nuclear energy pros and cons essay

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

• Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
• Climate Change
• Policy & Economics
• Biodiversity
• Conservation

Get focused newsletters especially designed to be concise and easy to digest

• ESSENTIAL BRIEFING 3 times weekly
• TOP STORY ROUNDUP Once a week
• MONTHLY OVERVIEW Once a month
• Enter your email *
• Name This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

The Advantages and Disadvantages of Nuclear Energy

Since the first nuclear plant started operations in the 1950s, the world has been highly divided on nuclear as a source of energy. While it is a cleaner alternative to fossil fuels, this type of power is also associated with some of the world’s most dangerous and deadliest weapons, not to mention nuclear disasters . The extremely high cost and lengthy process to build nuclear plants are compensated by the fact that producing nuclear energy is not nearly as polluting as oil and coal. In the race to net-zero carbon emissions, should countries still rely on nuclear energy or should they make space for more fossil fuels and renewable energy sources? We take a look at the advantages and disadvantages of nuclear energy. 

What Is Nuclear Energy?

Nuclear energy is the energy source found in an atom’s nucleus, or core. Once extracted, this energy can be used to produce electricity by creating nuclear fission in a reactor through two kinds of atomic reaction: nuclear fusion and nuclear fission. During the latter, uranium used as fuel causes atoms to split into two or more nuclei. The energy released from fission generates heat that brings a cooling agent, usually water, to boil. The steam deriving from boiling or pressurised water is then channelled to spin turbines to generate electricity. To produce nuclear fission, reactors make use of uranium as fuel.

For centuries, the industrialisation of economies around the world was made possible by fossil fuels like coal, natural gas, and petroleum and only in recent years countries opened up to alternative, renewable sources like solar and wind energy. In the 1950s, early commercial nuclear power stations started operations, offering to many countries around the world an alternative to oil and gas import dependency and a far less polluting energy source than fossil fuels. Following the 1970s energy crisis and the dramatic increase of oil prices that resulted from it, more and more countries decided to embark on nuclear power programmes. Indeed, most reactors have been built  between 1970 and 1985 worldwide. Today, nuclear energy meets around 10% of global energy demand , with 439 currently operational nuclear plants in 32 countries and about 55 new reactors under construction.

In 2020, 13 countries produced at least one-quarter of their total electricity from nuclear, with the US, China, and France dominating the market by far. 

Fossil fuels make up 60% of the United States’ electricity while the remaining 40% is equally split between renewables and nuclear power. France embarked on a sweeping expansion of its nuclear power industry in the 1970s with the ultimate goal of breaking its dependence on foreign oil. In doing this, the country was able to build up its economy by simultaneously cutting its emissions at a rate never seen before. Today, France is home to 56 operating reactors and it relies on nuclear power for 70% of its electricity . 

You might also like: A ‘Breakthrough’ In Nuclear Fusion: What Does It Mean for the Future of Energy Generation?

Advantages of Nuclear Energy

France’s success in cutting down emissions is a clear example of some of the main advantages of nuclear energy over fossil fuels. First and foremost, nuclear energy is clean and it provides pollution-free power with no greenhouse gas emissions. Contrary to what many believe, cooling towers in nuclear plants only emit water vapour and are thus, not releasing any pollutant or radioactive substance into the atmosphere. Compared to all the energy alternatives we currently have on hand, many experts believe that nuclear energy is indeed one of the cleanest sources. Many nuclear energy supporters also argue that nuclear power is responsible for the fastest decarbonisation effort in history , with big nuclear players like France, Saudi Arabia, Canada, and South Korea being among the countries that recorded the fastest decline in carbon intensity and experienced a clean energy transition by building nuclear reactors and hydroelectric dams.

Earlier this year, the European Commission took a clear stance on nuclear power by labelling it a green source of energy in its classification system establishing a list of environmentally sustainable economic activities. While nuclear energy may be clean and its production emission-free, experts highlight a hidden danger of this power: nuclear waste. The highly radioactive and toxic byproduct from nuclear reactors can remain radioactive for tens of thousands of years. However, this is still considered a much easier environmental problem to solve than climate change. The main reason for this is that as much as 90% of the nuclear waste generated by the production of nuclear energy can be recycled. Indeed, the fuel used in a reactor, typically uranium, can be treated and put into another reactor as only a small amount of energy in their fuel is extracted in the fission process.

A rather important advantage of nuclear energy is that it is much safer than fossil fuels from a public health perspective. The pro-nuclear movement leverages the fact that nuclear waste is not even remotely as dangerous as the toxic chemicals coming from fossil fuels. Indeed, coal and oil act as ‘ invisible killers ’ and are responsible for 1 in 5 deaths worldwide . In 2018 alone, fossil fuels killed 8.7 million people globally. In contrast, in nearly 70 years since the beginning of nuclear power, only three accidents have raised public alarm: the 1979 Three Mile Island accident, the 1986 Chernobyl disaster and the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster. Of these, only the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear plant in Ukraine directly caused any deaths.

Finally, nuclear energy has some advantages compared to some of the most popular renewable energy sources. According to the US Office of Nuclear Energy , nuclear power has by far the highest capacity factor, with plants requiring less maintenance, capable to operate for up to two years before refuelling and able to produce maximum power more than 93% of the time during the year, making them three times more reliable than wind and solar plants. 

You might also like: Nuclear Energy: A Silver Bullet For Clean Energy?

Disadvantages of Nuclear Energy

The anti-nuclear movement opposes the use of this type of energy for several reasons. The first and currently most talked about disadvantage of nuclear energy is the nuclear weapon proliferation, a debate triggered by the deadly atomic bombing of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the Second World War and recently reopened following rising concerns over nuclear escalation in the Ukraine-Russia conflict . After the world saw the highly destructive effect of these bombs, which caused the death of tens of thousands of people, not only in the impact itself but also in the days, weeks, and months after the tragedy as a consequence of radiation sickness, nuclear energy evolved to a pure means of generating electricity. In 1970, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons entered into force. Its objective was to prevent the spread of such weapons to eventually achieve nuclear disarmament as well as promote peaceful uses of nuclear energy. However, opposers of this energy source still see nuclear energy as being deeply intertwined with nuclear weapons technologies and believe that, with nuclear technologies becoming globally available, the risk of them falling into the wrong hands is high, especially in countries with high levels of corruption and instability. 

As mentioned in the previous section, nuclear energy is clean. However, radioactive nuclear waste contains highly poisonous chemicals like plutonium and the uranium pellets used as fuel. These materials can be extremely toxic for tens of thousands of years and for this reason, they need to be meticulously and permanently disposed of. Since the 1950s, a stockpile of 250,000 tonnes of highly radioactive nuclear waste has been accumulated and distributed across the world, with 90,000 metric tons stored in the US alone. Knowing the dangers of nuclear waste, many oppose nuclear energy for fears of accidents, despite these being extremely unlikely to happen. Indeed, opposers know that when nuclear does fail, it can fail spectacularly. They were reminded of this in 2011, when the Fukushima disaster, despite not killing anyone directly, led to the displacement of more than 150,000 people, thousands of evacuation/related deaths and billions of dollars in cleanup costs. 

Lastly, if compared to other sources of energy, nuclear power is one of the most expensive and time-consuming forms of energy. Nuclear plants cost billions of dollars to build and they take much longer than any other infrastructure for renewable energy, sometimes even more than a decade. However, while nuclear power plants are expensive to build, they are relatively cheap to run , a factor that improves its competitiveness. Still, the long building process is considered a significant obstacle in the run to net-zero emissions that countries around the world have committed to. If they hope to meet their emission reduction targets in time, they cannot afford to rely on new nuclear plants.

You might also like: The Nuclear Waste Disposal Dilemma

Who Wins the Nuclear Debate?

There are a multitude of advantages and disadvantages of nuclear energy and the debate on whether to keep this technology or find other alternatives is destined to continue in the years to come.

Nuclear power can be a highly destructive weapon, but the risks of a nuclear catastrophe are relatively low. While historic nuclear disasters can be counted on the fingers of a single hand, they are remembered for their devastating impact and the life-threatening consequences they sparked (or almost sparked). However, it is important to remember that fossil fuels like coal and oil represent a much bigger threat and silently kill millions of people every year worldwide. 

