In this guide, we list the potential pros and cons of nuclear energy.
This guide forms part of a series of guides we have put together outlining the benefits and disadvantages of different energy sources and energy generation methods.
Summary – Potential Pros & Cons Of Nuclear Energy
Potential Pros
May Emit Less Greenhouse Gases Than Some Other Energy Sources
Currently Used In A Range Of Countries
Isn’t Dependent On Climate/Weather, Or Geography
Might Be A Reliable Source Of Power In Some Ways
Doesn’t Need Battery Storage Or Backup Energy
May Have High Energy Density
May Have A Higher Capacity Factor Than Other Energy Sources
May Produce More Affordable/Lower Priced Electricity In Some Countries
A Nuclear Reactor May Recoup Costs Over It’s Lifetime
Nuclear Reactors May Have A Reasonable Lifespan
Current Supply Of Uranium Might Not Run Out In The Short Term
There May Be Some Economic & Social Benefits To Nuclear Power Plants
Low Level & Short Lived Radioactive Waste Can Be Stored On-Site
Nuclear May Require Less Construction Materials Than Solar Or Wind
May Generate Less Waste Than Some Renewable Energy Sources
Might Be One Of The Least ‘Harmful’ Energy Sources Across Some Metrics
New Nuclear Reactors Might Be Capable Of Ramping Up Fast
Existing Reactors Can Be ‘Upgraded’
Plants Can Have Lifetime Extended
Spent Nuclear Fuel Might Be Safely Transported & Stored In Some Countries
Spent Nuclear Fuel Might Have Potential To Be Recycled
New Reactors Are Either Currently Being Constructed, Or They Are Planned, Or Proposed For The Future
Potential Cons
Nuclear Energy Has Been, Or Is Being Phased Out In Some Countries
Not Considered A Renewable Energy Source
Uranium Mining & Activation Process Might Be Expensive Compared To Some Other Energy Sources
Nuclear Energy May Have Potential Environmental Impacts To Consider
Nuclear Waste Needs To Be Adequately & Safely Managed
Nuclear Waste Needs Time To Decompose
Some Countries Don’t Recycle Their Spent Nuclear Fuel Right Now
The Lead Time On New Nuclear Plants Needs To Be Considered
There May Be High Up-Front Construction Costs For Nuclear Plants
There’s A Cost To Decommission A Nuclear Reactor
Reactors May Have Safety Issues & Maintenance Issues To Consider
Accidents & Disasters Have Happened At Nuclear Reactors In The Past
Potential Security Threats At Reactors
Nuclear Isn’t A Portable Energy Source
Number Of Operable Reactors Worldwide Hasn’t Changed Significantly In The Last Few Decades
No Guarantee That ‘New’ Reactors Go Into Operation, Or Stay In Operation
Nuclear Might Not Be An Alternative For Natural Gas In Some Instances
Overall
Nuclear is currently used in multiple countries worldwide.
Although, it may not typically make up as high a % of a country’s total energy mix as some fossil fuels do right now.
There can be various reasons for this, ranging from cost and financial feasibility issues, to politics.
Nuclear may have some clear potential benefits though – such as being a low emitting energy source, and having a high power density/power output compared to some other energy sources.
From a sustainability perspective, nuclear energy may also have some clear benefits and drawbacks.
*Note
The pros and cons in this guide are broad generalisations.
Each energy project in each geographic location will have it’s own factors and variables to consider, so, each one will require a separate assessment of it’s individual pros and cons.
The development of technology, as well as other factors might change pros and cons in the future too.
Potential Pros Of Nuclear Energy
May Emit Less Greenhouse Gases Than Some Other Energy Sources
Nuclear energy may have low to no emissions during operation.
In the US in particular, nuclear energy may make up a large % of emissions free electricity compared to other energy sources.
From dailymaverick.co.za:
… vaporized water … [is one of the only by-products of nuclear power generation]
[Because of this factor and other factors, …] nuclear energy produces more clean-air energy than any other source [with] Wind energy [producing …] about the same greenhouse gas emissions as nuclear, and solar power [producing …] four times more GHGs than nuclear in total
[Overall, nuclear energy …] produces 62 percent of all emission-free electricity in the United States.
