water to boil in the nuclear reactors and its level dropped causing overheating and severe meltdown.

When the heat was intense, the reactors melted leading to production of hydrogen gas, which was explosive. The workers tried to ensure that the reactors were cool but the chemical explosions caused by hydrogen air increased. The radioactive gases produced made people who lived near the plant to move to other places for safety reasons. The damage caused by earthquake could not allow access to the plant for any assistance to be provided. The electric power took time to be restored in the reactors, which led to cooling (Pearlstein, 1973).

20 th Century Chernobyl nuclear meltdown

The Chernobyl nuclear is a power plant in Ukraine located eighty miles from Kiev. The reactor four exploded in the year 1986 releasing radiations to the surrounding area. The number of people who died, as a result of the explosion was thirty-one while thousands more had been affected and their health was in danger. The disaster of Chernobyl nuclear changed the opinion of people about future use of nuclear power.

When the fourth reactor stopped to operate in the month of April the year 1986 it was repaired so that it could function properly. Qualified technicians were employed to ensure that there was enough energy for the system to remain cool all the time so that no overheating occurred. The tests to ensure all the reactors were functioning properly were done by the operators where the safety systems were turned off for many hours. The test was delayed because of the shortage in power supply, which made it take longer time than expected. The situation became difficult when the power in the reactors reduced and could not be enough to be used by the operators. The alternative power supply was not available for the reactors to be controlled. This led to explosion of the reactor because the safety system was off making it difficult for the problem to be solved (Pearlstein, 1973).

The nuclear energy is dangerous because it causes death when radiations are released. The radioactive milk caused thyroid cancer, which is dangerous to the health of people. The nuclear power produces radioactive waste, which is difficult to dispose. The nuclear waste remains dangerous for many years, which means that the storage systems should be safe. The engineers are supposed to know about the threats that may affect people many years later. The proposal of burying the radioactive waste at the mountain called Yucca raised concern because the ground water could be contaminated as well as earthquake occurs.

The cost of building a nuclear plant is very high because there are many reactors required. The plans by United States of America to build a nuclear plant has been aborted or delayed due to the funds needed. The problem of meltdown has been great risk where operators are not able to control heating. Environmental pollution caused by radiations is dangerous because it pollutes the air in the nearby environment and affects people who reside nearby (Pearlstein, 1973).

The nuclear power points are known by environmentalists not to emit carbon dioxide, which is not healthy for human beings. The power from nuclear plants does not cause global warming even if there are occasions of meltdowns. The power plant is competitive and the market price is high, which increases profit. The subsidies received by nuclear plant help to offset the cost of operation making it more preferable, compared to other sources of energy. When qualified workers are employed at the nuclear plants, they are able to offer quality services and prevent malfunctioning of the machines, which reduce chances of overheating. There are medical centers to take care of immediate consequences of people who are irradiated through chromosome analysis. Recommendations for practicing safe farming in territories, which are contaminated, are developed where milk is reprocessed. The people are protected from harmful effects that are caused by radiations through radioprotections (Pearlstein, 1973).

Pearlstein, S. (1973). Neutron-induced reactions in medium mass nuclei. Journal of Nuclear Energy, 27(2), 81-99.

Nuclear Power Use Controversies
The Chernobyl Disaster: Time, Distance and Shielding
Misconceptions About Fukushima as a Rural Area
Water Yield Re-Estimation From the Catchment Due to Bushfire
Global Population Innovation and Sustainability
World Water Needs: Water Scarcity Problem in Australia
Oil Spill: Environmental and Human Risk
Legal Change in Public Safety Administration
Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2020, May 21). Nuclear Energy and Its Risks. https://ivypanda.com/essays/nuclear-energy-and-its-risks/

"Nuclear Energy and Its Risks." IvyPanda , 21 May 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/nuclear-energy-and-its-risks/.

IvyPanda . (2020) 'Nuclear Energy and Its Risks'. 21 May.

IvyPanda . 2020. "Nuclear Energy and Its Risks." May 21, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/nuclear-energy-and-its-risks/.

1. IvyPanda . "Nuclear Energy and Its Risks." May 21, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/nuclear-energy-and-its-risks/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Nuclear Energy and Its Risks." May 21, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/nuclear-energy-and-its-risks/.