Another big aspect to take into account, and one that is currently discussed by global leaders, is the dependence of some of the world’s largest economies on countries like Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq for fossil fuels. While the 2011 Fukushima disaster, for example, pushed the then-German Chancellor Angela Merkel to close all of Germany’s nuclear plants, her decision only increased the country’s dependence on much more polluting Russian oil. Nuclear supporters argue that relying on nuclear energy would decrease the energy dependency from third countries. However, raw materials such as the uranium needed to make plants function would still need to be imported from countries like Canada, Kazakhstan, and Australia.

The debate thus shifts to another problem: which countries should we rely on for imports and, most importantly, is it worth keeping these dependencies?

This story is funded by readers like you

Our non-profit newsroom provides climate coverage free of charge and advertising. Your one-off or monthly donations play a crucial role in supporting our operations, expanding our reach, and maintaining our editorial independence.

About EO | Mission Statement | Impact & Reach | Write for us

About the Author

Martina Igini

Top 7 Smart Cities in the World in 2024

What the Future of Renewable Energy Looks Like

The Environmental Impacts of Lithium and Cobalt Mining

Hand-picked stories weekly or monthly. We promise, no spam!

Boost this article By donating us $100, $50 or subscribe to Boosting $10/month – we can get this article and others in front of tens of thousands of specially targeted readers. This targeted Boosting – helps us to reach wider audiences – aiming to convince the unconvinced, to inform the uninformed, to enlighten the dogmatic.

• Clean energy
• Nuclear energy
• Top pros and cons of...

The top pros and cons of nuclear energy

• Share to LinkedIn
• Share to Facebook
• Jacob Marsh

As subject matter experts, we provide only objective information. We design every article to provide you with deeply-researched, factual, useful information so that you can make informed home electrification and financial decisions. We have:

Sourced the majority of our data from hundreds of thousands of quotes through our own marketplace.

Incorporated third-party data and information from primary sources, government agencies, educational institutions, peer-reviewed research, or well-researched nonprofit organizations.

Built our own database and rating system for solar equipment, including solar panels, inverters, and batteries.

We won't charge you anything to get quotes through our marketplace. Instead, installers and other service providers pay us a small fee to participate after we vet them for reliability and suitability. To learn more, read about how we make money and our Editorial Guidelines .

As with any energy source, renewable or non-renewable, there are pros and cons to using nuclear energy. We'll review some of these top benefits and drawbacks to keep in mind when comparing nuclear to other energy sources.

• 100% free to use, 100% online
• Access the lowest prices from installers near you
• Unbiased Energy Advisors ready to help

Top pros and cons of nuclear energy

Despite the limited development of nuclear power plants recently, nuclear energy still supplies about 20 percent of U.S. electricity. As with any energy source, it comes with various advantages and disadvantages. Here are just a few top ones to keep in mind:

Pros and cons of nuclear power

On the pros side, nuclear energy is a carbon-free electricity source (with other environmental benefits as well!). It needs a relatively small land area to operate and is a great energy source for reliable baseload power for the electric grid. On the cons side, nuclear is technically a non-renewable energy source, nuclear plants have a high up-front cost associated with them, and nuclear waste and the operation of nuclear plants pose some environmental and health challenges.

Below, we'll explore these pros and cons in further detail.

Advantages of nuclear energy

Here are four advantages of nuclear energy:

Carbon-free electricity

Small land footprint, high power output, reliable energy source.

While traditional fossil fuel generation sources pump massive amounts of carbon dioxide (the primary cause of global climate change) into the atmosphere, nuclear energy plants do not produce carbon dioxide, or any air pollution, during operation. That's not to say that they don't pollute at all, though - mining, refining, and preparing uranium use energy, and nuclear waste pose a completely separate environmental problem. We'll discuss nuclear waste's role in all this later on.

Nuclear energy plants take up far less physical space than other common clean energy facilities (particularly wind and solar power). According to the Department of Energy, a typical nuclear facility producing 1,000 megawatts (MW) of electricity takes up about one square mile of space. Comparatively, a wind farm producing the same amount of energy takes 360x more land area, and a large-scale solar farm uses 75x more space. That's 431 wind turbines or 3.125 million (!!!) solar panels. Check out this graphic from the Department of Energy for more fun comparisons of energy sources, like how many Corvettes are needed to produce the same amount of energy as one nuclear reactor.

Nuclear power plants produce high energy levels compared to most power sources (especially renewables), making them a great provider of baseload electricity. "Baseload electricity" simply means the minimum level of energy demand on the grid over some time, say a week. Nuclear has the potential to be this high-output baseload source, and we're headed that way - since 1990, nuclear power plants have generated 20% of the US's electricity. Additionally, nuclear is a prime candidate for replacing current baseload electricity sources that contribute significantly to air pollution, such as large coal plants.

Lastly, nuclear energy is a reliable renewable energy source based on its constant production and accessibility. Nuclear power plants produce their maximum power output more often (93% of the time) than any other energy source, and because of this round-the-clock stability, makes nuclear energy an ideal source of reliable baseload electricity for the grid.

Disadvantages of nuclear energy

Here are four disadvantages of nuclear energy:

Uranium is technically non-renewable

Very high upfront costs

Nuclear waste

Malfunctions can be catastrophic, uranium is non-renewable.

Although nuclear energy is a "clean" source of power, it is technically not renewable. Current nuclear technology relies on uranium ore for fuel, which exists in limited amounts in the earth's crust. The longer we rely on nuclear power (and uranium ore in particular), the more depleted the earth's uranium resources will become, which will drive up the cost of extracting it and the negative environmental impacts of mining and processing the uranium.

High upfront costs

Operating a nuclear energy plant is a relatively low-cost endeavor, but building it in the first place is very expensive. Nuclear reactors are complex devices that require many levels of safety built around them, which drives up the cost of new nuclear plants. 

And now, to the thorny issue of nuclear waste – we could write hundreds of articles about the science of nuclear waste, its political implications, cost/benefit analyses, and more regarding this particular subject. The key takeaway from that would be this: nuclear waste is a complicated issue, and we won't claim to be anything near experts . Nuclear waste is radioactive, making it an environmental and health catastrophe waiting to happen. These reasons are exactly why governments spend tons of money to safely package and dispose of used-up nuclear fuel. At the end of the day, yes, nuclear waste is a dangerous by-product of nuclear power plants, and it takes extreme care and advanced technology to handle it properly.

A nuclear meltdown occurs when the heat created by a nuclear reactor exceeds the amount of heat being transferred out by the cooling systems; this causes the system to exceed its melting point. If this happens, hot radioactive vapors can escape, which can cause nuclear plants to melt down fully and combust, releasing harmful radioactive materials into the environment. This is an extremely unlikely worst-case scenario, and nuclear plants are equipped with numerous safety measures to prevent meltdowns.

Create your own clean energy with solar panels.

Enjoy the benefits of solar without rooftop panels.

Explore heat pumps, the latest in clean heating & cooling technology.

See solar prices near you.

Enter your zip code to find out what typical solar installations cost in your neighborhood.

• Our offerings
• Community solar
• Heating & cooling
• Backup power
• EV charging
• For your business
• Other energy options
• Solar calculator
• Solar rebates
• Home solar guide
• Market intel
• Refer a friend
• Mission & values
• How it works
• Editorial guidelines
• Work with us
• Solar & HVAC installers
• Corporate partnerships
• Community programs
• Utility programs

ENERGYSAGE is a registered trademark and the EnergySage logo is a trademark of EnergySage, Inc. Other trademarks are the property of either EnergySage, Inc. or our licensors and are used with permission.

© Copyright 2009-2024 EnergySage, Inc. All rights reserved.

Learn more about our success working with the U.S. Department of Energy.

Nuclear Power Advantages and Disadvantages 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

Introduction

Nuclear power and fuel cost, global warming and nuclear power, article annotation, works cited.

Nuclear power is the energy generated by use of Uranium. The energy is produced via complex chemical processes in the nuclear power stations. Major chemical reactions that involve the splitting of atom’s nucleus take place in the reactors. This process is known as fission (Klug and Davies 31-32). The first nuclear power station was established in 1956 in Cumbira, England. Nuclear energy provides about sixteen percent of the total earth’s energy requirements (Cohen ch. 2).

Nuclear plants take years to be built.The cost of buying, and building the reactors is way too high (Klug and Davies 31-32). The kinds of security installations done around the power plant are of high technology which is extremely costly. Managers of nuclear power plants would prefer claiming their returns at the commencement of the plants activities which describes the high cost of fuel. The claim is thought to include cost of installations and time taken to construct the nuclear plants.

