nuclear energy thesis statement

Home > USC Columbia > Engineering and Computing, College of > Nuclear Engineering > Nuclear Engineering Theses and Dissertations

Nuclear Engineering Theses and Dissertations

Theses/dissertations from 2023 2023.

Conceptual Design and Preliminary Safety Analysis of a Proposed Nuclear Microreactor for Mobile Application , A. S. M. Fakhrul Islam

Theses/Dissertations from 2022 2022

Thermal-Hydraulic System Analysis of a Proposed 1 MWth Nuclear Gas Cooled Microreactor , Aaron S. Fernandez

Mechanistic Multiphysics Modeling of Cladding Rupture in Nuclear Fuel Rods During Loss-Of-Coolant Accident Conditions , Kyle Allan Lawrence Gamble

Thermodynamic Assessment of Chromium Corrosion In The Na-K-Mg-U(III, IV) Chloride Salt , Jacob Allen Yingling

Theses/Dissertations from 2021 2021

Experimental Evaluation of Drying Spent Nuclear Fuel for Dry Cask Storage Through Vacuum and Forced Helium Dehydration , Jonathan Ellis Perry

Theses/Dissertations from 2020 2020

Computational Modeling of Radiation Damage in a Multi-Phase Ceramic Waste Form Using MOOSE , Zeyu Chen

Theses/Dissertations from 2019 2019

Modeling Neutron Interaction Inside a 2D Reactor Using Monte Carlo Method , A. S. M. Fakhrul Islam

Implementation of View Factor Model and Radiative Heat Transfer Model in MOOSE , Abdurrahman Ozturk

Characterization and Drying of Oxyhydroxides on Aluminum Clad Spent Nuclear Fuel , Matthew Shalloo

Modeling the Uranium-Silicon Phase Equilibria Based on Computational and Experimental Analysis , Tashiema Lixona Ulrich

Modeling complex oxides: Thermochemical behavior of nepheline-forming Na-Al-Si-B-K-Li-Ca-Mg-Fe-O and hollandite-forming Ba-Cs-Ti-Cr-Al-Fe- Ga-O systems , Stephen A. Utlak

Bison Simulation-Based Identification of Important Design Criteria for U3SI2 Fuels With Composite-Monolithic Duplex Sic Cladding , Jacob A. Yingling

Theses/Dissertations from 2017 2017

Mechanical Characterization and Non-Destructive Evaluation of SiCF-SiCM Composite Tubing with the Impulse Excitation Technique , Nathaniel Truesdale

Theses/Dissertations from 2016 2016

Deformation Induced Martensitic Transformation In 304 Stainless Steels , Junliang Liu

Analysis Of Pellet Cladding Interaction And Creep Of U3Si2 Fuel For Use In Light Water Reactors , Kathryn E. Metzger

Dosimetry, Activation, and Robotic Instrumentation Damage Modeling of the Holtec HI-STORM 100 Spent Nuclear Fuel System , C. Ryan Priest

Theses/Dissertations from 2015 2015

Intercode Advanced Fuels and Cladding Comparison Using BISON, FRAPCON, and FEMAXI Fuel Performance Codes , Aaren Rice

Theses/Dissertations from 2014 2014

Implementation and Evaluation of Fuel Creep Using Advanced Light-Water Reactor Materials in FRAPCON 3.5 , Spencer Carroll

System Analysis with Improved Thermo-Mechanical Fuel Rod Models for Modeling Current and Advanced LWR Materials in Accident Scenarios , Ian Edward Porter

Theses/Dissertations from 2013 2013

Characterization of Two ODS Alloys: 18Cr ODS and 9Cr ODS , Julianne Kay Goddard

Advanced Fuels Modeling: Evaluating the Steady-State Performance of Carbide Fuel in Helium-Cooled Reactors Using FRAPCON 3.4 , Luke H. Hallman

Evolution of Microstructure of Haynes 230 and Inconel 617 Under Mechanical Testing At High Temperatures , Kyle Hrutkay

The Study of Alternate, Solid-Phase Fluorinating Agents for Use in Reactive Gas Recycle of Used Nuclear Fuel , Dillon Inabinett

Pellet Cladding Mechanical Interactions of Ceramic Claddings Fuels Under Light Water Reactor Conditions , Bo-Shiuan Li

Predicting the Crack Response for a Pipe with a Complex Crack , Robert George Lukess

Modified Sodium Diuranate Process For the Recovery of Uranium From Uranium Hexafluoride Transport Cylinder Wash Solution , Austin Dean Meredith

Fabrication and Characterization of Surrogate Fuel Particles Using the Spark Erosion Method , Kathryn Elizabeth Metzger

Application of Computational Fluid Dynamics Methods to Improve Thermal Hydraulic Code Analysis , Dennis Shannon Sentell, Jr.

Theses/Dissertations from 2012 2012

Neutronic Characteristics of Using Zirconium Diboride and Gadolinium in a Westinghouse 17 X 17 Fuel Assembly , Charlie Sironen

Theses/Dissertations from 2011 2011

Thermodynamic and Thermochemical Investigation of Advanced Triso Coated Particle Fuels , Seung Min Lee

The Deposition Characteristics of Zrc On Uo2 Kernels Produced For Advanced Triso Fuels In Gen-Iv Reactors , Ian Edward Porter

Fuel Cycle Modeling Improvements and Multi-Tiered Recycling With A Sodium-Cooled Heterogeneous Innovative Burner Reactor , Carey McIlwaine Read Jr.

Theses/Dissertations from 2010 2010

Characterization of Radiation Fields and Dose Assessment From Fuels Manufacturing For Advanced Fuel Cycles , Benjamin James Hawkins

Feasibility Study of Minor Actinide Transmutation In Light-Water Reactors With Various Am/Cm Separation Efficiencies , Daniell Joseph Tincher

Theses/Dissertations from 2009 2009

Nuclear Fuel Requirements For the American Economy - A Model , Thomas Dexter Curtis

Analysis of U-Zr-C-O Quaternary System for Applications in Advanced ZRC Coated Triso Particles , Jonathan Lee DeGange

Characterization of Uranium Carbide Microspheres In An Inert Zirconium Carbide Matrix For Gas Fast Reactors , Jerome J. Geathers

The Effect of Coating Parameters On Advanced TRISO Fuels With Zirconium Carbide , Dennis Franklin Gehr

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS
• Collections
• Disciplines

Submissions

• University Libraries

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

Press centre

Nuclear technology and applications.

• Climate change
• Environment
• Food and agriculture
• Nuclear science

Nuclear safety and security

• Human and organizational factors
• Governmental, legal and regulatory framework
• Nuclear installation safety
• Radiation protection
• Security of nuclear and other radioactive material
• Radioactive waste and spent fuel management
• Emergency preparedness and response

Safeguards and verification

• Basics of IAEA Safeguards
• Safeguards implementation
• Safeguards legal framework
• Assistance for States
• Member States Support Programmes

Technical Cooperation Programme

• How it works
• How to participate

Coordinated research activities

• Legislative assistance

Key programmes

• Atoms4NetZero
• International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles (INPRO)
• Together for More Women in Nuclear
• NUTEC Plastics
• Peaceful Uses Initiative
• Rays of Hope
• The SMR Platform and Nuclear Harmonization and Standardization Initiative (NHSI)
• Zoonotic Disease Integrated Action (ZODIAC)

Review missions and advisory services

• Catalogue of review missions and advisory services
• Peer review and advisory services calendar

Laboratory services

• Analytical reference materials
• Dosimetry calibration
• Dosimetry auditing
• Inter-laboratory comparisons
• Global Nuclear Safety and Security Network (GNSSN)

Education and training

• Training courses
• Online learning

Scientific and technical publications

• Full catalogue
• Safety Standards
• Nuclear Security Series
• Nuclear Energy Series
• Human Health Series
• Conference Proceedings
• Newsletters
• Nuclear Fusion Journal

General interest material

• IAEA Bulletin
• Nuclear Explained
• Photos (Flickr)
• Photo essays
• Briefs and factsheets
• IAEA Virtual Tours

Official documents

• Information circulars

NUCLEUS information resources

• International Nuclear Information System (INIS)
• Power Reactor Information System (PRIS)
• Advanced Reactors Information System (ARIS)
• Integrated Nuclear Fuel Cycle Information System (iNFCIS)
• Spent Fuel and Radioactive Waste Information System (SRIS)
• Nuclear Data Services (NDS)
• Research Reactor Database (RRDB)

Other resources

• Library – Nuclear Information Services
• Impact stories
• Press releases
• Media advisories
• Director General statements
• Photo library
• Press contacts
• Press enquiries
• General Conference
• Board of Governors
• Scientific and technical events
• Scientific Forum
• Medium-Term Strategy
• Partnerships
• Gender at the IAEA
• Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
• Multilingual content
• List of Member States

Management team

• Director General
• Deputy Directors General

Organizational structure

• Offices Reporting to the Director General
• Technical Cooperation
• Nuclear Energy
• Nuclear Safety and Security
• Nuclear Sciences and Applications
• Working at the IAEA
• Types of Employment

Procurement

• Procurement overview

Search form

You are here, what is nuclear energy the science of nuclear power.

If you would like to learn more about the IAEA’s work, sign up for our weekly updates containing our most important news, multimedia and more.

• Arabic (monthly)
• Chinese (monthly)
• English (weekly)
• French (monthly)
• Russian (monthly)
• Spanish (monthly)

Nuclear energy is a form of energy released from the nucleus, the core of atoms, made up of protons and neutrons. This source of energy can be produced in two ways: fission – when nuclei of atoms split into several parts – or fusion – when nuclei fuse together.

The nuclear energy harnessed around the world today to produce electricity is through nuclear fission, while technology to generate electricity from fusion is at the R&D phase. This article will explore nuclear fission. To learn more about nuclear fusion, click here .

What is nuclear fission?

Nuclear fission is a reaction where the nucleus of an atom splits into two or more smaller nuclei, while releasing energy.

For instance, when hit by a neutron, the nucleus of an atom of uranium-235 splits into two smaller nuclei, for example a barium nucleus and a krypton nucleus and two or three neutrons. These extra neutrons will hit other surrounding uranium-235 atoms, which will also split and generate additional neutrons in a multiplying effect, thus generating a chain reaction in a fraction of a second.

Each time the reaction occurs, there is a release of energy in the form of heat and radiation . The heat can be converted into electricity in a nuclear power plant, similarly to how heat from fossil fuels such as coal, gas and oil is used to generate electricity.