IMAGES

Advantage of nuclear energy essay in 2021
Nuclear Energy Benefits
Nuclear Energy Argumentative Essay : Need Writing Help?
Write a short essay on Importance of Nuclear Energy
Essay On Nuclear Energy And Advantages And Disadvantages Free Essay Example
Nuclear energy

VIDEO

Nuclear energy
10 lines about Tidal Energy in Hindi || ज्वार भाटा उर्जा || Tidal Energy
The Future of Nuclear Energy: Smaller. Safer. More Sustainable
10 lines on solar energy in Hindi || सौर उर्जा पर 10 वाक्य
Nuclear Energy: Cleaner, Safer and Made in America (:30 Seconds)
10 Lines on Solar Energy in English for students || Solar Energy

COMMENTS

What is Nuclear Energy? The Science of Nuclear Power
The Science of Nuclear Power. Nuclear energy is a form of energy released from the nucleus, the core of atoms, made up of protons and neutrons. This source of energy can be produced in two ways: fission - when nuclei of atoms split into several parts - or fusion - when nuclei fuse together. The nuclear energy harnessed around the world ...
Essay on Nuclear Energy in 500+ words for School Students
Ans. Nuclear energy is the energy released during nuclear reactions. Its importance lies in generating electricity, medical applications, and powering spacecraft. 2. Write a short note on nuclear energy. Ans. Nuclear energy is exploited from the nucleus of atoms through processes like fission or fusion.
Back to the future: Advanced nuclear energy and the battle against
As Third Way's Josh Freed illuminates in the latest Brookings Essay, the Golden Age of nuclear energy in the United States has passed. A flood of young engineers are exploring safer and cleaner ...
Nuclear Energy
Nuclear energy is the energy in the nucleus, or core, of an atom. Atoms are tiny units that make up all matter in the universe, and energy is what holds the nucleus together. There is a huge amount of energy in an atom's dense nucleus.In fact, the power that holds the nucleus together is officially called the "strong force." Nuclear energy can be used to create electricity, but it must first ...
101 Nuclear Energy Essay Topic Ideas & Examples
The challenges of nuclear energy adoption; These essay topic ideas and examples cover a wide range of aspects related to nuclear energy, from its history and science to its benefits and risks. Whether you are interested in exploring the environmental impact of nuclear energy or its role in sustainable development, there is no shortage of topics ...
Nuclear energy facts and information
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 ...
76 Nuclear Energy Essay Topic Ideas & Examples
Nuclear Energy Fusion and Harnessing. Physicists use the equation E=MC2 to calculate the amount of energy that is generated as a result of the fusion of nucleus. Nuclear Energy Usage and Recycling. The resulting energy is used to power machinery and generate heat for processing purposes.
A fresh look at nuclear energy
It is time to take a fresh look at the role that nuclear energy can play in decarbonizing the world's energy system. Nuclear is already the largest source of low-carbon energy in the United States and Europe and the second-largest source worldwide (after hydropower). In the September report of the MIT Energy Initiative, The Future of Nuclear ...
Nuclear Energy Effectiveness
This essay will argue that nuclear energy is the most appropriate way of producing large scale electricity with minimal effects to the environment. The first argument presented is, nuclear energy can produce large scale electricity without depleting environmental resources available. Nuclear energy is extracted from atomic nuclei through ...
Advantages and Challenges 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.
77 Nuclear Power Essay Topics & Samples
77 Nuclear Power Essay Topics & Examples. Updated: Feb 29th, 2024. 8 min. If you're looking for nuclear power essay topics, you may be willing to discuss renewable energy sources, sustainable development, and climate change as well. With the paper titles collected by our team, you'll be able to explore all these issues!
Why Nuclear Power Must Be Part of the Energy Solution
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.
Essay on Nuclear Energy
500 Words Essay on Nuclear Energy Introduction to Nuclear Energy. Nuclear energy, a powerful and complex form of energy, is derived from splitting atoms in a reactor to heat water into steam, turn a turbine, and generate electricity. Ninety-four nuclear reactors in 28 states, approximately 20% of total electricity production in the United ...
Essays on Nuclear Energy
An Issue of Safety of Nuclear Energy. 2 pages / 874 words. Nuclear energy, often considered a double-edged sword, has the potential to revolutionize power generation while simultaneously posing profound questions about safety. This essay delves into the multifaceted issue of nuclear energy, exploring its advantages, the complex safety ...
Nuclear Energy Essays: Examples, Topics, & Outlines
Nuclear Energy Ever since an Italian physicist, Enrico Fermi succeeded in producing the first nuclear chain reaction at the University of Chicago in December of 1942 the usefulness and the drawbacks of nuclear energy have been debated all over the world. While the opponents of nuclear energy point to its enormously destructive power unleashed in atomic bombs, and the potentially harmful ...
Chemistry Nuclear Energy
In this essay, the paper will introduce some of the major individuals and events in the history of atomic theory, as well as the pros and cons of nuclear energy. Atomic theory is an accurate scientific description of the atoms and materials. It has transformed from the ancient Greek concept of indivisible corpuscles into a contemporary quantum ...
Nuclear Energy Essay
Nuclear Energy Essay. Nuclear Energy Energy consumption has become a necessity and an important part of our daily life in the past 10 years. It seems that the world is looking for an energy source that is cleaner, cheaper and more efficient and since nuclear energy has emerged it has become the forerunner for alternative energy sources. 'As ...
Nuclear power has an advantage not reflected in its average price. It's
Germany's Brokdorf nuclear power plant, turned off in 2021. Shutterstock. Two recent examples from Europe illustrate this. The first is from Germany which shut down three nuclear reactors on ...
Nuclear Energy Benefits
This essay will argue that nuclear energy is the most effective way of generating electricity. Get a custom essay on Nuclear Energy Benefits---writers online . Learn More . One of the factors why nuclear energy is an effective source of energy is that it is cost effective. Electricity generated from nuclear energy is economical and saves cost ...
What is nuclear energy's role in mitigating climate change?
The US and two dozen other countries have pledged to triple the world's nuclear energy capacity by 2050. Launched last fall at the United Nations Conference of the Parties (COP 28) in Dubai, the pledge is intended to help reach the goal of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions and limit global warming to 1.5 °C above preindustrial levels.
Essays On Nuclear Energy
Essays on Nuclear Energy - Free download as PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read online for free. The document discusses the challenges of writing an essay on the complex topic of nuclear energy. It notes that such an essay requires an understanding of both the scientific and technical aspects of nuclear energy as well as its social, economic, and environmental implications.
Energy Independence Blog
The answer: nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is carbon-free, reliable (nuclear plants operate at full-capacity 93% of the time, far higher than other sources), and is cost-competitive. There's not enough of it yet, though. Luckily, with legislation like the recently passed ADVANCE Act, that could change.
What is nuclear energy and how does it work?
In June, the Coalition released the locations and timelines of proposed nuclear power plant sites, as part of its telegraphed stance on moving Australia towards nuclear as an energy source. The ...
Pros and cons of nuclear power
Nuclear power pros. Nuclear power has quite a number of pros associated with its use. The first pro of nuclear energy is that it emits little pollution to the environment. A power plant that uses coal emits more radiation than nuclear powered plant. Another pro of nuclear energy is that it is reliable. Because of the fact that nuclear plants ...
Essay on Nuclear Energy
Essay on Nuclear Energy. Nuclear Power and its uses is a growing discussion in today's era of technology. Australia is one of the developed countries where the demands of energy resources are increasing rapidly. Nuclear energy is coming up as a great alternative, but various factors support as well as oppose its growth.
4 questions about the uranium needed for next-generation nuclear reactors
Nuclear power of the future is going to need fuel. That has governments, energy companies and nuclear engineers clamoring to get their hands on HALEU: high-assay low-enriched uranium.
Nuclear Power Provides Cheap and Clean Energy Argumentative Essay
Nuclear power refers to the sustained nuclear fission to generate heat and electricity (Ojovan 34). About 6% of the world's energy is sourced from nuclear power. There has been a much heated debate going on for decades in regard to the use of nuclear energy. Get a custom essay on Nuclear Power Provides Cheap and Clean Energy.
Supreme Court's Chevron Ruling Limits Power of Federal Agencies
In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan said the ruling amounted to a judicial power grab. "A rule of judicial humility," she wrote, "gives way to a rule of judicial hubris."
Nuclear Energy and Its Risks
The nuclear energy is dangerous because it causes death when radiations are released. The radioactive milk caused thyroid cancer, which is dangerous to the health of people. The nuclear power produces radioactive waste, which is difficult to dispose. The nuclear waste remains dangerous for many years, which means that the storage systems should ...