Other reasons that could lead to high cost of fuel namely, Security measures, installation factors and safety measures (Klug and Davies 36). The safety measure gadgets are very expensive and are made by great technological experts. Another form of safety measure is availability of machine spare parts. This ensures frequent renewal and upgrading of the plant’s mechanical equipment and this is again very costly.

The main reason for such security is due to the danger that could be caused by exposure to the products of radioactivity. The main equipment that needs close check up is the reactor. Its installation is quite costly hence appropriate renewal of worn out parts is an option that should not to be overlooked.

In addition to these costs, the costs of containing the waste matter is also quite high (Cohen ch.11). Although many people think that investing in nuclear power is a costly event, I do not feel so because it is a worthy venture and one of the cleanest sources of energy.

Though it is not renewable, its establishment and good management could provide a perfect source of energy to the world at large . Nuclear energy production requires low fuel and once the plant is built the cost variables are minor. The Cost of doubling fuel or uranium cost in nuclear plants will only increase fuel cost by 9%. For other sources like coal and gas, doubling fuel prices will increase the fuel prices by 31% and 66% respectively (Cohen ch.9).

Global warming is caused by the effect of green house gases. These gases are carbon dioxide, methane, vapor and ozone. They are produced by burning fossil fuel. When the gases accumulate in the atmosphere they serve as a mirror in reflecting heat energy back to earth. The accumulation of these gases leads to increased temperature on earth’s atmosphere resulting into global warming (Klug and Davies 31-37).

Nuclear power should not at any instance be regarded as one of the causative effects of global warming. This is because it consumes carbon dioxide which is of the green house gases during energy production. Carbon dioxide is a major gas among the green house gases. Hence nuclear energy has provided a solution point for its disposal.

Nuclear energy should therefore be referred to as a cleaner rather than destroyer. It has also boosted the economy by creating a market for sale of carbon dioxide gas. Industries producing this gas can as well trade with nuclear power plants. When serious action is taken in trading this gas from various outlets to various nuclear plants, then a solution would be made on how to regulate global warming using nuclear power generation.

In addition to nuclear power generation, use of renewable energy would also help in countering global warming. Due to the increased need for electricity, more nuclear power plants should be built. These will provide enough market for carbon dioxide waste from other manufacturing industries.

Nuclear energy should be adopted in place of fossil fuel. This is because fossil fuels position’s the earth at a higher risk of global warming. The only task that would justify the use of nuclear energy is when the purpose of Uranium metal is not shifted to bomb production or nuclear weapon production. New adoptions and policies on how to prevent global warming should be implemented.

Barkan, Steven. Nuclear Power and Protest Movements. Social problems journal Vol. 27.1(1979):11-36.Print.

Steve Barkan, a retired article writer basically points out people’s views that have been influenced by environmental degradation. The people have turned more attention to nuclear energy technology as a means of addressing the problem. Barkan’s article examines people’s opinion on nuclear energy. Those against the notion of nuclear energy as a source of energy believe that carbon dioxide emissions mostly emanate from nuclear power and not renewable energy.

These people’s arguments are based on the argument that high grade ores will get depleted hence low grade ores which produce carbon dioxide will be used with no installation of advanced reactor equipment.

In addition the opponents say that nuclear waste makes the environment susceptible to harm in the future, but they fail to point out that long lived constituents or radioactive elements give off small portion of radioactivity. The opponents also fail to mention any person that could have been harmed as a result of using fuel from power plants.

Another argument is that high cost of nuclear plant management has resulted to increased cost of fuel. In this case, they fail to note that the cost of electricity from nuclear energy is cheaper than most sources. Barkan also brings out the contrasting issue of terrorist attack whom the anti nuclear group argues that could cause melt down of ore. He responds by saying that high level of technological security would not allow access of such suicidal sabotage.

Nuclear energy is more affordable to produce than coal energy. It does not produce smoke or carbon dioxide. Instead, the carbon dioxide is used in the process to remove heat from the system. In this case carbon dioxide does not act as a byproduct rather it serves a positive purpose by being utilized. In addition its usage, nuclear energy produces less waste. It does contribute to neither environmental hazards nor green house effect like coal.

Nuclear energy is reliable and produces large amount of energy from less fuel. The negative effect lies on the risks that are associated with nuclear plants especially accidents and suicidal terrorists. These could cause extremely deadly effects and scars that can never be erased. Only good management and high technological security can assist in nullifying such fateful occurrences.

Nuclear power reactors should not be built in politically unstable regions. Political instability results in war and negative effects on the economy. For instance war prone areas are susceptible to attacks by terrorists which could result in detrimental effects. There is need for effective safety policy to be implemented that will address the following factors namely, climate change, security of power plants, safety, energy security and proliferation of nuclear technologies. This is because such proliferations would result in nuclear bomb.

Cohen, Benard. The Nuclear Energy Option . Plenum Press.1990.

Klug, Aaron & Davies, David. Nuclear Energy; The Future Climate. Norway: The Royal Society (1999):11-65.Print.

• Ecosphere Care in the United States
• Climate Shift Could Leave Some Marine Species Homeless
• Can a Nuclear Reactor Explode Like an Atomic Bomb?
• Nuclear Power Station Advantages and Disadvantages
• The Environmental Impact of Nuclear Energy
• Mitigation Plan for Energy Resources
• Solution to Environmental Problems
• Energy Use and Conservation
• Policy Paper on Oil Conservation
• United National Environment Programme (UNEP)
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, October 17). Nuclear Power Advantages and Disadvantages. https://ivypanda.com/essays/nuclear-power/

"Nuclear Power Advantages and Disadvantages." IvyPanda , 17 Oct. 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/nuclear-power/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'Nuclear Power Advantages and Disadvantages'. 17 October.

IvyPanda . 2018. "Nuclear Power Advantages and Disadvantages." October 17, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/nuclear-power/.

1. IvyPanda . "Nuclear Power Advantages and Disadvantages." October 17, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/nuclear-power/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Nuclear Power Advantages and Disadvantages." October 17, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/nuclear-power/.

Switch language:

Nuclear power: The pros and cons of the energy source

What are the pros and cons of nuclear power? Power-technology.com weighs up opinions on the controversial source of energy.

• Share on Linkedin
• Share on Facebook

Advantages and Disadvantages of Nuclear Energy

Unlocking the high energy output of nuclear plants.

Few energy industry topics are discussed as vigorously as nuclear power. For some, nuclear is an underutilised source of energy. Cheap to produce and low carbon, they say nuclear should be a larger part of the world’s energy mix as it transitions away from fossil fuels to low-carbon and renewable energy.

Free Report

Delve into the renewable energy prospects for morocco.

• The 2020 target compared to what was achieved  
• The 2030 target and current progress  
• Energy strategy to 2050  
• Green hydrogen  
• Predictions for the way forward   

You will receive an email shortly. Please check your inbox to download the Report.

Go deeper with GlobalData

Generation mPower’s SMR Technology: Offering a Potential for Nuclea...

Nuclear power - thematic research, data insights.

The gold standard of business intelligence.

Find out more

Related Company Profiles

Green peace, department of energy, odisha.

By downloading this Report, you acknowledge that GlobalData may share your information with GlobalData and that your personal data will be used as described in their Privacy Policy

Tick here to opt out of curated industry news, reports, and event updates

Visit our Privacy Policy for more information about our services, how GlobalData may use, process and share your personal data, including information on your rights in respect of your personal data and how you can unsubscribe from future marketing communications. Our services are intended for corporate subscribers and you warrant that the email address submitted is your corporate email address.

For others, nuclear is as bad if not worse than fossil fuels. They argue the potential of a nuclear meltdown like Chernobyl and Fukushima outweighs the positives of nuclear power, as do the excessive costs and difficulty in disposing of the nuclear waste produced.

How well do you really know your competitors?

Access the most comprehensive Company Profiles on the market, powered by GlobalData. Save hours of research. Gain competitive edge.

Your download email will arrive shortly

Not ready to buy yet? Download a free sample

We are confident about the unique quality of our Company Profiles. However, we want you to make the most beneficial decision for your business, so we offer a free sample that you can download by submitting the below form

Pro –  Low carbon

Unlike traditional fossil fuels like coal, nuclear power does not produce greenhouse gas emissions like methane and CO 2 .

