The nuclear power debate is a long-running controversyIn February 2010 the nuclear power debate played out on the pages of the New York Times, see A Reasonable Bet on Nuclear Power and Revisiting Nuclear Power: A Debate and A Comeback for Nuclear Power? In July 2010 the nuclear power debate again played out on the pages of the New York Times, see We're Not Ready Nuclear Energy: The Safety Issues about the risks and benefits of using nuclear reactors to generate electricity for civilian purposes. The debate about nuclear power peaked during the 1970s and 1980s, as more and more reactors were built and came online, and "reached an intensity unprecedented in the history of technology controversies" in some countries.Jim Falk (1982). Global Fission: The Battle Over Nuclear Power, Oxford University Press, pp. 323–340. In the 2010s, with growing public awareness about climate change and the critical role that carbon dioxide and methane emissions plays in causing the heating of the Earth's atmosphere, there was a resurgence in the intensity of the nuclear power debate.
Proponents of nuclear energy argue that nuclear power is the only consistently reliable clean and sustainable energy source which provides large amounts of uninterrupted energy without polluting the atmosphere or emitting the carbon emissions that cause global warming. They argue that use of nuclear power provides well-paying jobs, energy security, reduces a dependence on imported fuels and exposure to price risks associated with resource speculation and foreign policy. Nuclear power produces virtually no air pollution, providing significant environmental benefits compared to the sizeable amount of pollution and carbon emission generated from burning fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas. Some proponents also believe that nuclear power is the only viable course for a country to achieve energy independence while also meeting their nationally determined contributions (NDCs) to reduce carbon emissions in accordance with the Paris Agreement. They emphasize that the risks of storing waste are small and existing stockpiles can be reduced by using this waste to produce fuels for the latest technology in newer reactors. The operational safety record of nuclear power is far better than the other major kinds of power plants and, by preventing pollution, it saves lives.Discussed in: Also see:
Opponents say that nuclear power poses numerous threats to people and the environment and point to studies that question if it will ever be a sustainable energy source. There are health risks, accidents, and environmental damage associated with uranium mining, processing and transport. They highlight the high cost and delays in the construction and maintenance of nuclear power plants, and the fears associated with nuclear weapons proliferation, nuclear power opponents fear sabotage by terrorists of nuclear plants, diversion and misuse of radioactive fuels or fuel waste, as well as naturally occurring leakage from the unsolved and imperfect long-term storage process of radioactive nuclear waste.Greenpeace International and European Renewable Energy Council (January 2007). Energy Revolution: A Sustainable World Energy Outlook , p. 7. They also contend that reactors themselves are enormously complex machines where many things can and do go wrong, and there have been many serious nuclear accidents,Stephanie Cooke (2009). In Mortal Hands: A Cautionary History of the Nuclear Age, Black Inc., p. 280. although when compared to other sources of power, nuclear power is (along with solar and wind energy) among the safest. Critics do not believe that these risks can be reduced through new technology.Jim Green . Nuclear Weapons and 'Fourth Generation' Reactors Chain Reaction, August 2009, pp. 18–21. They further argue that when all the energy-intensive stages of the nuclear fuel chain are considered, from uranium mining to nuclear decommissioning, nuclear power is not a low-carbon electricity source.Mark Diesendorf (2007). Greenhouse Solutions with Sustainable Energy, University of New South Wales Press, p. 252.
History
At the 1963 ground-breaking for what would become the world's largest nuclear power plant, President John F. Kennedy declared that nuclear power was a "step on the long road to peace," and that by using "science and technology to achieve significant breakthroughs", we could "conserve the resources" to leave the world in better shape. Yet, he also acknowledged that the Atomic Age was a "dreadful age" and "when we broke the atom apart, we changed the history of the world." A decade later in Germany, the construction of a nuclear power plant in Wyhl was prevented by local protestors and anti-nuclear groups. The successful use of civil disobedience to prevent the building of this plant was a key moment in the anti-nuclear power movement as it sparked the creation of other groups, in Germany and around the globe. The increase in anti-nuclear power sentiment was heightened after the Three Mile Island's partial meltdown and the Chernobyl Disaster turned public sentiment even more against nuclear-power. Pro-nuclear power groups, however, have increasingly pointed towards the potential of nuclear energy to reduce carbon emissions, arguing that it is a safer alternative to means of production such as coal and the overall danger is an exaggeration by the media.
