essay on nuclear technology

Back to the Future Josh Freed

Leslie and mark's old/new idea.

The Nuclear Science and Engineering Library at MIT is not a place where most people would go to unwind. It’s filled with journals that have articles with titles like “Longitudinal double-spin asymmetry of electrons from heavy flavor decays in polarized p + p collisions at √s = 200 GeV.” But nuclear engineering Ph.D. candidates relax in ways all their own. In the winter of 2009, two of those candidates, Leslie Dewan and Mark Massie, were studying for their qualifying exams—a brutal rite of passage—and had a serious need to decompress.

To clear their heads after long days and nights of reviewing neutron transport, the mathematics behind thermohydraulics, and other such subjects, they browsed through the crinkled pages of journals from the first days of their industry—the glory days. Reading articles by scientists working in the 1950s and ‘60s, they found themselves marveling at the sense of infinite possibility those pioneers had brought to their work, in awe of the huge outpouring of creative energy. They were also curious about the dozens of different reactor technologies that had once been explored, only to be abandoned when the funding dried up.

The early nuclear researchers were all housed in government laboratories—at Oak Ridge in Tennessee, at the Idaho National Lab in the high desert of eastern Idaho, at Argonne in Chicago, and Los Alamos in New Mexico. Across the country, the nation’s top physicists, metallurgists, mathematicians, and engineers worked together in an atmosphere of feverish excitement, as government support gave them the freedom to explore the furthest boundaries of their burgeoning new field. Locked in what they thought of as a life-or-death race with the Soviet Union, they aimed to be first in every aspect of scientific inquiry, especially those that involved atom splitting.

1955: Argonne's BORAX III reactor provided all the electricity for Arco, Idaho, the first time any community's electricity was provided entirely by nuclear energy. Source: Wikimedia Commons

Though nuclear engineers were mostly men in those days, Leslie imagined herself working alongside them, wearing a white lab coat, thinking big thoughts. “It was all so fresh, so exciting, so limitless back then,” she told me. “They were designing all sorts of things: nuclear-powered cars and airplanes, reactors cooled by lead. Today, it’s much less interesting. Most of us are just working on ways to tweak basically the same light water reactor we’ve been building for 50 years.”

1958: The Ford Nucleon scale-model concept car developed by Ford Motor Company as a design of how a nuclear-powered car might look. Source: Wikimedia Commons

But because of something that she and Mark stumbled across in the library during one of their forays into the old journals, Leslie herself is not doing that kind of tweaking—she’s trying to do something much more radical. One night, Mark showed Leslie a 50-year-old paper from Oak Ridge about a reactor powered not by rods of metal-clad uranium pellets in water, like the light water reactors of today, but by a liquid fuel of uranium mixed into molten salt to keep it at a constant temperature. The two were intrigued, because it was clear from the paper that the molten salt design could potentially be constructed at a lower cost and shut down more easily in an emergency than today’s light water reactors. And the molten salt design wasn’t just theoretical—Oak Ridge had built a real reactor, which ran from 1965-1969, racking up 20,000 operating hours.

The 1960s-era salt reactor was interesting, but at first blush it didn’t seem practical enough to revive. It was bulky, expensive, and not very efficient. Worse, it ran on uranium enriched to levels far above the modern legal limit for commercial nuclear power. Most modern light water reactors run on 5 percent enriched uranium, and it is illegal under international and domestic law for commercial power generators to use anything above 20 percent, because at levels that high uranium can be used for making weapons. The Oak Ridge molten salt reactor needed uranium enriched to at least 33 percent, possibly even higher.

Aircraft Reactor Experiment building at ORNL (Extensive research into molten salt reactors started with the U.S. aircraft reactor experiment (ARE) in support of the U.S. Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion program.) Wikimedia Commons

1964: Molten salt reactor at Oak Ridge. Source: Wikimedia Commons

But they were aware that smart young engineers were considering applying modern technology to several other decades-old reactor designs from the dawn of the nuclear age, and this one seemed to Leslie and Mark to warrant a second look. After finishing their exams, they started searching for new materials that could be used in a molten salt reactor to make it both legal and more efficient. If they could show that a modified version of the old design could compete with—or exceed—the performance of today’s light water reactors, they knew they might have a very interesting project on their hands.

First, they took a look at the fuel. By using different, more modern materials, they had a theory that they could get the reactor to work at very low enrichment levels. Maybe, they hoped, even significantly below 5 percent.

There was a good reason to hope. Today’s reactors produce a significant amount of nuclear “waste,” many tons of which are currently sitting in cooling pools and storage canisters at plant sites all over the country. The reason that the waste has to be managed so carefully is that when they are discarded, the uranium fuel rods contain about 95 percent of the original amount of energy and remain both highly radioactive and hot enough to boil water. It dawned on Leslie and Mark that if they could chop up the rods and remove their metal cladding, they might have a “killer app”—a sector-redefining technology like Uber or Airbnb—for their molten salt reactor design, enabling it to run on the waste itself.

By late 2010, the computer modeling they were doing suggested this might indeed work. When Leslie left for a trip to Egypt with her family in January 2011, Mark kept running simulations back at MIT. On January 11, he sent his partner an email that she read as she toured the sites of Alexandria. The note was highly technical, but said in essence that Mark’s latest work confirmed their hunch—they could indeed make their reactor run on nuclear waste. Leslie looked up from her phone and said to her brother: “I need to go back to Boston.”

Watch Leslie Dewan and Mark Massie on the future of nuclear energy

Climate Change Spurs New Call for Nuclear Energy

In the days when Leslie and Mark were studying for their exams, it may have seemed that the Golden Age of nuclear energy in the United States had long since passed. Not a single new commercial reactor project had been built here in over 30 years. Not only were there no new reactors, but with the fracking boom having produced abundant supplies of cheap natural gas, some electric utilities were shutting down their aging reactors rather than doing the costly upgrades needed to keep them online.

As the domestic reactor market went into decline, the American supply chain for nuclear reactor parts withered. Although almost all commercial nuclear technology had been discovered in the United States, our competitors eventually purchased much of our nuclear industrial base, with Toshiba buying Westinghouse, for example.* Not surprisingly, as the nuclear pioneers aged and young scientists stayed away from what seemed to be a dying industry, the number of nuclear engineers also dwindled over the decades. In addition, the American regulatory system, long considered the gold standard for western nuclear systems, began to lose influence as other countries pressed ahead with new reactor construction while the U.S. market remained dormant.

Yet something has changed in recent years. Leslie and Mark are not really outliers. All of a sudden, a flood of young engineers has entered the field. More than 1,164 nuclear engineering degrees were awarded in 2013—a 160 percent increase over the number granted a decade ago.

So what, after a 30-year drought, is drawing smart young people back to the nuclear industry? The answer is climate change. Nuclear energy currently provides about 20 percent of the electric power in the United States, and it does so without emitting any greenhouse gases. Compare that to the amount of electricity produced by the other main non-emitting sources of power, the so-called “renewables”—hydroelectric (6.8 percent), wind (4.2 percent) and solar (about one quarter of a percent). Not only are nuclear plants the most important of the non-emitting sources, but they provide baseload—“always there”—power, while most renewables can produce electricity only intermittently, when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining.

In 2014, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations-based organization that is the leading international body for the assessment of climate risk, issued a desperate call for more non-emitting power sources. According to the IPCC, in order to mitigate climate change and meet growing energy demands, the world must aggressively expand its sources of renewable energy, and it must also build more than 400 new nuclear reactors in the next 20 years—a near-doubling of today’s global fleet of 435 reactors. However, in the wake of the tsunami that struck Japan’s Fukushima Daichi plant in 2011, some countries are newly fearful about the safety of light water reactors. Germany, for example, vowed to shutter its entire nuclear fleet.

November 6, 2013: The spent fuel pool inside the No.4 reactor building at the tsunami-crippled Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s (TEPCO) Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. Source: REUTERS/Kyodo (Japan)

The young scientists entering the nuclear energy field know all of this. They understand that a major build-out of nuclear reactors could play a vital role in saving the world from climate disaster. But they also recognize that for that to happen, there must be significant changes in the technology of the reactors, because fear of light water reactors means that the world is not going to be willing to fund and build enough of them to supply the necessary energy. That’s what had sent Leslie and Mark into the library stacks at MIT—a search for new ideas that might be buried in the old designs.

They have now launched a company, Transatomic, to build the molten salt reactor they see as a viable answer to the problem. And they’re not alone—at least eight other startups have emerged in recent years, each with its own advanced reactor design. This new generation of pioneers is working with the same sense of mission and urgency that animated the discipline’s founders. The existential threat that drove the men of Oak Ridge and Argonne was posed by the Soviets; the threat of today is from climate change.

Heeding that sense of urgency, investors from Silicon Valley and elsewhere are stepping up to provide funding. One startup, TerraPower, has the backing of Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and former Microsoft executive Nathan Myhrvold. Another, General Fusion, has raised $32 million from investors, including nearly $20 million from Amazon founder Jeff Bezos. And LPP Fusion has even benefited, to the tune of $180,000, from an Indiegogo crowd-funding campaign.

All of the new blood, new ideas, and new money are having a real effect. In the last several years, a field that had been moribund has become dynamic again, once more charged with a feeling of boundless possibility and optimism.

But one huge source of funding and support enjoyed by those first pioneers has all but disappeared: The U.S. government.

The "Atoms for Peace" program supplied equipment and information to schools, hospitals, and research institutions within the U.S. and throughout the world. Source: Wikipedia

From Atoms for Peace to Chernobyl

December 8, 1953: U.S. President Eisenhower delivers his "Atoms for Peace" speech to the United Nations General Assembly in New York. Source: IAEA

In the early days of nuclear energy development, the government led the charge, funding the research, development, and design of 52 different reactors at the Idaho laboratory’s National Reactor Testing Station alone, not to mention those that were being developed at other labs, like the one that was the subject of the paper Leslie and Mark read. With the help of the government, engineers were able to branch out in many different directions.

Soon enough, the designs were moving from paper to test reactors to deployment at breathtaking speed. The tiny Experimental Breeder Reactor 1, which went online in December 1951 at the Idaho National Lab, ushered in the age of nuclear energy.

Just two years later, President Dwight D. Eisenhower made his Atoms for Peace speech to the U.N., in which he declared that “The United States knows that peaceful power from atomic energy is no dream of the future. The capability, already proved, is here today.” Less than a year after that, Eisenhower waved a ceremonial "neutron wand" to signal a bulldozer in Shippingport, Pennsylvania to begin construction of the nation’s first commercial nuclear power plant.

1956: Reactor pressure vessel during construction at the Shippingport Atomic Power Station. Source: Wikipedia

By 1957 the Atoms for Peace program had borne fruit, and Shippingport was open for business. During the years that followed, the government, fulfilling Eisenhower’s dream, not only funded the research, it ran the labs, chose the technologies, and, eventually, regulated the reactors.

The U.S. would soon rapidly surpass not only its Cold War enemy, the Soviet Union, which had brought the first significant electricity-producing reactor online in 1954, but every other country seeking to deploy nuclear energy, including France and Canada. Much of the extraordinary progress in America’s development of nuclear energy technology can be credited to one specific government institution—the U.S. Navy.

Rickover’s choice has had enormous implications. To this day, the light water reactor remains the standard—the only type of reactor built or used for energy production in the United States and in most other countries as well. Research on other reactor types (like molten salt and lead) essentially ended for almost six decades, not to be revived until very recently.

Once light water reactors got the nod, the Atomic Energy Commission endorsed a cookie-cutter-like approach to building additional reactors that was very enticing to energy companies seeking to enter the atomic arena. Having a standardized light water reactor design meant quicker regulatory approval, economies of scale, and operating uniformity, which helped control costs and minimize uncertainty. And there was another upside to the light water reactors, at least back then: they produced a byproduct—plutonium. These days, we call that a problem: the remaining fissile material that must be protected from accidental discharge or proliferation and stored indefinitely. In the Cold War 1960s, however, that was seen as a benefit, because the leftover plutonium could be used to make nuclear weapons.

2005: An ICBM loaded into a silo of the former ICBM missile site, now the Titan Missile Museum. Source: Wikipedia

With the triumph of the light water reactor came a massive expansion of the domestic and global nuclear energy industries. In the 1960s and ‘70s, America’s technology, design, supply chain, and regulatory system dominated the production of all civilian nuclear energy on this side of the Iron Curtain. U.S. engineers drew the plans, U.S. companies like Westinghouse and GE built the plants, U.S. factories and mills made the parts, and the U.S. government’s Atomic Energy Commission set the global safety standards.

In this country, we built more than 100 light water reactors for commercial power production. Though no two American plants were identical, all of the plants constructed in that era were essentially the same—light water reactors running on uranium enriched to about 4 percent. By the end of the 1970s, in addition to the 100-odd reactors that had been built, 100 more were in the planning or early construction stage.

And then everything came to a screeching halt, thanks to a bizarre confluence of Hollywood and real life.

On March 16, 1979, The China Syndrome —starring Jane Fonda, Jack Lemmon, and Michael Douglas—hit theaters, frightening moviegoers with an implausible but well-told tale of a reactor meltdown and catastrophe, which had the potential, according to a character in the film, to render an area “the size of Pennsylvania permanently uninhabitable.” Twelve days later, the Number 2 reactor at the Three Mile Island plant in central Pennsylvania suffered an accident that caused the release of some nuclear coolant and a partial meltdown of the reactor core. After the governor ordered the evacuation of “pregnant women and preschool age children,” widespread panic followed, and tens of thousands of people fled in terror.

1979: Three Mile Island power station. Source: Wikipedia

But both the evacuation order and the fear were unwarranted. A massive investigation revealed that the release of radioactive materials was minimal and had posed no risk to human health. No one was injured or killed at Three Mile Island. What did die that day was America’s nuclear energy leadership. After Three Mile Island, plans for new plants then on the drawing board were scrapped or went under in a blizzard of public recrimination, legal action, and regulatory overreach by federal, state, and local officials. For example, the Shoreham plant on Long Island, which took nearly a decade to build and was completed in 1984, never opened, becoming one of the biggest and most expensive white elephants in human history.

The concrete "sarcophagus" built over the Chernobyl nuclear power plant's fourth reactor that exploded on April 26, 1986. Source: REUTERS

Chernobyl sarcophogi Magnum

The final, definitive blow to American nuclear energy was delivered in 1986, when the Soviets bungled their way into a genuine nuclear energy catastrophe: the disaster at the Chernobyl plant in Ukraine. It was man-made in its origin (risky decisions made at the plant led to the meltdown, and the plant itself was badly designed); widespread in its scope (Soviet reactors had no containment vessel, so the roof was literally blown off, the core was exposed, and a radioactive cloud covered almost the whole of Europe); and lethal in its impact (rescuers and area residents were lied to by the Soviet government, which denied the risk posed by the disaster, causing many needless deaths and illnesses and the hospitalization of thousands).

After Chernobyl, it didn’t matter that American plants were infinitely safer and better run. This country, which was awash in cheap and plentiful coal, simply wasn’t going to build more nuclear plants if it didn’t have to.

But now we have to.

The terrible consequences of climate change mean that we must find low- and zero-emitting ways of producing electricity.

November 2014: Leslie Dewan and Mark Massie at MIT. Source: Sareen Hairabedian, Brookings Institution

The Return of Nuclear Pioneers

Five new light water reactors are currently under construction in the U.S., but the safety concerns about them (largely unwarranted as they are) as well as their massive size, cost, complexity, and production of used fuel (“waste”) mean that there will probably be no large-scale return to the old style of reactor. What we need now is to go back to the future and build some of those plants that they dreamed up in the labs of yesterday.