Nuclear advocacy group the World Nuclear Association found that the average emissions for nuclear are 29 tonnes of CO 2 per gigawatt hour (GWh) of energy produces. This compares favourably with renewable sources like solar (85 tonnes per GWh) and wind (26 tonnes per GWh) and even more favourably with fossil fuels like lignite (1,054 tonnes per GWh) and coal (888 tonnes per GWh).

Nuclear produces roughly the same or less emissions as renewable sources so could be considered an environmentally friendly source of energy.

Con –  If it goes wrong…

Anti-nuclear campaigners will cite the three major nuclear meltdowns of recent times, Three Mile Island in 1979, Chernobyl in 1986 and most recently Fukushima in 2011.

Despite all the safety measures in place these nuclear plants, different factors caused them to go into meltdown, which was devastating for the environment and for local inhabitants who had to flee the affected areas.

The official immediate death toll for Chernobyl was reported as 54 people, although this is consistently disputed,  and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) established a figure of 4,000 projected deaths in the longer term. Is the potential of nuclear power worth the risk of powerful radiation leaks, mass evacuations and billions spent in repairs?

Pro –  Not intermittent

US President Donald Trump famously decried wind energy for its intermittency, saying: “When the wind stops blowing, that’s the end of your electric.”  The consistent criticism of renewable energy like wind and solar is that they only produce power when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining.

Nuclear, however, is not intermittent, as nuclear power plants can run without any interruptions for a year and more without interruptions or maintenance, making it a more reliable source of energy.

Con –  Nuclear waste

One side effect of nuclear power is the amount of nuclear waste it produces. It has been estimated that the world produces some 34,000m 3 of nuclear waste each year, waste that takes years to degrade.

Anti-nuclear environmental group Greenpeace released a report in January 2019 that detailed what it called a nuclear waste ‘crisis’ for which there is ‘no solution on the horizon’. One such solution was a concrete nuclear waste ‘coffin’ on Runit Island , which has begun to crack open and potentially release radioactive material.

Pro –  Cheap to run

Nuclear power plants are cheaper to run than their coal or gas rivals. It has been estimated that even factoring in costs such as managing radioactive fuel and disposal nuclear plants cost between 33 to 50% of a coal plant and 20 to 25% of a gas combined-cycle plant.

The amount of energy produced is also superior to most other forms. The US Department of Energy (DOE) estimates that to replace a 1GW nuclear power plant would require 2GW of coal or 3GW to 4GW from renewable sources to generate the same amount of electricity.

Con –  Expensive to build

The initial costs for building a nuclear power plant are steep. A recent virtual test reactor in the US estimate rose from $3.5bn to $6bn alongside huge extra costs to maintain the facility.

South Africa scrapped plans to add 9.6GW of nuclear power to its energy mix due to the cost, which was estimated anywhere between $34-84bn. So whilst nuclear plants are cheap to run and produce inexpensive fuel, the initial costs are off-putting.

Sign up for our daily news round-up!

Give your business an edge with our leading industry insights.

More Relevant

Equinor and Polenergia secure permits for Baltyk 2 and 3

Nsw australia approves 450mw goulburn river solar farm, enbw energie baden-wurttemberg gets grant for method for unblocking geological deep wells using carboxylic acids, ceco environmental gets grant for water treatment using ferrate-based redox process and filtration, sign up to the newsletter: in brief, your corporate email address, i would also like to subscribe to:.

Future Power Technology : Power Technology Focus (monthly)

Thematic Take (monthly)

I consent to Verdict Media Limited collecting my details provided via this form in accordance with Privacy Policy

Thank you for subscribing

View all newsletters from across the GlobalData Media network.

• Essay Editor

Pros and cons of nuclear power

1. pros of nuclear power.

One of the biggest advantages of nuclear power is that it is a clean energy source. This means it does not produce carbon dioxide or release any harmful gases, such as methane or sulfur dioxide, into the air. Nuclear energy doesn't contribute to smog or acid rain, and it also doesn't require the extraction or destruction of natural resources that many other types of power do. Wind turbines can only turn to make power when the wind is blowing, and solar panels can only make power when the sun is shining, but a nuclear power plant can run all the time. Nuclear power has by far the highest capacity factor of any other energy source. Capacity factor is a measure of how much power a plant actually produces compared to how much it would produce if it ran at full nameplate capacity the entire time. For example, if a nuclear power plant has a capacity factor of 90%, it means it's producing power 90% of the time. This is great compared to, say, solar power, which only has a capacity factor of around 20-30%. Solar power plants also have to shut down periodically for panels to be cleaned, and they can't produce at night, while nuclear power plants can run virtually uninterrupted for 18 months at a time. Hydroelectric power has the second highest capacity factor, but nuclear is ahead by a wide margin. Lastly, nuclear power is the most environmentally friendly of all energy sources, because it produces electricity without the release of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane. There is no permanent waste that has to be disposed of, and only low levels of waste are produced. Nuclear power plants can supply a great amount of energy with small amounts of fuel. It also saves natural resources, such as coal and petroleum. These two kinds of fuel are not renewable and there are limits to their supply. If we continue generating electricity with these non-renewable fuels, there will be a time that we run out of them. However, the Uranium that is used as fuel in the reaction is plentiful in supply. There is such a large amount of it in the world that we are not likely to run out of it for 70 years at today's consumption rate. So we will be able to drive the technology of nuclear power for several generations. In the very unlikely case that we do consume nearly all of the uranium, there are some new reactor designs that may use thorium as fuel. Thorium is much more plentiful as a new type of fuel. So people don't need to worry about the availability of resources for nuclear power. All these make nuclear power the best solution to the need of electricity as an alternative source of electricity with the exhaustion of natural resources. And no harmful emissions to contaminate the environment, such as carbon dioxide that produced from coal, or poisonous fumes produced by coal and petroleum. All scientists agree that nuclear power is the most environmentally friendly energy source.

1.1. Clean energy source

The principal level that supports the advocacy of nuclear power is that it is a safe and clean energy substitute, contrary to other energy excesses. The process of producing nuclear energy is comparatively "clean", and with low greenhouse gas discharges. However, this is not to underrate the dangerous effects of nuclear wastes and its inevitable attentions. Bear in mind that nuclear reactors function in the principle of nuclear fission. The complete process requires low magnitude fuel, generally uranium. Through atomic detonations, a massive amount of heat energy is produced, which is utilized to produce electricity. Since this heat energy is spontaneously produced though radioactive rot, it is called a spontaneous origin of energy. However, the squander of used nuclear fuels is an expensive difficulty and also a hazardous goal to the surroundings. To utilize the clean and low greenhouse energy discharge advantages, the nuclear reactors would be incessant 24/7, without any intermission. On the prohibitive, in contrast to solar power or wind power, the operation of reactors may be insincere by many factors, such as mechanical defects and outage for protection inspections. However, I must call attention to the fact that the dangers of nuclear pollution should not be minimized. In fact, nuclear pollutants that launched into the ambiance and water always have devastating effects towards the surroundings and oftentimes leading to lives and belongings lost. Hence, this is a comparatively weighty price that has to be paid for the privilege of consuming a clean energy. Subsequently, it is vital that real care should be exercised in the waste disposal measures and safe practices in the management of nuclear pollutants.

1.2. High energy output

Another reason why nuclear power is a good thing is that it can produce a huge amount of electricity in a single plant. Heavy uranium atoms are split in a process known as nuclear fission, and this releases a tremendous amount of energy. In fact, the energy released by fission of one atom of uranium is millions of times the energy released by the combustion of one atom of carbon from coal. The first and oldest nuclear power plant in the world is in north Wales, and it's called the Wylfa power station. My school once went on a trip to the power station, and I learned that it can produce enough electricity to supply the needs of all the homes in Wales and still have some power left over. This very small amount of fuel used means that the process of generating electricity causes a very small level of pollution, since that is what happens when new substances are made or are released to an environment. However, most power plants use fossil fuels in their processes of making electricity, and this causes more pollution. Fossil fuels include coal, oil, and natural gas, and burning these releases carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide, which are just two types of the gases produced. Fukushima is also the name of a nuclear disaster where three nuclear reactors were damaged and released a massive amount of nuclear radiation after a very big earthquake and a tsunami, but the factories are now being cleaned up and reopened. In 2011, there was an earthquake and a tsunami which caused an explosion at the power station which damaged the reactor and contaminated the surrounding areas with radiation, leading to the formation of an exclusion zone. People unfairly claim that this was a failure of nuclear power when actually it was a success - the nuclear fallout didn't even reach the boundaries of the power station. The problem was that the electricity was cut off by the earthquake to the nuclear power plant and the backup generators to run the cooling systems weren't designed to deal with such a big tsunami. People need a reliable source of power, and quite a few claim that nuclear power is the answer.