Nuclear fission (Graphic: A. Vargas/IAEA)

How does a nuclear power plant work?

Inside nuclear power plants, nuclear reactors and their equipment contain and control the chain reactions, most commonly fuelled by uranium-235, to produce heat through fission. The heat warms the reactor’s cooling agent, typically water, to produce steam. The steam is then channelled to spin turbines, activating an electric generator to create low-carbon electricity.

Find more details about the different types of nuclear power reactors on this page .

Pressurized water reactors are the most used in the world. (Graphic: A. Vargas/IAEA)

Mining, enrichment and disposal of uranium

Uranium is a metal that can be found in rocks all over the world. Uranium has several naturally occurring isotopes , which are forms of an element differing in mass and physical properties but with the same chemical properties. Uranium has two primordial isotopes: uranium-238 and uranium-235. Uranium-238 makes up the majority of the uranium in the world but cannot produce a fission chain reaction, while uranium-235 can be used to produce energy by fission but constitutes less than 1 per cent of the world’s uranium.

To make natural uranium more likely to undergo fission, it is necessary to increase the amount of uranium-235 in a given sample through a process called uranium enrichment. Once the uranium is enriched, it can be used effectively as nuclear fuel in power plants for three to five years, after which it is still radioactive and has to be disposed of following stringent guidelines to protect people and the environment. Used fuel, also referred to as spent fuel, can also be recycled into other types of fuel for use as new fuel in special nuclear power plants.

What is the Nuclear Fuel Cycle?

The nuclear fuel cycle is an industrial process involving various steps to produce electricity from uranium in nuclear power reactors. The cycle starts with the mining of uranium and ends with the disposal of nuclear waste.

Nuclear waste

The operation of nuclear power plants produces waste with varying levels of radioactivity. These are managed differently depending on their level of radioactivity and purpose. See the animation below to learn more about this topic.

Radioactive Waste Management

Radioactive waste makes up a small portion of all waste. It is the by-product of millions of medical procedures each year, industrial and agricultural applications that use radiation and nuclear reactors that generate around 11 % of global electricity. This animation explains how radioactive waste is managed to protect people and the environment from radiation now and in the future.

The next generation of nuclear power plants, also called innovative advanced reactors , will generate much less nuclear waste than today’s reactors. It is expected that they could be under construction by 2030.

Nuclear power and climate change

Nuclear power is a low-carbon source of energy, because unlike coal, oil or gas power plants, nuclear power plants practically do not produce CO 2 during their operation. Nuclear reactors generate close to one-third of the world’s carbon free electricity and are crucial in meeting climate change goals.

To find out more about nuclear power and the clean energy transition, read this edition of the IAEA Bulletin .

What is the role of the IAEA?

• The IAEA establishes and promotes international standards and guidance for the safe and secure use of nuclear energy to protect people and the environment.
• The IAEA supports existing and new nuclear programmes around the world by providing technical support and knowledge management. Through the Milestones Approach , the IAEA provides technical expertise and guidance to countries that want to develop a nuclear power programme as well as to those who are decommissioning theirs.
• Through its safeguards and verification activities, the IAEA oversees that nuclear material and technologies are not diverted from peaceful use.
• Review missions and advisory services led by the IAEA provide guidance on the activities necessary during the lifetime of production of nuclear energy: from the mining of uranium to the construction, maintenance and decommissioning of nuclear power plants and the management of nuclear waste.
• The IAEA administers a reserve of low enriched uranium (LEU ) in Kazakhstan, which can be used as a last resort by countries that are in urgent need of LEU for peaceful purposes.

This article was first published on iaea.org on 2 August 2021.

Related stories

Nuclear Power Proves its Vital Role as an Adaptable, Reliable Supplier of Electricity during COVID-19

IAEA and NEA-OECD Discuss Key Nuclear Power Developments During Annual Meeting

Clean Energy Ministerial Focuses on Nuclear Future

IAEA's Grossi Calls for Nuclear Power for Net Zero Emissions as Climate ‘Clock is Ticking’

UAE and Belarus Introduced Nuclear Power Last Year. Who is Next?

IAEA and IEA Agree to Boost Cooperation on Nuclear Power for Clean Energy Transition

Related resources

• Nuclear power reactors
• Energy, Electricity and Nuclear Power Estimates for the Period up to 2050
• IAEA Projections for Nuclear Power Through 2050
• Nuclear Power: The Road to a Carbon Free Future
• Nuclear explained
• Nuclear power and climate change: Decarbonization
• Department of Nuclear Energy
• Division of Nuclear Power
• Nuclear fuel cycle
• Uranium production

More on the IAEA

• Privacy Policy
• Logo Usage Guidelines

Scientific resources

• Information Circulars
• Standards and guides
• Safeguards and Additional Protocol

Stay in touch

Nuclear Power: Technical and Institutional Options for the Future (1992)

Chapter: 5 conclusions and recommendations, conclusions and recommendations.

The Committee was requested to analyze the technological and institutional alternatives to retain an option for future U.S. nuclear power deployment.

A premise of the Senate report directing this study is “that nuclear fission remains an important option for meeting our electric energy requirements and maintaining a balanced national energy policy.” The Committee was not asked to examine this premise, and it did not do so. The Committee consisted of members with widely ranging views on the desirability of nuclear power. Nevertheless, all members approached the Committee's charge from the perspective of what would be necessary if we are to retain nuclear power as an option for meeting U.S. electric energy requirements, without attempting to achieve consensus on whether or not it should be retained. The Committee's conclusions and recommendations should be read in this context.

The Committee's review and analyses have been presented in previous chapters. Here the Committee consolidates the conclusions and recommendations found in the previous chapters and adds some additional conclusions and recommendations based upon some of the previous statements. The Committee also includes some conclusions and recommendations that are not explicitly based upon the earlier chapters but stem from the considerable experience of the Committee members.

Most of the following discussion contains conclusions. There also are a few recommendations. Where the recommendations appear they are identified as such by bold italicized type.

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

In 1989, nuclear plants produced about 19 percent of the United States ' electricity, 77 percent of France's electricity, 26 percent of Japan's electricity, and 33 percent of West Germany's electricity. However, expansion of commercial nuclear energy has virtually halted in the United States. In other countries, too, growth of nuclear generation has slowed or stopped. The reasons in the United States include reduced growth in demand for electricity, high costs, regulatory uncertainty, and public opinion. In the United States, concern for safety, the economics of nuclear power, and waste disposal issues adversely affect the general acceptance of nuclear power.

Electricity Demand

Estimated growth in summer peak demand for electricity in the United States has fallen from the 1974 projection of more than 7 percent per year to a relatively steady level of about 2 percent per year. Plant orders based on the projections resulted in cancellations, extended construction schedules, and excess capacity during much of the 1970s and 1980s. The excess capacity has diminished in the past five years, and ten year projections (at approximately 2 percent per year) suggest a need for new capacity in the 1990s and beyond. To meet near-term anticipated demand, bidding by non-utility generators and energy efficiency providers is establishing a trend for utilities acquiring a substantial portion of this new generating capacity from others. Reliance on non-utility generators does not now favor large scale baseload technologies.

Nuclear power plants emit neither precursors to acid rain nor gases that contribute to global warming, like carbon dioxide. Both of these environmental issues are currently of great concern. New regulations to address these issues will lead to increases in the costs of electricity produced by combustion of coal, one of nuclear power's main competitors. Increased costs for coal-generated electricity will also benefit alternate energy sources that do not emit these pollutants.

Major deterrents for new U.S. nuclear plant orders include high capital carrying charges, driven by high construction costs and extended construction times, as well as the risk of not recovering all construction costs.

Construction Costs

Construction costs are hard to establish, with no central source, and inconsistent data from several sources. Available data show a wide range of costs for U.S. nuclear plants, with the most expensive costing three times more (in dollars per kilowatt electric) than the least expensive in the same year of commercial operation. In the post-Three Mile Island era, the cost increases have been much larger. Considerable design modification and retrofitting to meet new regulations contributed to cost increases. From 1971 to 1980, the most expensive nuclear plant (in constant dollars) increased by 30 percent. The highest cost for a nuclear plant beginning commercial operation in the United States was twice as expensive (in constant dollars) from 1981 to 1984 as it was from 1977 to 1980.

Construction Time

Although plant size also increased, the average time to construct a U.S. nuclear plant went from about 5 years prior to 1975 to about 12 years from 1985 to 1989. U.S. construction times are much longer than those in other major nuclear countries, except for the United Kingdom. Over the period 1978 to 1989, the U.S. average construction time was nearly twice that of France and more than twice that of Japan.

Billions of dollars in disallowances of recovery of costs from utility ratepayers have made utilities and the financial community leery of further investments in nuclear power plants. During the 1980s, rate base disallowances by state regulators totaled about $14 billion for nuclear plants, but only about $0.7 billion for non-nuclear plants.

Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for U.S. nuclear plants have increased faster than for coal plants. Over the decade of the 1980s, U.S. nuclear O&M-plus-fuel costs grew from nearly half to about the same as those for fossil fueled plants, a significant shift in relative advantage.

Performance

On average, U.S. nuclear plants have poorer capacity factors compared to those of plants in other Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries. On a lifetime basis, the United States is barely above 60 percent capacity factor, while France and Japan are at 68 percent, and West Germany is at 74 percent. Moreover, through 1988 12 U.S. plants were in the bottom 22. However, some U.S. plants do very well: 3 of the top 22 OECD plants through 1988 were U.S. U.S. plants averaged 65 percent in 1988, 63 percent in 1989, and 68 percent in 1990.

Except for capacity factors, the performance indicators of U.S. nuclear plants have improved significantly over the past several years. If the industry is to achieve parity with the operating performance in other countries, it must carefully examine its failure to achieve its own goal in this area and develop improved strategies, including better management practices. Such practices are important if the generators are to develop confidence that the new generation of plants can achieve the higher load factors estimated by the vendors.

Public Attitudes

There has been substantial opposition to new plants. The failure to solve the high-level radioactive waste disposal problem has harmed nuclear power's public image. It is the Committee's opinion, based upon our experience, that, more recently, an inability of states, that are members of regional compact commissions, to site low-level radioactive waste facilities has also harmed nuclear power's public image.

Several factors seem to influence the public to have a less than positive attitude toward new nuclear plants:

no perceived urgency for new capacity;

nuclear power is believed to be more costly than alternatives;

concerns that nuclear power is not safe enough;

little trust in government or industry advocates of nuclear power;

concerns about the health effects of low-level radiation;

concerns that there is no safe way to dispose of high-level waste; and

concerns about proliferation of nuclear weapons.