Electricity and energy supplied Nuclear power output globally saw slow but steady increase until 2006 when it peaked at 2,791 TWh, and then dropped to historic lows in 2012, mostly as result of Japanese reactors being offline for a full year. The output has since continued to grow from newly connected reactors returning to pre-Fukushima levels in 2019, when IEA described nuclear power as "historically one of the largest contributors of carbon-free electricity" with 452 reactors that in total produced 2'789 TWh electricity. In the same year, United States fleet of nuclear reactors produced 800 TWh low-carbon electricity with an average capacity factor of 92%.
Energy security
For many countries, nuclear power affords energy independence—for example, the 1973 oil crisis was the main driver behind France's Messmer plan. Nuclear power has been relatively unaffected by embargoes, and uranium is mined in countries willing to export, including Australia and Canada. Japan's boom in nuclear construction in the 1990s can be traced back to surging electricity demand during the decade. This pattern repeats across multiple countries, with studies showing that high growth in electricity demand significantly effects successful adoption of nuclear power. Introduction of nuclear power into a country is also consistently linked to the degree of energy import dependence. Reductions in imported fuels such as oil frequently lead to increased interest in constructing new nuclear capacity. Periods of low prices of fossil fuels and renewable energy typically reduced political interest towards nuclear power, while periods of expensive fossil fuels and underachieving renewable energy increased it. Increased interest in climate change mitigation, low-carbon energy and global energy crisis resulted in what was described as another "nuclear renaissance" in the early 2020s.
However, there is debate as to how much energy security nuclear energy affords, particularly in Europe in the wake of the Russian Invasion of Ukraine. The Russian-owned nuclear company Rosatom is by far the largest player in international nuclear construction, accounting for 23 of 31 orders for new reactors placed between 2009 and 2018. Rosatom's structure is unique in that it serves as a "one-stop shop" for nuclear construction, exerting unique leverage over every aspect of the nuclear supply chain from reactor materials to uranium enrichment and waste disposal. This leverage across the supply chain makes it an especially appealing option to newcomers to nuclear, particularly in the Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa. Critics have contended that Rosatom's large market share and horizontal integration over construction and repair materials act as a form of energy diplomacy and undermines energy security.
Sustainability
Reliability
The United States fleet of nuclear reactors produced 800 TWh zero-emissions electricity in 2019 with an average capacity factor of 92%.
In 2010, the worldwide average capacity factor was 80.1%. In 2005, the global average capacity factor was 86.8%, the number of SCRAMs per 7,000 hours critical was 0.6, and the unplanned capacity loss factor was 1.6%. Capacity factor is the net power produced divided by the maximum amount possible running at 100% all the time, thus this includes all scheduled maintenance/refueling outages as well as unplanned losses. The 7,000 hours is roughly representative of how long any given reactor will remain critical in a year, meaning that the scram rates translates into a sudden and unplanned shutdown about 0.6 times per year for any given reactor in the world. The unplanned capacity loss factor represents amount of power not produced due to unplanned scrams and postponed restarts.
Since nuclear power plants are fundamentally heat engines, waste heat disposal becomes an issue at high ambient temperature. Droughts and extended periods of high temperature can "cripple nuclear power generation, and it is often during these times when electricity demand is highest because of air-conditioning and refrigeration loads and diminished hydroelectric capacity". In such very hot weather a power reactor may have to operate at a reduced power level or even shut down. In 2009, in Germany, eight nuclear reactors had to be shut down simultaneously on hot summer days for reasons relating to the overheating of equipment or of rivers.Benjamin K. Sovacool (2011). Contesting the Future of Nuclear Power: A Critical Global Assessment of Atomic Energy, World Scientific, p. 146. Overheated discharge water has resulted in significant killing of fish in the past, harming livelihood and raising public concern. This issue applies equally to all thermal power plants including fossil-gas, coal, CSP and nuclear.
Economics New nuclear plants
The economics of new nuclear power plants is a controversial subject, since there are diverging views on this topic, and multibillion-dollar investments ride on the choice of an energy source. Nuclear power plants typically have high capital costs for building the plant, but low direct fuel costs (with much of the costs of fuel extraction, processing, use and long-term storage externalized). Therefore, comparison with other power generation methods is strongly dependent on assumptions about construction timescales and capital financing for nuclear plants. Cost estimates also need to take into account plant decommissioning and nuclear waste storage costs. On the other hand, measures to mitigate global warming, such as a carbon tax or carbon emissions trading, may favor the economics of nuclear power.
In recent years there has been a slowdown of electricity demand growth and financing has become more difficult, which impairs large projects such as nuclear reactors, with very large upfront costs and long project cycles which carry a large variety of risks. In Eastern Europe, a number of long-established projects are struggling to find financing, notably Belene in Bulgaria and the additional reactors at Cernavoda in Romania, and some potential backers have pulled out. The reliable availability of cheap gas poses a major economic disincentive for nuclear projects.