Which is what Leslie and Mark are trying to do with Transatomic. Once they had their breakthrough moment and realized that they could fuel their reactor on nuclear waste material, they began to think seriously about founding a company. So they started doing what all entrepreneurial MIT grads do—they talked to venture capitalists. Once they got their initial funding, the two engineers knew that they needed someone with business experience, so they hired a CEO, Russ Wilcox, who had built and sold a very successful e-publishing company. At the time they approached him, Wilcox was in high demand, but after hearing Leslie and Mark give a TEDx talk about the environmental promise of advanced nuclear technology, he opted to go with Transatomic— because he thought it could help save the world.

November 1, 2014: Mark Massie and Leslie Dewan giving a TEDx talk . Source: Transatomic

In their talk, the two founders had explained that in today’s light water reactors, metal-clad uranium fuel rods are lowered into water in order to heat it and create steam to run the electric turbines. But the water eventually breaks down the metal cladding and then the rods must be replaced. The old rods become nuclear waste, which will remain radioactive for up to 100,000 years, and, under the current American system, must remain in storage for that period.

The genius of the Transatomic design is that, according to Mark’s simulations, their reactor could make use of almost all of the energy remaining in the rods that have been removed from the old light water reactors, while producing almost no waste of their own—just 2.5 percent as much as produced by a typical light water reactor. If they built enough molten salt reactors, Transatomic could theoretically consume not just the roughly 70,000 metric tons of nuclear waste currently stored at U.S. nuclear plants, but also the additional 2,000 metric tons that are produced each year.

Like all molten salt reactors, the Transatomic design is extraordinarily safe as well. That is more important than ever after the terror inspired by the disaster that occurred at the Fukushima light water reactor plant in 2011.When the tsunami knocked out the power for the pumps that provided the water required for coolant, the Fukushima plant suffered a partial core meltdown. In a molten salt reactor, by contrast, no externally supplied coolant would be needed, making it what Transatomic calls “walk away safe.” That means that, in the event of a power failure, no human intervention would be required; the reactor would essentially cool itself without water or pumps. With a loss of external electricity, the artificially chilled plug at the base of the reactor would melt, and the material in the core (salt and uranium fuel) would drain to a containment tank and cool within hours.

Leslie and Mark have also found materials that would boost the power output of a molten salt reactor by 30 times over the 1960s model. Their redesign means the reactor might be small and efficient enough to be built in a factory and moved by rail. (Current reactors are so large that they must be assembled on site.)

Click image to play or stop animation

Transatomic, as well as General Fusion and LPP Fusion, represent one branch of the new breed of nuclear pioneers—call them “the young guns.” Also included in this group are companies like Terrestrial Energy in Canada, which is developing an alternative version of the molten salt reactor; Flibe Energy, which is preparing for experiments on a liquid-thorium fluoride reactor; UPower, at work on a nuclear battery; and engineers who are incubating projects not just at MIT but at a number of other universities and labs. Thanks to their work, the next generator of reactors might just be developed by small teams of brilliant entrepreneurs.

Then there are the more established companies and individuals—call them the “old pros”—who have become players in the advanced nuclear game. These include the engineering giant Fluor, which recently bought a startup out of Oregon called NuScale Power. They are designing a new type of light water “Small Modular Reactor” that is integral (the steam generator is built in), small (it generates about 4 percent of the output of a large reactor and fits on the back of a truck), and sectional (it can be strung together with others to generate more power). In part because of its relatively familiar light water design, Fluor and a small modular reactor competitor, Babcock & Wilcox, are the only pioneers of the new generation of technology to have received government grants—for $226 million each—to fund their research.

Another of the “old pros,” the well-established General Atomics, in business since 1955, is combining the benefits of small modular reactors with a design that can convert nuclear waste into electricity and also produce large amounts of heat and energy for industrial applications. The reactor uses helium rather than water or molten salt as its coolant. Its advanced design, which they call the Energy Multiplier Module reactor, has the potential to revolutionize the industry.

Somewhere in between is TerraPower. While it’s run by young guns, it’s backed by the world’s second richest man (among others). But even Bill Gates’s money won’t be enough. Nuclear technology is too big, too expensive, and too complex to explore in a garage, real or metaphorical. TerraPower has said that a prototype reactor could cost up to $5 billion, and they are going to need some big machines to develop and test it.

So while Leslie, Mark, and others in their cohort may seem like the latest iteration of Silicon Valley hipster entrepreneurs, the work they’re trying to do cannot be accomplished by Silicon Valley VC-scale funding. There has to be substantial government involvement.

Unfortunately, the relatively puny grants to Fluor and Babcock & Wilcox are the federal government’s largest contribution to advanced nuclear development to date. At the moment, the rest are on their own.

The result is that some of the fledgling enterprises, like General Atomic and Gates’s TerraPower, have decamped for China. Others, like Leslie and Mark’s, are staying put in the United States (for now) and hoping for federal support.

UBritish Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne (2nd R) chats with workers beside Taishan Nuclear Power Joint Venture Co Ltd General Manager Guo Liming (3rd R) and EDF Energy CEO Vincent de Rivaz (R), in front of a nuclear reactor under construction at a nuclear power plant in Taishan, Guangdong province, October 17, 2013. Chinese companies will be allowed to take stakes in British nuclear projects, Osborne said on Thursday, as Britain pushes ahead with an ambitious target to expand nuclear energy. REUTERS/Bobby Yip (CHINA - Tags: POLITICS BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY ENERGY) Source: REUTERS

June 2008: A nearly 200 ton nuclear reactor safety vessel is erected at the Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research at Kalpakkam, near the southern Indian city of Chennai. Source: REUTERS/Babu (INDIA)

Missing in Action: The United States Government

There are American political leaders in both parties who talk about having an “all of the above” energy policy, implying that they want to build everything, all at once. But they don’t mean it, at least not really. In this country, we don’t need all of the above—virtually every American has access to electric power. We don’t want it—we have largely stopped building coal as well as nuclear plants, even though we could. And we don’t underwrite it—the public is generally opposed to the government being in the business of energy research, development, and demonstration (aka, RD&D).

In China, when they talk of “all of the above,” they do mean it. With hundreds of millions of Chinese living without electricity and a billion more demanding ever-increasing amounts of power, China is funding, building, and running every power project that they possibly can. This includes the nuclear sector, where they have about 29 big new light water reactors under construction. China is particularly keen on finding non-emitting forms of electricity, both to address climate change and, more urgently for them, to help slow the emissions of the conventional pollutants that are choking their cities in smog and literally killing their citizens.

Since (for better or for worse) China isn’t hung up on safety regulation, and there is zero threat of legal challenge to nuclear projects, plans can be realized much more quickly than in the West. That means that there are not only dozens of light water reactor plants going up in China, but also a lot of work on experimental reactors with advanced nuclear designs—like those being developed by General Atomic and TerraPower.

Given both the competitive threat from China and the potentially disastrous global effects of emissions-induced climate change, the U.S. government should be leaping back into the nuclear race with the kind of integrated response that it brought to the Soviet threat during the Cold War.

But it isn’t, at least not yet. Through years of stagnation, America lost—or perhaps misplaced—its ability to do big, bold things in nuclear science. Our national labs, which once led the world to this technology, are underfunded, and our regulatory system, which once set the standard of global excellence, has become overly burdensome, slow, and sclerotic.

The villains in this story are familiar in Washington: ideology, ignorance, and bureaucracy. Let’s start with Congress, currently sporting a well-earned 14 percent approval rating. On Capitol Hill, an unholy and unwitting alliance of right-wing climate deniers, small-government radicals, and liberal anti-nuclear advocates have joined together to keep nuclear lab budgets small. And since even naming a post office constitutes a huge challenge for this broken Congress, moving forward with the funding and regulation of a complex new technology seems well beyond its capabilities at the moment.

Then there is the federal bureaucracy, which has failed even to acknowledge that a new generation of reactors is on the horizon. It took the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the successor to the Atomic Energy Commission) years to approve a design for the new light water reactor now being built in Georgia, despite the fact that it’s nearly identical to the 100 or so that preceded it. The NRC makes no pretense of being prepared to evaluate reactors cooled by molten salt or run on depleted uranium. And it insists on pounding these new round pegs into its old square holes, demanding that the new reactors meet the same requirements as the old ones, even when that makes no sense.

At the Department of Energy, their heart is in the right place. DOE Secretary Ernest Moniz is a seasoned political hand as well as an MIT nuclear physicist, and he absolutely sees the potential in advanced reactor designs. But, constrained by a limited budget, the department is not currently in a position to drive the kind of changes needed to bring advanced nuclear designs to market.

President Obama clearly believes in nuclear energy. In an early State of the Union address he said, “We need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country." But the White House has been largely absent from the nuclear energy discussion in recent years. It is time for it to reengage.

May 22, 1957: A GE supervisor inspects the instrument panel for the company’s boiling water power reactor in Pleasanton, CA. Source: Bettmann/Corbis/AP Images

Getting the U.S. Back in the Race

So what, exactly, do the people running the advanced nuclear companies need from the U.S. government? What can government do to help move the technology off of their computers and into the electricity production marketplace?

First, they need a practical development path. Where is Bill Gates going to test TerraPower’s brilliant new reactor designs? Because there are no appropriate government-run facilities in the United States, he is forced to make do in China. He can’t find this ideal. Since more than two-thirds of Microsoft Windows operating systems used in China are pirated, he is surely aware that testing in China greatly increases the risk of intellectual property theft.

Thus, at the center of a development path would be an advanced reactor test bed facility, run by the government, and similar to what we had at the Idaho National Lab in 1960s. Such a facility, which would be open to all of the U.S. companies with reactors in development, would allow any of them to simply plug in their fuel and materials and run their tests

But advanced test reactors of the type we need are expensive and complex. The old one at the Idaho lab can’t accommodate the radiation and heat levels required by the new technologies. Japan has a newer one, but it shut down after Fukushima. China and Russia each have them, and France is building one that should be completed in 2016. But no one has the cutting-edge, truly advanced incubator space that the new firms need to move toward development.

Second is funding. Mark and Leslie have secured some venture capital, but Transatomic will need much more money in order to perform the basic engineering on an advanced test reactor and, eventually, to construct demonstration reactors. Like all startups, Transatomic faces a “Valley of Death” between concept and deployment; with nuclear technology’s enormous costs and financial risk, it’s more like a “Grand Canyon of Death.” Government must play a big role in bridging that canyon, as it did in the early days of commercial nuclear energy development, beginning with the first light water reactor at Shippingport.

For Further Reading

President Obama, It's Time to Act on Energy Policy November 2014, Charles Ebinger

Transforming the Electricity Portfolio: Lessons from Germany and Japan in Deploying Renewable Energy September 2014, John Banks, Charles Ebinger, and Alisa Schackmann

The Road Ahead for Japanese Energy June 2014

Planet Policy A blog about the intersection of energy and climate policy

Third, they need a complete rethinking of the NRC approach to regulating advanced nuclear technology. How can the brand new Flibe Energy liquid-thorium fluoride reactor technology be forced to meet the same criteria as the typical light water reactor? The NRC must be flexible enough to accommodate technology that works differently from the light water reactors it is familiar with. For example, since Transatomic’s reactor would run at normal atmospheric pressure, unlike a light water reactor, which operates under vastly greater pressure, Mark and Leslie shouldn’t be required to build a huge and massively expensive containment structure around their reactors. Yet the NRC has no provision allowing them to bypass that requirement. If that doesn’t change, there is no way that Transatomic will be able to bring its small, modular, innovative reactors to market.

In addition, the NRC must let these technologies develop organically. They should permit Transatomic and the others to build and operate prototype reactors before they are fully licensed, allowing them to demonstrate their safety and reliability with real-world stress tests, as opposed to putting them through never-ending rounds of theoretical discussion and negotiation with NRC testers.

None of this is easy. The seriousness of the climate change threat is not universally acknowledged in Washington. Federal budgets are now based in the pinched, deficit-constrained present, not the full employment, high-growth economy of the 1950s. And the NRC, in part because of its mission to protect public safety, is among the most change-averse of any federal agency.

But all of this is vital. Advanced nuclear technology could hold a key to fighting climate change. It could also result in an enormous boon to the American economy. But only if we get there first.

Who Will Own the Nuclear Power Future?

Josh Freed, Third Way's clean energy vice president, works on developing ways the federal government can help accelerate the private sector's adoption of clean energy and address climate change. He has served as a senior staffer on Capitol Hill and worked in various public advocacy and political campaigns, including advising the senior leadership of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Nuclear energy is at a crossroads. One path sends brilliant engineers like Leslie and Mark forward, applying their boundless skills and infectious optimism to world-changing technologies that have the potential to solve our energy problems while also fueling economic development and creating new jobs. The other path keeps the nuclear industry locked in unadaptable technologies that will lead, inevitably, to a decline in our major source of carbon-free energy.

The chance to regain our leadership in nuclear energy, to walk on the path once trod by the engineers and scientists of the 1950s and ‘60s, will not last forever. It is up to those who make decisions on matters concerning funding and regulation to strike while the iron is hot.

This is not pie-in-the-sky thinking—we have done this before. At the dawn of the nuclear age, we designed and built reactors that tested the range of possibility. The blueprints then languished on the shelves of places like the MIT library for more than fifty years until Leslie Dewan, Mark Massie, and other brilliant engineers and scientists thought to revive them. With sufficient funding and the appropriate technical and political leadership, we can offer the innovators and entrepreneurs of today the chance to use those designs to power the future.

Join the conversation on Twitter using #BrookingsEssay or share this on Facebook .

This Essay is also available as an eBook from these online retailers: Amazon Kindle , Barnes & Noble , Apple iTunes , Google Play , Ebooks.com , and on Kobo .

This article was written by Josh Freed, vice president of the Clean Energy Program at Third Way. The author has not personally received any compensation from the nuclear energy industry. In the spirit of maximum transparency, however, the author has disclosed that several entities mentioned in this article are associated in varying degrees with Third Way. The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) and Babcock & Wilcox have financially supported Third Way. NEI includes TerraPower, Babcock & Wilcox, and Idaho National Lab among its members, as well as Fluor on its Board of Directors. Transatomic is not a member of NEI, but Dr. Leslie Dewan has appeared in several of its advertisements. Third Way is also working with and has received funding from Ray Rothrock, although he was not consulted on the contents of this essay. Third Way previously held a joint event with the Idaho National Lab that was unrelated to the subject of this essay.

* The essay originally also referred to Hitachi buying GE's nuclear arm. GE owns 60 percent of Hitachi.

Like other products of the Institution, The Brookings Essay is intended to contribute to discussion and stimulate debate on important issues. The views are solely those of the author.

Graphic Design: Marcia Underwood and Jessica Pavone Research: Fred Dews, Thomas Young, Jessica Pavone, Kevin Hawkins Editorial: Beth Rashbaum and Fred Dews Web Development: Marcia Underwood and Kevin Hawkins Video: George Burroughs- Director, Ian McAllister- Technical Director, Sareen Hairabedian and Mark Hoelscher Directors of Photography, Sareen Hairabedian- Editor, Mark Hoelscher- Color Correction and Graphics, Zachary Kulzer- Sound, Thomas Young- Producer

1775 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Washington , DC 20036

• Media Relations

More Brookings Essays

Published 12/12/2014

© 2014 The Brookings Institution

• Terms and Conditions
• Brookings Privacy Policy

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Meet top uk universities from the comfort of your home, here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

• School Education /

Essay on Nuclear Energy in 500+ words for School Students 

• Updated on  
• Dec 30, 2023

Essay on Nuclear Energy: Nuclear energy has been fascinating and controversial since the beginning. Using atomic power to generate electricity holds the promise of huge energy supplies but we cannot overlook the concerns about safety, environmental impact, and the increase in potential weapon increase. 

The blog will help you to explore various aspects of energy seeking its history, advantages, disadvantages, and role in addressing the global energy challenge. 

This Blog Includes:

History overview, nuclear technology , advantages of nuclear energy, disadvantages of nuclear energy, safety measures and regulations of nuclear energy, concerns of nuclear proliferation, future prospects and innovations of nuclear energy.