Press centre

Nuclear safety and security

Safeguards and verification

Technical Cooperation Programme

Coordinated research activities

Key programmes

Review missions and advisory services

Laboratory services

Education and training

Scientific and technical publications

General interest material

Official documents

NUCLEUS information resources

Other resources

Management team

Organizational structure

Procurement

Search form

What is nuclear fission?

How does a nuclear power plant work?

Mining, enrichment and disposal of uranium

Nuclear waste

Nuclear power and climate change

What is the role of the IAEA?

Related stories

Related resources

More on the IAEA

Scientific resources

Stay in touch

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Essay on Nuclear Energy in 500+ words for School Students

History Overview

Nuclear Technology

Advantages of Nuclear Energy

Disadvantages of Nuclear Energy

Safety Measures and Regulations of Nuclear Energy

Concerns of Nuclear Proliferation

Future Prospects and Innovations of Nuclear Energy

Deepika Joshi

Connect With Us

Need help with?

Country Preference

Which English test are you planning to take?

When are you planning to take the exam?

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

What is your budget to study abroad?

Make your study abroad dream a reality in January 2022 with

Essex Direct Admission Day

Back to the Future Josh Freed

Climate Change Spurs New Call for Nuclear Energy

From Atoms for Peace to Chernobyl

The Return of Nuclear Pioneers

Missing in Action: The United States Government

Getting the U.S. Back in the Race

For Further Reading

Who Will Own the Nuclear Power Future?

Nuclear Energy

Loading ...

Articles & Profiles

Illustrators

User Permissions

Interactives

Related Resources

101 Nuclear Energy Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

What is nuclear energy and is it a viable resource?

Types of nuclear reactors

Nuclear energy history

Nuclear power, climate change, and future designs

Nuclear power risks

Related Topics

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

History & Culture

Advantages of Nuclear Energy

Creates Jobs

Supports National Security