Nuclear Power Adoption in the 21st Century

9 May 2021
NUCLEAR POWER ADOPTION IN THE 21ST CENTURY 2

Introduction

The world was first introduced to the prospect of nuclear power back in December of

1942 when Nobel Prize winner Enrico Fermi opened the doors to Chicago-Pile 1. This first

nuclear reactor immediately brightened the prospect for using nuclear power as a source of clean

and efficient energy. However, in a turn of events less than three years later, the world learned of

the true destructive power of these nuclear isotopes when bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and

Nagasaki nearing the end of WW2. Due to the chronology of these events, many have theorized

that the expansion of nuclear power could lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons (Miller &

Sagan, 2009). Since then, many developments have occurred in both the fields of nuclear power

and nuclear arms. This paper will examine the costs and benefits of nuclear power and why its

adoption has mostly stalled in the 21st century.

Nuclear Power Cost Breakdown

The Levelized-Cost of Electricity (LCOE) is a measurement of the price at which a

particular plant must sell electricity in order for it to break even, excluding systematic costs such

as maintenance and staffing, which are calculated separately. The Levelized Cost of Electricity

generated using nuclear reactors averages around ten cents per kilowatt-hour, which is lower

than that of coal and natural gas, while still being higher than that of renewable resources such as

hydropower (“EIA - Annual Energy Outlook 2019,” 2019). However, renewable energy sources

have extremely high systemic costs when compared to nuclear reactors, with nuclear reactors

often being five to ten times cheaper to staff and maintain. As a result, the net cost for energy

amongst these clean energy sources is about equal across the globe (Buongiorno, Parsons,

Corradini, & Petti, 2018). The main problem with implementing nuclear reactors comes with
NUCLEAR POWER ADOPTION IN THE 21ST CENTURY 3

their initial installment, which can be up to $10 billion for a 1,000 MWh plant. Because of this,

the massive cost of ten billion dollars only produces a positive return on investment nearly

twelve years after it is first built (“Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System – Analysis,” 2019).

By that point in time, developments have rendered the initial investment obsolete and the value

of the plant has severely depreciated. Since the pace of developments in nuclear reactor

technology is fairly quick, many governments are hesitant to put down initial investments into

the field (Joskow & Parsons, 2012). This is a major impediment to the adoption of nuclear power

and will likely impact its usage in the years to come.

Nuclear power is a net-zero carbon energy source. In recent years, environmental

agencies have put a price tag on carbon emissions we emit into our atmosphere. The social cost

of carbon (SC-CO2) is a measurement of the economic harm caused by releasing one ton of CO2

into the atmosphere. As it currently stands, the current cost of releasing one ton of CO 2 stands at

around $42 (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2015). For every kilowatt-hour of

energy production from natural gas, roughly 0.92 pounds of carbon dioxide are created. On the

other hand, coal combustion creates roughly 2.32 pounds of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour

produced. These energy sources produce 1,582 billion kWh and 966 billion kWh every year,

respectively (“What is U.S. Electricity Generation by Energy Source? - FAQ - U.S. Energy

Information Administration (EIA),” 2015). When analyzing these numbers alongside the social

cost of carbon, it can be calculated that these sources contribute nearly $100 billion to

environmental damages each year. Nuclear power leaves a far smaller footprint since its energy

production methods do not emit greenhouse gasses. Our current systems allow for speedy and

safe transportations of nuclear waste, which can be recycled and reused. When looking in the

long run, nuclear power stands as a front-runner alongside other clean energy resources.
NUCLEAR POWER ADOPTION IN THE 21ST CENTURY 4

The Safety of Nuclear Power

Recent safety incidents revolving around nuclear power have plagued the public’s

perception of it as an energy resource. Disasters such as Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile

Island have all led to the stagnation of nuclear power use in their respective countries (Joskow &

Parsons, 2012). However, all three of these major incidents have been in some way linked to

human errors that could have prevented these situations. In addition, many of the systems used in

those time frames have since been updated with new safety measures and technological

safeguards to prevent future occurrences. Furthermore, newer nuclear reactors such as those

being developed in Generation III and IV are being built with safety in mind: “Unlike the

disasters like Fukushima and Chernobyl, when [Generation IV] reactors experienced an initial

rise in temperature, the passive safety systems began to work spontaneously” (“GEN IV:

Evolution in Nuclear Safety | K=1 Project,” 2012). These next-generation reactors incorporate

redundant safety measures to catch, monitor, and restart systems before potential disasters are

imminent.

