Home
hamburger menu icon

Nuclear Fission

Nuclear power is the extraction of energy from fission of heavy atomic nuclei, as opposed to fusion. Here we assess the economic and environmental impact of today's nuclear technology and consider the prospects of future forms.

We recommend further research and development into advanced reactors and small modular reactors, discussed below.

Nuclear Economics

The following portrays estimates of the cost of today's nuclear technology and possible future technologies.

The image: "Cost of Nuclear Power.jpg" cannot be found!

Data sources: Abdulla and Azevedo 1, Bowen 2, Bustreo 3, Electric Power Research Institute 4, Energy Innovation Reform Project 5, Enter et al. 6, European Fusion Development Agreement 7, IEA et al. 8, Lazard 9, OpenEI10, Rochau 11, Rosner and Goldberg 12, Rothwell and Ganda 13, Rubio and Tricot 14, EIA 15. Contemporary new nuclear construction tends to be expensive relative to other options, though depreciated nuclear--keeping existing plants open--costs an estimated 2.8 ¢/kWh. Cost estimates for nuclear technologies under development, especially fusion, should be regarded as highly uncertain.

Factors that affect the costs of nuclear power include management issues, safety regulation, and commodity prices 16. The long construction times, risk of cost overruns, and high capital costs make nuclear a particularly difficult power source to finance. Nuclear costs also vary considerably by country.

The image: "nuclear_capital_costs.svg" cannot be found!

Observed capital costs of nuclear power in China, the United States, Japan, Korea, and Europe. Most of the cost of nuclear electricity is capital cost. Sources: IEA 17 and IEA et al. 8.

The cost breakdown of a typical nuclear plant is estimated as follows.

The image: "nuclear_plant_cost.svg" cannot be found!

The figures assume a capital cost of $5000/kW (amortized over 50 years at a 7% discount rate and seven year construction time). Sources: World Nuclear Association (16 and 18).

Under today's conditions, nuclear plants require some form of revenue certainty to be economically competitive 16. A capacity market, which would pay operators for dispatchable capacity to insure grid reliability, would also help nuclear economics 16, but the industry's long-term viability requires cost reduction.

Problem:
High Cost of Nuclear Power
Solution:
Reactor Standardization

Poltical decentralization--the sepearation of authority across levels of government, such as federal, state, and local governance in the United States--is associated with higher nuclear plant costs 19.

Uranium and Thorium Mining

While there is no apparent prospect of a shortage of terrestrial uranium reserves on the horizon, the possibility of recovering uranium from seawater would serve as a backstop against major price increases and insure sufficient supply in the event of an expansion of nuclear power.

The image: "uranium_mining.jpg" cannot be found!

Cost of providing uranium or thorium (on a uranium-equivalency basis), in per-kilogram and per-kWh generated bases. Sources: thorium data from IAEA 20, seawater extraction from Parker et al. 21, uranium price peaks from Frisby 22, recent uranium prices from TradeTech 23, and translation of per-kg to per-kWh prices from the World Nuclear Association 16.

The development of fast breeder reactors, which use uranium fuel much more efficiently, or thorium reactors, could allow an expansion of nuclear power without pressuring reserves 24. However, uranium would have to reach a price of about $400/kg for the thorium cycle to be cost-competitive 20.

Health, Environmental, and Social Impact

Nuclear power has the following estimated externalized health and environmental costs. See also our analysis of disposal of nuclear waste.

The image: "nuclear_external.svg" cannot be found!

Greenhouse gas emissions are from Schlömer et al. 25, plant operation from Dones et al. 26, mining, enrichment, and disposal (non-greenhouse gas) from estimated by the OECD and NEA 27, and accident risks are quantified by Samadi 28. It should be noted that the proper valuation of accident risk is highly contested. Non-accident external costs are generally confirmed by ExternE 29 and the OECD and NEA 27. The mining, enrichment, and disposal costs here are also significantly less than those of Dones et al. 26.

Safety

It would be physically impossible for a nuclear power plant, even if deliberately attacked, to explode like an atomic bomb 30. Reactors in the United States use water for cooling, rather than graphite, also making the level of deadly release of radiation as seen in the 1986 Chernobyl disaster extremely unlikely, including in the event of an earthquake or a plane crash 30. There is ongoing risk, not yet realized as of December 2022, that the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in Ukraine could release radiation as a result of the war 31.

Experts are divided on the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation that may result from nuclear power. It is difficult, though not impossible, to repurpose civilian enrichment facilities for weapons production 32. Historically, states with civilian nuclear programs have not been more likely to develop weapons than those without 33.