From forbes.com:
… nuclear power [is] the only truly scalable, reliable, low-carbon energy source proven capable of eliminating carbon emissions from the power sector …
Currently Used In A Range Of Countries
Nuclear is currently used in multiple countries worldwide.
Some countries even produce a notable % of their total electricity from nuclear energy i.e. it isn’t just a minor energy source in some countries’ energy mix
Twelve countries in 2018 produced at least one-quarter of their electricity from nuclear … (world-nuclear.org)
Isn’t Dependent On Climate/Weather, Or Geography
Solar energy or wind energy (as two examples of energy sources) might need a certain climate or weather conditions to operate.
Nuclear on the other hand only needs nuclear fuel to operate.
Might Be A Reliable Source Of Power In Some Ways
Some of the factors that might make nuclear energy more reliable than some other energy sources might be:
– It’s not a variable or intermittent energy source
Some energy sources like wind or solar may be variable sources of energy, whereby the power they deliver can be intermittent (because the sun isn’t always out, or there isn’t always wind)
Although nuclear energy in a power grid might experience interruptions at times, nuclear energy itself isn’t variable or intermittent, which might make it a more reliable or more consistent source of power than renewable energy sources.
Additionally, nuclear energy may be more reliable than some energy sources because
– Nuclear power plants typically require less maintenance (paraphrased from energy.gov)
– Nuclear power plants are typically designed to operate for longer stretches before refueling (typically every 1.5 or 2 years) (paraphrased from energy.gov)
… [nuclear is far more reliable and scalable than …] hydroelectricity [… as one example] (forbes.com)
Nuclear produces reliable base-load power, and although newer-generation reactors can also ramp up and down fairly quickly, the ideal setup would have gas turbines for peaking power (dailymaverick.co.za)
Doesn’t Need Battery Storage Or Backup Energy
Some variable energy sources might need the following things:
– Battery storage to use surplus energy later when there is variability and less power is being generated
– Backup energy sources to help meet baseload when there isn’t enough power output
Nuclear doesn’t need these things as it’s able to provide consistent power output.
May Have High Energy Density
Energy density is essentially a metric that expresses how much energy an energy source contains.
Nuclear along with fossil fuels may have some of the best energy density of all energy sources.
One of the potential benefits of this high energy density is a good fuel to power output ratio (i.e. more power can be generated with less fuel)
Another benefit might be that nuclear has a greater ability to meet more of a town or city’s energy needs
One report even indicates that one reactor might have the ability to meet an entire small or medium sized city’s electricity needs.
May Have A Higher Capacity Factor Than Other Energy Sources
Capacity factor might be a measure of the % of time of the year an energy source is producing maximum power
energy.gov has a chart with data showing the capacity factor of different energy sources
Paraphrased, nuclear energy has the highest capacity factor by a significant margin – almost twice that of coal and natural gas, and almost three time more than solar and wind
We’ve summarised the capacity factors of each energy source here, or, you can view the energy.gov report for the full data
May Produce More Affordable/Lower Priced Electricity In Some Countries
In some countries:
– Nuclear reactors are cheaper to build
– Or, uranium can also be more affordable as an energy source
Additionally, compared to other energy sources that are variable, like solar or wind, nuclear energy might not need backup energy or battery energy storage, and this may minimise the costs that are added to the service of providing electricity from nuclear energy.
The countries with the most expensive and least expensive electricity prices can be analysed, along with the % of total energy share that nuclear energy makes up in those countries, to get an idea of which countries have cheaper electricity prices with a higher share of of nuclear energy in their energy mix.
A Nuclear Reactor May Recoup Costs Over It’s Lifetime
Some reports indicate that although nuclear reactors can be expensive to build, they may end up recoup the capital cost and upfront cost of their lifetime of use
Nuclear Reactors May Have A Reasonable Lifespan
Some reports indicate that a nuclear reactor has a lifespan of about 40 years
Other reports indicate that the technical limit of a nuclear reactor could be up to 80 years
Considering that a coal power plant might have a lifespan of around 30 to 46 years, nuclear reactors may have a reasonable lifespan comparatively
Current Supply Of Uranium Might Not Run Out In The Short Term
For example, the current supply of uranium might have another 80 years before supply becomes an issue according to some estimates
Additionally, new methods of recovering uranium, and new reactor technology may extend supplies if developed to be practical and feasible in the future
There May Be Some Economic & Social Benefits To Nuclear Power Plants
Where nuclear power plants are constructed and then eventually go into operation, they may provide jobs, income, and benefit local communities in various ways.