Nuclear Power and Nuclear Proliferation

One of the issues facing nuclear power is that it is often linked with the development of

nuclear weapons: “The surge of interest in nuclear power is occurring simultaneously with

mounting concern about the health of the nuclear proliferation regime, the regulatory framework

that constrains and governs the world’s civil and military-related nuclear affairs” (Miller &

Sagan, 2009). Resistance to the nonproliferation regime mainly stems from the sluggish

implementation of the disarmament clause in the existing Nonproliferation Treaty. A large

expansion and spread of nuclear power would make that task even more challenging: “The
NUCLEAR POWER ADOPTION IN THE 21ST CENTURY 5

cooperative process of stepping away from nuclear weapons in a world with so much widely

dispersed raw material for their production would be very difficult because the magnitude and

breadth of the system requiring control would be so daunting” (Goldston, 2011).

Conclusion

Nuclear reactors have long been a prospective way of creating clean energy for the world

to run on. However, in recent years, the adoption of these technologies has stagnated due to high

initial costs and multiple safety concerns, including nuclear proliferation. This has led futuristic

nuclear technologies and systems to start implementing solutions to some of these safety

concerns, such as the case with Generation III and IV reactors. As governments start realizing

the true demands of the current clean energy crisis, these net-zero-carbon nuclear reactors may

hold the silver lining to a sustainable and clean future.

References

3 Reasons Why Nuclear is Clean and Sustainable. (2020, April 30). Retrieved October 23, 2020,

from Energy.gov website:

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/3-reasons-why-nuclear-clean-and-sustainable#:~:text=

Nuclear%20is%20a%20zero%2Demission

EIA - Annual Energy Outlook 2019. (2019). Retrieved from United States Energy Information

Administration website: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/

Buongiorno, J., Parsons, J., Corradini, M., & Petti, D. (2018). The Future of Nuclear Energy in a

Carbon-Constrained World. Retrieved from MIT Energy Initiative website:

http://energy.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/The-Future-of-Nuclear-Energy-in-a-Ca

rbon-Constrained-World-Executive-Summary.pdf

GEN IV: Evolution in Nuclear Safety | K=1 Project. (2012). Retrieved from Columbia.edu

website: https://k1project.columbia.edu/a15

Goldston, R. J. (2011, April 28). Climate Change, Nuclear Power and Nuclear Proliferation:

Magnitude Matters. Retrieved October 23, 2020, from www.osti.gov website:

https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1013075

Joskow, P. L., & Parsons, J. E. (2012). The Future of Nuclear Power After Fukushima.

Economics of Energy & Environmental Policy, 1(2), 99–114. Retrieved from

https://www.jstor.org/stable/26189494?seq=1

Miller, S. E., & Sagan, S. D. (2009). Nuclear power without nuclear proliferation? Daedalus,

138(4), 7–18. https://doi.org/10.1162/daed.2009.138.4.7

NRC: Post-Fukushima Safety Enhancements. (2019, August 14). Retrieved from www.nrc.gov

website:
NUCLEAR POWER ADOPTION IN THE 21ST CENTURY 7

https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/post-fukushima-safety-enhancem

ents.html

Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System – Analysis. (2019, May). Retrieved from IEA website:

https://www.iea.org/reports/nuclear-power-in-a-clean-energy-system

Nuclear Proliferation Risks in Nuclear Energy Programs. (2018, April 24). Retrieved from

Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation website:

https://armscontrolcenter.org/nuclear-proliferation-risks-in-nuclear-energy-programs/

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2015). The Social Cost of Carbon | Climate

Change | US EPA. Retrieved from Epa.gov website:

https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climatechange/social-cost-carbon_.html

What is U.S. Electricity Generation by Energy Source? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information

Administration (EIA). (2015). Retrieved from Eia.gov website:

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3