The Committee concludes that the following would improve public opinion of nuclear power:

a recognized need for a greater electrical supply that can best be met by large plants;

economic sanctions or public policies imposed to reduce fossil fuel burning;

maintaining the safe operation of existing nuclear plants and informing the public;

providing the opportunity for meaningful public participation in nuclear power issues, including generation planning, siting, and oversight;

better communication on the risk of low-level radiation;

resolving the high-level waste disposal issue; and

assurance that a revival of nuclear power would not increase proliferation of nuclear weapons.

As a result of operating experience, improved O&M training programs, safety research, better inspections, and productive use of probabilistic risk analysis, safety is continually improved. The Committee concludes that the risk to the health of the public from the operation of current reactors in the United States is very small. In this fundamental sense, current reactors are safe. However, a significant segment of the public has a different perception and also believes that the level of safety can and should be increased. The

development of advanced reactors is in part an attempt to respond to this public attitude.

Institutional Changes

The Committee believes that large-scale deployment of new nuclear power plants will require significant changes by both industry and government.

One of the most important factors affecting the future of nuclear power in the United States is its cost in relation to alternatives and the recovery of these capital and operating charges through rates that are charged for the electricity produced. Chapter 2 of this report deals with these issues in some detail. As stated there, the industry must develop better methods for managing the design and construction of nuclear plants. Arrangements among the participants that would assure timely, economical, and high-quality construction of new nuclear plants, the Committee believes, will be prerequisites to an adequate degree of assurance of capital cost recovery from state regulatory authorities in advance of construction. The development of state prudency laws also can provide a positive response to this issue.

The Committee and others are well aware of the increases in nuclear plant construction and operating costs over the last 20 years and the extension of plant construction schedules over this same period. 1 The Committee believes there are many reasons for these increases but is unable to disaggregate the cost effect among these reasons with any meaningful precision.

Like others, the Committee believes that the financial community and the generators must both be satisfied that significant improvements can be achieved before new plants can be ordered. In addition, the Committee believes that greater confidence in the control of costs can be realized with plant designs that are more nearly complete before construction begins, plants that are easier to construct, use of better construction and management methods, and business arrangements among the participants that provide stronger incentives for cost-effective, timely completion of projects.

It is the Committee's opinion, based upon our experience, that the principal participants in the nuclear industry--utilities, architect-engineers, and suppliers –should begin now to work out the full range of contractual arrangements for advanced nuclear power plants. Such arrangements would

increase the confidence of state regulatory bodies and others that the principal participants in advanced nuclear power plant projects will be financially accountable for the quality, timeliness, and economy of their products and services.

Inadequate management practices have been identified at some U.S. utilities, large and small public and private. Because of the high visibility of nuclear power and the responsibility for public safety, a consistently higher level of demonstrated utility management practices is essential before the U.S. public's attitude about nuclear power is likely to improve.

Over the past decade, utilities have steadily strengthened their ability to be responsible for the safety of their plants. Their actions include the formation and support of industry institutions, including the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO). Self-assessment and peer oversight through INPO are acknowledged to be strong and effective means of improving the performance of U.S. nuclear power plants. The Committee believes that such industry self-improvement, accountability, and self-regulation efforts improve the ability to retain nuclear power as an option for meeting U.S. electric energy requirements. The Committee encourages industry efforts to reduce reliance on the adversarial approach to issue resolution.

It is the Committee's opinion, based upon our experience, that the nuclear industry should continue to take the initiative to bring the standards of every American nuclear plant up to those of the best plants in the United States and the world. Chronic poor performers should be identified publicly and should face the threat of insurance cancellations. Every U.S. nuclear utility should continue its full-fledged participation in INPO; any new operators should be required to become members through insurance prerequisites or other institutional mechanisms.

Standardization. The Committee views a high degree of standardization as very important for the retention of nuclear power as an option for meeting U.S. electric energy requirements. There is not a uniformly accepted definition of standardization. The industry, under the auspices of the Nuclear Power Oversight Committee, has developed a position paper on standardization that provides definitions of the various phases of standardization and expresses an industry commitment to standardization. The Committee believes that a strong and sustained commitment by the principal participants will be required to realize the potential benefits of standardization (of families of plants) in the diverse U.S. economy. It is the Committee's opinion, based upon our experience, that the following will be necessary:

Families of standardized plants will be important for ensuring the highest levels of safety and for realizing the potential economic benefits of new nuclear plants. Families of standardized plants will allow standardized approaches to plant modification, maintenance, operation, and training.

Customers, whether utilities or other entities, must insist on standardization before an order is placed, during construction, and throughout the life of the plant.

Suppliers must take standardization into account early in planning and marketing. Any supplier of standardized units will need the experience and resources for a long-term commitment.

Antitrust considerations will have to be properly taken into account to develop standardized plants.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

An obstacle to continued nuclear power development has been the uncertainties in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) licensing process. Because the current regulatory framework was mainly intended for light water reactors (LWR) with active safety systems and because regulatory standards were developed piecemeal over many years, without review and consolidation, the regulations should be critically reviewed and modified (or replaced with a more coherent body of regulations) for advanced reactors of other types. The Committee recommends that NRC comprehensively review its regulations to prepare for advance reactors, in particular. LWRs with passive safety features. The review should proceed from first principles to develop a coherent, consistent set of regulations.

The Committee concludes that NRC should improve the quality of its regulation of existing and future nuclear power plants, including tighter management controls over all of its interactions with licensees and consistency of regional activities. Industry has proposed such to NRC.

The Committee encourages efforts by NRC to reduce reliance on the adversarial approach to issue resolution. The Committee recommends that NRC encourage industry self-improvement, accountability, and self-regulation initia tives . While federal regulation plays an important safety role, it must not be allowed to detract from or undermine the accountability of utilities and their line management organizations for the safety of their plants.

It is the Committee's expectation that economic incentive programs instituted by state regulatory bodies will continue for nuclear power plant operators. Properly formulated and administered, these programs should improve the economic performance of nuclear plants, and they may also enhance safety. However, they do have the potential to provide incentives counter to safety. The Committee believes that such programs should focus

on economic incentives and avoid incentives that can directly affect plant safety. On July 18, 1991 NRC issued a Nuclear Regulatory Commission Policy Statement which expressed concern that such incentive programs may adversely affect safety and commits NRC to monitoring such programs. A joint industry/state study of economic incentive programs could help assure that such programs do not interfere with the safe operation of nuclear power plants.

It is the Committee's opinion, based upon our experience, that NRC should continue to exercise its federally mandated preemptive authority over the regulation of commercial nuclear power plant safety if the activities of state government agencies (or other public or private agencies) run counter to nuclear safety. Such activities would include those that individually or in the aggregate interfere with the ability of the organization with direct responsibility for nuclear plant safety (the organization licensed by the Commission to operate the plant) to meet this responsibility. The Committee urges close industry-state cooperation in the safety area.

It is also the Committee's opinion, based upon our experience, that the industry must have confidence in the stability of NRC's licensing process. Suppliers and utilities need assurance that licensing has become and will remain a manageable process that appropriately limits the late introduction of new issues.

It is likely that, if the possibility of a second hearing before a nuclear plant can be authorized to operate is to be reduced or eliminated, legislation will be necessary. The nuclear industry is convinced that such legislation will be required to increase utility and investor confidence to retain nuclear power as an option for meeting U.S. electric energy requirements. The Committee concurs.

It is the Committee's opinion, based upon our experience, that potential nuclear power plant sponsors must not face large unanticipated cost increases as a result of mid-course regulatory changes, such as backfits. NRC 's new licensing rule, 10 CFR Part 52, provides needed incentives for standardized designs.

Industry and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

The U.S. system of nuclear regulation is inherently adversarial, but mitigation of unnecessary tension in the relations between NRC and its nuclear power licensees would, in the Committee's opinion, improve the regulatory environment and enhance public health and safety. Thus, the Committee commends the efforts by both NRC and the industry to work

more cooperatively together and encourages both to continue and strengthen these efforts.

Department of Energy

Lack of resolution of the high-level waste problem jeopardizes future nuclear power development. The Committee believes that the legal status of the Yucca Mountain site for a geologic repository should be resolved soon, and that the Department of Energy's (DOE) program to investigate this site should be continued. In addition, a contingency plan must be developed to store high-level radioactive waste in surface storage facilities pending the availability of the geologic repository.

Environmental Protection Agency

The problems associated with establishing a high-level waste site at Yucca Mountain are exacerbated by the requirement that, before operation of a repository begins, DOE must demonstrate to NRC that the repository will perform to standards established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). NRC's staff has strongly questioned the workability of these quantitative requirements, as have the National Research Council's Radioactive Waste Management Board and others. The Committee concludes that the EPA standard for disposal of high-level waste will have to be reevaluated to ensure that a standard that is both adequate and feasible is applied to the geologic waste repository.

Administration and Congress

The Price-Anderson Act will expire in 2002. The Committee sought to discover whether or not such protection would be required for advanced reactors. The clear impression the Committee received from industry representatives was that some such protection would continue to be needed, although some Committee members believe that this was an expression of desire rather than of need. At the very least, renewal of Price-Anderson in 2002 would be viewed by the industry as a supportive action by Congress and would eliminate the potential disruptive effect of developing alternative liability arrangements with the insurance industry. Failure to renew Price-Anderson in 2002 would raise a new impediment to nuclear power plant orders as well as possibly reduce an assured source of funds to accident victims.

The Committee believes that the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) approach to safety investigations, as a substitute for the present NRC approach, has merit. In view of the infrequent nature of the activities of such a committee, it may be feasible for it to be established on an ad hoc basis and report directly to the NRC chairman. Therefore, the Committee recommends that such a small safety review entity be established. Before the establishment of such an activity, its charter should be carefully defined, along with a clear delineation of the classes of accidents it would investigate. Its location in the government and its reporting channels should also be specified. The function of this group would parallel those of NTSB. Specifically, the group would conduct independent public investigations of serious incidents and accidents at nuclear power plants and would publish reports evaluating the causes of these events. This group would have only a small administrative structure and would bring in independent experts, including those from both industry and government, to conduct its investigations.

It is the Committee's opinion, based upon our experience, that responsible arrangements must be negotiated between sponsors and economic regulators to provide reasonable assurances of complete cost recovery for nuclear power plant sponsors. Without such assurances, private investment capital is not likely to flow to this technology.