They may compare favourably to other energy sources in this regard.
There may be financial benefits from nuclear energy for local governments too.
ecavo.com and world-nuclear.org outline (paraphrased) the number of temporary and permanent jobs nuclear plants create during construction and operation compared to coal and natural gas plants
They also mention the revenue nuclear plants can generate yearly for a local government, and the taxes governments can collect.
In their report, nei.org also discusses how the closure on nuclear plants in the US in the past has led to less police patrols being conducted, higher housing taxes, and other social and economic drawbacks. The overall loss might be ‘… about $18 million annual income’
Nuclear in the US may also offer around 23,000 added jobs in the next 5 years
Low Level & Short Lived Radioactive Waste Can Be Stored On-Site
Some reports indicate that intermediate waste can be stored on-site
This addresses potential issues with managing this type of radioactive waste
Nuclear May Require Less Construction Materials Than Solar Or Wind
dailymaverick.co.za mentions that ‘Solar requires 18 times, and wind 11 times, the construction materials of nuclear’
[Regarding renewables,] the dilute nature of water, sunlight, and wind means that at least … 10 – 15 times more concrete, cement, steel, and glass, are required than for nuclear plants (forbes.com)
This might mean less resources are required for nuclear construction compared to other resources, and, it may also mean there’s less waste when nuclear reaches the end of it’s lifespan too.
May Generate Less Waste Than Some Renewable Energy Sources
This waste is in reference to the materials used to make capital and equipment like solar panels vs nuclear reactors.
… solar panels create 200 – 300 times more hazardous waste than nuclear, with none of it required to be recycled or safely contained outside of the European Union (forbes.com)
Might Be One Of The Least ‘Harmful’ Energy Sources Across Some Metrics
Nuclear may be one of the ‘safer’ energy sources across different metrics of harm or safety
As one example, nuclear may rank as having one of the lowest death totals per 1000 TWh (tera watt hours) generated
New Nuclear Reactors Might Be Capable Of Ramping Up Fast
Many designs of Generation 4 molten fuel nuclear reactors will be capable of fast ramping (wikipedia.org)
Energy sources that can ramp up fast can provide base load power, and essentially give a power grid more flexibility and quicker energy on demand – especially when variable energy sources are part of the energy mix for the grid
Natural gas has traditionally been an energy source that has been able to ramp up fast.
However, it’s worth mentioning that some reports might question the cost of nuclear as a backup energy source
Existing Reactors Can Be ‘Upgraded’
In this instance, ‘upgrading’ might involve improving the performance and also the capacity an existing nuclear reactor.
A few potential advantages of improving existing reactors might be:
– Increased output
– Extending the lifespan of the existing reactor
– Not having to experience a lead time on constructing a new reactor
The performance of nuclear reactors has improved substantially over time … for example, 62% of [existing] reactors achieved a capacity factor higher than 80% in 2018 (world-nuclear.org)
world-nuclear.org mentions that (paraphrased) countries like the USA, Switzerland, Spain, Finland and Sweden have ‘uprated’ their existing nuclear power plants – which is an increase in capacity.
Plants Can Have Lifetime Extended
In addition to existing nuclear plants being upgraded, their lifetime might be extended with scheduled programmes
There may be several benefits to this extension.
[In addition to having existing plants’ performance improved,] Plants can also have plant lifetime extension programmes that maintain their capacity (world-nuclear.org)
Spent Nuclear Fuel Might Be Safely Transported & Stored In Some Countries
energy.gov mentions that (paraphrased) spent nuclear fuel is currently safely transported across the United States, and stored and secured at different sites
Spent Nuclear Fuel Might Have Potential To Be Recycled
energy.gov mentions that spent nuclear fuel ‘… can be recycled to make new fuel and byproducts.’
Potential energy stays in the fuel for years after it’s been used, so it’s reuse potential might be high.
Some countries currently recycle spent nuclear fuel
In the future, some new reactors might have the potential to use spent nuclear fuel
New Reactors Are Either Currently Being Constructed, Or They Are Planned, Or Proposed For The Future
Some data might suggest that the future for nuclear energy installed capacity might be somewhat positive, as there is currently construction taking place, or plans or proposals for future reactor construction.