Also Read: Find List of Nuclear Power Plants In India

The roots of nuclear energy have their roots back to the early 20th century when innovative discoveries in physics laid the foundation for understanding atomic structure. In the year 1938, Otto Hahn, a German chemist and Fritz Stassman, a German physical chemist discovered nuclear fission, the splitting of atomic nuclei. This discovery opened the way for utilising the immense energy released during the process of fission. 

Also Read: What are the Different Types of Energy?

Nuclear power plants use controlled fission to produce heat. The heat generated is further used to produce steam, by turning the turbines connected to generators that produce electricity. This process takes place in two types of reactors: Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR) and Boiling Water Reactors (BWR). PWRs use pressurised water to transfer heat. Whereas, BWRs allow water to boil, which produces steam directly. 

Also Read: Nuclear Engineering Course: Universities and Careers

Let us learn about the positive aspects of nuclear energy in the following:

1. High Energy Density

Nuclear energy possesses an unparalleled energy density which means that a small amount of nuclear fuel can produce a substantial amount of electricity. This high energy density efficiency makes nuclear power reliable and powerful.

2. Low Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Unlike other traditional fossil fuels, nuclear power generation produces minimum greenhouse gas emissions during electricity generation. The low greenhouse gas emissions feature positions nuclear energy as a potential solution to weakening climate change.

3. Base Load Power

Nuclear power plants provide consistent, baseload power, continuously operating at a stable output level. This makes nuclear energy reliable for meeting the constant demand for electricity, complementing intermittent renewable sources of energy like wind and solar. 

Also Read: How to Become a Nuclear Engineer in India?

After learning the pros of nuclear energy, now let’s switch to the cons of nuclear energy.

1. Radioactive Waste

One of the most important challenges that is associated with nuclear energy is the management and disposal of radioactive waste. Nuclear power gives rise to spent fuel and other radioactive byproducts that require secure, long-term storage solutions.

2. Nuclear Accidents

The two catastrophic accidents at Chornobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011 underlined the potential risks of nuclear power. These nuclear accidents can lead to severe environmental contamination, human casualties, and long-lasting negative perceptions of the technology. 

3. High Initial Costs

The construction of nuclear power plants includes substantial upfront costs. Moreover, stringent safety measures contribute to the overall expenses, which makes nuclear energy economically challenging compared to some renewable alternatives. 

Also Read: What is the IAEA Full Form?

After recognizing the potential risks associated with nuclear energy, strict safety measures and regulations have been implemented worldwide. These safety measures include reactor design improvements, emergency preparedness, and ongoing monitoring of the plant operations. Regulatory bodies, such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in the United States, play an important role in overseeing and enforcing safety standards. 

Also Read: What is the Full Form of AEC?

The dual-use nature of nuclear technology raises concerns about the spread of nuclear weapons. The same nuclear technology used for the peaceful generation of electricity can be diverted for military purposes. International efforts, including the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), aim to help the proliferation of nuclear weapons and promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy. 

Also Read: Dr. Homi J. Bhabha’s Education, Inventions & Discoveries

The ongoing research and development into advanced reactor technologies are part of nuclear energy. Concepts like small modular reactors (SMRs) and Generation IV reactors aim to address safety, efficiency, and waste management concerns. Moreover, the exploration of nuclear fusion as a clean and virtually limitless energy source represents an innovation for future energy solutions. 

Nuclear energy stands at the crossroads of possibility and peril, offering the possibility of addressing the world´s growing energy needs while posing important challenges. Striking a balance between utilising the benefits of nuclear power and alleviating its risks requires ongoing technological innovation, powerful safety measures, and international cooperation. 

As we drive the complexities of perspective challenges of nuclear energy, the role of nuclear energy in the global energy mix remains a subject of ongoing debate and exploration. 

Also Read: Essay on Science and Technology for Students: 100, 200, 350 Words

Ans. Nuclear energy is the energy released during nuclear reactions. Its importance lies in generating electricity, medical applications, and powering spacecraft.

Ans. Nuclear energy is exploited from the nucleus of atoms through processes like fission or fusion. It is a powerful and controversial energy source with applications in power generation and various technologies. 

Ans. The five benefits of nuclear energy include: 1. Less greenhouse gas emissions 2. High energy density 3. Continuos power generation  4. Relatively low fuel consumption 5. Potential for reducing dependence on fossil fuels

Ans. Three important facts about nuclear energy: a. Nuclear fission releases a significant amount of energy. b. Nuclear power plants use controlled fission reactions to generate electricity. c. Nuclear fusion, combining atomic nuclei, is a potential future energy source.

Ans. Nuclear energy is considered best due to its low carbon footprint, high energy output, and potential to address energy needs. However, concerns about safety, radioactive waste, and proliferation risk are challenges that need careful consideration.

Related Articles

For more information on such interesting topics, visit our essay writing page and follow Leverage Edu.

Deepika Joshi

Deepika Joshi is an experienced content writer with expertise in creating educational and informative content. She has a year of experience writing content for speeches, essays, NCERT, study abroad and EdTech SaaS. Her strengths lie in conducting thorough research and ananlysis to provide accurate and up-to-date information to readers. She enjoys staying updated on new skills and knowledge, particulary in education domain. In her free time, she loves to read articles, and blogs with related to her field to further expand her expertise. In personal life, she loves creative writing and aspire to connect with innovative people who have fresh ideas to offer.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

Contact no. *

Connect With Us

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today.

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

January 2024

September 2024

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Have something on your mind?

Make your study abroad dream a reality in January 2022 with

India's Biggest Virtual University Fair

Essex Direct Admission Day

Why attend .

Don't Miss Out

Nuclear Energy: Impact of Science & Technology on Society Essay

Right after the Second World War, the steadfast attention of the scientific community has been involved in the idea of extreme cheapness and inexhaustibility of nuclear energy. As though in a counterbalance to horrors of new war which use of the nuclear weapon could cause, the future of nuclear energy was in every possible way embellished for creation of an image of the world, prosperity, and abundance that should win general applause.

The history of nuclear energy has not justified the hopes of its adherents. Almost half a century later, after the first electric lamp, the orders for nuclear reactors in the developed countries practically do not exist. In the USA since 1978, there was no order for the construction of the nuclear reactor, and the orders for their construction, made in the period from 1974 to 1978, have been canceled. Even in France, the bastion of nuclear engineering where on nuclear reactors it is made about four-fifth of all electricity, now recognizes that stations with natural gas with the combined cycle are more economical than nuclear reactors.

In 1986 on the example of Chernobyl, it was possible to see awful, having a greater area of scope, and, substantially, irreparable consequences of the serious failures of nuclear reactors. Each design of a civil nuclear reactor comprises the probability of such catastrophic failures though their probability, and also special mechanisms, of course, can differ from design to design and from country to country.

In spite of the fact that hopes of adherents of the use of atomic energy substantially were not justified, the majority of the governments of the countries of the world do not wish to refuse its use, apparently. This unwillingness represents the complex phenomenon, and discussion of this question is beyond the given work. Partially it can be the result of the sensations which have developed in many non-nuclear developing countries. The strong influence is made by the idea that nuclear energy is a symbol of modern “high” technologies.

After the idea about nuclear energy as “so cheap, that it will not be necessary to measure its price,” defenders of nuclear energy approve that it could become the basic factor in the business of reduction of emission in the atmosphere of polluting substances, in particular to the dioxide of carbon bringing the essential contribution to global warming was is killed by the severe validity, the nuclear industry for a logic substantiation of necessity of the existence has taken on arms the idea of protection of an environment and non-distribution. However, the ecological consequences of the extraction of uranium and radioactive waste, which are the integral components of technology, are ignored. It is necessary to note also that the problems connected with the use of mineral fuel and with atomic energy are simply non-comparable.

In the first years of the Cold War, many adherents of nuclear energy offered that manufacture of military plutonium was used for subsidizing power stations. After the end of the Cold War, the nuclear industry made applications that the atomic engineering can help “to reforge the swords” as superfluous plutonium from the dismantled nuclear warheads could be used for the manufacture of fuel for commercial nuclear reactors. However, the realization of such a program would lead to the creation of the financial and physical infrastructure for the transformation of plutonium into “commercial” goods with all consequences following from here, as that is the problem of non-distribution, questions of ecology and price.

For the decision of safety issues, the nuclear industry has begun and continues the promotion on the market of the second generation of commercial nuclear reactors, some of which even have been named by their supporters “with internally inherent safety.” The Safety issue, in general, is establishing as public skepticism in the occasion of applications of representatives of the nuclear industry has noticeably increased after failures on Three Mail Island and in Chernobyl.

However, irrespective of reliability of statements about security from failures with uncontrollable emission of radioactive waste in an atmosphere, statements in spirit “with internally inherent safety,” not being supported by weighty maintenance, have rhetorical value more likely. Though it is represented theoretically possible to create reactors that will differ a greater degree of safety in comparison with already existing, it is impossible to consider safety as the feature internally inherent in various technologies. All reactors offered till now possessed some potential for the most serious failures (Caldicott, 2007).

Now there are many of the best and safe sources of energy. Time has come to refuse nuclear energy. We are obliged to replace false propagation “atoms in the peace purposes” with the program “energy in the peace purposes,” which can make the well-being of the modern generation compatible with the protection of safety and an environment for a life of the future generations.

Meanwhile, two main directions precisely are outlined in the peace application of nuclear energy. The first direction is based on the use of an opportunity of creation of artificial radioactive atoms which on the chemical properties can be identical to atoms of the most widespread elements, as for example, carbon, phosphorus, etc. As is known, it is widely used in biology and chemistry where, applying so-called “marked,” the essence of the mechanism of some of the major biological and chemical processes is possible absolutely new to find out atoms by.

In spite of the fact that this work while is limited to cleanly scientific results, nevertheless their value for practice is very great, deeper understanding of existing processes always opens an opportunity to direct them in a correct way. It is necessary to remember that biological processes underlie agriculture, animal industries, medicine playing a paramount role in our culture.

Bodansky David (2008) Nuclear Energy: Principles, Practices, and Prospects, Springer; 2nd edition.

Cravens Gwyneth , Rhodes Richard (2007) Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy, Knopf.

Caldicott Helen (2007) Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer, New Press; Reprint edition.

Herbst Alan M. , Hopley George W. (2007) Nuclear Energy Now: Why the Time Has Come for the World’s Most Misunderstood Energy Source, Wiley.

Hore-Lacy Ian (2006) Nuclear Energy in the 21st Century: World Nuclear University Press, Academic Press; 1 edition.

Lomborg Bjørn (2007) Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming, Knopf; 1 edition.

Kaku Michio (1989) Nuclear Power: Both Sides, W. W. Norton & Company.

Suppes Galen J. (2006) Sustainable Nuclear Power (Sustainable World) Academic Press.

Storms Edmund (2007) Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction: A Comprehensive Compilation of Evidence and Explanations about Cold Fusion by World Scientific Publishing Company.

McCarthy John, FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT NUCLEAR ENERGY . Web.

Nuclear Energy. Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, August 23). Nuclear Energy: Impact of Science & Technology on Society. https://ivypanda.com/essays/nuclear-energy-impact-of-science-amp-technology-on-society/

"Nuclear Energy: Impact of Science & Technology on Society." IvyPanda , 23 Aug. 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/nuclear-energy-impact-of-science-amp-technology-on-society/.

IvyPanda . (2021) 'Nuclear Energy: Impact of Science & Technology on Society'. 23 August.

IvyPanda . 2021. "Nuclear Energy: Impact of Science & Technology on Society." August 23, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/nuclear-energy-impact-of-science-amp-technology-on-society/.

1. IvyPanda . "Nuclear Energy: Impact of Science & Technology on Society." August 23, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/nuclear-energy-impact-of-science-amp-technology-on-society/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Nuclear Energy: Impact of Science & Technology on Society." August 23, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/nuclear-energy-impact-of-science-amp-technology-on-society/.

• Environmental Science & Technology
• Hydrogeography as a Factor of Physical Development for Greek Cities
• Plutonium-239: The Fissile Properties, the Manufacture
• Aloe Vera: Composition, Main Biological Activities, and Use
• Chernobyl Catastrophe, Its Impacts and Regulations
• Three Miles Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima Disasters
• Chernobyl Disaster: Ethical Aspects and Effects
• How Chernobyl Accident Happened
• Chernobyl Nuclear Plant Disaster
• Engineering Ethics of Chernobyl and the Three Mile Island
• How the Internet Has Affected Amazon.com
• Technology's Role in Shaping Organizations
• The Impact of Collaborative Technologies on Companies
• E-Services' Effects on Dubai Community
• Multiplayer Online Battle Arena Video Games and Technologies

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.45(Suppl 1); 2016 Jan

Nuclear power in the 21st century: Challenges and possibilities

Akos horvath.

MTA Centre for Energy Research, KFKI Campus, P.O.B. 49, Budapest 114, 1525 Hungary

Elisabeth Rachlew

Department of Physics, Royal Institute of Technology, KTH, 10691 Stockholm, Sweden

The current situation and possible future developments for nuclear power—including fission and fusion processes—is presented. The fission nuclear power continues to be an essential part of the low-carbon electricity generation in the world for decades to come. There are breakthrough possibilities in the development of new generation nuclear reactors where the life-time of the nuclear waste can be reduced to some hundreds of years instead of the present time-scales of hundred thousand of years. Research on the fourth generation reactors is needed for the realisation of this development. For the fast nuclear reactors, a substantial research and development effort is required in many fields—from material sciences to safety demonstration—to attain the envisaged goals. Fusion provides a long-term vision for an efficient energy production. The fusion option for a nuclear reactor for efficient production of electricity has been set out in a focussed European programme including the international project of ITER after which a fusion electricity DEMO reactor is envisaged.

Introduction

All countries have a common interest in securing sustainable, low-cost energy supplies with minimal impact on the environment; therefore, many consider nuclear energy as part of their energy mix in fulfilling policy objectives. The discussion of the role of nuclear energy is especially topical for industrialised countries wishing to reduce carbon emissions below the current levels. The latest report from IPCC WGIII ( 2014 ) (see Box 1 for explanations of all acronyms in the article) says: “Nuclear energy is a mature low-GHG emission source of base load power, but its share of global electricity has been declining since 1993. Nuclear energy could make an increasing contribution to low-carbon energy supply, but a variety of barriers and risks exist ”.

Demand for electricity is likely to increase significantly in the future, as current fossil fuel uses are being substituted by processes using electricity. For example, the transport sector is likely to rely increasingly on electricity, whether in the form of fully electric or hybrid vehicles, either using battery power or synthetic hydrocarbon fuels. Here, nuclear power can also contribute, via generation of either electricity or process heat for the production of hydrogen or other fuels.

In Europe, in particular, the public opinion about safety and regulations with nuclear power has introduced much critical discussions about the continuation of nuclear power, and Germany has introduced the “Energiewende” with the goal to close all their nuclear power by 2022. The contribution of nuclear power to the electricity production in the different countries in Europe differs widely with some countries having zero contribution (e.g. Italy, Lithuania) and some with the major part comprising nuclear power (e.g. France, Hungary, Belgium, Slovakia, Sweden).

Current status

The use of nuclear energy for commercial electricity production began in the mid-1950s. In 2013, the world’s 392 GW of installed nuclear capacity accounted for 11 % of electricity generation produced by around 440 nuclear power plants situated in 30 countries (Fig.  1 ). This share has declined gradually since 1996, when it reached almost 18 %, as the rate of new nuclear additions (and generation) has been outpaced by the expansion of other technologies. After hydropower, nuclear is the world’s second-largest source of low-carbon electricity generation (IEA 2014 1 ).