Small Modular Reactors

Small modular reactors (SMR) are typically defined to have under 300 MW electrical capacity, in contrast to the typical 1000 MW or more of modern nuclear power plants, and they may allow components to be mass-produced and assembled onsite. While SMRs do not offer a clear advantage on cost of electricity, they may reduce construction time, capital risk, and be more attractive for smaller grids 34. Through reduced need for backup power supply, improved seismic capability, and large underground pool storage for spent fuel, the risk of the type of failure seen at Fukushima Daiichi would be reduced 12.

The International Atomic Energy Agency has tracked 55 ongoing SMR projects, of which 19 have the following projected commercialization dates.

The image: "smr_timeline.svg" cannot be found!

Source: IAEA 35.

Problem:
Nuclear Technology Lagging
Solution:
Small Modular Reactor R&D - U.S.

Advanced Nuclear

The nuclear industry is developing a set of new reactor designs which collectively are known as Generation IV. They are expected to be commercially available after 2030. The Generation IV Forum has identified six leading reactor candidates 36. The following shows the main rationale 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, current status of research projects 43, and estimated Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 44. The TRL is measured on a scale from 1, indicating a technology that is only at a conceptual stage, to 9, indicating a technology that is commercially deployed in its final form.

The image: "advanced_nuclear.svg" cannot be found!

Rationales are given by Brookhaven National Laboratory et al. 37, the Gen IV International Forum (38, 39, 40), and the IAEA (41, 42); current status reported by the Advanced Reactors Information System 43; and Technological Readiness Level estimated by Gouger et al. 44.

The Breakthrough Institute has identified safety, modularity, thermal efficiency, and technological readiness as the main criteria for reactor designs. They have determined high-temperature gas-cooled reactors--particularly for thermal applications--sodium-cooled and lead-cooled factor reactors, and molten salt reactors as most promising, and gas-cooled fast reactors and supercritical water reactors less promising 45.

Problem:
Nuclear Technology Lagging
Solution:
Advanced Reactor R&D - U.S.

Revitalizing Nuclear Power

Despite its potential, worldwide and in many wealthy countries, nuclear power has stagnated behind other clean energy sources. There are many reasons for this. They include exaggerated public fears about the dangers of radition release, together with an unrealistic expectation of the improbability of a release, both misconceptions promoted by the nuclear establishment itself; excessive and overly prescriptive regulation; and a lack of innovation in the industry 46. Addressing these barriers will be very difficult, but we propose some approaches to doing so as follows.

Problem:
Stagnation of Nuclear Power
Solution:
Repeal Nuclear Bans

For Further Reading

The Economist's overview of the Generation IV Roadmap.

References

  1. Abdulla, A. and Azevedo, I. "Developing a range of levelized cost estimates for integral light water small modular reactors". ↩

  2. Bowen, M. "Enabling Nuclear Innovation: Leading on SMRs". Nuclear Innovation Alliance. October 2017. ↩

  3. Bustreo, C. "Fusion energy economics". EFDA-TIMES and ETSAP-TIAM Workshop. November 2013. ↩

  4. Electric Power Research Institute. "Australian Power Generation Technology Report". 2015. ↩

  5. Energy Innovation Reform Project. "What Will Advanced Nuclear Plants Cost? A Standardized Cost Analysis of Advanced Nuclear Technologies in Commercial Development". 2017. ↩

  6. Entler, S., Horacek, J., Dlouhy, T., Dostal, V. "Approximation of the economy of fusion energy". Energy 152(1), pp. 489-497. June 2018. ↩

  7. European Fusion Development Agreement. "Fusion Electricity: A roadmap to the realisation of fusion energy". November 2012. ↩

  8. International Energy Agency, Nuclear Energy Agency, Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development. "Projected Costs of Generating Electricity: 2015 Edition". September 2015. ↩ ↩2

  9. Lazard. "Lazard's Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis - Version 12.0". November 2018. ↩

  10. OpenEI. "Transparent Cost Database". Accessed May 11, 2019. ↩

  11. Rochau, G. "SNL Small Modular Reactor Program". 2015. ↩

  12. Rosner, R., Goldberg, S. "Small Modular Reactors – Key to Future Nuclear Power Generation in the U.S.". Energy Policy Institute at Chicago, The Harris School of Public Policy Studies. November 2011. ↩ ↩2

  13. Rothwell G. and Ganda F. "Electricity Generating Portfolios with Small Modular Reactors". Nuclear Engineering Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL 60439-4814. May 2014. ↩

  14. Rubio, G., Tricot, A. "SMR Techno-Economic Assessment". Department of Energy and Climate Change. July 2016. ↩

  15. U.S. Energy Information Administration. "Levelized Cost and Levelized Avoided Cost of New Generation". February 2019. ↩