More information on those things might include:
– Power reactors being built/constructed
About 50 power reactors are currently being constructed in 15 countries … notably China, India, Russia and the United Arab Emirates (world-nuclear.org)
– Power reactors being planned or on order
Over 100 power reactors … are on order or planned. Most reactors currently planned are in the Asian region (world-nuclear.org)
– Power reactors being proposed
… over 300 [power reactors] are proposed (world-nuclear.org)
Potential Cons Of Nuclear Energy
Nuclear Energy Has Been, Or Is Being Phased Out In Some Countries
Some countries have a preference either not to use nuclear energy at all, or, to reduce their use of it.
Germany is one example of a country that has permanently shut down a % of it’s nuclear reactors in the past in an attempt to phase out nuclear energy (although, some reactors are currently still operating).
Not Considered A Renewable Energy Source
Like fossil fuels, uranium might be a scarce or non renewable resource with only so much of it left.
This is in comparison to energy sources like solar and wind which are more renewable
Uranium Mining & Activation Process Might Be Expensive Compared To Some Other Energy Sources
Uranium is required for a lot of the nuclear fuel we use today
Before being used as nuclear fuel, uranium has to be mined, synthesized, then activated to produce energy
This process might be more expensive/costly than the process some renewable energy sources go through to convert energy to electricity
Nuclear Energy May Have Potential Environmental Impacts To Consider
Including but not limited to the potential eco impact of:
– Mining uranium (can results in various types of land degradation, pollution, and waste)
– Uranium ore refinement and processing (energy used, and waste produced)
– Nuclear reactors can use a lot of water for cooling, which they can dump back into the environment
– Managing nuclear waste
The wikipedia.org report in the sources list at the bottom of this guide has more information on the potential eco impact of nuclear energy
Nuclear Waste Needs To Be Adequately & Safely Managed
A typical nuclear power plant might generate about 20 metric tons of used nuclear fuel per year according to some reports.
This spent nuclear fuel can be radioactive, so nuclear waste can’t be taken to a regular landfill
It need to be managed in a way via specialized handling and storage methods, where it doesn’t have a negative environmental effect, and in a way it doesn’t impact human safety.
This might be done via various ways, such as transport to storage sites, remote handling and shielding, and even storing underground.
The cost of this waste management also needs to be considered.
world-nuclear.org mentions that:
High level and long lived waste can sometimes have to be stored deep underground
Nuclear Waste Needs Time To Decompose
Some reports indicate that it takes spent nuclear fuel hundreds of years to decompose before it reaches adequate levels of safety
Some Countries Don’t Recycle Their Spent Nuclear Fuel Right Now
Even though spent nuclear fuel might have potential to be recycled, energy.gov mentions that (paraphrased) the US is an example of a country that currently doesn’t recycle their spent nuclear fuel
The Lead Time On Constructing New Nuclear Plants Needs To Be Considered
Not taking into consideration design and pre planning …
Various reports indicate that the lead time on the construction of a new nuclear power station might be 7 to 10 years on average
In comparison, some major ground based solar panel farms might take anywhere from 3 months to a few years to build
Having said this – the power output of a nuclear reactor vs a solar panel farm should be considered too
There May Be High Up-Front Construction Costs For Nuclear Plants
Nuclear reactors may be much more costly in some countries compared to others around the world
In some countries, the cost to construct a nuclear reactor may be so high that it makes the price of generating electricity not feasible
Construction of a new plant can … cost billions of dollars.
Nuclear reactors can cost twice as much in the United States and Europe than in Asian countries …
In the East … the cost is $3,000-$4,000 per kilowatt, whereas in the West the cost is north of $8,000 per kilowatt [… due to design, construction management and supply chain and workforce]
– forbes.com
In Australia, nuclear is currently priced out of the energy mix compared to renewables (reneweconomy.com.au)
There’s A Cost To Decommission A Nuclear Reactor
Some reports indicate that in the US, it can cost in the hundreds of millions of dollars just to decommission a nuclear power plant
Reactors May Have Safety Issues & Maintenance Issues To Consider
Several reports indicate that France may be an example of a country where inspections on nuclear plants have identified potential safety issues such as corrosion and micro cracks in cooling systems for the reactor’s radioactive core, as well as other potential maintenance and technical issues.