In Chapter 2 , the Committee addressed the non-recovery of utility costs in rate proceedings and concluded that better methods of dealing with this issue must be established. The Committee was impressed with proposals for periodic reviews of construction progress and costs--“rolling prudency” determinations--as one method for managing the risks of cost recovery. The Committee believes that enactment of such legislation could remove much of the investor risk and uncertainty currently associated with state regulatory treatment of new power plant construction, and could therefore help retain nuclear power as an option for meeting U.S. electric energy requirements.

On balance, however, unless many states adopt this or similar legislation, it is the Committee's view that substantial assurances probably cannot be given, especially in advance of plant construction, that all costs incurred in building nuclear plants will be allowed into rate bases.

The Committee notes the current trend toward economic deregulation of electric power generation. It is presently unclear whether this trend is compatible with substantial additions of large-scale, utility-owned, baseload generating capacity, and with nuclear power plants in particular.

It is the Committee's opinion, based upon our experience, that regional low-level radioactive waste compact commissions must continue to establish disposal sites.

The institutional challenges are clearly substantial. If they are to be met, the Committee believes that the Federal government must decide, as a matter of national policy, whether a strong and growing nuclear power program is vital to the economic, environmental, and strategic interests of the American people. Only with such a clearly stated policy, enunciated by the President and backed by the Congress through appropriate statutory changes and appropriations, will it be possible to effect the institutional changes necessary to return the flow of capital and human resources required to properly employ this technology.

Alternative Reactor Technologies

Advanced reactors are now in design or development. They are being designed to be simpler, and, if design goals are realized, these plants will be safer than existing reactors. The design requirements for the advanced reactors are more stringent than the NRC safety goal policy. If final safety designs of advanced reactors, and especially those with passive safety features, are as indicated to this Committee, an attractive feature of them should be the significant reduction in system complexity and corresponding improvement in operability. While difficult to quantify, the benefit of improvements in the operator 's ability to monitor the plant and respond to system degradations may well equal or exceed that of other proposed safety improvements.

The reactor concepts assessed by the Committee were the large evolutionary LWRs, the mid-sized LWRs with passive safety features, 2 the Canadian deuterium uranium (CANDU) heavy water reactor, the modular high-temperature gas-cooled reactor (MHTGR), the safe integral reactor (SIR), the process inherent ultimate safety (PIUS) reactor, and the liquid metal reactor (LMR). The Committee developed the following criteria for comparing these reactor concepts:

safety in operation;

economy of construction and operation;

suitability for future deployment in the U.S. market;

fuel cycle and environmental considerations;

safeguards for resistance to diversion and sabotage;

technology risk and development schedule; and

amenability to efficient and predictable licensing.

With regard to advanced designs, the Committee reached the following conclusions.

Large Evolutionary Light Water Reactors

The large evolutionary LWRs offer the most mature technology. The first standardized design to be certified in the United States is likely to be an evolutionary LWR. The Committee sees no need for federal research and development (R&D) funding for these concepts, although federal funding could accelerate the certification process.

Mid-sized Light Water Reactors with Passive Safety Features

The mid-sized LWRs with passive safety features are designed to be simpler, with modular construction to reduce construction times and costs, and to improve operations. They are likely the next to be certified.

Because there is no experience in building such plants, cost projections for the first plant are clearly uncertain. To reduce the economic uncertainties it will be necessary to demonstrate the construction technology and improved operating performance. These reactors differ from current reactors in construction approach, plant configuration, and safety features. These differences do not appear so great as to require that a first plant be built for NRC certification. While a prototype in the traditional sense will not be required, the Committee concludes that no first-plant mid-sized LWR with passive safety features is likely to be certified and built without government incentives, in the form of shared funding or financial guarantees.

CANDU Heavy Water Reactor

The Committee judges that the CANDU ranks below the advanced mid-sized LWRs in market potential. The CANDU-3 reactor is farther along in design than the mid-sized LWRs with passive safety features. However, it has not entered NRC's design certification process. Commission requirements are complex and different from those in Canada so that U.S. certification

could be a lengthy process. However, the CANDU reactor can probably be licensed in this century.

The heavy water reactor is a mature design, and Canadian entry into the U.S. marketplace would give added insurance of adequate nuclear capacity if it is needed in the future. But the CANDU does not offer advantages sufficient to justify U.S. government assistance to initiate and conduct its licensing review.

Modular High-Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor

The MHTGR posed a difficult set of questions for the Committee. U.S. and foreign experience with commercial gas-cooled reactors has not been good. A consortium of industry and utility people continue to promote federal funding and to express interest in the concept, while none has committed to an order.

The reactor, as presently configured, is located below ground level and does not have a conventional containment. The basic rationale of the designers is that a containment is not needed because of the safety features inherent in the properties of the fuel.

However, the Committee was not convinced by the presentations that the core damage frequency for the MHTGR has been demonstrated to be low enough to make a containment structure unnecessary. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory estimates that data to confirm fuel performance will not be available before 1994. The Committee believes that reliance on the defense-in-depth concept must be retained, and accurate evaluation of safety will require evaluation of a detailed design.

A demonstration plant for the MHTGR could be licensed slightly after the turn of the century, with certification following demonstration of successful operation. The MHTGR needs an extensive R&D program to achieve commercial readiness in the early part of the next century. The construction and operation of a first plant would likely be required before design certification. Recognizing the opposite conclusion of the MHTGR proponents, the Committee was not convinced that a foreseeable commercial market exists for MHTGR-produced process heat, which is the unique strategic capability of the MHTGR. Based on the Committee 's view on containment requirements, and the economics and technology issues, the Committee judged the market potential for the MHTGR to be low.

The Committee believes that no funds should be allocated for development of high-temperature gas-cooled reactor technology within the commercial nuclear power development budget of DOE.

Safe Integral Reactor and Process Inherent Ultimate Safety Reactor

The other advanced light water designs the Committee examined were the United Kingdom and U.S. SIR and the Swedish PIUS reactor.

The Committee believes there is no near-term U.S. market for SIR and PIUS. The development risks for SIR and PIUS are greater than for the other LWRs and CANDU-3. The lack of operational and regulatory experience for these two is expected to significantly delay their acceptance by utilities. SIR and PIUS need much R&D, and a first plant will probably be required before design certification is approved.

The Committee concluded that no Federal funds should be allocated for R&D on SIR or PIUS.

Liquid Metal Reactor

LMRs offer advantages because of their potential ability to provide a long-term energy supply through a nearly complete use of uranium resources. Were the nuclear option to be chosen, and large scale deployment follow, at some point uranium supplies at competitive prices might be exhausted. Breeder reactors offer the possibility of extending fissionable fuel supplies well past the next century. In addition, actinides, including those from LWR spent fuel, can undergo fission without significantly affecting performance of an advanced LMR, transmuting the actinides to fission products, most of which, except for technetium, carbon, and some others of little import, have half-lives very much shorter than the actinides. (Actinides are among the materials of greatest concern in nuclear waste disposal beyond about 300 years.) However, substantial further research is required to establish (1) the technical and the economic feasibility of recycling in LMRs actinides recovered from LWR spent fuel, and (2) whether high-recovery recycling of transuranics and their transmutation can, in fact, benefit waste disposal. Assuming success, it would still be necessary to dispose of high-level waste, although the waste would largely consist of significantly shorter-lived fission products. Special attention will be necessary to ensure that the LMR's reprocessing facilities are not vulnerable to sabotage or to theft of plutonium.

The unique property of the LMR, fuel breeding, might lead to a U.S. market, but only in the long term. From the viewpoint of commercial licensing, it is far behind the evolutionary and mid-sized LWRs with passive safety features in having a commercial design available for review. A federally funded program, including one or more first plants, will be required before any LMR concept would be accepted by U.S. utilities.

Net Assessment

The Committee could not make any meaningful quantitative comparison of the relative safety of the various advanced reactor designs. The Committee believes that each of the concepts considered can be designed and operated to meet or closely approach the safety objectives currently proposed for future, advanced LWRs. The different advanced reactor designs employ different mixes of active and passive safety features. The Committee believes that there currently is no single optimal approach to improved safety. Dependence on passive safety features does not, of itself, ensure greater safety. The Committee believes that a prudent design course retains the historical defense-in-depth approach.

The economic projections are highly uncertain, first, because past experience suggests higher costs, longer construction times, and lower availabilities than projected and, second, because of different assumptions and levels of maturity among the designs. The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) data, which the Committee believes to be more reliable than that of the vendors, indicate that the large evolutionary LWRs are likely to be the least costly to build and operate on a cost per kilowatt electric or kilowatt hour basis, while the high-temperature gas-cooled reactors and LMRs are likely to be the most expensive. EPRI puts the mid-sized LWRs with passive safety features between the two extremes.

Although there are definite differences in the fuel cycle characteristics of the advanced reactors, fuel cycle considerations did not offer much in the way of discrimination among reactors, nor did safeguards and security considerations, particularly for deployment in the United States. However, the CANDU (with on-line refueling and heavy water) and the LMR (with reprocessing) will require special attention to safeguards.

SIR, MHTGR, PIUS, and LMR are not likely to be deployed for commercial use in the United States, at least within the next 20 years. The development required for commercialization of any of these concepts is substantial.

It is the Committee's overall assessment that the large evolutionary LWRs and the mid-sized LWRs with passive safety features rank highest relative to the Committee 's evaluation criteria. The evolutionary reactors could be ready for deployment by 2000, and the mid-sized could be ready for initial plant construction soon after 2000. The Committee's evaluations and overall assessment are summarized in Figure 5-1 .

FIGURE 5.1 Assessment of advanced reactor technologies.

This table is an attempt to summarize the Committee's qualitative rankings of selected reactor types against each other , without reference either to an absolute standard or to the performance of any other energy resource options, This evaluation was based on the Committee's professional judgment.

The Committee has concluded the following:

Safety and cost are the most important characteristics for future nuclear power plants.

LWRs of the large evolutionary and the mid-sized advanced designs offer the best potential for competitive costs (in that order).

Safety benefits among all reactor types appear to be about equal at this stage in the design process. Safety must be achieved by attention to all failure modes and levels of design by a multiplicity of safety barriers and features. Consequently, in the absence of detailed engineering design and because of the lack of construction and operating experience with the actual concepts, vendor claims of safety superiority among conceptual designs cannot be substantiated.

LWRs can be deployed to meet electricity production needs for the first quarter of the next century:

The evolutionary LWRs are further developed and, because of international projects, are most complete in design. They are likely to be the first plants certified by NRC. They are expected to be the first of the advanced reactors available for commercial use and could operate in the 2000 to 2005 time frame. Compared to current reactors, significant improvements in safety appear likely. Compared to recently completed high-cost reactors, significant improvements also appear possible in cost if institutional barriers are resolved. While little or no federal funding is deemed necessary to complete the process, such funding could accelerate the process.