1.3. Low greenhouse gas emissions

In the present day, the majority of people believe that nuclear power is a beneficial solution for the increasing demand for energy. At this time, it is producing ten percent of the world's electricity in many developed countries. The problem of global warming has meant that this method has been put back on the agenda in many countries as they try to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide they are producing. The greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear fission are very low and this will be discussed in more detail. When uranium atoms are hit by neutrons in a chain reaction, this makes them split and release neutrons which then go on to split more uranium atoms. This produces a large amount of energy in the form of heat. The heat is used to change water into steam which is used to drive turbines that generate the electricity. The chain reaction will continue as long as there are enough uranium atoms and there is a control rod to control the amount of power produced. When compared to high consumption of electricity, there is a very low physical amount of fuel needed to be removed from the reactor, and this can mean that there is no pollution as a result of nuclear fission. Also, in the timescale of building and operation, there are low greenhouse gas emissions. This is very important because at the moment we are not at a stable stage of carbon dioxide production. Due to the advantage of nuclear power, this method has become a popular method and many people put high hope on this industry as a way to generate electricity. However, nuclear power stations or power plants are very expensive to build and a lot of money is needed to ensure that all the safety provisions are made to protect the public. Also, the problem of long-lived radioactive nuclear waste is an unsolved problem and the whole process can be in danger if there is a lack of money or people wanted to violate the safety rules. These have to be overcome before it can truly be a long-lasting solution for the world's power requirements.

2. Cons of nuclear power

Another major downside of nuclear power is the radioactive waste that is produced at every stage of the nuclear fuel cycle. This includes the mining, milling, conversion, enrichment and fuel fabrication processes, as well as the decommissioning and dismantling, waste treatment and storage, and the reprocessing of the spent fuel followed by the management of the resulting high-level waste. The waste produced in all of these processes is classed as either low, intermediate or high-level waste, with high-level waste being the most dangerous as it generates such high levels of heat and radiation. This waste needs to be managed safely and kept away from human beings and wildlife for the very long periods of time it remains hazardous. Although the waste is currently stored in secure facilities, the fact that it remains hazardous for thousands of years poses a significant environmental challenge. This is the most cited disadvantage of nuclear power and one of the reasons why most nuclear power stations are on the coast – to facilitate the transportation and storage of the waste and fuel. This is a particular worry given the potential for accidents during transportation, such as a plane crash in the vicinity of a nuclear waste store.

2.1. Radioactive waste disposal

The Nuclear Information and Resource Center states that radioactive waste remains highly dangerous to humans and other living things for thousands of years. Even though the use of nuclear power has its own benefits and also its shortcomings, scholars in the energy sector have to consider radioactive nuclear waste in their problematic concepts. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has stated that in the nuclear power production, the United States is currently producing 2000 metric tons of nuclear waste every year and it is expected to increase as the nuclear power used in daily life is increasing. However, currently there are no long-term storage facilities for the highly dangerous nuclear waste and there is still no option for permanent disposal. The amount of nuclear waste produced by the power plants is so huge and thus it requires a lot of space for storage. The nuclear waste needs to be stored somewhere isolated and that place needs to be secure and safe. In order to ensure the safety of the people and the environment, nuclear waste needs to be tightly monitored and protected from people, the environment, accidents, and even natural disasters. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has made it known to the global community that the nuclear waste needs to be permanently disposed of in such a way that future generations will be protected from its misuse. From my viewpoint, the best option for nuclear waste disposal is deep underground disposal and it has been supported by the IAEA. And I will continue to discuss this option more.

2.2. Risk of accidents and meltdowns

There is always the risk that a nuclear power plant can have an accident or a meltdown. In a meltdown, the fuel in the reactor core turns into a molten mass. If a plant is damaged in some way and a meltdown occurs, the fuel could escape and mix with the ground below the reactor. This is what happened at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine in 1986 and the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan in 2011. There are emergency plans in case of an accident at a nuclear power plant but it's very difficult to keep the public safe and to protect the environment - KI (stable iodine) would need to be given to large numbers of people and the accidents fuel future current reaction in the reactor would need to be cooled quickly. Nuclear power plants operate in most states in the country and there has never been a major accident or meltdown in the United States. Nuclear energy is the largest source of carbon-free electricity but many people are still concerned about whether nuclear power plants are safe and how to keep the public safe if a serious accident does occur.

2.3. Potential for nuclear weapon proliferation

A big concern among environmentalists is the linkage between nuclear power and nuclear weapons. A powerful country can easily divert the technology used in the nuclear power plants to produce nuclear weapons. For example, North Korea is currently using its nuclear power program to help in acquiring nuclear weapons. Consequently, environmentalists argue that all nations of the world should stop the use of nuclear power. However, the fact is that nuclear weapons were actually developed from 1939 to 1945, while nuclear energy was only invented in the 1950s. First, to produce a nuclear weapon, there should be enough uranium or plutonium. Besides that, the uranium should be enriched to be used in the nuclear weapon. However, nuclear power plants only use low enriched uranium. It is known that building up a solid case for the prosecution of nuclear proliferation in the 21st century is not easy because of the complex web of overlapping motivations, fractured co-operations, and tensions. Also, the nations have to expose their domestic nuclear facilities to international inspections to verify that they are not being used for developing the nuclear weapons which have a close linkage to the nuclear power. However, such kinds of international co-operations still rely on the commitment of the individual states to work together. The problem today is so complex that it is hard to formulate any proposals for action that would be politically acceptable to all the people. As a conclusion, there are still political obstacles that are hampering the process of banning nuclear weapons. However, to pave our way in the future, we, as the residents on this beautiful Earth, should promote the production and usage of alternative energy and stop the nuclear power plants in order to prevent the future nuclear weapons that would rejuvenate devastating effects on humanity, the environment, and the Earth itself. We should learn from the terror and suffering at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We should stop the meaningless use of nuclear power plants.

2.4. High cost of construction and maintenance

The initial construction of nuclear power plants is costly. The construction requires a large amount of capital, including the cost for design and manufacture, transport of the materials to the site, and the employment of skilled labor throughout the construction phase. Moreover, the construction duration time is lengthy, typically around six to ten years. As a result, a large amount of capital is tied up for a long period of time, which may create an opportunity cost that the money might have been invested in some other ways. The plant can only start to recover this cost and begin to make a profit for the investors upon the completion of the construction phase. Furthermore, nuclear power plants require a significant degree of regular maintenance and the employment of skilled workers, such as nuclear engineers and technicians. There are also large amounts of costs involved in training and educating these workers. This is echoed by the fact that the nuclear industry requires a large amount of support from the academic sectors for providing the knowledge and training for the researchers and the workers. Such ongoing costs, including the large amount of money required for decommissioning the plant at the end of its life after forty years of operation, would exacerbate the capital and operating budgets. In comparison, solar and wind power are free from fuel costs and do not need such frequent maintenance. For example, the typical maintenance for solar power plants is conducting regular cleaning of the solar arrays to maximize efficiency, which seems minimal compared to the maintenance required for nuclear power plants. While fossil fuel power plants, such as coal or gas plants, also need ongoing maintenance, the procedure required for nuclear plants is immensely complicated and costly. Such maintenance includes proactive inspections and regular monitoring of the operative plant systems, and costly insulation testing and repairs in case of the detection of any defects. These maintenance activities aim to prevent or mitigate the impact of a potential release of radioactivity from the plant. As a result, they have to be performed with the sort of robust quality assurance program that requires careful planning, a high level of technical expertise, and sophisticated tools. Therefore, though the cost per unit of electricity produced by nuclear power is comparatively low, the high costs and long period of time for planning, designing, building, and licensing the plant, the lengthy payback period, and the uncertainty associated with the UK nuclear industry, such as changes in national energy policy and increasing competition from other renewable energies, would make potential investors favor other options.

Related articles

The impact of consumer goods on environmental sustainability.