Some of France’s reactors may have been shut down or made to go offline in the past for these reasons.
Accidents & Disasters Have Happened At Nuclear Reactors In The Past
Two more well known examples are the Chernobyl explosion in 1986, and the Fukushima disaster in 2011.
There’s the impact on humans to consider, as well as the impact on the surrounding environment and wild life.
Potential Security Threats At Reactors
There may have to be greater security at nuclear reactors than regular power plants.
A few of the reasons for this might be to protect against sabotage or a takeover of the plant, and also to prevent theft of uranium.
Although the uranium used to power nuclear plants is of a different grade than weapons-grade uranium; it can be synthesized from it.
Nuclear Isn’t A Portable Energy Source
Solar panels come in small portable solar panels that transported and used on a small or even private scale in many locations.
Nuclear energy doesn’t have this same portable small scale use.
Nuclear energy is generally only be used for powering a large grid or in special applications such as a submarine
Existing & Old Nuclear Reactors Are Not As Capable Of Fast Ramping
From wikipedia.org:
Thermally lethargic technologies like coal and solid-fuel nuclear are physically incapable of fast ramping …
Number Of Operable Reactors Worldwide Hasn’t Changed Significantly In The Last Few Decades
In the last few decades, operable reactors might have only increase day 30 or so.
This may suggest a slow growth rate in installed capacity for nuclear energy.
Politics, cost, and other factors may also play a part in this.
From world-nuclear.org:
In 1988, there was 416 operable reactors worldwide [and] in 2019, there was 442.
Although, some sources say there are 50 reactors under construction
Having said this, it would be worth comparing these numbers against the number of reactors that have had their lifetime extended, or have been upgraded.
This could be one explanation for slow growth of new reactors if investment is being put into existing reactors
No Guarantee That ‘New’ Reactors Go Into Operation, Or Stay In Operation
We classify ‘new’ reactors as reactors currently being constructed, or that are either being planned, or being proposed.
Reactors being constructed can be abandoned, or the project can ‘fail’ for some reason at some stage (this has happened with clean coal projects in the past)
Additionally, reactors that are either being planned, or proposed, can both be abandoned/cancelled for various reasons too.
The end result in each of these cases is that the reactors either don’t go into operation at all, or they fail to stay in operation.
Nuclear Might Not Be An Alternative For Natural Gas In Some Instances
Some reports indicate that nuclear isn’t a substitute for natural gas in some cases.
This is because whilst both energy sources can be used for electricity generation, nuclear can’t be used as a gas for heating (in homes, buildings, etc) in the same way natural gas can be.
Sources
1. https://www.renewableresourcescoalition.org/nuclear-energy-pros-cons/
2. https://trimediaee.com/blog/environmental/power-plant-past-prime/
3. https://www.livescience.com/39961-chernobyl.html
4. https://www.renewableresourcescoalition.org/solar-energy-pros-cons/
5. https://www.bettermeetsreality.com/how-much-uranium-is-left-in-the-world-on-land-in-oceans-when-will-we-run-out/
6. https://reneweconomy.com.au/nuclear-priced-out-of-australias-future-energy-equation-in-new-report-67465/
7. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2018/10/01/3-reasons-nuclear-reactors-are-more-expensive-in-the-west-hint-its-not-regulation/#57bad5155d1a
8. https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-waste/storage-and-disposal-of-radioactive-waste.aspx
9. https://www.nei.org/fundamentals/nuclear-waste
10. https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2019-08-13-mantashe-is-right-south-africa-must-build-more-nuclear-energy/
11. https://www.bettermeetsreality.com/which-energy-source-is-the-most-dangerous-harmful-which-is-safest/
12. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#Levelized_cost_of_electricity
13. https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/nuclear-power-in-the-world-today.aspx
14. https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx
15. https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx
16. https://ecavo.com/nuclear-energy-pros-cons/
17. https://www.nei.org/advantages/jobs
18. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel
19. https://www.dw.com/en/why-is-germany-struggling-to-break-up-with-nuclear-energy/a-63807428
20. https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/08/we-dont-need-solar-and-wind-to-save-the-climate-and-its-a-good-thing-too/#6c6732fae4de
21. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_nuclear_power#Comparison_to_coal-fired_generation
22. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close