Because of the large size and capital investment of evolutionary reactors, utilities that might order nuclear plants may be reluctant to do so. If nuclear power plants are to be available to a broader range of potential U.S. generators, the development of the mid-sized plants with passive safety features is important. These reactors are progressing in their designs, through DOE and industry funding, toward certification in the 1995 to 2000 time frame. The Committee believes such funding will be necessary to complete the process. While a prototype in the traditional sense will not be required, federal funding will likely be required for the first mid-sized LWR with passive safety features to be ordered.

Government incentives, in the form of shared funding or financial guarantees, would likely accelerate the next order for a light water plant. The Committee has not addressed what type of government assistance should be provided nor whether the first advanced light water plant should be a large evolutionary LWR or a mid-sized passive LWR.

The CANDU-3 reactor is relatively advanced in design but represents technology that has not been licensed in the United States. The Committee did not find compelling reasons for federal funding to the vendor to support the licensing.

SIR and PIUS, while offering potentially attractive safety features, are unlikely to be ready for commercial use until after 2010. This alone may limit their market potential. Funding priority for research on these reactor systems is considered by the Committee to be low.

MHTGRs also offer potential safety features and possible process heat applications that could be attractive in the market place. However, based on the extensive experience base with light water technology in the United States, the lack of success with commercial use of gas technology, the likely higher costs of this technology compared with the alternatives, and the substantial development costs that are still required before certification, 3 the Committee concluded that the MHTGR had a low market potential. The Committee considered the possibility that the MHTGR might be selected as the new tritium production reactor for defense purposes and noted the vendor association's estimated reduction in development costs for a commercial version of the MHTGR. However, the Committee concluded, for the reasons summarized above, that the commercial MHTGR should be given low priority for federal funding.

LMR technology also provides enhanced safety features, but its uniqueness lies in the potential for extending fuel resources through breeding. While the market potential is low in the near term (before the second quarter of the next century), it could be an important long-term technology, especially if it can be demonstrated to be economic. The Committee believes that the LMR should have the highest priority for long-term nuclear technology development.

The problems of proliferation and physical security posed by the various technologies are different and require continued attention. Special attention will need to be paid to the LMR.

Alternative Research and Development Programs

The Committee developed three alternative R&D programs, each of which contains three common research elements: (1) reactor research using federal facilities. The experimental breeder reactor-II, hot fuel examination facility/south, and fuel manufacturing facility are retained for the LMR; (2) university research programs; and (3) improved performance and life extension programs for existing U.S. nuclear power plants.

The Committee concluded that federal support for development of a commercial version of the MHTGR should be a low priority. However, the fundamental design strategy of the MHTGR is based upon the integrity of the fuel (=1600°C) under operation and accident conditions. There are other potentially significant uses for such fuel, in particular, space propulsion. Consequently, the Committee believes that DOE should consider maintaining a coated fuel particle research program within that part of DOE focused on space reactors.

Alternative 1 adds funding to assist development of the mid-sized LWRs with passive safety features. Alternative 2 adds a LMR development program and associated facilities--the transient reactor test facility, the zero power physics reactor, the Energy Technology Engineering Center, and either the hot fuel examination facility/north in Idaho or the Hanford hot fuel examination facility. This alternative would also include limited research to examine the feasibility of recycling actinides from LWR spent fuel, utilizing the LMR. Finally, Alternative 3 adds the fast flux test facility and increases LMR funding to accelerate reactor and integral fast reactor fuel cycle development and examination of actinide recycle of LWR spent fuel.

None of the three alternatives contain funding for development of the MHTGR, SIR, PIUS, or CANDU-3.

Significant analysis and research is required to assess both the technical and economic feasibility of recycling actinides from LWR spent fuel. The Committee notes that a study of separations technology and transmutation systems was initiated in 1991 by DOE through the National Research Council's Board on Radioactive Waste Management.

It is the Committee's judgment that Alternative 2 should be followed because it:

provides adequate support for the most promising near-term reactor technologies;

provides sufficient support for LMR development to maintain the technical capabilities of the LMR R&D community;

would support deployment of LMRs to breed fuel by the second quarter of the next century should that be needed; and

would maintain a research program in support of both existing and advanced reactors.

The construction of nuclear power plants in the United States is stopping, as regulators, reactor manufacturers, and operators sort out a host of technical and institutional problems.

This volume summarizes the status of nuclear power, analyzes the obstacles to resumption of construction of nuclear plants, and describes and evaluates the technological alternatives for safer, more economical reactors. Topics covered include:

• Institutional issues—including regulatory practices at the federal and state levels, the growing trends toward greater competition in the generation of electricity, and nuclear and nonnuclear generation options.
• Critical evaluation of advanced reactors—covering attributes such as cost, construction time, safety, development status, and fuel cycles.

Finally, three alternative federal research and development programs are presented.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

Nuclear Energy Benefits and Demerits Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Thesis statement, background information, analysis of nuclear energy, implications, conclusions, reference list.

Climate change concerns due to increased emission of carbon and other green house gases into the atmosphere coupled with the ever increasing fuel prices has led to the need for development of other forms of green energy to satisfy the increasing global energy demand.

Over the past two decades, there have been increased efforts by countries and the international community to develop more efficient energy. There has also been increased government involvement through green energy legislation, incentives, funding and commercialization to support the development of green energy.

In 2008 for example, green energy contributed to about 19% of the world’s total energy consumption. The mainstream forms of green energy have included solar energy, wind power, biomass, hydropower, geothermal energy and nuclear energy. However, nuclear energy has been surrounded by many debates about its sustainability and efficiency.

Its exploitation has therefore remained in the developed countries where renewable technologies are more advanced. The paper takes an analysis of the benefits and demerits of the nuclear energy. It discusses the cost of operation of nuclear energy as well as environmental, health, political and proliferation impacts of nuclear energy.

The aim of the research is to provide substantial proof that nuclear energy is not efficient and sustainable. The research aims at providing a deeper understanding of the factors that make nuclear energy production too costly to be considered as one of green energy.

Nuclear power generation is cost-ineffective and therefore is not sustainable. Nuclear energy can not provide for long term solutions that the international community is aiming to achieve and is also bound to cause many negative consequence.

Limited supplies of oil as well as coal has created the need to develop nuclear power plants to help achieve potential efficient energy that would be used to supplement the current energy production and to substitute the non-renewable more inefficient energy.

Nuclear energy has remained the most debated form of energy and its exploitation has been limited. It is often argued that nuclear power could provide more environmentally friendly energy; however, others have argued that nuclear power production releases carbon dioxide which is almost comparable to non-green energy sources.

It is also argued that the whole process and the impacts of nuclear energy production make the cost unsustainable. It is mostly exploited by developed countries like France, Germany, Japan, and the US among other countries with France taking the lead in nuclear energy consumption.

Currently, 53 new nuclear power plants are being built and the number is expected to increase by 500 in 2030(World Nuclear Association 2010). So far, 442 nuclear reactors have been built are in operation worldwide (World Nuclear Association 2010).

Developed countries are considering developing a nuclear-fusion plant which is expected to be less dangerous as compared to the existing uranium-fueled plants; however, this is projected to take around 20 years before it is finally completed.

Currently, nuclear power contributes around 6% of the global energy and 50% of this is generated by France, Japan and the US (World Nuclear Association 2010).

Uranium, which is the major raw material, occurs in averagely small quantities and in a few regions across the globe. The world’s uranium supply is estimated to last for about 83.6-100 years and given the annual 2.7% increase in global electricity consumption, the supply is projected to last for only 44-50 years (Sovacool 2010, 374).

The global uranium production is increasing. In 2010 for example, uranium production increased by about 6%. Meanwhile, uranium production in Australia and Canada is on the decline by around -26% and -4% respectively (Diesendorf and Mudd 2007, 3).

However, the Australian Department of energy predicts uranium production to double in the next four years. The US has also had a steady decline in uranium production such that in 2003, it was only able to produce 5% of its uranium requirements (Diesendorf and Mudd 2007, 3).

However, it is good news that uranium production in other regions such as Kazakhstan is increasing. The country has 19% of the global uranium reserves and currently supplies Russia, Japan, China, France, South Korea, India, Canada and the US.

Other countries that have significant uranium deposits include Australia, Russia, Namibia, Brazil, Czech Republic, South Africa and Niger (Diesendorf and Mudd 2007, 3).

Nuclear energy is one of the most energy efficient in terms of carbon emission into the atmosphere. Nuclear power plants only emit very little amounts of greenhouse gases through water vapour.

This could greatly help countries and the world as a whole achieve their emission reduction targets. In the UK for example, the Committee on Climate Change reported that nuclear generation is the most cost-effective means of achieving low-carbon power in the country by 2020 (World Nuclear News 2011).

Nuclear power plants consume less fuel as compared to other power plants which burn more fossil fuels to produce electricity. Besides, one tonne of uranium is able to produce more energy which is produced by burning millions of tonnes of coal or barrels of oil.

The US is even considering building nuclear-powered ships to reduce the cost of fuel and to also achieve low carbon emission into the atmosphere.

Nuclear-powered ships in the navy would be more cost-effective considering that the oil prices continue to increase at average rate of 1.7% (Congress of the United States 2011). According to Congress of the United States, adopting nuclear-powered ships in the US navy could save about 19% on fuel costs (Congress of the United States 2011).

Nuclear energy production also reduces the vulnerability to energy supply disruptions that is currently experienced in the oil industry. This implies that it could increase energy security since it reduces dependence on imported fuel (Sovacool 2008, 2950).

Disadvantage

Despite such key advantages, nuclear power has several serious demerits that make it less beneficial to countries which adopt the technology.

The available reactors majorly are fed on enriched uranium. 5-7 tonnes of processed uranium are only able to produce one tonne of useable fuel (Diesendorf and Mudd 2007, 6). The depleted uranium is then stored as waste. To generate nuclear power from uranium waste, there has to be reprocessing facilities to help in recycling the actinides.

Extraction of Uranium ore which is the major raw material also leads to the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The extraction processes of the ore produces about 10-50 tonnes of CO 2 for each tonne of uranium oxide ((Mackenzie 1977, 469).

An average nuclear power plant which produces 1000MW requires about 200 tonnes of the material annually. This implies that mining uranium oxide could produce about 2,000-10,000 tonnes of CO 2 in a year (Mackenzie 1977, 467).