Total number of operating nuclear reactors worldwide. The total number of reactors also include six in Taiwan (source: IAEA 2015) ( https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/nuclear-power )

The Country Nuclear Power Profiles (CNPP 2 ) compiles background information on the status and development of nuclear power programmes in member states. The CNPP’s main objectives are to consolidate information about the nuclear power infrastructures in participating countries, and to present factors related to the effective planning, decision-making and implementation of nuclear power programmes that together lead to safe and economical operations of nuclear power plants.

Within the European Union, 27 % of electricity production (13 % of primary energy) is obtained from 132 nuclear power plants in January 2015 (Fig.  1 ). Across the world, 65 new reactors are under construction, mainly in Asia (China, South Korea, India), and also in Russia, Slovakia, France and Finland. Many other new reactors are in the planning stage, including for example, 12 in the UK.

Apart from one first Generation “Magnox” reactor still operating in the UK, the remainder of the operating fleet is of the second or third Generation type (Fig.  2 ). The predominant technology is the Light Water Reactor (LWR) developed originally in the United States by Westinghouse and then exploited massively by France and others in the 1970s as a response to the 1973 oil crisis. The UK followed a different path and pursued the Advanced Gas-cooled Reactor (AGR). Some countries (France, UK, Russia, Japan) built demonstration scale fast neutron reactors in the 1960s and 70s, but the only commercial reactor of this type currently operating is in Russia.

Nuclear reactor generations from the pioneering age to the next decade (reproduced with permission from Ricotti 2013 )

Future evolution

The fourth Generation reactors, offering the potential of much higher energy recovery and reduced volumes of radioactive waste, are under study in the framework of the “Generation IV International Forum” (GIF) 3 and the “International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles” (INPRO). The European Commission in 2010 launched the European Sustainable Nuclear Industrial Initiative (ESNII), which will support three Generation IV fast reactor projects as part of the EU’s plan to promote low-carbon energy technologies. Other initiatives supporting biomass, wind, solar, electricity grids and carbon sequestration are in parallel. ESNII will take forward: the Astrid sodium-cooled fast reactor (SFR) proposed by France, the Allegro gas-cooled fast reactor (GFR) supported by central and eastern Europe and the MYRRHA lead- cooled fast reactor (LFR) technology pilot proposed by Belgium.

The generation of nuclear energy from uranium produces not only electricity but also spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste (HLW) as a by-product. For this HLW, a technical and socially acceptable solution is necessary. The time scale needed for the radiotoxicity of the spent fuel to drop to the level of natural uranium is very long (i.e. of the order of 200 000–300 000 years). The preferred solution for disposing of spent fuel or the HLW resulting from classical reprocessing is deep geological storage. Whilst there are no such geological repositories operating yet in the world, Sweden, Finland and France are on track to have such facilities ready by 2025 (Kautsky et al. 2013 ). In this context it should also be mentioned that it is only for a minor fraction of the HLW that recycling and transmutation is required since adequate separation techniques of the fuel can be recycled and again fed through the LWR system.

The “Strategic Energy Technology Plan” (SET-Plan) identifies fission energy as one of the contributors to the 2050 objectives of a low-carbon energy mix, relying on the Generation-3 reactors, closed fuel cycle and the start of implementation of Generation IV reactors making nuclear energy more sustainable. The EU Energy Roadmap 2050 provides decarbonisation scenarios with different assumptions from the nuclear perspective: two scenarios contemplate a nuclear phase-out by 2050, whilst three others consider that 15–20 % of electricity will be produced by nuclear energy. If by 2050 a generation capacity of 20 % nuclear electricity (140 GWe) is to be secured, 100–120 nuclear power units will have to be built between now and 2050, the precise number depending on the power rating (Garbil and Goethem 2013 ).

Despite the regional differences in the development plans, the main questions are of common interest to all countries, and require solutions in order to maintain nuclear power in the power mix of contributing to sustainable economic growth. The questions include (i) maintaining safe operation of the nuclear plants, (ii) securing the fuel supplies, (iii) a strategy for the management of radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel.

Safety and non-proliferation risks are managed in accordance with the international rules issued both by IAEA and EURATOM in the EU. The nuclear countries have signed the corresponding agreements and the majority of them have created the necessary legal and regulatory structure (Nuclear Safety Authority). As regards radioactive wastes, particularly high-level wastes (HLW) and spent fuel (SF) most of the countries have long-term policies. The establishment of new nuclear units and the associated nuclear technology developments offer new perspectives, which may need reconsideration of fuel cycle policies and more active regional and global co-operation.

Open and closed fuel cycle

In the frame of the open fuel cycle, the spent fuel will be taken to final disposal without recycling. Deep geological repositories are the only available option for isolating the highly radioactive materials for a very long time from the biosphere. Long-term (80–100 years) near soil intermediate storages are realised in e.g. France and the Netherlands which will allow for permanent access and inspection. The main advantage of the open fuel cycle is its simplicity. The spent fuel assemblies are first stored in interim storage for several years or decades, then they will be placed in special containers and moved into deep underground storage facilities. The technology for producing such containers and for excavation of the underground system of tunnels exists today (Hózer et al. 2010 ; Kautsky et al. 2013 ).

The European Academies Science Advisory Board recently released the report on “Management of spent nuclear fuel and its waste” (EASAC 2014 ). The report discusses the challenges associated with different strategies to manage spent nuclear fuel, in respect of both open cycles and steps towards closing the nuclear fuel cycle. It integrates the conclusions on the issues raised on sustainability, safety, non-proliferation and security, economics, public involvement and on the decision-making process. Recently Vandenbosch et al. ( 2015 ) critically discussed the issue of confidence in the indefinite storage of nuclear waste. One complication of the nuclear waste storage problem is that the minor actinides represent a high activity (see Fig.  3 ) and pose non-proliferation issues to be handled safely in a civil used plant. This might be a difficult challenge if the storage is to be operated economically together with the fuel fabrication.

Radiotoxicity of radioactive waste

The open (or ‘once through’) cycle only uses part of the energy stored in the fuel, whilst effectively wasting substantial amounts of energy that could be recovered through recycling. The conventional closed fuel cycle strategy uses the reprocessing of the spent fuel following interim storage. The main components which can be further utilised (U and Pu) are recycled to fuel manufacturing (MOX (Mixed Oxide) fuel fabrication), whilst the smaller volume of residual waste in appropriately conditioned form—e.g. vitrified and encapsulated—is disposed of in deep geological repositories.

The advanced closed fuel cycle strategy is similar to the conventional one, but within this strategy the minor actinides are also removed during reprocessing. The separated isotopes are transmuted in combination with power generation and only the net reprocessing wastes and those conditioned wastes generated during transmutation will be, following appropriate encapsulation, disposed of in deep geological repositories. The main factor that determines the overall storage capacity of a long-term repository is the heat content of nuclear waste, not its volume. During the anticipated repository time, the specific heat generated during the decay of the stored HLW must always stay below a dedicated value prescribed by the storage concept and the geological host information. The waste that results from reprocessing spent fuel from thermal reactors has a lower heat content (after a period of cooling) than does the spent fuel itself. Thus, it can be stored more densely.

A modern light water reactor of 1 GWe capacity will typically discharge about 20–25 tonnes of irradiated fuel per year of operation. About 93–94 % of the mass of typical uranium oxide irradiated fuel comprises uranium (mostly 238 U), with about 4–5 % fission products and ~1 % plutonium. About 0.1–0.2 % of the mass comprises minor actinides (neptunium, americium and curium). These latter elements accumulate in nuclear fuel because of neutron capture, and they contribute significantly to decay heat loading and neutron output, as well as to the overall radiotoxic hazard of spent fuel. Although the total minor actinide mass is relatively small—20 to 25 kg per year from a 1 GWe LWR—it has a disproportionate impact on spent fuel disposal because of its long radioactive decay times (OECD Nuclear Energy Agency 2013 ).

Generation IV development

To address the issue of sustainability of nuclear energy, in particular the use of natural resources, fast neutron reactors (FNRs) must be developed, since they can typically multiply by over a factor 50 the energy production from a given amount of uranium fuel compared to current reactors. FNRs, just as today’s fleet, will be primarily dedicated to the generation of fossil-free base-load electricity. In the FNR the fuel conversion ratio (FCR) is optimised. Through hardening the spectrum a fast reactor can be designed to burn minor actinides giving a FCR larger than unity which allows breeding of fissile materials. FNRs have been operated in the past (especially the Sodium-cooled Fast Reactor in Europe), but today’s safety, operational and competitiveness standards require the design of a new generation of fast reactors. Important research and development is currently being coordinated at the international level through initiatives such as GIF.

In 2002, six reactor technologies were selected which GIF believe represent the future of nuclear energy. These were selected from the many various approaches being studied on the basis of being clean, safe and cost-effective means of meeting increased energy demands on a sustainable basis. Furthermore, they are considered being resistant to diversion of materials for weapons proliferation and secure from terrorist attacks. The continued research and development will focus on the chosen six reactor approaches. Most of the six systems employ a closed fuel cycle to maximise the resource base and minimise high-level wastes to be sent to a repository. Three of the six are fast neutron reactors (FNR) and one can be built as a fast reactor, one is described as epithermal, and only two operate with slow neutrons like today’s plants. Only one is cooled by light water, two are helium-cooled and the others have lead–bismuth, sodium or fluoride salt coolant. The latter three operate at low pressure, with significant safety advantage. The last has the uranium fuel dissolved in the circulating coolant. Temperatures range from 510 to 1000 °C, compared with less than 330 °C for today’s light water reactors, and this means that four of them can be used for thermochemical hydrogen production.

The sizes range from 150 to 1500 MWe, with the lead-cooled one optionally available as a 50–150 MWe “battery” with long core life (15–20 years without refuelling) as replaceable cassette or entire reactor module. This is designed for distributed generation or desalination. At least four of the systems have significant operating experience already in most respects of their design, which provides a good basis for further research and development and is likely to mean that they can be in commercial operation well before 2030. However, when addressing non-proliferation concerns it is significant that fast neutron reactors are not conventional fast breeders, i.e. they do not have a blanket assembly where plutonium-239 is produced. Instead, plutonium production happens to take place in the core, where burn-up is high and the proportion of plutonium isotopes other than Pu-239 remains high. In addition, new reprocessing technologies will enable the fuel to be recycled without separating the plutonium.

In January 2014, a new GIF Technology Roadmap Update was published. 4 It confirmed the choice of the six systems and focused on the most relevant developments of them so as to define the research and development goals for the next decade. It suggested that the Generation IV technologies most likely to be deployed first are the SFR, the lead-cooled fast reactor (LFR) and the very high temperature reactor technologies. The molten salt reactor and the GFR were shown as furthest from demonstration phase.

Europe, through sustainable nuclear energy technology platform (SNETP) and ESNII, has defined its own strategy and priorities for FNRs with the goal to demonstrate Generation IV reactor technologies that can close the nuclear fuel cycle, provide long-term waste management solutions and expand the applications of nuclear fission beyond electricity production to hydrogen production, industrial heat and desalination; The SFR as a proven concept, as well as the LFR as a short-medium term alternative and the GFR as a longer-term alternative technology. The French Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique (CEA) has chosen the development of the SFR technology. Astrid (Advanced Sodium Technological Reactor for Industrial Demonstration) is based on about 45 reactor-years of operational experience in France and will be rated 250 to 600 MWe. It is expected to be built at Marcoule from 2017, with the unit being connected to the grid in 2022.

Other countries like Belgium, Italy, Sweden and Romania are focussing their research and development effort on the LFR whereas Hungary, Czech Republic and Slovakia are investing in the research and development on GFR building upon the work initiated in France on GFR as an alternative technology to SFR. Allegro GFR is to be built in eastern Europe, and is more innovative. It is rated at 100 MWt and would lead to a larger industrial demonstration unit called GoFastR. The Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia are making a joint proposal to host the project, with French CEA support. Allegro is expected to begin construction in 2018 operate from 2025. The industrial demonstrator would follow it.

In mid-2013, four nuclear research institutes and engineering companies from central Europe’s Visegrád Group of Nations (V4) agreed to establish a centre for joint research, development and innovation in Generation IV nuclear reactors (the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia) which is focused on gas-cooled fast reactors such as Allegro.

The MYRRHA (Multi-purpose hYbrid Research Reactor for High-tech Applications) 5 project proposed in Belgium by SCK•CEN could be an Experimental Technological Pilot Plant (ETPP) for the LFR technology. Later, it could become a European fast neutron technology pilot plant for lead and a multi-purpose research reactor. The unit is rated at 100 thermal MW and has started construction at SCK-CEN’s Mol site in 2014 planned to begin operation in 2023. A reduced-power model of Myrrha called Guinevere started up at Mol in March 2010. ESNII also includes an LFR technology demonstrator known as Alfred, also about 100 MWt, seen as a prelude to an industrial demonstration unit of about 600 MWe. Construction on Alfred could begin in 2017 and the unit could start operating in 2025.

Research and development topics to meet the top-level criteria established within the GIF forum in the context of simultaneously matching economics as well as stricter safety criteria set-up by the WENRA FNR demand substantial improvements with respect to the following issues:

• Primary system design simplification,
• Improved materials,
• Innovative heat exchangers and power conversion systems,
• Advanced instrumentation, in-service inspection systems,
• Enhanced safety,

and those for fuel cycle issues pertain to:

• Partitioning and transmutation,
• Innovative fuels (including minor actinide-bearing) and core performance,
• Advanced separation both via aqueous processes supplementing the PUREX process as well as pyroprocessing, which is mandatory for the reprocessing of the high MA-containing fuels,
• Develop a final depository.

Beyond the research and development, the demonstration projects mentioned above are planned in the frame of the SET-Plan ESNII for sustainable fission. In addition, supporting research infrastructures, irradiation facilities, experimental loops and fuel fabrication facilities, will need to be constructed.

Regarding transmutation, the accelerator-driven transmutation systems (ADS) technology must be compared to FNR technology from the point of view of feasibility, transmutation efficiency and cost efficiency. It is the objective of the MYRRHA project to be an experimental demonstrator of ADS technology. From the economical point of view, the ADS industrial solution should be assessed in terms of its contribution to closing the fuel cycle. One point of utmost importance for the ADS is its ability for burning larger amounts of minor actinides (the typical maximum in a critical FNR is about 2 %).

The concept of partitioning and transmutation (P&T) has three main goals: reduce the radiological hazard associated with spent fuel by reducing the inventory of minor actinides, reduce the time interval required to reach the radiotoxicity of natural uranium and reduce the heat load of the HLW packages to be stored in the geological disposal hence reducing the foot print of the geological disposal.

Advanced management of HLW through P&T consists in advanced separation of the minor actinides (americium, curium and neptunium) and some fission products with a long half-life present in the nuclear waste and their transmutation in dedicated burners to reduce the radiological and heat loads on the geological disposal. The time scale needed for the radiotoxicity of the waste to drop to the level of natural uranium will be reduced from a ‘geological’ value (300 000 years) to a value that is comparable to that of human activities (few hundreds of years) (OECD/NEA 2006 ; OECD 2012 ; PATEROS 2008 6 ). Transmutation of the minor actinides is achieved through fission reactions and therefore fast neutrons are preferred in dedicated burners.

At the European level, four building blocks strategy for Partitioning and Transmutation have been identified. Each block poses a serious challenge in terms of research & development to be done in order to reach industrial scale deployment. These blocks are:

• Demonstration of advanced reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel from LWRs, separating Uranium, Plutonium and Minor Actinides;
• Demonstration of the capability to fabricate at semi-industrial level dedicated transmuter fuel heavily loaded in minor actinides;
• Design and construct one or more dedicated transmuters;
• Fabrication of new transmuter fuel together with demonstration of advanced reprocessing of transmuter fuel.

MYRRHA will support this Roadmap by playing the role of an ADS prototype (at reasonable power level) and as a flexible irradiation facility providing fast neutrons for the qualification of materials and fuel for an industrial transmuter. MYRRHA will be not only capable of irradiating samples of such inert matrix fuels but also of housing fuel pins or even a limited number of fuel assemblies heavily loaded with MAs for irradiation and qualification purposes.