1. Introduction This paper focuses on the connection between consumer goods and environmental sustainability and to what extent they can be complementary. Throughout this essay, I will consider the perspectives from the literature that analyze the economic implications of the use of certain types of consumer goods on the environment. Although there are fundamental differences among the categories of products, indirect evidence suggests that consumption goods in general have the potential to ass ...

The Impact of Climate Change on the Distribution and Survival of Different Plant Species

1. Introduction The environment plays a principal role in the management of different plant species, determining their geographic distribution, and also their presence in different ecosystems. In this context, changes in the environmental conditions, as the ones triggered by climate change, have an impact not only on the distribution of the plant species, but also on the number of individuals and their interaction with other species and the ecosystem as a whole. This response can be seen both a ...

La influencia de la actividad humana en el cambio climático y sus consecuencias globales

1. Introducción a la problemática del cambio climático En la actualidad, diversos estudios llevados a cabo por científicos de todo el mundo revelan que existe un cambio climático y que la actividad humana ha influenciado y empeorado este fenómeno. En 1988, la Organización Meteorológica Mundial y el Programa del Medio Ambiente de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas (ONU) realizaron el Panel Intergubernamental sobre Cambio Climático (IPCC, por sus siglas en inglés) con el objetivo de comprende ...

El impacto del cambio climático y adaptación de las comunidades costeras

1. Introducción al cambio climático y su impacto en las comunidades costeras El cambio climático es una modificación no cíclica del clima que dura o se presenta durante un tiempo y que es igual o mayor al tiempo que denominamos de vida (aproximadamente 80 años). Se caracteriza principalmente por un aumento de las emisiones de CO2 y otros gases de efecto invernadero (GEI), lo que deriva en un calentamiento promedio del globo terráqueo y su repercusión directa sobre el clima, provocando efectos c ...

The Impact of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals on Global Prosperity

1. Introduction The United Nations introduced the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in September 2015 to replace the Millennium Development Goals. It is time to question the effectiveness of the 17 SDGs. Ideally, there should be only one SDG from which the others naturally follow. A possible candidate for this singular SDG is global economic prosperity such that current and future generations across all countries either already are or have the potential to be sustainably prosperous. The S ...

The Impact of Environmental Factors on Male Infertility: Causes and Solutions

1. Introduction Infertility is defined as the inability of a sexually active, non-contracepting couple to achieve pregnancy in one year. In around 40% of cases, the causes of infertility are attributed to the male partner. Endocrine disruption from environmental pollutants has been associated as a major cause of male infertility. The semen quality of human males in several countries has deteriorated, which is reflected by reduced sperm counts, reduced sperm movement, and an increasing rate of m ...

Environmental Impact of Deforestation in Kalimantan

1. Introduction As Indonesia steps into the fast lane of economic development, the demand for forest land for the extraction of timber, oil palms, rubber, or for transmigration needs has led to unprecedented rates of deforestation. Coupled with the popularity of the "Borneo Experience" package to wildlife ecosystems such as Orangutan sanctuaries and various national parks, the deforestation issue when applied to Kalimantan involved in the local and global environmental impact of deforestation. ...

The Impact of Climate Change on Global Agriculture: A Focus on Soil Erosion and Water Conservation

1. Introduction The objective of the paper is to briefly review existing economic research on the impact of climate change on global agricultural production and then suggest more specific areas for future research in the decades leading up to the next century. The main conclusion of previous research is that while more research might yield results that are in many cases more troubling than possible, the potential losers from global warming are those areas at the high latitudes, areas which are ...

How to make up your mind about the pros and cons of nuclear power

Directeur de recherche CNRS, Université Paris Cité

Senior Staff Scientist, CERN

Disclosure statement

François Graner 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 his academic appointment.

Stefano Panebianco 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 his academic appointment.

Université Paris Cité provides funding as a member of The Conversation FR.

View all partners

French president Emmanuel Macron has recently announced that France will invest €1 billion into nuclear power, and build more reactors by 2030 to help stave off Europe’s energy crisis.

But even in France, where nuclear provides more than 70% of the country’s energy mix, the issue is controversial.

The debate is particularly polarised among those who live near nuclear power plants, depending on whether or not they profit either materially or symbolically from this proximity. There is also a constant tension between the press and the nuclear sector over coverage of the industry.

Decades since the first nuclear power plant was built, the debate is still hindered by misunderstandings over both the advantages and drawbacks of this technology.

Contrasting views

As physicists, the two of us mainly agree on the scientific and technological basics of the debate, and on every argument based on verifiable facts. But our different sensibilities as citizens lead us to weigh each argument differently and reach different conclusions on nuclear power.

One of us (Stefano Panebianco) estimates that the advantages of this technology make it a viable choice for the future, while the other (François Graner) estimates that our efforts should focus on a significant decrease in our energy consumption.

By drawing on our contrasting views based on a shared understanding of the scientific evidence, we want to help others form an opinion by listing the pros and cons of nuclear power using the rigorous methods of our everyday life as scientists.

To do so, we asked experts from across the spectrum, including physicists, economists, political scientists, anthropologists, historians, journalists, and NGO volunteers to contribute to a review of the major questions relating to nuclear power. The collected works do not provide a conclusion: we leave it to the readers to draw their own.

So, how should you make up your mind? Here are the basics.

Making choices about the future

The physics underlying nuclear production of electricity are well known . It is rather the industrialisation of the process that raises questions.

Scientific and technological research organisations try to anticipate future energy needs and develop new types of nuclear reactors to replace existing ones. Such research should not predict future choices to be made by politicians and society. However, it is a long-term process which often takes several decades of research, design, development and experimentation before approval, and hence the choices of research directions today can be somewhat binding for the future.

For instance, the study of fast neutron breeder reactor design and optimisation is a long-standing research field. This would allow nuclear fuel to be recycled, which would preserve natural uranium resources and reduce nuclear waste.

In France, two successive demonstrators, Phenix and Super-Phenix , were built and operated last century and a third one, Astrid , was planned in recent years. However, all of these projects have been subject to successive government decisions to pursue, stop, resume, and recently in the case of Astrid, stop again, or at least defer. These decisions were made based on economic, environmental, political and strategical criteria.

How much does it cost?

Natural uranium, which is used as fuel in power plants, is still a relatively abundant resource and does not yet contribute much to the total cost of nuclear energy.

The French Court of Auditors estimated the current average generation cost of nuclear energy for a life-span of 50 years at €60 per megawatt-hour , equivalent to six cents per kilowatt-hour. Though comparisons with other electricity sources are difficult to make, the highly variable public sale price of electricity is around 15 cents per kilowatt-hour.

Cost estimates heavily depend on hypotheses about the future, including the prolongation of power plant duration, waste choices and the decommissioning of reactors. Although decisions are often taken within the short-term vision of an electoral mandate, waste policy must take long-term implications into account .

Meanwhile, the technical feasibility of decommissioning is still hard to predict owing to different levels of understanding of the various reactor types. To maintain or decommission a nuclear power plant requires anticipation in term of money, know-how and energy, and so largely engages the next generations.

Nuclear power thus requires long-term political, financial and geological stability.

Is it safe?

In public debates about safety, a purely technical subject has been transformed into a political one.

Radioactivity must be controlled throughout all stages of the nuclear fuel chain to prevent any harmful effects on either humans or the environment. The risk of nuclear accidents , whether related to natural events, human error, waste, malice or war, has been addressed over the decades by significant improvements and by experience feedback from the two main accidents of Chernobyl and Fukushima. However, it remains a major preoccupation for the general public.

Preventing accidents involves many factors, including the human one; the know-how and motivation of workers depend on a strong partnership between operator and subcontractors .

Other environmental impacts during normal operations include the exposure of nuclear workers and the public to chemical or thermal emissions : the latter becomes problematic with the global warming, as river water required to run reactors becomes scarce and warmer.

Does nuclear have a role in fighting climate change?

What is the future of nuclear power? Scientists cannot make predictions. Instead, scenarios are useful tools for examining possible consequences and costs of hypotheses or choices, for instance by decreasing greenhouse gas emissions or even decreasing energy demand .

The fact that nuclear power plants do not emit carbon, at least during the phase of electricity production (as opposed to the whole fuel and plant life cycles), is an argument to consider in the context of bringing down global emissions.

Nuclear plants also deliver constant power, which is a drawback in terms of adaptation to demand, but an advantage in terms of regularity: development of intermittent renewable energies such as solar and wind exert pressure on electricity distribution networks , as these energies are not necessarily always available at peak times.