Besides, carbon is also released into the atmosphere during the transportation of uranium oxide to nuclear power plants (Diesendorf and Mudd 2007, 7). This means that whole process is not energy efficient as is perceived by most people.

Leaky pipes in the enrichment facilities of reactors contribute to the emission of chlorofluorocarbon which causes ozone depletion in the stratosphere. In my opinion, nuclear power should not be classified under green energy since it is definitely not clean.

Taking a clear analysis of nuclear fuel cycle of nuclear power production, we realize that nuclear energy production processes utilises large amounts of fossil energy throughout its stages. These stages include the mining process, uranium milling and the building of nuclear reactors as well as cooling towers.

There is also the robotic decommissioning which comes at the end of the operation lifetime of the plants usually after 20-40 years as a result of the intense radioactive reactor (Center for Energy Researches 2011).

Transportation as well as the long-term storage of the large amounts of radioactive waste also contributes to the large quantities of fossil fuel consumption.

Building a nuclear power plant is usually very expensive although there has always been a misconception that construction of a nuclear power plant is cheap. In building a nuclear plant, there are usually the capital costs, the management as well as the operation costs.

In addition, there is the high safety cost. A nuclear reactor currently costs around $4-$10 billion and the Generation IV reactors which are more energy efficient, safer and less water intensive are expected to cost more (Congress of the United States 2011).

In addition, the technology will only be commercially viable by 2030. The construction of one plant could take up to 20 years meaning that it would only operate for about 25 years before uranium is depleted.

Nuclear power remains a very expensive energy resource considering the compensation fee in case of a disaster. The compensation fee could amount to trillions of dollars. Japan’s Fukushima disaster which occurred in March this year is a key example of the safety risks expected from nuclear energy production.

Many people lost their lives while some people were evacuated from their homes to escape prospective deaths. The total cost of damage from the Fukushima disaster was estimated to be about $300 billion (Bing, Fahey, Heintz, Rusticci and Yuasa, 2011).

Over two months down the line, engineers are still trying to bring the plant under control. This has raised more questions on the future risks of atomic power generations. Nuclear explosions can be very destructive thus making the full cost of insurance to be extremely high.

This means that nuclear energy production will be more expensive as compared to fossil fuel. For example, a worst-case accident that is expected to occur in a German nuclear plant has been approximated that could cost around $11 trillion.

On the contrary, the mandatory insurance for nuclear reactors is $3.65 billion (Bing, Fahey, Heintz, Rusticci and Yuasa, 2011).

One common thing in the nuclear reactors despite their variations in generations as well as design is that all of them use water as a coolant. Water is also very important as it helps produce the steam used to spin turbines to produce electricity.

Reactor’s reliance on water to generate electricity is making the nuclear power plants vulnerable to the impacts of climate change (Diesendorf and Mudd 2007, 3). Drought as well as the increasing water scarcity is creating new constraints on nuclear energy production.

Nuclear reactors continuously release millions of radioactive isotopes into the atmosphere annually and they are normally not regulated since they are considered to be biologically inconsequential.

The gases include argon, xenon as well as krypton. These noble gases can be easily inhaled by those living around the nuclear reactors and move to the fatty tissues.

Considering that noble gases are normally fat-insoluble and that they discharge high-energy gamma radiation, they can possibly cause mutation of genes particularly in the sperm as well as eggs therefore resulting into genetic disease. Sustainable storage of radioactive waste from the existing 442 nuclear power plants is already a major challenge.

The Yucca Mountain that had been chosen as a possible site for as a repository for high-level radioactive waste in the US in 2004 was subsequently disqualified due to potential earthquake in the mountain meaning that most radioactive waste will remain in the cooling pools and the reactor cores (Caldecott 2005).

Radioactive materials contained in the cooling pools are more exposed to catastrophic attacks by terrorist groups. This could certainly unleash an inferno which would in turn release large amounts of deadly radiations. The results may be significantly worse than that experienced in the Chernobyl disaster.

Those who inhale nuclear waste that is in the cooling pools are likely to suffer from various cancers which include thyroid, bone, breast as well as testicular and liver cancer; sarcoma and a variety of genetic diseases in the human body.

The Chernobyl disaster which occurred in Ukraine in 1986 has caused over 2000 children in their neighbouring Belarus to have their thyroids removed as a result of thyroid cancer (Caldecott 2005). Besides, the cost of storage as well as monitoring the radioactive waste for several years is very high.

Nuclear energy power production puts the global community at a risk since the technologies as well as the materials used in the development of nuclear power can also be used to make nuclear weapons if a country decides to do so.

This has always been seen as a major promoter of bomb production which may be done secretly in preparation for war or terrorist activities. The expansion of nuclear energy could certainly lead to nuclear proliferation risks.

The nuclear future therefore seems dangerous since containing such risks have proved a great challenge even now that the reactors are still fewer than the expected number of future power plants.

Nuclear disasters could cause an increase on the taxes charged on citizens especially during construction of nuclear power plants and disasters so as to help the government finance reconstruction.

Such events could also lead to the government opting for spending cuts on other important projects or using the pension reserves. This is bound to increase inflation rates of a country or region.

Uranium deposits are can only last for about 50 years given the increasing rate of consumption. This means that investing in nuclear energy which takes about 20 years to be constructed is not sustainable. Nuclear energy production also has toxic consequences to both the current and future generations.

The Chernobyl disaster which occurred in 1986 has caused the deaths of thousands people up-to-date through the different types of cancer and genetic diseases in Ukraine, Belarus, Russia and Switzerland which are in the surrounding region. It is still expected that cancer rates will increase in the affected areas.

Health officials in Ukraine have predicted a 2% increase in the next 70 years particularly on the population which was exposed to radioactive contaminations (Mackenzie 1977, 467).

The whole cycle of nuclear energy production does not lead to green energy production. Significant quantities of carbon dioxide are produced during the extraction process while chlorofluorocarbon is released from leakages in the pipes connecting enrichment facilities.

Again, the whole cycle consumes large amounts of fossil fuels therefore causing more emission of CO 2 into the atmosphere. This means that nuclear production also contribute to global warming.

Countries such as Germany and Japan are considering closing down some of their nuclear power plants or suspending operations in these plants after witnessing the realities of the risks involved in this kind of energy production.

Fukushima and other previous disasters have proved that operations in the nuclear power plants can produce devastating impacts. Considering the total cost of production and management of energy power plants as well as health, environmental, political and proliferation impacts of nuclear energy, it is more costly than expected.

Green energy is supposed to provide clean and safe energy which nuclear power can not meet. Thus it is neither efficient nor sustainable.

Bing Yu, Fahey Jordans, Heintz Jim, Rusticci Camille and Yuasa Shino. Nuclear dilemma: Adequate insurance too expensive (Munich: The Associated Press, 2011).

Center for Energy Researches. “The advantages and disadvantages of nuclear power.” Qafqaz University . 2011. Web.

Congress of the United States. The cost-effectiveness of nuclear power for navy ships : A CBO study . Washington, DC: Congressional Budget Office, 2011. Web.

Diesendorf, Mark and Mudd, Gavin. Sustainability aspects of uranium mining: Towards accurate accounting . 2 nd International Conference on Sustainability Engineering and Science Auckland, New Zealand, 2007. Sydney: UNSW Press.

Helen Caldecott. Nuclear power is the problem, not a solution (Sydney: The Australian, 2005).

Mackenzie James. “Review of the nuclear power controversy”. By Arthur W. Murphy. The Quarterly Review of Biology , 52, no. 4 (1977): 467-469. Michigan: Twayne.

Sovacool Benjamin. “A critical evaluation of nuclear power and renewable electricity in Asia”, Journal of Contemporary Asia , 40, no. 3, (2010): 369-400. Singapore: Centre on Asia and Globalisation, Lee Kuan Yew School.

Sovacool Benjamin. “Valuing the greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power: A critical survey”, Energy Policy , 36, (2008): 2950. Netherlands: Elsevier.

World Nuclear News, “ Nuclear cost-effective for UK cuts ,” World Nuclear News . 2011. Web.

World Nuclear Association, “ Another drop in nuclear generation ,” World Nuclear News , 2010. Web.

• Water Shortage' Major Causes and Implication
• Advantages and Disadvantages of Wind Energy
• Nuclear Energy in Australia
• Impact of Nuclear Energy in France
• Can a Nuclear Reactor Explode Like an Atomic Bomb?
• Nuclear Power Crisis in Japan and Its Implications
• Can Green Consumerism Be Anything More Than a Band-Aid Solution?
• Jefferson Island Salt Mine Louisiana Lake Peigneur 1980
• Impact of Plastics on the Environment
• Impacts of acidic deposition
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, March 20). Nuclear Energy Benefits and Demerits. https://ivypanda.com/essays/nuclear-energy-3/

"Nuclear Energy Benefits and Demerits." IvyPanda , 20 Mar. 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/nuclear-energy-3/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Nuclear Energy Benefits and Demerits'. 20 March.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Nuclear Energy Benefits and Demerits." March 20, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/nuclear-energy-3/.

1. IvyPanda . "Nuclear Energy Benefits and Demerits." March 20, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/nuclear-energy-3/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Nuclear Energy Benefits and Demerits." March 20, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/nuclear-energy-3/.

• CEU PU - Deutsch
• Közép-európai Egyetem

Masahiro Suzuki on Political Acceleration in Energy Transitions | Research in the Spotlight

PhD graduate  Masahiro Suzuki , from CEU’s Department of Environmental Sciences and Policy , received one of the university’s Best Dissertation Awards  this year in recognition of his thesis research titled  “ Political Acceleration in Energy Transitions: Historical Interventions and Their Outcomes in the G7 and the EU, compared to Net-Zero Targets ”. For the thesis,  which he defended in May , Suzuki raised the question of whether climate policies have accelerated the shift to clean energy in the G7 and the EU. His research contributes to understanding the feasibility of reducing greenhouse gas emissions worldwide to keep the global temperature increase below one point five degrees Celsius, which is the current international target to avoid the dangerous effects of climate change. 

Suzuki was recently awarded the prestigious Early Career Scientist Award by a top journal in the environmental sciences, Energy Research & Social Science, for a paper based on his dissertation . Suzuki published this paper with his supervisor Aleh Cherp , and CEU graduate Jessica Jewell , an associate professor at Chalmers University of Technology. Suzuki’s research was supported by CEU, NewClimate Institute , and an EU Horizon 2020 international research project ( ENGAGE ).