Options for nuclear fusion beyond 2050

Nuclear fusion research, on the basis of magnetic confinement, considered in this report, has been actively pursued in Europe from the mid-60s. Fusion research has the goal to achieve a clean and sustainable energy source for many generations to come. In parallel with basic high-temperature plasma research, the fusion technology programme is pursued as well as the economy of a future fusion reactor (Ward et al. 2005 ; Ward 2009 ; Bradshaw et al. 2011 ). The goal-oriented fusion research should be driven with an increased effort to be able to give the long searched answer to the open question, “will fusion energy be able to cover a major part of mankind’s electricity demand?”. ITER, the first fusion reactor to be built in France by the seven collaborating partners (Europe, USA, Russia, Japan, Korea, China, India) is hoped to answer most of the open physics and many of the remaining technology/material questions. ITER is expected to start operation of the first plasma around 2020 and D-T operation 2027.

The European fusion research has been successful through the organisation of EURATOM to which most countries in Europe belong (the fission programme is also included in EURATOM). EUROfusion, the European Consortium for the Development of Fusion Energy, manages European fusion research activities on behalf of EURATOM. The organisation of the research has resulted in a well-focused common fusion research programme. The members of the EUROfusion 7 consortium are 29 national fusion laboratories. EUROfusion funds all fusion research activities in accordance with the “EFDA Fusion electricity. Roadmap to the realisation of fusion energy” (EFDA 2012 , Fusion electricity). The Roadmap outlines the most efficient way to realise fusion electricity. It is the result of an analysis of the European Fusion Programme undertaken by all Research Units within EUROfusion’s predecessor agreement, the European Fusion Development Agreement, EFDA.

The most successful confinement concepts are toroidal ones like tokamaks and helical systems like stellarators (Wagner 2012 , 2013 ). To avoid drift losses, two magnetic field components are necessary for confinement and stability—the toroidal and the poloidal field component. Due to their superposition, the magnetic field winds helically around a system of nested toroids. In both cases, tokamak and stellarator, the toroidal field is produced by external coils; the poloidal field arises from a strong toroidal plasma current in tokamaks. In case of helical systems all necessary fields are produced externally by coils which have to be superconductive when steady-state operation is intended. Europe is constructing the most ambitious stellarator, Wendelstein 7-X in Germany. It is a fully optimised system with promising features. W7-X goes into operation in 2015. 8

Fusion research has now reached plasma parameters needed for a fusion reactor, even if not all parameters are reached simultaneously in a single plasma discharge (see Fig.  4 ). Plotted is the triple product n•τ E• T i composed of the density n, the confinement time τ E and the ion temperature T i . For ignition of a deuterium–tritium plasma, when the internal α-particle heating from the DT-reaction takes over and allows the external heating to be switched off, the triple product has to be about >6 × 10 21  m −3  s keV). The record parameters given as of today are shown together with the fusion experiment of its achievement in Fig.  4 . The achieved parameters and the missing factors to the ultimate goal of a fusion reactor are summarised below:

• Temperature: 40 keV achieved (JT-60U, Japan); the goal is surpassed by a factor of two
• Density n surpassed by factor 5 (C-mod,USA; LHD,Japan)
• Energy confinement time: a factor of 4 is missing (JET, Europe)
• Fusion triple product (see Fig.  4 : a factor of 6 is missing (JET, Europe)
• The first scientific goal is achieved: Q (fusion power/external heating power) ~1 (0,65) (JET, Europe)
• D-T operation without problems (TFTR (USA), JET, small tritium quantities have been used, however)
• Maximal fusion power for short pulse: 16 MW (JET)
• Divertor development (ASDEX, ASDEX-Upgrade, Germany)
• Design for the first experimental reactor complete (ITER, see below)
• The optimisation of stellarators (W7-AS, W7-X, Germany)

Progress in fusion parameters. Derived in 1955, the Lawson criterion specifies the conditions that must be met for fusion to produce a net energy output (1 keV × 12 million K). From this, a fusion “triple product” can be derived, which is defined as the product of the plasma ion density, ion temperature and energy confinement time. This product must be greater than about 6 × 10 21  keV m −3  s for a deuterium–tritium plasma to ignite. Due to the radioactivity associated with tritium, today’s research tokamaks generally operate with deuterium only ( solid dots ). The large tokamaks JET(EU) and TFTR(US), however, have used a deuterium–tritium mix ( open dots ). The rate of increase in tokamak performance has outstripped that of Moore’s law for the miniaturisation of silicon chips (Pitts et al. 2006 ). Many international projects (their names are given by acronyms in the figure) have contributed to the development of fusion plasma parameters and the progress in fusion research which serves as the basis for the ITER design

After 50 years of fusion research there is no evidence for a fundamental obstacle in the basic physics. But still many problems have to be overcome as detailed below:

Critical issues in fusion plasma physics based on magnetic confinement

• confine a plasma magnetically with 1000 m 3 volume,
• maintain the plasma stable at 2–4 bar pressure,
• achieve 15 MA current running in a fluid (in case of tokamaks, avoid instabilities leading to disruptions),
• find methods to maintain the plasma current in steady-state,
• tame plasma turbulence to get the necessary confinement time,
• develop an exhaust system (divertor) to control power and particle exhaust, specifically to remove the α-particle heat deposited into the plasma and to control He as the fusion ash.

Critical issues in fusion plasma technology

• build a system with 200 MKelvin in the plasma core and 4 Kelvin about 2 m away,
• build magnetic system at 6 Tesla (max field 12 Tesla) with 50 GJ energy,
• develop heating systems to heat the plasma to the fusion temperature and current drive systems to maintain steady-state conditions for the tokamak,
• handle neutron-fluxes of 2 MW/m 2 leading to 100 dpa in the surrounding material,
• develop low activation materials,
• develop tritium breeding technologies,
• provide high availability of a complex system using an appropriate remote handling system,
• develop the complete physics and engineering basis for system licensing.

The goals of ITER

The major goals of ITER (see Fig.  5 ) in physics are to confine a D-T plasma with α-particle self-heating dominating all other forms of plasma heating, to produce about ~500 MW of fusion power at a gain Q  = fusion power/external heating power, of about 10, to explore plasma stability in the presence of energetic α-particles, and to demonstrate ash-exhaust and burn control.

Schematic layout of the ITER reactor experiment (from www.iter.org )

In the field of technology, ITER will demonstrate fundamental aspects of fusion as the self-heating of the plasma by alpha-particles, show the essentials to a fusion reactor in an integrated system, give the first test a breeding blanket and assess the technology and its efficiency, breed tritium from lithium utilising the D-T fusion neutron, develop scenarios and materials with low T-inventories. Thus ITER will provide strong indications for vital research and development efforts necessary in the view of a demonstration reactor (DEMO). ITER will be based on conventional steel as structural material. Its inner wall will be covered with beryllium to surround the plasma with low-Z metal with low inventory properties. The divertor will be mostly from tungsten to sustain the high α-particle heat fluxes directed onto target plates situated inside a divertor chamber. An important step in fusion reactor development is the achievement of licensing of the complete system.

The rewards from fusion research and the realisation of a fusion reactor can be described in the following points:

• fusion has a tremendous potential thanks to the availability of deuterium and lithium as primary fuels. But as a recommendation, the fusion development has to be accelerated,

Fusion time strategy towards the fusion reactor on the net (EFDA 2012 , Fusion electricity. A roadmap to the realisation of fusion energy)

In addition, there is the fusion technology programme and its material branch, which ultimately need a neutron source to study the interaction with 14 MeV neutrons. For this purpose, a spallation source IFMIF is presently under design. As a recommendation, ways have to be found to accelerate the fusion development. In general, with ITER, IFMIF and the DEMO, the programme will move away from plasma science more towards technology orientation. After the ITER physics and technology programme—if successful—fusion can be placed into national energy supply strategies. With fusion, future generations can have access to a clean, safe and (at least expected of today) economic power source.

The fission nuclear power continues to be an essential part of the low-carbon electricity generation in the world for decades to come. There are breakthrough possibilities in the development of new generation nuclear reactors where the life-time of the nuclear waste can be reduced to some hundreds of years instead of the present time-scales of hundred thousand of years. Research on the fourth generation reactors is needed for the realisation of this development. For the fast nuclear reactors a substantial research and development effort is required in many fields—from material sciences to safety demonstration—to attain the envisaged goals. Fusion provides a long-term vision for an efficient energy production. The fusion option for a nuclear reactor for efficient production of electricity should be vigorously pursued on the international arena as well as within the European energy roadmap to reach a decision point which allows to critically assess this energy option.

Box 1 Explanations of abbreviations used in this article

Biographies.

is Professor in Energy Research and Director of MTA Center for Energy Research, Budapest, Hungary. His research interests are in the development of new fission reactors, new structural materials, high temperature irradiation resistance, mechanical deformation.

is Professor of Applied Atomic and Molecular Physics at Royal Institute of Technology, (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden. Her research interests are in basic atomic and molecular processes studied with synchrotron radiation, development of diagnostic techniques for analysing the performance of fusion experiments in particular development of photon spectroscopic diagnostics.

1 http://www.iea.org/ .

2 https://cnpp.iaea.org/pages/index.htm .

3 GenIV International forum: ( http://www.gen-4.org/index.html ).

4 https://www.gen-4.org/gif/jcms/c_60729/technology-roadmap-update-2013 .

5 http://myrrha.sckcen.be/ .

6 www.sckcen.be/pateros/ .

7 https://www.euro-fusion.org/ .

8 https://www.ipp.mpg.de/ippcms/de/pr/forschung/w7x/index.html .

Contributor Information

Akos Horvath, Email: [email protected] .

Elisabeth Rachlew, Email: es.htk@kre .

• Bradshaw AM, Hamacher T, Fischer U. Is nuclear fusion a sustainable energy form? Fusion Engineering and Design. 2011; 86 :2770–2773. doi: 10.1016/j.fusengdes.2010.11.040. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• EASAC. 2014. EASAC Report 23—Management of spent nuclear fuel and its waste. http://www.easac.eu/energy/reports-and-statements/detail-view/article/management-o.html .
• EFDA. 2012. Fusion electricity. A roadmap to the realization of fusion energy. https://www.euro-fusion.org/wpcms/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/JG12.356-web.pdf .
• Garbil, R., and G. Van Goethem. (ed.). 2013. Symposium on the “Benefits and limitations of nuclear fission for a low carbon economy”, European Commission, Brussels, ISBN 978-92.79.29833.2.
• Hózer, Z. S. Borovitskiy, G. Buday, B. Boullis, G. Cognet, S. A. Delichatsios, J. Gadó, A. Grishin, et al. 2010. Regional strategies concerning nuclear fuel cycle and HLRW in Central and Eastern European Countries. International conference on management of spent fuel from Nuclear Power Reactors, Vienna, Conference ID:38089 (CN-178).
• IEA (International Energy Authority). 2014. World Energy Outlook 2014. http://www.iea.org/ .
• IPCC. 2014. Summary for policymakers WGIII AR5, SPM.4.2.2 Energy supply.
• Kautsky, U., T. Lindborg, and J. Valentin (ed.). 2013. Humans and ecosystems over the coming millenia: A biosphere assessment of radioactive waste disposal in Sweden. Ambio 42(4): 381–526. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• OECD. 2011–2012. Fact book: Economic, environmental and social statistics. Retrieved from http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/oecd-factbook-2011-2012_factbook-2011-en .
• OECD/NEA. 2006. Potential benefits and impacts of advanced nuclear fuel cycles with actinide partitioning and transmutation. ISBN: 978-92-64-99165-1, http://www.oecd-nea.org/science/reports/2011/6894-benefits-impacts-advanced-fuel.pdf .
• OECD Nuclear Energy Agency. 2013. Minor actinide burning in thermal reactors. A report by the Working Party on Scientific Issues of Reactor Systems, NEA #6997. http://www.oecd-nea.org/science/pubs/2013/6997-minor-actinide.pdf .
• Pitts R, Buttery R, Pinches S. Fusion: The way ahead. Physics World. 2006; 19 :20–26. doi: 10.1088/2058-7058/19/3/35. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ricotti ME. Nuclear energy: Basics, present, future. EPJ Web of Conferences. 2013; 54 :01005. doi: 10.1051/epjconf/20135401005. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vandenbosch R, Vandenbosch SE. Nuclear waste confidence: Is indefinite storage safe? APS Physics and Society. 2015; 44 :5–7. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wagner, F. 2012. Fusion energy by magnetic confinement. IPP 18/3, http://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-0026-E767-A .
• Wagner F. Physics of magnetic confinement fusion. EPJ Web of Conferences. 2013; 54 :01007. doi: 10.1051/epjconf/20135401007. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ward DJ. The contribution of fusion to sustainable development. Fusion Engineering and Design. 2009; 82 :528–533. doi: 10.1016/j.fusengdes.2007.02.028. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ward DJ, Cook I, Lechon Y, Saez R. The economic viability of fusion power. Engineering and Design. 2005; 75–79 :1221–1227. doi: 10.1016/j.fusengdes.2005.06.160. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Home — Essay Samples — Environment — Human Impact — Nuclear Energy

Essays on Nuclear Energy

Brief description of nuclear energy, importance of writing essays on this topic, tips on choosing a good topic, essay topics, concluding thought, nuclear energy: safety, security, and ethical considerations, the promise of nuclear energy for climate change, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Bridging Perception and Reality in Nuclear Energy

The pros and cons when discussing the use of nuclear energy, nuclear energy: the future of humanity's energy source, an issue of safety of nuclear energy, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Nuclear Waste: an American Disaster

The history and use of nuclear energy, ernest rutherford, the father of nuclear physics, niels bohr's biography, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

Technetium-99m

The manhattan project - a top secret nuclear energy research program, a study on the effects of nuclear waste on the environment, iaea safeguards - serving nuclear non-proliferation, potential consequences of nuclear politics in south asia, the effects of fukushima daihatsu nuclear disaster, attitudes of the australian public to nuclear power, countering myths and misinformation around nuclear power, nuclear power economic: cost, comparison and waste, the role of nuclear energy in the global energy transition, nuclear innovation: balancing challenges and opportunities, relevant topics.

• Ocean Pollution
• Water Pollution
• Fast Fashion
• Deforestation
• Plastic Bags
• Endangered Species
• Air Pollution
• Global Warming

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Essay on Nuclear Energy

Students are often asked to write an essay on Nuclear Energy in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Nuclear Energy

Introduction.

Nuclear energy is a powerful source of energy generated from atomic reactions. It is created from the splitting of atoms, a process known as nuclear fission.

Production of Nuclear Energy

Nuclear energy is produced in nuclear power plants. These plants use uranium, a mineral, as fuel. The heat generated from nuclear fission is used to create steam, which spins a turbine to generate electricity.

Benefits of Nuclear Energy

Nuclear energy is very efficient. It produces a large amount of energy from a small amount of uranium. It also does not emit harmful greenhouse gases, making it environmentally friendly.

Drawbacks of Nuclear Energy

Despite its benefits, nuclear energy has drawbacks. The most significant is the production of radioactive waste, which is dangerous and hard to dispose of. It also poses a risk of nuclear accidents.

Also check:

• Advantages and Disadvantages of Nuclear Energy
• Paragraph on Nuclear Energy

250 Words Essay on Nuclear Energy

Introduction to nuclear energy.

Nuclear energy, a powerful and complex energy source, is derived from splitting atoms in a process known as nuclear fission. Its significant energy output and low greenhouse gas emissions make it a potential solution to the world’s increasing energy demands.

Production and Efficiency

Nuclear power plants operate by using nuclear fission to generate heat, which then produces steam to turn turbines and generate electricity. The efficiency of nuclear energy is unparalleled, with one kilogram of uranium-235 producing approximately three million times the energy of a kilogram of coal.