The role of politics

In practice, global energy transition scenarios are often used to establish and endorse choices that have already been made .

Globally, the decisions which have actually been taken rely heavily on geopolitics, for instance attempts to bring down reliance on petrol imports, and also decisions to develop military nuclear power alongside energy policy.

The dual system of funding civil and military research alongside one another is only justified if nuclear weapons are developed, which is again a political decision.

Why it’s so hard to decide

In deciding what to think about nuclear power, the list of arguments to take into account is frustratingly large , and many are coupled together. For instance, some reactors, loaded with the so-called mixed uranium and plutonium oxide fuel, partly contribute to recycle some nuclear products. Shutting them down could have the side effect of filling the current waste storage facilities more quickly than expected.

Even worse, decisions are often based on speculative hypotheses due to the difficulty of prediction. What is beyond doubt is that any decision taken or not taken today will affect future generations more than our own.

This means citizens should not leave decisions to be taken only on the basis of scientific or technical arguments, but should make up their own minds, taking into account the political and societal horizon they want for themselves and their children.

• Nuclear power
• Nuclear waste
• Nuclear debate
• Nuclear policy
• The Conversation France
• Nuclear safety
• Nuclear cost

Head of Evidence to Action

Supply Chain - Assistant/Associate Professor (Tenure-Track)

Education Research Fellow

OzGrav Postdoctoral Research Fellow

Casual Facilitator: GERRIC Student Programs - Arts, Design and Architecture

Benefits and Disadvantages of Nuclear Energy

Jesse kuet march 22, 2018, submitted as coursework for ph241 , stanford university, winter 2018.

According to the 2017 BP Statistical Review of World Energy, about 4.7% of the world's energy budget is dedicated to nuclear energy. [1] The utilization of nuclear power has been portrayed negatively in the media. Although there are severe consequences if a nuclear power plant goes awry, there are also many benefits associated with its usage. The purpose of this paper is to inform readers about the advantages and disadvantages of using nuclear power to create electrical energy.

Advantages of Nuclear Power

Most light water reactors (See Fig. 1) that make up the world's nuclear capacity create electricity at costs of between $0.025 and $0.07 USD per kilowatt-hour dependent upon the design and requirements of each reactor, and experiences many favorable variables such as government subsidies and research. [2] To put into perspective, in California, the wholesale price to produce electricity from natural gas is approximately $0.05 USD per kilowatt-hour, revealing that nuclear energy may or may not be as costly as other alternatives in certain geographical areas. In addition, nuclear energy by far has the lowest impact on the environment since it does not release any gases like carbon dioxide or methane, which are largely responsible for the greenhouse effect." [3] As a result, this differentiates nuclear energy from fossil fuels in that it does not produce negative carbon externalities as a byproduct, "though some greenhouse gases are released while transporting fuel or extracting energy from uranium." [3] The factor of scarcity is not of concern when it comes to the reactors fuel source, which is primarily uranium. There are roughly 5.5 million tonnes of uranium in the known reserves that could be mined at $130 USD per kilogram. [2] Currently, with the world's consumption of around 66,500 tonnes per year, there is about 80 years worth of fuel with the known reserves since the element is relatively abundant in the earth's crust. The main advantage to nuclear energy is that is it relatively low-cost and consistently runs on its full potential, making it the ideal source to power national grids. [2,4]

Disadvantages of Nuclear Power

The hindrance in the growth of nuclear energy is due to many complex reasons, and a major component is the nuclear waste. The further implementations of nuclear power are limited because although nuclear energy does not produce CO 2 the way fossil fuels do, there is still a toxic byproduct produced from uranium-fueled nuclear cycles: radioactive fission waste. 1 tonne of fresh fuel rod waste from a nuclear reactor would give you a fatal dose of radiation in 10 seconds if placed 3 meters away. Plutonium is also of concern, as it increases an exposed person's potential in developing liver, bone, or lung cancer. [5] There is also a negative political perception associated with nuclear plants and nuclear weapons, so expansive growth of nuclear energy is difficult to accomplish. In addition, nuclear power plants could also be ideal targets for terrorists due to the fissile plutonium components of the waste, which could be reused as bomb fuel. [2] Also a terrorist attack on a large reactor would cause a widespread radiation catastrophe at a scale similar to Chernobyl. The final disadvantage is the plant's concentrated level of capital. Although the fuel cost to produce power using nuclear energy is relatively low, there is still the necessity of having highly skilled workers to build, maintain and monitor the operations to ensure the safety and process of the plant.

© Jesse Kuet. The author warrants that the work is the author's own and that Stanford University provided no input other than typesetting and referencing guidelines. The author grants permission to copy, distribute and display this work in unaltered form, with attribution to the author, for noncommercial purposes only. All other rights, including commercial rights, are reserved to the author.

[1] " BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2017 ," British Petroleum, June 2017.

[2] Q. Schiermeier, "Energy Alternatives: Electricity without Carbon," Nature 454 , 816 (2008).

[3] T. Thomas, " "Advantages of Nuclear Energy Use ," Physics 241, Stanford University, Winter 2016.

[4] G. Cravens, Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy (Knopf, 2008).

[5] D. M. Taylor, "Environmental Plutonium in Humans," Appl. Radiat. Isotopes 46 , 1245 (1995).

• 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.

Related Topics

• NUCLEAR ENERGY
• NUCLEAR WEAPONS
• TOXIC WASTE
• RENEWABLE ENERGY

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

• Best of the World
• Environment
• Paid Content

History & Culture

• History & Culture
• Out of Eden Walk
• Mind, Body, Wonder
• Here Not There
• 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

Copyright © 1996-2015 National Geographic Society Copyright © 2015-2024 National Geographic Partners, LLC. All rights reserved

• Materials Science
• Agriculture
• Aquaculture
• Climate Modelling
• Plastic Waste
• Solar Energy
• Wind Energy
• Nuclear Energy
• Hydrogen Fuel
• Energy Storage
• Carbon Capture
• Battery Calorimeters
• Battery Production
• Battery Recycling
• Energy Metals
• Lithium Supply
• Rare Earth Elements
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Science
• Cyber Security
• Digital Infrastructure
• Disruptive Technology
• EV Charging Infrastructure
• EV Energy Storage
• North America
• Special Reports
• Innovation Talks
• The Innovation Platform
• Latest Statistics

• Battery Calorimetry
• Galvanic Energy
• Queensland Pacific Metals
• Pulsar Helium
• Special Focus Publications

Partner News

• Testimonials
• Our Management Team
• Our Editors
• Advanced Search

Exploring the pros and cons of nuclear energy

Researchers at the University of Oklahoma’s Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis discuss evolving public perspectives on the future of nuclear energy in the US.

The combined threats posed by global energy insecurity and a warming climate elevate the urgency of shifting to secure, stable, low-carbon energy sources. Pathways forward emphasise the need to complement renewable sources with nuclear energy. 1,2 The option of continued (or increased) reliance on nuclear energy as a part of the overall energy mix must address significant regulatory and social challenges. Despite the promise of advanced nuclear technologies, many current reactors in the US and EU are nearing the end of their licensed lifespans, and potent opposition to siting new reactors remains among wide segments of the public in the US and Europe. However, public views are dynamic, not static, and there are competing factors at play that push and pull public support for nuclear energy. 3 The lingering negative impacts of events like Fukushima on public perceptions of nuclear risks, the as yet unresolved disposition of spent nuclear fuel from prior energy generation, and substantial distrust in our governing institutions all pose formidable obstacles to continued and increased reliance on nuclear energy. If these factors dominate, communities might choose to bypass nuclear energy while focusing exclusively on renewable sources like wind and solar energy. On the other hand, increasing global energy insecurities, rising natural gas prices, and challenges posed by global climate change all highlight the urgent need for stable, secure, and emission-free energy sources – all of which provide strong reasons for supporting a nuclear resurgence.

Where do things stand? In this article, we focus on how US citizens view the risks and benefits of nuclear energy, and how these factors influence support for continued reliance on nuclear energy. What role can advanced nuclear technologies play? We have built a unique dataset consisting of census-balanced yearly surveys of the US public on issues of energy and the environment. Our surveys were initiated in 2006 and undertaken yearly, covering broad topics about energy use and the environment, as well as specific topics related to the front and back end of the nuclear fuel cycle. We completed the most recent survey in the series in July 2022.