CEU spoke with Suzuki to learn about his research and how meeting the international climate target requires radically different energy transitions in the future. 

What is your research aim? 

The main theme of my dissertation research is climate change and energy transitions. My primary aim was to better understand how energy transitions have been politically accelerated, with a particular focus on investigating whether climate policies have accelerated the shift to clean energy, an important mechanism to meet the current climate target to keep the global temperature increase below one point five degrees Celsius.

To give you a little more background, our economy remains predominantly dependent on fossil fuels today across all sectors, including electricity generation, transportation, building heating and cooling, and industry. Mitigating climate change requires rapidly replacing this dependence on fossil fuels with low-carbon alternatives, which must be completed within the coming decades. Such low-carbon transition radically differs from the historical development of our economy over the last few centuries, during which we continuously increased the use of fossil fuels and added low-carbon technologies on top of, rather than replacing, existing fossil infrastructure to grow our economy. This is why strong political efforts are necessary to change the course of action, including by significantly accelerating the growth of low-carbon technologies and the decline of fossil fuels.

How much acceleration is necessary? In developed countries, governments must ensure the complete decarbonization of electricity generation already by 2035, because decarbonized electricity is necessary to reduce emissions in other sectors through electrification. But is such a level of acceleration possible? Interestingly, I found that the literature is split on this question with two major groups of scholars characterizing this acceleration in opposition as either impossible or possible.

One group analyzes long-term global energy transition and argues that the required acceleration is impossible because they observed no such acceleration in the past, even in recent years, where energy demand and emissions have continuously grown throughout the last centuries. However, this approach is problematic because potential acceleration in some countries (for example, in Europe) may be masked by developments elsewhere (for example, in fast-developing economies) in such aggregated analyses.

In contrast, the other group of scholars arguing that the required acceleration is possible conducts more granular analyses to identify what they characterize as “successful” or “leading” technological developments, such as the recent growth of solar and wind power in Germany and the U.K., or the recent decline of coal use in Canada. However, this approach is also problematic because it does not compare these cases with the historical development of other technologies. Without such benchmarks, we would not know whether these cases are truly accelerated. Another shortcoming is that these studies tend to focus on one or a few technologies and do not clarify whether the individual technological changes have led to any significant systemic transitions for decarbonization. For example, the decline of coal use in Canada was replaced by the rapid growth of natural gas, which is not a transition in line with keeping the global temperature increase below one point five degrees Celsius.

Therefore, my dissertation aimed to develop a framework and methods to conduct a more appropriate scope of analysis to examine political acceleration in energy transitions focused on systemic transition in the energy sector at a national level because energy transitions are mainly driven by national policies. For empirical research, I focused on analyzing electricity transitions in the G7 countries and the EU, both because of the importance of decarbonizing electricity and because these countries possess the largest technological and financial capacity in the world for climate change mitigation through their repeated political commitments to lead the global decarbonization process. In other words, if they are not accelerating transitions, who would and who can?

What did your research find?

I find that climate policies have not accelerated electricity transitions in the G7 and the EU beyond historical trends and rates of energy transitions. Throughout the last six decades, the transition speed has strongly correlated not with changes in polices but with changes in energy demand. The fastest technological changes in the electricity sector in the G7 and the EU took place in the 1970s and 1980s when these countries quickly developed nuclear power to replace the use of oil in order to improve energy security after the oil crises. Compared to these speeds, the recent growth of renewables and the current reduction of fossil fuels under climate policies have been slower.

I also find that none of the G7 countries nor the EU have demonstrated or even planned to accelerate electricity transitions comparable to meeting the international climate target, despite their repeated political announcements to do so. This indicates that there are no “successful” cases of sustainable energy transitions to date. The findings are in stark contrast to some claims in the literature that there are an increasing number of such cases driven by climate policies in recent decades. The required transitions to mitigate climate change are therefore unprecedented, necessitating radically stronger efforts such as accelerating the decarbonization of electricity immediately and multiple times over compared to the latest speed observed in the G7 and the EU.

My research also finds that there are several precedents that demonstrated either the necessary speed of low-carbon technology growth or fossil fuel decline comparable to achieving the international climate target goal. For example, France and Sweden rapidly developed nuclear power in the 1970s and 1980s, and the U.K. has swiftly reduced fossil fuels in electricity generation in more recent decades. My research shows that these cases are historically the fastest transition examples from which we can perhaps learn best about political acceleration in energy transitions.

What motivated you to carry out this research? 

Before my PhD, I worked at the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies , an environmental think tank dedicated to sustainable transition, in Japan. My work involved participating in international climate change negotiations, including the Conference of Parties (COP), as a national delegate of the Japanese government. I also collaborated closely with representatives from other G7 and EU countries, as these nations often cooperate in climate negotiations.

During the negotiations, it seemed to me that many, if not all, countries continuously conveyed a very similar message regarding their ambitions, plans, and actions for climate change mitigation: they are ambitious and doing whatever they can. While many nations often claim their actions are adequate, we know that climate change mitigation efforts have remained far from successful. I therefore became increasingly interested in investigating whether these countries are actually doing more than business as usual to mitigate climate change, which led me to pursue my PhD.

What kind of sources and data do you use for this research?

For energy statistics, I used data from the International Energy Agency and Ember , as well as additional national data from the G7 and the EU. For climate policies, I used the Climate Policy Database from NewClimate Institute, where I had the pleasure to collaborate as a visiting researcher. I also analyzed hundreds of policy documents published by these countries over the last decades to examine how their climate change mitigation policies have evolved over time.

Based on your research, what would you like to point out more broadly on the topic of climate change mitigation? 

I want to emphasize the importance of carefully identifying historical model cases to learn from in order to accelerate sustainable energy transitions. For example, there is a frequent call for Japan to learn from Germany because Japan lags behind Germany in developing renewables. But I think this advice is misguided because Germany has never achieved the comparable growth speed of low-carbon technologies necessary to meet the international climate targets. If Japan should learn from its peers, I believe that the better candidates at the moment are France and Sweden, which achieved comparable speeds in developing low-carbon electricity based on nuclear power in the 1970s and 1980s. An important question is whether and how the historical efforts in these two countries can be replicated and reinforced in Japan’s current context.

The research approach developed in this dissertation, which I call ‘middle-range’ compared to the existing approaches that are either too broad or too narrow, can easily be applied to track future progress in the G7 and the EU, and analyze the decarbonization processes of other sectors and countries. Recently, some European countries have shown signs of significantly accelerating the shift to clean energy in response to the Russo-Ukrainian War, though the planned speed remains insufficient for the one point five degrees Celsius target. We will yet see whether such acceleration can actually take place in these countries and beyond. However, as even greater acceleration may occur in the future, one of my future research plans is to develop and regularly update an inventory of historical model cases of energy transitions to support evidence-based research and policy-making.

As I continue the line of my dissertation research in the future, I am happy to share that I will soon join the Physical Resource Theory at Chalmers University of Technology as a postdoctoral researcher. I will also continue contributing to the international research group POLET (Perspectives on technOLogical change and Energy Transitions), which focuses on analyzing the feasibility of rapid energy transitions to mitigate climate change.

This interview is part of CEU's "Research in the Spotlight" series, which features the projects recognized in the university's 2024 Best Dissertation Awards.The full list of winners can be found here .  

Top Stories

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Auto Racing
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

US Energy Secretary calls for more nuclear power while celebrating $35 billion Georgia reactors

U.S. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm called for a stronger move towards nuclear power as she toured two reactors built for $35 billion in Georgia. (AP VIdeo: Sharon Johnson and Mike Stewart)

The four nuclear reactors and cooling towers are seen at the Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Friday, May 31, 2024, in Waynesboro, Ga. (AP Photo/Mike Stewart)

• Copy Link copied

U.S. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm speaks to reporters, Friday, May 31, 2024, in Waynesboro, Ga. Granholm visited a newly completed nuclear reactor at the Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant. (AP Photo/Mike Stewart)

Cooling tower three with one and two in the background are seen at the nuclear reactor facility at the Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Friday, May 31, 2024, in Waynesboro, Ga. (AP Photo/Mike Stewart)

U.S. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm speaks, Friday, May 31, 2024, in Waynesboro, Ga. Granholm visited a newly completed nuclear reactor at the Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant. (AP Photo/Mike Stewart)

U.S. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm speaks as reactor three is seen, Friday, May 31, 2024, in Waynesboro, Ga. Granholm visited a newly completed nuclear reactor at the Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant. (AP Photo/Mike Stewart)

U.S. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm prepares to speak, Friday, May 31, 2024, in Waynesboro, Ga. Granholm visited a newly completed nuclear reactor at the Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant. (AP Photo/Mike Stewart)

Cooling tower’s one and two are seen at the nuclear reactor facility at the Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Friday, May 31, 2024, in Waynesboro, Ga. (AP Photo/Mike Stewart)

Cooling tower three is seen at the nuclear reactor facility at the Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Friday, May 31, 2024, in Waynesboro, Ga. (AP Photo/Mike Stewart)

Chris Womack, chairman of the board, president and CEO of Southern Company speaks, Friday, May 31, 2024, in Waynesboro, Ga. U.S. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm visited a newly completed nuclear reactor at the Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant. (AP Photo/Mike Stewart)

WAYNESBORO, Ga. (AP) — U.S. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm on Friday called for more nuclear reactors to be built in the United States and worldwide. But the CEO of the Georgia utility that just finished the first two scratch-built American reactors in a generation at a cost of nearly $35 billion says his company isn’t ready to pick up that baton.

Speaking in Waynesboro, Georgia, where Georgia Power Co. and three other utilities last month put a second new nuclear reactor into commercial operation , Granholm said the United States needs 98 more reactors with the capacity of units 3 and 4 at Plant Vogtle to produce electricity while reducing climate-changing carbon emissions. Each of the two new reactors can power 500,000 homes and businesses without releasing any carbon.

“It is now time for others to follow their lead to reach our goal of getting to net zero by 2050,” Granholm said. “We have to at least triple our current nuclear capacity in this country.”

The federal government says it is easing the risks of nuclear construction, but the almost $17 billion in cost overruns at Plant Vogtle near Augusta remain sobering for other utilities. Chris Womack is the CEO of Southern Co., the Atlanta-based parent company of Georgia Power. He said he supports Granholm’s call for more nuclear-power generation, but he added that his company won’t build more soon.

“I think the federal government should provide a leadership role in facilitating and making that become a reality,” Womack said. “We’ve had a long experience, and we’re going to celebrate what we’ve gotten done here for a good little while.”