Environmental Implications

Nuclear energy is often considered a clean energy source due to its minimal carbon footprint. However, the production of nuclear energy also results in radioactive waste, the disposal of which poses significant environmental challenges.

Security and Ethical Concerns

The utilization of nuclear energy is not without its risks. Accidents like those at Chernobyl and Fukushima have highlighted the potential for catastrophic damage. Furthermore, the proliferation of nuclear technology raises ethical concerns about its potential misuse for military purposes.

Future of Nuclear Energy

The future of nuclear energy hinges on technological advancements and policy decisions. The development of safer, more efficient reactors and sustainable waste disposal methods could mitigate some of the risks associated with nuclear energy. Additionally, international cooperation is crucial to ensure the peaceful and secure use of nuclear technology.

In conclusion, nuclear energy presents a potent solution to the energy crisis, but it also brings significant challenges. Balancing its benefits against the associated risks requires careful consideration and responsible action.

500 Words Essay on Nuclear Energy

Nuclear energy, a powerful and complex form of energy, is derived from splitting atoms in a reactor to heat water into steam, turn a turbine, and generate electricity. Ninety-four nuclear reactors in 28 states, approximately 20% of total electricity production in the United States, are powered by this process. Globally, nuclear energy is a significant source of power, contributing to about 10% of the world’s total electricity supply.

The Mechanics of Nuclear Energy

Nuclear energy is produced through a process called nuclear fission. This process involves the splitting of uranium atoms in a nuclear reactor, which releases an immense amount of energy in the form of heat and radiation. The heat generated is then used to boil water, create steam, and power turbines that generate electricity.

The fuel for nuclear reactors, uranium, is abundant and can be found in many parts of the world, making nuclear energy a viable option for countries without significant fossil fuel resources. Moreover, the energy produced by a single uranium atom split is a million times greater than that from burning a single coal or gas molecule, making nuclear power a highly efficient energy source.

Pros and Cons of Nuclear Energy

One of the main advantages of nuclear energy is its low greenhouse gas emission. It emits a fraction of the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases compared to fossil fuel-based energy sources, making it a potential solution to combat climate change.

Nuclear energy is also reliable. Unlike renewable energy sources like wind and solar, nuclear power plants can operate continuously and are not dependent on weather conditions. They can provide a steady, uninterrupted supply of electricity, which is crucial for the functioning of modern societies.

However, nuclear energy also has significant drawbacks. The risk of nuclear accidents, while statistically low, can have devastating and long-lasting impacts, as seen in Chernobyl and Fukushima. Additionally, the disposal of nuclear waste poses a serious challenge due to its long-term radioactivity.

The Future of Nuclear Energy

The future of nuclear energy is uncertain. On one hand, the demand for low-carbon energy sources to combat climate change could lead to an increase in the use of nuclear energy. On the other hand, concerns about nuclear safety, waste disposal, and the high costs of building new nuclear power plants could hinder its growth.

Advancements in nuclear technology, such as the development of small modular reactors and fourth-generation reactors, could address some of these concerns. These technologies promise to be safer, more efficient, and produce less nuclear waste, potentially paving the way for a nuclear renaissance.

In conclusion, nuclear energy presents a compelling paradox. It offers a high-energy, low-carbon alternative to fossil fuels, yet it carries significant risks and challenges. As we move towards a more sustainable future, it is crucial to weigh these factors and make informed decisions about the role of nuclear energy in our global energy mix.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Negative Effects of Social Media
• Essay on Nature
• Essay on Nationalism

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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

Call us @ 08069405205

Search Here

• An Introduction to the CSE Exam
• Personality Test
• Annual Calendar by UPSC-2024
• Common Myths about the Exam
• About Insights IAS
• Our Mission, Vision & Values
• Director's Desk
• Meet Our Team
• Our Branches
• Careers at Insights IAS
• Daily Current Affairs+PIB Summary
• Insights into Editorials
• Insta Revision Modules for Prelims
• Current Affairs Quiz
• Static Quiz
• Current Affairs RTM
• Insta-DART(CSAT)
• Insta 75 Days Revision Tests for Prelims 2024
• Secure (Mains Answer writing)
• Secure Synopsis
• Ethics Case Studies
• Insta Ethics
• Weekly Essay Challenge
• Insta Revision Modules-Mains
• Insta 75 Days Revision Tests for Mains
• Secure (Archive)
• Anthropology
• Law Optional
• Kannada Literature
• Public Administration
• English Literature
• Medical Science
• Mathematics
• Commerce & Accountancy
• Monthly Magazine: CURRENT AFFAIRS 30
• Content for Mains Enrichment (CME)
• InstaMaps: Important Places in News
• Weekly CA Magazine
• The PRIME Magazine
• Insta Revision Modules-Prelims
• Insta-DART(CSAT) Quiz
• Insta 75 days Revision Tests for Prelims 2022
• Insights SECURE(Mains Answer Writing)
• Interview Transcripts
• Previous Years' Question Papers-Prelims
• Answer Keys for Prelims PYQs
• Solve Prelims PYQs
• Previous Years' Question Papers-Mains
• UPSC CSE Syllabus
• Toppers from Insights IAS
• Testimonials
• Felicitation
• UPSC Results
• Indian Heritage & Culture
• Ancient Indian History
• Medieval Indian History
• Modern Indian History
• World History
• World Geography
• Indian Geography
• Indian Society
• Social Justice
• International Relations
• Agriculture
• Environment & Ecology
• Disaster Management
• Science & Technology
• Security Issues
• Ethics, Integrity and Aptitude

• Indian Heritage & Culture
• Enivornment & Ecology
• How to Study Art & Culture?
• What is Art and Culture? What is the difference between the two?
• Indus Civilization
• Evolution of rock-cut architecture in India
• Important rock-cut caves
• The contribution of Pallavas to Rock-cut architecture
• Comparision of art form found at Ellora and Mahabalipuram
• Buddhist Architecture
• Early Temples in India
• Basic form of Hindu temple
• Dravida style of temple architecture
• Nagara Style or North India Temple style
• Vesara style of temple architecture
• Characteristic features of Indo-Islamic form of architecture
• Styles of Islamic architecture in the Indian subcontinent
• Types of buildings in Islamic architecture in the Indian subcontinent
• Evolution of this form of architecture during the medieval period
• Modern Architecture
• Post-Independence architecture
• Indus Civilization Sculpture
• Bharhut Sculptures
• Sanchi Sculptures
• Gandhara School of Sculpture
• Mathura School of Sculpture
• Amaravati School of Sculpture
• Gupta Sculpture
• Medieval School of Sculpture
• Modern Indian Sculpture
• Pre Historic Painting
• Mural Paintings & Cave Paintings
• Pala School
• Mughal Paintings
• Bundi School of Painting
• Malwa School
• Mewar School
• Basohli School
• Kangra School
• Decanni School of Painting
• Madhubani Paintings or Mithila paintings
• Pattachitra
• Kalighat Painting
• Modern Indian Paintings
• Personalities Associated to Paintings
• Christianity
• Zoroastrianism
• Six Schools of Philosophy
• Lokayata / Charvaka
• Hindustani Music
• Carnatic Music
• Folk Music Tradition
• Modern Music
• Personalities associated with Music
• Bharatanatyam
• Mohiniattam
• Folk Dances
• Modern Dance in India
• Sanskrit Theatre
• Folk Theatre
• Modern Theatre
• Personalities associated with Theatre
• History of Puppetry
• String Puppetry
• Shadow Puppetry
• Rod Puppetry
• Glove Puppetry
• Indian Cinema and Circus
• Shankaracharya
• Ramanujacharya (1017-1137AD)
• Madhvacharya
• Vallabhacharya
• Kabir (1440-1510 AD)
• Guru Nanak (1469-1538 AD)
• Chaitanya Mahaprabhu
• Shankar Dev
• Purandaradasa
• Samard Ramdas
• Classical Languages
• Scheduled Languages
• Literature in Ancient India
• Buddhist and Jain Literature
• Tamil (Sangam) Literature
• Malayalam Literature
• Telugu Literature
• Medieval Literature
• Modern Literature
• Important characteristics of Fairs and Festivals of India
• Some of the major festivals that are celebrated in India
• Art & Crafts
• Ancient Science & Technology
• Medieval Science & Technology
• Famous Personalities in Science & Technology
• Tangible Cultural Heritage
• Intangible Cultural Heritage
• Cultural Heritage Sites
• Natural Heritage Sites
• Important Institutions
• Important programmes related to promotion and preservation of Indian heritage
• Ochre Colored Pottery (OCP)
• Black and Red Ware (BRW)
• Painted Grey-Ware (PGW)
• Northern Black Polished Ware (NBPW)
• Origin of Martial arts in India
• Various forms of Martial arts in India
• Principles of Biotechnology
• Types of Biotechnology
• Applications of Biotechnology in Medicine
• Applications of Biotechnology in Agriculture
• Applications of Biotechnology in Animal Husbandry
• Application of Biotechnology in Food Processing
• Application of Biotechnology in Environment
• Gene Editing
• What is CRISPR-Cas9?
• Gene Therapy
• Mitochondrial Gene Therapy
• Genome Sequencing
• Genome India
• Indigen Project
• DNA Technology Regulation Bill, 2019
• Bioinformatics
• Bioplastics
• Ethanol blending programme in India
• Milestones in India’s Space Programme
• Basics of Orbit
• Geostationary orbit (GEO)
• Low Earth orbit (LEO)
• Medium Earth orbit (MEO)
• Polar orbit and Sun-synchronous orbit (SSO)
• Transfer orbits and geostationary transfer orbit (GTO)
• Lagrange points
• List of Earth Observation Satellites
• PSLV-C51 launch
• CMS-01 satellite
• Project NETRA
• MASS ORBITER MISSION
• Mission Shakti
• Seven mega missions by ISRO
• Benefits of Nuclear Energy
• Nuclear Energy in India
• Components of a nuclear power plant
• Light-water reactors
• Pressurized-water reactor
• CANDU reactors(pressurized heavy water reactor)
• Sodium Cooled Fast Reactor
• India three stage nuclear programme
• Evolution of India’s nuclear policy
• Civil Nuclear Liability Act
• Applications
• NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty)
• Nuclear Suppliers Group
• The Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme
• Nuclear Command Authority
• India’s Nuclear Triad
• Ship Biographies
• INS Vikrant
• INS Vikramaditya
• Anti Ballistic Missile Defence System
• Bilateral and Multilateral Military Exercises
• Defence Indigenization
• INDIAN AIR FORCE
• Digital Signature Certificate
• New IT rules
• QUANTUM Cryptography
• Cryptocurrency
• Central bank digital currency (CBDC)
• Blockchain Technology
• 1G Technology
• 2G Technology
• 3G Technology
• 4G Technology
• 5G Technology
• Cloud Computing
• IOT – Internet Of Things
• Internet Governance
• Digital Divide
• Space Internet
• NET NEUTRALITY
• Public Wi-Fi plan ‘PM Wani’
• Supercomputer
• Quantum Computing
• Generations of Nanotechnology
• Types of Nanotechnology
• Examples and Applications of Nanotechnology
• Nanotechnology in healthcare
• Carbon Nanotubes
• Issues in Nanotechnology
• Government Measures
• Laws of Robotics
• Applications of Robotics
• Components of Robots
• Robotic process automation (RPA)
• Application of Robotics for Old Age
• Robotics in Agriculture
• Challenges in Robotics
• Artificial Intelligence and Robotics
• Artificial Intelligence in Pandemics
• Robotics in Pandemics
• Geographical Indication
• Trade Secrets
• Industrial Designs
• International Treaties on IPR
• Geographical Indications
• Plant Varieties
• Semi-conductors and integrated layouts
• Traditional Knowledge
• Biological Diversity
• Indo-US IPR problem
• National IPR Policy
• Issues of Vaccination During COVID
• The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights (PPV&FR) Act, 2001
• APJ Abdul Kalam
• Satyendranath Bose
• Vikram Sarabhai
• Homi J. Bhabha
• Contributions made by Ancient Indians to the world of Science and Technology
• Contributions made by Indians to Space Technology
• Contribution to Socio-economic Development

Home » Science & Technology » Nuclear Technology

Nuclear Technology

Nuclear energy is the energy in the nucleus, or core, of an atom. Atoms are tiny units that make up all matter in the universe, and energy is what holds the nucleus together. There is a huge amount of energy in an atom’s dense nucleus. In fact, the power that holds the nucleus together is officially called the “strong force.”

Nuclear energy can be used to create electricity, but it must first be released from the atom. In the process of nuclear fission, atoms are split to release that energy.

A nuclear reactor, or power plant, is a series of machines that can control nuclear fission to produce electricity. The fuel that nuclear reactors use to produce nuclear fission is pellets of the element uranium. In a nuclear reactor, atoms of uranium are forced to break apart. As they split, the atoms release tiny particles called fission products. Fission products cause other uranium atoms to split, starting a chain reaction. The energy released from this chain reaction creates heat.

The heat created by nuclear fission warms the reactor’s cooling agent. A cooling agent is usually water, but some nuclear reactors use liquid metal or molten salt. The cooling agent, heated by nuclear fission, produces steam. The steam turns turbines, or wheels turned by a flowing current. The turbines drive generators, or engines that create electricity.

Rods of material called nuclear poison can adjust how much electricity is produced. Nuclear poisons are materials, such as a type of the element xenon, that absorb some of the fission products created by nuclear fission. The more rods of nuclear poison that are present during the chain reaction, the slower and more controlled the reaction will be. Removing the rods will allow a stronger chain reaction and create more electricity.

• Types of Reactors

• Our Mission, Vision & Values
• Director’s Desk
• Commerce & Accountancy
• Previous Years’ Question Papers-Prelims
• Previous Years’ Question Papers-Mains
• Environment & Ecology
• Science & Technology

• Phone: +91 8466016171
• Whatsapp: +91 8208375580
• Email: contact@leapscholar.com

Nuclear Power Essay IELTS 2024: Writing Task 2 Latest Samples

• Updated On March 10, 2024
• Published In IELTS Preparation 💻

The IELTS exam tests how well-versed you are in the English language. It consists of 4 papers: reading, writing, listening, and speaking. Essay writing can be daunting if you’re not conversant in its framework and concept. This blog will assist you in writing Nuclear Power Essay IELTS and guide you on how to crack IELTS writing task 2.

Table of Contents

We’ll focus more on the nuclear power essay during this blog and walk you through the process. For guidance and reference on other topics and any other help regarding the IELTS exam , you can look through our website’s collection of blogs and obtain the assistance you need.

Nuclear Power Essay IELTS Sample Answer

Nuclear power is a very debated topic in every convention and has always been questioned for the bad it does rather than its good. In my opinion, nuclear power needs to be used, and the user should also be controlled and hedged with renewable energy sources as they are the only viable solution. Nuclear plants currently provide 11% of the world’s electricity. With an ever-increasing demand for electricity being seen everywhere and the fossil fuels reducing each day, it is now more important than ever that major decisions should be made. In the upcoming decades, energy consumption will only increase and meet the rising demand; nuclear power plants will be required as they are the best source of traditional energy-producing sources. Although nuclear power plants are required, it is also necessary to gradually push renewable energy sources and promote them to create a sustainable future for future generations. Nuclear power plants’ waste disposal and radioactivity are the concerning factors that have been the hot topic of most debates at conventions and meetings. In addition to that, a single misuse of this tremendous power can result in the disruption of life for all mankind. Striking a balance between the two will be crucial in the coming time as global warming and the energy crisis are on a constant rise. If nothing is done in the near time, countries could get submerged underwater within the coming decades, and the entire world will have to fight for survival.