  16. World Nuclear Association. "Economics of Nuclear Power". Accessed July 5, 2019. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  17. International Energy Agency. "Technology Roadmap - Nuclear Energy, 2015 Edition". ↩

  18. World Nuclear Association. "Nuclear Power Economics and Project Structuring: 2017 Edition". 2017. ↩

  19. Benson, A. G. "Global Divergence in Nuclear Power Plant Construction: The Role of Political Decentralization". Nuclear Technology 208(6). 2022. ↩

  20. International Atomic Energy Agency. "Role of Thorium to Supplement Fuel Cycles of Future Nuclear Energy Systems". IAEA Nuclear Energy Series NF-T-2.4. 2012. ↩ ↩2

  21. Parker, B., Zhang, Z., Rao, L., Arnold, J. "An overview and recent progress in the chemistry of uranium extraction from seawater". Dalton Transactions 3, Royal Society of Chemistry. ↩

  22. Frisby, D. "It’s only a matter of time before this hated metal makes a comeback". MoneyWeek. June 2018. ↩

  23. TradeTech. "Uranium Prices". Accessed July 7, 2019. ↩

  24. OECD Nuclear Energy Agency and the International Atomic Energy Agency. Uranium 2014: Resources, Production and Demand. English, 504 pages, NEA#7209. September 2014. ↩

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

  26. Dones, R. et al. "ExternE-Pol Externalities of Energy: Extension of Accounting Framework and Policy Applications". July 2005. ↩ ↩2

  27. Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development Nuclear Energy Agency. "Nuclear Electricity Generation: What Are the External Costs?". 2003. ↩ ↩2

  28. Samadi, S. "The Social Costs of Electricity Generation-Categorising Different Types of Costs and Evaluating Their Respective Relevance". Energies 10(3), pp. 356. 2017. ↩

  29. ExternE. "Externalities of Energy, Vol. 5: Nuclear". European Commission, prepared by CEPN, FR. 1995. ↩

  30. Cravens, G. "Terrorism and Nuclear Energy: Understanding the Risks". The Brookings Institute. March 2002. ↩ ↩2

  31. Prokip, A. "Why the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant Matters…for the Whole World". Kennan Institute, the Wilson Center. September 2022. ↩

  32. Squassoni, S. "Proliferation risks from nuclear power infrastructure". AIP Conference Proceedings 1898, 040005. November 2017. ↩

  33. Miller, N. "Why Nuclear Energy Programs Rarely Lead to Proliferation". International Security 42(2), pp. 40-77. November 2017. ↩

  34. Nuclear Energy Agency, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. "Small Modular Reactors: Nuclear Energy Market Potential for Near-term Deployment". October 2016. ↩

  35. Nuclear Power Technology Development Section. "Advances in Small Modular Reactor Technology Developments". Division of Nuclear Power of the IAEA Department of Nuclear Energy. 2018. ↩

  36. Gen IV International Forum. "Technology Roadmap Update for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems". January 2014. ↩

  37. Brookhaven National Laboratory et al. "The Use of Thorium in Nuclear Power Reactors". Prepared for the Division of Reactor Development & Technology, U. S. Atomic Energy Commission. June 1969. ↩ ↩2

  38. Gen IV International Forum. "Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor (GFR)". Accessed July 9, 2019. ↩ ↩2

  39. Gen IV International Forum. "Lead-Cooled Fast Reactor (LFR)". Accessed July 9, 2019. ↩ ↩2

  40. Gen IV International Forum. "Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor (SFR)". Accessed July 9, 2019. ↩ ↩2

  41. International Atomic Energy Agency. "Advances in Nuclear Power Process Heat Applications". 2012. ↩ ↩2

  42. International Atomic Energy Agency. "Status of Research and Technology Development for Supercritical Water Cooled Reactors". IAEA TECDOC Series. 2019. ↩ ↩2

  43. Advanced Reactors Information System(ARIS). "Technical Data". International Atomic Energy Agency. Accessed July 9, 2019. ↩ ↩2

  44. Gouger, H. D., Bari, R. A., Kim, T. K., Sowinski, T. E., Worrall, A. "Assessment of the Technical Maturity of Generation IV Concepts for Test or Demonstration Reactor Applications". Idaho National Laboratory, INL/EXT-15-36427, Revision 2. October 2015. ↩ ↩2

  45. Nordhaus, T., Lovering, J. "How to Make Nuclear Cheap". The Breakthrough Institute, Version 2.0. Updated June 2014. ↩

  46. Devanney, J. "Why Nuclear Power Has Been a Flop: at Solving the Gordian Knot of Electricity Poverty and Global Warming". BookBaby, ISBN-13: 978-1098308964. November 2020. ↩