Friday’s event capped a week of celebrations, where leaders proclaimed the reactors a success, even though they finished seven years late.

On Wednesday, Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp floated the idea of a fifth Vogtle reactor. Although the Republican Kemp rarely discusses climate change, he has made electric vehicles a priority and has said new industries demand carbon-free electricity.

“One of the first questions on their minds is: Can we provide them with what they need?” Kemp said. “We can confidently answer ‘Yes!’ because of days like today.”

The new Vogtle reactors are currently projected to cost Georgia Power and three other owners $31 billion, according to calculations by The Associated Press. Add in $3.7 billion that original contractor Westinghouse paid Vogtle owners to walk away from construction, and the total nears $35 billion.

Electric customers in Georgia already have paid billions for what may be the most expensive power plant ever. The federal government aided Vogtle by guaranteeing the repayment of $12 billion in loans, reducing borrowing costs.

On Wednesday, President Joe Biden’s administration held a meeting to promote nuclear power, saying it would create a working group to ease the challenges that dogged Vogtle.

The Biden administration promised that the military would commission reactors, which could help drive down costs for others. It also noted support for smaller reactors, suggesting small reactors could replace coal-fueled electric generating plants that are closing. The administration also pledged to further streamline licensing.

Granholm said that she believed others could learn from Vogtle’s mistakes, like starting construction before plans were completed. She also predicted additional models of the Vogtle reactors, which were the first of their kind built in the United States, could be built at lower cost.

“So the question is, how do you learn from the new design in the second and the third and the fourth and the fifth plant? If you don’t vary the design, it gets 30% less expensive every time you build it,” Granholm said.

In Michigan, where Granholm was a Democratic governor, she announced in March up to $1.5 billion in loans to restart the Palisades nuclear power plant, which was shut down in 2022 after a previous owner had trouble producing electricity that was price-competitive.

But with much of the domestic effort focused on building a series of smaller nuclear reactors using mass-produced components, critics question whether they can actually be built more cheaply. Others note that the United States still hasn’t created a permanent repository for nuclear waste, which lasts for thousands of years. Other forms of electrical generation, including solar backed up with battery storage, are much cheaper to build initially.

In Georgia, almost every electric customer will pay for Vogtle. Georgia Power owns 45.7% of the reactors. Smaller shares are owned by Oglethorpe Power Corp. , which provides electricity to member-owned cooperatives, the Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia and the city of Dalton. Utilities in Jacksonville, Florida , as well as in the Florida Panhandle and parts of Alabama also have contracted to buy Vogtle’s power.

Regulators in December approved an additional 6% rate increase on Georgia Power’s 2.7 million customers to pay for $7.56 billion in remaining costs at Vogtle, with the company absorbing $2.6 billion in costs. That is expected to cost the typical residential customer an additional $8.97 a month in May, on top of the $5.42 increase that took effect when Unit 3 began operating.

This story has been updated to correct the amount of cost overruns to build two reactors at the Vogtle nuclear plant in Georgia. It was almost $17 billion, not $11 billion.

Welcome our new faculty members - Mechanical Engineering - Purdue University

Welcome our new faculty members

Purdue University Mechanical Engineering is proud to welcome new faculty members for the upcoming school year. As of January 2025, 94 tenure/tenure-track faculty will have appointments in the School of Mechanical Engineering, in addition to professors of practice, research professors, visiting professors, adjuncts, lecturers, courtesy professors, and emeritus professors.

Babak Anasori

Babak formally joined Purdue in September 2023 as Reilly Rising Star Associate Professor of Materials and Mechanical Engineering, after previously serving at IUPUI. In Anasori's lab , he designs two-dimensional (2D) transition metal carbides and nitrides called MXenes, using them for a variety of applications, including materials for extreme environments, hypersonic materials, lighter and stronger composites, energy generation, electromagnetic interference shielding, and carbon capture and utilization. He maintains labs in both West Lafayette and Indianapolis.

Eduardo Barocio Vaca

Eduardo joined the School of Mechanical Engineering as Assistant Professor in February 2024. Eduardo comes to us from the Composites Manufacturing & Simulation Center , where he was Assistant Director of Additive Manufacturing. He got his Ph.D. from Purdue in Materials Engineering in 2018, studying under Byron Pipes.

Jie joined us in August 2024 as Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering, after seven years at Oklahoma. His research interests are HVAC and smart buildings; grid-interactive building controls; and modeling and control of thermal/energy systems. Jie got his Ph.D. from Purdue in 2015, studying at Herrick Labs .  

Xiaoping Du

Xiaoping joined Purdue University in Indianapolis as Professor of Mechanical Engineering in July 2024, coming over from IUPUI. His research Interests include design optimization; probabilistic and statistical methods; reliability-based and robust design; and uncertainty quantification for machine learning.

Carlos Larriba-Andaluz

Carlos joined Purdue University in Indianapolis as Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering in July 2024, coming over from IUPUI. Carlos developed the Ion Mobility Spectrometry Suite (IMoS) , a set of parallelized tools that can be used to infer the collision cross section and mobilities of all-atom models. He uses mass spectrometry to study renewable energy, catalysts, aerosol pollution, electrical propulsion, polymer characterization, protein and biomolecule characterization, and more.

Ashwin Ramachandran

Ashwin will join Purdue as Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering in January 2025. He comes from postdoctorate research at Princeton, studying mechanosensing in bacteria. Before that, his Ph.D. at Stanford involved developing electrokinetic microfluidic devices for rapid and automated clinical diagnostics of diseases.

Starting in January 2025, Li will have a 75/25 appointment as Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Biomedical Engineering, respectively. His research develops engineering tools for biomedical applications, specifically focusing on manufacturing living biosystems and engineering biomedical devices for a broad range of applications including biopreservation, cancer research, point-of-care diagnostics and beyond. He got his Ph.D from the University of Minnesota, and then did postdoctoral research at Harvard Medical School.

Professors of Engineering Practice

Christopher finch.

Chris joined Purdue University in Indianapolis as Professor of Engineering Practice in February 2024, after teaching Motorsports Engineering at IUPUI for more than ten years. His research interests are vehicle engineering, dynamics, and design.

Eric Holloway

Eric was appointed to the School of Mechanical Engineering as Professor of Engineering Practice in February 2024. Eric is no stranger to Purdue, having served for more than a decade as Senior Director of Industry Research in the College of Engineering, and also courtesy faculty both in Mechanical Engineering and Engineering Education.

Daniel Williams

Dan joined Purdue University as Professor of Engineering Practice in January 2024. He comes to us after 37 years at ZF, where his expertise was vehicle chassis control systems, vehicle dynamics, and autonomous vehicles.

Indianapolis Courtesy Faculty

In addition to these full-time appointments, many IUPUI faculty are now professors for Purdue University in Indianapolis, with 15 of them having a courtesy appointment in Mechanical Engineering.

Sohel Anwar

Sohel is a Professor of Mechanical Engineering whose research interests include perception and control for autonomous vehicles; novel sensor development and data fusion; advanced diagnostics and management of large capacity batteries; biomechanical device design and control; wind turbine modeling and controls; and electrified powertrains / sustainable mobility systems.

Jie is a Professor of Mechanical Engineering whose research interests include dental biomechanics; instrumentation design; systems engineering; and energy efficiency.

Hamid Dalir

Hamid is a Professor of Mechanical Engineering. His lab explores composite materials design and manufacturing; sustainable and recyclable-by-design polymers and composites; polymer processing and characterization; composites recycling; hybrid manufacturing systems; and damage mechanics.

Hazim El Mounayri

Hazim is an Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering, whose research interests include virtual manufacturing; nanomanufacturing; machining process modeling, simulation and optimization; integrated CAD/CAE/CAM based product development; enhancement of CAD/CAM technology; automation of CNC production; and PLM and design of renewable energy and biomedical systems.  

Alan is an Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering, whose research interests include multifunctional materials; self-healing polymers; fracture and fatigue; elastomers; degradation of materials; electrolyte membranes; and experimental mechanics.

Razi is a Professor of Mechanical Engineering, whose research interests include innovative powerplants; wave rotors; combustion and turbulence modeling; ignition processes; pollution control; and unsteady biofluid flow.

Hosop is an Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering. In his lab , he researches electrochemistry, mechanics, interfacial chemistry, and kinetics in energy storage systems; advanced synthesis, processing, and characterization techniques for energy storage materials; atomistic-scale modeling of chemical and mechanical properties in energy storage materials; and multi-scale and multi-physics based modeling of Li-ion batteries and fuel cells.

Andres Tovar

Andres is an Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering, whose research interests include bioengineering; energy engineering; automotive engineering; crashworthiness; and blast mitigation.

Diane Wagner

Diane is an Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering, whose research interests include orthopaedic biomechanics; soft tissue mechanics; computational biomechanics; tissue engineering and regenerative medicine; mechanobiology; stem cell differentiation; and musculoskeletal biology and repair.

Xiaoliang Wei

Xiaoliang is an Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering. In his lab , he researches energy materials and electrochemical systems; redox flow batteries; multivalent batteries; 2D layered materials; supercapacitors; and graphene.

Jian is a Professor of Mechanical Engineering, whose research interests include fuel cells; advanced batteries; nano-materials; hydrogen storage; clean-coal technology; carbon dioxide treatment; and artificial muscle.

Shengfeng Yang

Shengfeng is an Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering. In his lab , he studies semiconductors and microelectronics; machine learning and artificial intelligence; computational modeling and simulation; interfaces and defects in materials; and materials for sustainable energy.

Huidan (Whitney) Yu

Whitney is an Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering, whose research interests include image-based computational and experimental fluid dynamics for porous-media and biomedical flows; translational research integrating high-performance CFD, image-based and physics-informed machine-learning, and uncertainty quantification to address unmet clinical needs; GPU-parallelized lattice Boltzmann method for DNS and LES of turbulence; and micro-bubble coalescence and detachment in microfluidics.

Jing is an Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering, whose research interests include additive manufacturing/3D printing; renewable energy (thermal barrier coating, lithium ion battery, hydrogen transport membrane, solid oxide fuel cell); multi-scale modeling (finite element method, discrete element method, molecular dynamics, ab initio method); coupled phenomena (thermal and electrical properties, mass transport), and their applications to processing (additive manufacturing, powder metallurgy, compaction and sintering, metal forming); and ceramic materials for biomedical and power generation applications.

Jing is a Professor of Mechanical Engineering, whose research interests include microelectromechanical systems (MEMS); micro and nanofluidic systems; micro and nano fabrication; micro and nano computed tomography; fuel cells; and battery modeling and simulation.