Writing Task 2

The writing section of the IELTS exam consists of two sections. Writing task 2 is an essay writing task that requires deep thinking and coherence. This task will be our focus for this blog, as the rules and guidelines of the IELTS exam can be confusing for students appearing for the first time. Writing task 2 has the subsequent guidelines:

Crack IELTS Exam in first attempt

Attend Leap’s free masterclass to get tips, tricks and advance strategies to crack IELTS exam in first attempt

• The essay should have a minimum of 250 words. An essay written in less than 250 words will be penalised and negatively marked. There is no penalty for writing a longer essay, but it will cause you to stray off-topic and waste time.
• 40 minutes is a good enough time to complete this task and will leave you with time to recheck your answer.
• The essay’s contents should be written with perfect grammar and solely focused on the topic.
• You can be penalised if you stray off-topic while writing your essay. All the sentences must be related and formed to provide a clear view and information.
• The content must be well structured to fetch the best results and have proper cohesion between the sentences.
• The tone of your answer must be academic or semi-formal and should discuss the given topic at length and focus on proper and sophisticated language.
• Using bullet points and notes is not allowed in the IELTS exam . The real answer must be written together and broken into paragraphs to better examine your writing style and structure.

Structure of Essay in Writing Task 2

The structure of the essay in writing task 2 is the base of your essay, and a clear idea of the structure will make it much easier for you to finish the essay on time. The structure of the essay can be broken down in the following way:

• First Paragraph
• Second Paragraph
• Third Paragraph
• Fourth Paragraph

The first paragraph of your essay should provide a small introduction to the topic and provide an opinion of yours about what side you are on about the topic. The first paragraph should be minimal and to the point. A clear and concise introduction leaves a good impression on the examiner. The second paragraph should begin with your stance on the topic. The first sentence should provide clarity on your stance. The second sentence should build on that idea and delve deeper into the specifics. The next sentences are suitable for providing an example and developing it in detail. You can make up research studies and quote them in your essay to support your point. At the end of the paragraph, end with a statement that sums up the overall idea of the paragraph and supports the idea you started with. The third paragraph is very similar in structure to the second paragraph. The main objective of this paragraph is to provide either the opposite view of the topic or discuss new ideas that touch on a different perspective of the topic but ultimately support your opinion. The structuring is the same as in the second paragraph, with minute changes. The fourth paragraph is the conclusion of your essay and, just like the introduction, should be minimal. Summing up your essay with a statement supporting your opinion and overall idea is best advised.

Score well on IELTS Nuclear Essay by understanding the Writing task 2 structure above. Add Brownie points for writing answers with facts, examples and evidence. For more related content, head on to LeapScholar blogs. Avail of one-on-one guidance from India’s top IELTS educators from the Leap Scholar Premium course .

Frequently Asked Questions

1. what are the pros and cons of nuclear power.

Ans: Nuclear energy is a widely used method of production of electricity. The benefits of nuclear technology and the main advantages of nuclear power are: a. No production of harmful gases that cause air pollution b. Clean source of energy c. Low cost of fuel d. Long-life once constructed e. A massive amount of energy produced f. Unlike most energy production methods, nuclear energy does not contribute to the increase in global warming

Disadvantages: a. Very high cost of construction of the facility. b. Waste produced is very toxic and requires proper and safe disposal, which is costly. c. If any accident happens, it can have a major impact on everyone and can be devastating. d. Mining of uranium 235, which is nuclear fuel, is very expensive.

2. Does Japan have a plan for dealing with its own nuclear waste problem?

Ans: As per the latest news and research, Japan does not have a proper nuclear waste dumping structure even after the Fukushima disaster in 2011. The Fukushima disaster was caused by the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan in 2011 and caused meltdowns and hydrogen explosions at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Reactor. It was the worst recorded nuclear disaster since Chernobyl. Japan is said to have enough nuclear waste to create nuclear arsenals. In April 2021, Japan declared they would be dumping 1.2 million tonnes of nuclear waste into the sea. This is the same Japan that called the 1993 ocean dumping by Russia “extremely regrettable.” The discharges are bound to begin by 2023, and various legal proceedings and protests have been going on inside Japan against this inhuman decision that would destroy marine life.

3. How many countries have nuclear power plants?

Ans : Currently, 32 countries in the world possess nuclear power plants within their boundaries.

4. Why do people oppose nuclear power?

Ans: Opposition to nuclear power has been a long-standing issue. It is backed by a variety of reasons which are as follows:Nuclear waste is hard to dispose of, and improper disposal affects the radioactivity levels and can disrupt the normal life of people as well as animals. Nuclear technology is another concern of people as the usage of nuclear power plants leads to deeper research into the nuclear field. In today’s world, anything can be weaponised, and the threat of nuclear weapons is one of the drawbacks of nuclear power. This brings the threat of nuclear war and disruption of world peace. Any attack on nuclear power plants by terrorist organisations can result in a massive explosion that can disrupt and destroy human life and increase radioactivity to alarming levels around the site of the explosion.

5. What is the best way to dispose of nuclear waste?

Ans: Nuclear waste needs to be disposed of properly to prevent radioactive issues in the environment. The best methods to dispose of nuclear waste are as follows: a. Incineration : Radioactive waste can be incinerated in large scale incinerators with low production of waste. b. Deep burial: Nuclear waste can be buried deep into the ground as the radioactivity of nuclear waste wears off over time. This method is used for waste that is highly radioactive and will take a longer time to lose its radioactivity. c. Storage: Nuclear waste with low radioactivity is stored by some countries in storage. This is because their radioactive decay takes lesser time and can be disposed of safely once the radiation wears off.

6. Is it possible to produce electricity without using fossil fuels?

Ans: At the moment, 11% of the world’s electricity is produced by nuclear power plants alone. Replacing fossil fuel-based energy with renewable needs to be done gradually and properly. Renewable energy sources such as solar, hydro, and wind will have to be promoted and pushed to create a sustainable future. Renewable energy sources provide cheap energy, do not use up natural resources and fossil fuels and are much cheaper to construct than a nuclear power station.

Know more about IELTS

Get free speaking practice samples.

• Describe a Skill That you can teach other people
• Describe a Place you Visited Where the Air was Polluted
• Describe a Famous Person that you are Interested in
• Describe a Course That You Want to Learn
• Describe a Person who Solved a Problem in Smart Way
• Describe a Prize That You Received
• Describe a Volunteering Experience You Have Had
• Describe a Piece of Good News
• Describe Something you Taught to Your Friend
• Talk About an Interesting Old Person you Met Recently
• Describe a Dinner you Really Enjoyed
• Describe a Story or Novel That Was Interesting to You
• Describe a Time When you Shared Something with Others
• Describe a Toy you Liked in Childhood
• Describe an Interesting Neighbour
• Describe a Competition You Would Like to Take Part In
• Describe an interesting activity that you remember enjoying most in your Primary School
• Describe Your Childhood Friend
• Describe an Object You Find Particularly Beautiful
• Describe a Place Where you are Able to Relax
• Describe a person you know who likes to talk a lot
• Describe a place where you would like to go to relax
• Describe a period when you were busy
• Describe a long-term goal you would like to achieve
• Describe a situation when you helped someone
• Describe a job you would not like to do in the future
• Describe a time when you used a map
• Describe a skill that you learned in your childhood
• Describe an unusual holiday you had
• Describe an exciting activity that you experienced with someone else
• Describe a person who is good at making people feel welcome in his/her home
• Describe A Time You Successfully Did Something Difficult
• Describe Something in Your Country That You Are Interested In
• Describe a Beautiful City
• Describe something you do regularly that helps you work and study better
• Describe a photo that you took and are proud of
• Describe a party that you enjoyed
• Describe a useful object in your home that you can’t live without
• Describe a good advertisement that you think is useful
• Describe an occasion when someone or something made noise
• Describe a sportsperson that you admire
• Describe something that you picked up that was thrown by someone else
• Describe a time that something changed your life in good ways
• Describe a successful person who you once studied or worked with

Get Free Reading Practice Samples

• William henry perkin reading answers
• Why zoos are good reading answers
• Bioluminescence reading answers
• Classifying societies reading answers
• Artificial artists reading answers
• Jargon reading answers
• The Origins of Laughter Reading Answers
• The Innovation of Grocery Stores Reading Answers
• All About the Otter Reading Answers
• The Triune Brain Reading Answers
• Saving the Soil Reading Answers
• Trans Fatty Acids Reading Answers
• A Disaster of Titanic Proportions Reading Answers
• Why Companies Should Welcome Disorder Reading Answers
• Book Review Reading Answers
• Tea Times Reading Answers
• Why are Finland's Schools Successful Reading Answers
• Intelligence and Giftedness Reading Answers
• Animal Minds Parrot Alex Reading Answers
• Crop Growing Skyscrapers Reading Answers
• Secrets of the Swarm Reading Answers
• Walking with Dinosaurs Reading Answers
• The Development of Travel Under the Ocean Reading Answers
• What's so Funny Reading Answers
• The Culture of Chimpanzee Reading Answers
• Clutter Bugs Beware Reading Answer

Get Free Writing Practice Samples

• Advantages and Disadvantages Essay with Sample Answers
• Agree and Disagree Essay with Sample Answers
• Problem Solution Essay Topic with Sample Answers
• Every year several languages die out
• Positive or Negative Development Essay with Sample Answers
• Honesty is the best policy essay
• Online shopping essay
• Environment essay topics
• Prevention is better than cure essay

Get Free Listening Practice Samples

• Family excursions listening answers
• Public library listening answers
• Hiring a public room listening answers
• Notes on social programme listening answers
• Accommodation request form listening answers
• Transport survey listening answers
• Mic house agency repairs listening answers
• Holiday rentals listening answer
• Job enquiry listening answers
• Homestay application listening answers
• Library information listening answers
• Free activities in the burnham area listening answers

IELTS Important Information

• IELTS Exam Date
• IELTS Exam Fee
• IELTS Modules
• IELTS Speaking Practice Test
• IELTS Writing Practice Test
• IELTS Reading Practice Test
• IELTS Listening Practice Test
• IELTS Test Centres
• IELTS Results
• Types of IELTS
• IELTS Pattern
• IELTS Exam Eligibilty
• IELTS Slot Booking
• IELTS Band Score
• IELTS Registration
• IELTS Books
• IELTS Preparation
• IELTS Practice Test
• IELTS Speaking Cue Card
• IELTS Speaking Part 1
• IELTS Writing Task 1
• IELTS Writing Task 2
• Task 1 Pie Chart
• Task 1 Table Chart
• Task 1 Bar Graph
• Task 1 Line Graph
• Task 1 Diagram
• IELTS Computer Based Test
• IELTS Paper Based Test
• IELTS One Skill Retake
• IELTS for UKVI
• IELTS Vocabulary

IELTS Test Centre and Dates in India

• IELTS Test Centre and Dates in Hyderabad
• IELTS Test Centre and Dates in Bangalore
• IELTS Test Centre and Dates in Chennai
• IELTS Test Centre and Dates in Amritsar
• IELTS Centre and Dates in Ludhiana
• IELTS Test Centre and Dates in Mumbai
• IELTS Test Centres and Dates in Ahmedabad
• IELTS Centre and Dates in Delhi
• IELTS Test Centres and Dates in Chandigarh
• IELTS Center and Dates in Pune

Manisha Angre

Experienced IELTS prep trainer and education management industry veteran. Specializes in public speaking, international education, market research, mentoring, and management.

Related Posts

Top IELTS Tips and Tricks For Best IELTS Scores 2024

60+ IELTS Essay Topics 2024: IELTS Writing Task 2 Samples & Tips

IELTS Academic or General: Which is the Easiest Test?

Trending now.

Technology gives nuclear energy next-level safety features

Technological advances, from drones to autonomous driving, have revolutionized safety systems throughout history. The evolution of nuclear energy technology is no exception.

Much of the current U.S. fleet of 93 commercial nuclear reactors were constructed 40 to 70 years ago. These older-design plants have proven their safety, through robust protocols, redundant safety systems, rigorous operator training and a culture of continuous learning and global knowledge sharing.

If an event happens in the nuclear energy industry, it happens to the entire industry. The learnings and lessons are shared by everyone.

“Industrywide collaboration is a primary reason safety has evolved exponentially in the nuclear power industry,” says Kenneth Langdon, Nuclear Development general manager with Energy Northwest . “Our industry benefits from advancements in materials, control schemes, human-machine interface, monitoring and instrumentation technology and nuclear scientific knowledge.”

“Generation II” reactors provide 45% of the U.S.’s carbon-free energy, and they are even safer today because of technology modifications over the years that include reactor internals, advanced fuels and sophisticated instrumentation that monitors every system and process at the facility.

While the current fleet steadily hums along, the industry is on the brink of deploying new advanced nuclear energy designs, such as small modular reactors (SMRs). In the next decade, SMRs could provide a new source of reliable, clean and affordable power. New nuclear technologies are moving away from the large, gigawatt-sized plant – they’re going small – using modular systems that are roughly a third of the size, or less, of a traditional nuclear power plant.

The new “Generation III and IV” reactor designs incorporate decades of advancements in nuclear physics, materials science, systems engineering and digital controls.

There are many proposed SMR technologies, and each has a unique design and safety basis. However, the designs all have similar features, and the safety concept for each SMR is based on passive systems and the inherent safety characteristics of both the fuel and the reactor. This means in the event of a natural disaster, like an earthquake, no operator intervention or external power source is required to safely shut down the reactor and prevent overheating. That’s because passive systems rely on physical phenomena, such as natural circulation, convection, gravity and self-pressurization.

Small modular reactors will produce carbon-free energy that can integrate seamlessly with other clean energy resources to balance the energy grid. This efficient combination of energy production cuts our dependence on fossil-fuel-based power plants.

“SMRs use very little land to generate large amounts of electricity,” says Langdon. “This minimizes the habitat impact needed for new generation.”

Similar to conventional nuclear energy reactors, current SMR designs use nuclear fission technology, harnessing the thermal energy fission produces to generate electricity.

Several SMRs and other advanced reactors are also in development to use tri-structural isotropic particle fuel (TRISO). Each fuel particle contains a kernel of uranium wrapped in multiple layers of carbon and ceramic-based materials. The fuel can withstand extreme heat without degradation. The relatively low power density also prevents meltdown. The Department of Energy calls TRISO “the most advanced fuel on Earth.”

The Northwest Power & Conservation Council, based in Portland, Oregon, says the nationwide push for low-cost, carbon-free energy requires the development of non-greenhouse gas-emitting technologies that can provide annual and winter peak capacity. The council believes the most promising of these technologies in the Northwest are enhanced geothermal, solar photovoltaic, and nuclear small modular reactors.

Energy Northwest has dedicated nearly a decade to studying SMR technology and believes it to be a strong potential for the region. Energy Northwest supported the early stages of the Carbon-Free Power Project with UAMPS and NuScale and has been involved in advancing both of the federal Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program projects since their selection in 2020. Additionally, since 2019 when the Clean Energy Transformation Act was signed, Energy Northwest has ramped up planning for a potential advanced nuclear energy SMR in the Northwest and built a nuclear coalition that includes private and public utilities, labor and tech, all in support of successful development of a commercially operated nuclear facility.

“We have numerous utilities both public power and investor-owned who have contributed funding to support our continued due diligence process,” Langdon said.

A Navy veteran with 35 years of experience in the nuclear energy industry, Langdon notes, “SMR projects within Washington state will utilize the state’s skilled workforce in the transition to 100% clean energy. Once operational, these plants have the potential to employ hundreds of employees within various functions of the organization such as operations, engineering, security, finance and human resources.”

From the inception of nuclear power to the growing need for SMRs, the evolution of the nuclear energy industry underscores the remarkable impact of human ingenuity and innovation. Through  innovations like advanced control systems, passive safety features, and enhanced materials, the latest generation of nuclear reactors is poised to elevate reliability and efficiency to even greater heights.