Public support for nuclear energy

The long-term trend indicates that public support for traditional nuclear energy technology was relatively high from 2006 to 2010 but fell significantly after the 2011 Tohoku earthquake and the subsequent Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident in Japan. During the pre-Fukushima accident era, more than 50% of our US survey respondents with an opinion supported the construction of new nuclear reactors both at existing (new reactors) and new locations (new plants).* Support tumbled following the accident, settling below 50% and remaining at those levels for nearly a decade. Survey data from the last two years (2021-2022) suggest a gradual uptick in US support for nuclear energy. For the first time in ten years, more than 50% of survey respondents indicated support for building new reactors and new nuclear plants in the US.

Support for traditional nuclear energy may be on the rise, but the US public is even more intrigued by the promise of advanced nuclear technologies. For example, using data collected since 2018, our surveys indicate that 60-75% of US residents would support the use of small modular reactors (new SMRs) to generate electricity in the US.

What explains these dynamics? Research on public opinion consistently shows that individuals draw on risk and benefit perceptions when formulating opinions about nuclear energy. 4,5,6,7 As one might expect, people who believe that nuclear energy is dangerous (high risk) and unnecessary (low benefit) generally oppose it, whereas people who believe that it is safe and valuable are supportive. These categories seem easy to imagine, but most US residents fall somewhere in between. In our latest survey (June/July 2022), 53% of respondents said the risks and benefits of nuclear are high. By comparison, 20% rated the risks as low and benefits as high, 10% were in the high-risk low-benefit camp, and only 5% said that the risks and benefits were low. The remaining 12% of respondents were somewhere in the middle, often at the very centre, indicating uncertainty in risk and benefit perceptions.

Risks versus benefits

In aggregate, the distribution of nuclear risk and benefit perceptions in the US supports an uncertain view about nuclear energy. To most people, both the risks and benefits of nuclear energy are significant, and this can make it difficult to formulate a strong and consistent opinion about these energy technologies. While overall calculations may be cloudy, there is more clarity about the nature of the risks and benefits that are perceived to be most important.

In statistical models that use the survey data to predict support/opposition, two kinds of risks rise to the top of the list as the most significant in explaining overall nuclear support and opposition. The first and most important is concern about the possibility of an accident that results in the release of large amounts of radiation. Next – and almost as important – is concern about the possibility of an accident during transportation or temporary storage of spent nuclear fuel. Concern about the risks posed by diversion of spent fuel for the manufacture of nuclear weapons (a key concern for non-proliferation of nuclear weapons) or a radiation release due to terrorist attacks on nuclear power plants is less predictive of support or opposition for nuclear energy.

Nuclear energy and the environment

What about the benefits side of the ledger? Energy reliability is the most potent perceived benefit of nuclear energy. People are most supportive of nuclear energy when they believe it reliably generates large amounts of electricity, unaffected by the time of day or weather conditions. Energy independence is the next most important benefit. The climate and environmental benefits of nuclear energy are much less salient. When evaluated alongside the risks and other benefits of nuclear energy, they have little or no effect on public opinion. These findings suggest that increasing challenges to grid reliability and global energy insecurity are likely to bolster support for nuclear energy in the future. Concerns about climate change and the environment are less likely to move the needle.

Where does this leave the connection between climate change and nuclear energy? In 2006, and in every survey since then (including the most recent survey), there has been a negative relationship between concern about climate change and support for nuclear energy. On average, people who worry about climate change are less likely to support traditional nuclear energy technology than people who do not worry about climate change. There are multiple explanations for this apparent paradox. One explanation points to the history of the environmentalist movement in the US. Historically, many environmentalists (including mainstream Democrats in the US) have opposed nuclear energy, and while this group is deeply concerned about climate change, their constituents have not shed their anti-nuclear legacy.

This climate change paradox may define the future of the technology. Concerns about energy reliability and security are extremely important but variable, shifting significantly when energy supplies contract and international events sharpen the focus on energy security (as has occurred with the Russian invasion of Ukraine). Climate change is a constant that will increasingly affect future generations. Progress is slow, but a growing proportion of US residents recognise the threats posed by climate change. This is particularly evident in the youngest voting blocs. Will this increasingly large portion of the electorate turn to nuclear energy as a solution? Possibly, but such a shift may hinge on the arguments made about advanced nuclear technologies.

Our survey results show that people who worry about climate change are more open to advanced nuclear technology than they are to traditional nuclear reactors. In our most recent survey, 65% of the respondents who worried most about climate change supported the use of small modular reactors in the US; less than 50% supported the construction of traditional reactors or plants. These results suggest that, in addition to solving some of the technical and economic challenges facing nuclear energy, advanced nuclear technologies may help in solving a key societal challenge: by enabling the modern environmental movement to shed its anti-nuclear legacy, whereby the promise of nuclear energy can be seen as a critical component of a low carbon energy mix needed to address climate change. Time will tell if advanced nuclear technologies and the narratives that surround them will rise to the occasion.

* Support is measured on a 1 to 7 scale, where 1 indicates strong opposition and 7 indicates strong support. Support percentages are calculated by dividing the number of supporters each year (response = 5, 6, 7) by the number of supporters and opponents (response = 1, 2, 3) that year; respondents who are unsure (response = 4) are not included in the calculation. In 2022, 21%, 25%, and 30% marked unsure (4) in response to the new plants, new reactors, and new SMRs questions, respectively.

• International Atomic Energy Agency, Climate Change and the Role of Nuclear Power, Proceedings Series – International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, Vienna (2020)
• Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Climate Change Targets: The Role of Nuclear Energy , OECD Publishing, Paris (2021)
• Gupta, Kuhika, Matthew C Nowlin, Joseph T Ripberger, Hank C Jenkins-Smith, and Carol L Silva “ Tracking the nuclear ‘mood’ in the United States: Introducing a long term measure of public opinion about nuclear energy using aggregate survey data ” Energy Policy 133 (2019): 110888
• De Groot, Judith IM, Linda Steg, and Wouter Poortinga “ Values, perceived risks and benefits, and acceptability of nuclear energy ” Risk Analysis: An International Journal 33.2 (2013): 307-317
• Ho, Shirley S, et al . “ Science literacy or value predisposition? A meta-analysis of factors predicting public perceptions of benefits, risks, and acceptance of nuclear energy ” Environmental Communication 13.4 (2019): 457-471
• Slovic, Paul, Baruch Fischhoff, and Sarah Lichtenstein “ Why study risk perception? ” Risk Analysis 2.2 (1982): 83-93
• Whitfield, Stephen C, et al . “ The future of nuclear power: Value orientations and risk perception ” Risk Analysis: An International Journal 29.3 (2009): 425-437

Contributing authors

Kuhika Gupta Associate Director, OU Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis

Joe Ripberger Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Oklahoma Deputy Director, OU Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis

Carol Silva Edith Kinney Gaylord Presidential Professor, ­ Department of Political Science, University of Oklahoma Co-Director, OU Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis

Hank Jenkins-Smith George Lynn Cross Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Oklahoma Co-Director, OU Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis

Contributor Details

• Green Energy

LEAVE A REPLY Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Featured Topics

• Electric Vehicles

Cirba Solutions launches CirbaSuite customer portal

Zeus North America Mining Corp. arranges $1.0m private placement

5E Advanced Materials reports major progress in boric acid production and...

Speira boosts aluminium recycling capacity with new state-of-the-art furnaces

Advertisements, similar articles, e. coli as a surrogate for water pollution – a modern canary in the coal mine, pulsar’s rookie year roars with major minnesota helium find, transforming the global circular battery supply chain through a regional approach, a strategic canadian critical minerals opportunity, more from innovation news network, smr designs suitable for sweden’s future electricity production needs, tritium technology for nuclear fuel cycle research, england and wales announce new mission to make britain a clean energy superpower, faa allocates $291m to propel sustainable jet fuel adoption.

Innovation News Network brings you the latest research and innovation news from the fields of science, environment, energy, critical raw materials, technology, and electric vehicles.

Environment

• Renewable Energy
• Terms & Conditions
• Green Policy
• Privacy Policy
• General Data Protection Regulation
• GDPR Policy

Disclaimer : This website is an independent portal and is not responsible for the content of external sites. Please Note : Phone calls may be recorded for training and monitoring purposes. © Pan European Networks Ltd