Energy Northwest  owns and operates diverse electricity-generating resources, including hydro, solar, battery storage and wind projects, and the Columbia Generating Station nuclear power facility. These projects provide enough clean, cost-effective, reliable energy to power more than a million homes each year.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

The Rising Nuclear Threat

Readers respond to the “At the Brink” series of Opinion articles.

It’s Time to Protest Nuclear War Again

A new series from Times Opinion about the threat of nuclear weapons in an unstable world.

To the Editor:

Re the “At the Brink” series (Opinion, March 10):

Thank you for highlighting the existential threat of nuclear weapons.

President Ronald Reagan and the last Soviet president, Mikhail Gorbachev, issued a joint statement in 1985 saying “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” But we squandered the opportunity at the end of the Cold War to abolish these weapons.

Today we are entering an extremely dangerous new arms race and risking direct military confrontation with a revanchist Russia, while other nuclear conflicts loom around the world.

The United States, as you report, is expected to spend up to $2 trillion to “modernize” the entire U.S. nuclear arsenal. More modern weapons are more likely to be used and to take the world over the fateful nuclear threshold.

A group of citizens and experts has proposed an alternative: “Back From the Brink,” a program to reduce nuclear risk. It calls on the United States to 1) declare it will never be the first to use nuclear weapons in a conflict and invite other nations to make similar pledges; 2) take nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert; 3) end the president’s sole, unchecked authority to launch a nuclear attack; 4) cancel plans to “modernize” its nuclear arsenal; and 5) enter negotiations with other nuclear powers toward the verifiable global elimination of nuclear weapons.

An awakened citizenry must demand that our leaders work to end the nuclear threat.

David Keppel Bloomington, Ind.

The “At the Brink” series offers a much-needed reminder of the continuing grave danger of nuclear war. Yet it understates that danger in some respects.

The International Court of Justice warned in 1996 that nuclear weapons “have the potential to destroy all civilization and the entire ecosystem of the planet.” Aside from the death of millions by fire, blast and radioactive fallout, it is now estimated that even in a limited nuclear conflict, the resulting clouds of soot would linger in the atmosphere for years, killing at least two billion people worldwide because of crop failures caused by cold and reduced light.

With both the U.S. and Russia poised to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike on the mere warning of an incoming enemy missile, such a conflict could begin by accident or miscalculation.

We’ve been lucky so far, as when nuclear forces were put on alert by the moon rising over Norway , a bear climbing a perimeter fence at a Minnesota defense installation, a faulty computer chip , a solar storm , and, more than once, computer operators incorrectly reading training programs as depicting real attacks.

The risk of nuclear war will disappear only if the U.S. and other nuclear states join the 2017 U.N. Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons . Despite the opposition of defense industry officials and some in the military, the treaty provides a clear, verifiable means of gradually reducing, then eliminating, this abiding threat to all of humankind.

Stephen Dycus New York The writer, professor emeritus at Vermont Law and Graduate School, has written extensively about nuclear weapons.

After reading the terrifying “At the Brink” series, I could feel my stomach turn whenever the words “American president” were used because Donald Trump was at one time, and could once again, be that president.

It is horrifying to think our fate could be in this man’s hands once again. God help us.

Mike Aguilar Costa Mesa, Calif.

I was astonished to read the first installment in The Times’s series on nuclear war and find just a passing mention of the fact that it was the United States that first used nuclear weapons not once but twice to vaporize two civilian population centers, ostensibly to avoid the massive military casualties that would have resulted from a conventional invasion of Japan in World War II.

This series is unquestionably an important and long overdue piece of opinion and journalistic analysis. But The Times would be gravely irresponsible if it were to fail to educate its younger readers about the significance of our own actions, not just in developing but being the first nation to actually use nuclear weapons — and in the most horrific manner imaginable.

Indeed, not just historical integrity but also the dictates of conscience demanded that an extended piece on our nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki should have been the first installment in this hugely consequential series.

Joel M. Young Placitas, N.M. The writer is a historian and the author of a political thriller about international terrorism.

I would like to thank The Times for publishing the series on the threat of nuclear war.

In the fall of 2022 I and a few other people organized a march and rally in downtown Seattle calling for the universal abolition of nuclear weapons. I poured much energy and well over $10,000 of my own money into this event. We advertised widely in local newspapers.

I didn’t expect to see thousands of people show up, but I had hoped at least 400 or 500 people might take part. Instead about 100 people turned out. I was devastated by the low turnout.

I believe that the only thing that will eliminate nuclear weapons from this earth — and they must be eliminated — is significant numbers of people across the world calling for the universal abolition of nuclear weapons. But people don’t seem to care. If and when a nuclear exchange does happen, they will care intensely, but it will be too late.

Tom Krebsbach Brier, Wash.

The current crisis concerning nuclear weapons is directly related to past events. In 1994 Ukraine voluntarily gave up its nuclear weapons in exchange for the Budapest Memorandum, in which Russia, the U.S. and the U.K. guaranteed Ukraine’s territorial integrity. But agreements between nations are only as good as the willingness to abide by and enforce their terms.

Had Ukraine not given up its nukes, Vladimir Putin would probably not have taken Crimea, much less invaded Ukraine in 2022.

It is probable that Iran and other nations will also acquire nuclear weapons in the near future to deter western and eastern powers from invading their territory. The genie is now out of the bottle, never to return.

Ken Ross Dearborn Heights, Mich.

IELTS General Training

A hub for IELTS GT test takers to help them reach their goal.

Essay 449 – Dangers and benefits of nuclear technology

Gt writing task 2 / essay sample # 449.

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.

Write about the following topic:

We have been living in the nuclear age now for over seven decades. Nuclear technology has the ability to totally destroy the planet, yet the technology has been put to positive use as an energy source and in certain areas of medicine.

To what extent is nuclear technology a danger to life on Earth? What are the benefits of its use?

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

Write at least 250 words.

Model Answer:

The development and utilization of nuclear technology have shaped the modern world for over seven decades. While nuclear power possesses the capacity to devastate the planet, it has also proven beneficial as an energy source and in medical applications. This essay aims to examine the extent to which nuclear technology poses a danger to life on Earth and explore the benefits associated with its use.

Nuclear technology presents inherent risks that can pose a threat to life on Earth. Firstly, the potential for nuclear accidents, such as Chernobyl and Fukushima, demonstrates the catastrophic consequences that can result from the release of radioactive materials. These incidents have caused long-lasting environmental damage and health risks for nearby populations. Moreover, the proliferation of nuclear weapons raises concerns about global security and the potential for devastating conflicts. The destructive power of nuclear weapons and the threat of their use presents a significant danger to life on Earth.

Despite the risks, nuclear technology also offers substantial benefits. One of the most significant advantages is its use as a clean and efficient energy source. Nuclear power plants produce large amounts of electricity without emitting greenhouse gases, contributing to the mitigation of climate change. Additionally, nuclear technology plays a vital role in medicine, particularly in the diagnosis and treatment of various illnesses including cancer, thyroid disorder, bone disorder and neurological disorders. Radioactive isotopes are used in cancer therapy, providing targeted treatments that help save lives and improve patient outcomes.

In conclusion, nuclear technology carries both dangers and benefits. The potential for nuclear disasters and the threat of nuclear weapons highlight the risks associated with this technology. However, the benefits of nuclear power as a clean energy source and its contributions to medicine cannot be ignored. To ensure the safe and responsible use of nuclear technology, stringent regulations and international cooperation are crucial.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Privacy Overview

IELTS Mentor "IELTS Preparation & Sample Answer"

• Skip to content
• Jump to main navigation and login

Nav view search

• IELTS Sample

IELTS Writing Task 2/ Essay Topics with sample answer.

Ielts writing task 2 sample 11 - nuclear technology should be used for constructive purposes, ielts writing task 2/ ielts essay:, you should spend about 40 minutes on this task., do you support that the nuclear technology should be used for constructive purposes.

• IELTS Essay

IELTS Materials

• IELTS Bar Graph
• IELTS Line Graph
• IELTS Table Chart
• IELTS Flow Chart
• IELTS Pie Chart
• IELTS Letter Writing
• Academic Reading

Useful Links

• IELTS Secrets
• Band Score Calculator
• Exam Specific Tips
• Useful Websites
• IELTS Preparation Tips
• Academic Reading Tips
• Academic Writing Tips
• GT Writing Tips
• Listening Tips
• Speaking Tips
• IELTS Grammar Review
• IELTS Vocabulary
• IELTS Cue Cards
• IELTS Life Skills
• Letter Types

• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Copyright Notice
• HTML Sitemap

• IELTS Scores
• Life Skills Test
• Find a Test Centre
• Alternatives to IELTS
• Find Student Housing
• General Training
• Academic Word List
• Topic Vocabulary
• Collocation
• Phrasal Verbs
• Writing eBooks
• Reading eBook
• All eBooks & Courses

Nuclear Power Essays

by Edgars (Basel, CH)

Would you prefer to share this page with others by linking to it?

• Click on the HTML link code below.
• Copy and paste it, adding a note of your own, into your blog, a Web page, forums, a blog comment, your Facebook account, or anywhere that someone would find this page valuable.

Band 7+ eBooks

"I think these eBooks are FANTASTIC!!! I know that's not academic language, but it's the truth!"

Linda, from Italy, Scored Band 7.5

IELTS Modules:

Other resources:.

• All Lessons
• Band Score Calculator
• Writing Feedback
• Speaking Feedback
• Teacher Resources
• Free Downloads
• Recent Essay Exam Questions
• Books for IELTS Prep
• Student Housing
• Useful Links

Recent Articles

IELTS Essay: English as a Global Language

Apr 03, 24 03:49 PM

Alternatives to the IELTS Exam

Mar 22, 24 12:32 PM

Common Questions about the IELTS Speaking Test

Mar 09, 24 05:28 AM

Important pages

IELTS Writing IELTS Speaking IELTS Listening   IELTS Reading All Lessons Vocabulary Academic Task 1 Academic Task 2 Practice Tests

Connect with us

Copyright © 2022- IELTSbuddy All Rights Reserved

IELTS is a registered trademark of University of Cambridge, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia. This site and its owners are not affiliated, approved or endorsed by the University of Cambridge ESOL, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia.

New Nuclear Plants Won’t Solve A.I.’s Energy Problem

Jennifer granholm has floated the idea of giving a.i. data centers their own nuclear power plant..

The Biden administration seems to want nuclear energy to solve some of A.I.’s thorniest problems while A.I. solves some of nuclear energy’s thorniest problems—catapulting both technologies into a glorious techno future. Speaking to Axios on Monday, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm explained that the Department of Energy is looking into the construction of small-scale nuclear power plants at data centers—despite the fact that the construction of an all-new nuclear power plant is so difficult that it hasn’t happened in the United States since 1996.

Evaluating Granholm’s interview in the context both of tech companies’ current initiatives and the Biden administration’s broader push toward nuclear energy, it appears Granholm may consider A.I. to be a potential force multiplier for the push toward a nuclear energy resurgence. But optimism about this high-tech pairing requires the public to ignore the ways the two pieces of technology could also intensify one another’s flaws—with potentially disastrous results.

A.I. and nuclear energy are seen by certain tech gazillionaires, notably OpenAI founder and CEO Sam Altman, as a sort of high-tech chocolate and peanut butter—just the flavor combo humanity needs to kick off some kind of golden age. Altman is chairman of the board of a nuclear energy company called Oklo, and told CNBC last year , “My whole view of the world is the future can be radically better and the two things that we really need for that are to lower the cost of energy and lower the cost of intelligence.”

In fairness, a crop of small nuclear power plants humming along, providing climate-friendly energy to the A.I. sector would be greener than powering ChatGPT and its ilk with fossil fuels. Training A.I. systems with vast cloud computing arrays and running them on similar hardware are notoriously energy-intensive operations, with potentially devastating climate consequences if they’re adopted widely in the coming years.

But “A.I. itself isn’t a problem,” Granholm said, “because A.I. could help to solve the problem.” The Axios story is frustratingly light on detail about what Granholm means here, but the clear implication is that A.I. will apply its infinitude of concentrated computer power to the issues plaguing nuclear power—and perhaps the U.S. electrical grid and power generation in general—and then everything will be hunky-dory. It’s unlikely Granholm came to believe this on her own. According to a report in The Wall Street Journal , last year, a team of Microsoft researchers spent at least six months training a large language model on U.S. nuclear regulations and bureaucracy, in an attempt to design an A.I. system that can zip through the nuclear approvals process.

Using A.I. to fast-track nuclear power plants sounds almost like something A.I. critics would make up to smear the technology as dangerous, but Microsoft is actually doing it, and apparently the Biden administration wants more.

“The nuclear regulatory process is not bureaucratic for the sake of it, as nuclear power plants are highly complex cyber physical systems that indeed take years to not only design, but to construct and to verify and validate,” Heidy Khlaaf, an expert in A.I. safety and safety-critical systems , told me. “Even the most minute of failures in a plant can cascade into a catastrophic or high-risk event. Claiming that there is an A.I. magic wand is a misunderstanding of both nuclear safety engineering, and how A.I. systems fundamentally behave,” Khlaaf continued.

Biden campaigned on the idea that he would “identify the future of nuclear energy,” but thus far, this president has mostly just poured money into it without moving the needle on actual energy production all that much. (For what it’s worth, a new reactor at an existing plant went online last year after about 14 years of construction.)

Granholm’s comments came, however, amid a sort of nuclear power victory lap. She was speaking in Michigan days after her administration announced a $1.52 billion loan guarantee aimed at putting a shuttered nuclear power plant in that state back online .

Viewed as one small step to a nuclear-powered future, this probably sounds promising. More likely, however, it will prove a costly detour on the way to the collapse of nuclear energy—an energy category being desperately propped up by the wishful thinking of a small group that happens to include Altman, the current president, and Bill Gates. (A Gates-founded company called Terrapower claims that a plant it’s constructing in Wyoming will go online in 2028.)

“Reopening closed nuclear plants with subsidies, like what is occurring in Michigan, or keeping existing plants going with subsidies, like what is occurring in California and New York and elsewhere, is a waste of taxpayer money and increases CO2, air pollution, and costs to consumers,” Mark Jacobson, a Stanford University civil and environmental engineer, told me. Past research from Jacobson has clearly demonstrated that at least one use of tax subsidies for nuclear energy was economically and environmentally disastrous compared to simply subsidizing renewable energy. For all its concentrated, reliable, round-the-clock power generation, a nuclear plant is orders of magnitude more complex and controversial than even the ugliest and most expansive solar or wind project—thus the wind and solar construction boom we’re seeing right now.

So if the plan is to not just subsidize nuclear power in pursuit of more A.I. but also to encourage energy companies to use A.I. to slash red tape in pursuit of more nuclear power, what might that look like exactly? Terra Praxis co-CEO Eric Ingersoll did—sort of—explain this to the Journal : “What we’re doing here is training a [large language model] on very specific highly structured documents to produce another highly structured document almost identical to previous documents.”

If you’ve spent much time tinkering with ChatGPT, you’ve probably figured out that even if it’s producing a nice document, it’s not doing so through “reasoning or factual evidence,” as Khlaaf explained. Instead, LLMs use probabilities to fill in gaps with whatever seems likely to go in a given gap, without worrying about issues like, what if nothing should go there? This tendency to make things up is what an A.I. “hallucination” is.

“This is precisely why A.I. algorithms are notoriously flawed, with high error rates observed across applications that require precision, accuracy, and safety-criticality,” Khlaaf told me. You’ve probably seen what these systems can do and, more to the point, what their limits are. There aren’t secret A.I. systems out there that can be trusted with nuclear safety, “even if an A.I. were to only be specifically trained on nuclear documentation,” Khlaaf explained. “Producing highly structured documents for safety-critical systems is not in fact a box-ticking exercise. It is actually a safety process within itself.”

Mike Pearl is a freelance writer and author of The Day It Finally Happens: Alien Contact, Dinosaur Parks, Immortal Humans―and Other Possible Phenomena.