essay power plants

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

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

Verification Code

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

Thanks for your comment !

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

• School Education /

Essay on Nuclear Energy in 500+ words for School Students 

• Updated on  
• Dec 30, 2023

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

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

Table of Contents

• 1 History Overview
• 2 Nuclear Technology 
• 3 Advantages of Nuclear Energy
• 4 Disadvantages of Nuclear Energy
• 5 Safety Measures and Regulations of Nuclear Energy
• 6 Concerns of Nuclear Proliferation
• 7 Future Prospects and Innovations of Nuclear Energy
• 8 FAQs 

Also Read: Find List of Nuclear Power Plants In India

History Overview

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

Also Read: What are the Different Types of Energy?

Nuclear Technology 

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

Also Read: Nuclear Engineering Course: Universities and Careers

Advantages of Nuclear Energy

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

1. High Energy Density

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

2. Low Greenhouse Gas Emissions

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

3. Base Load Power

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

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

Disadvantages of Nuclear Energy

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

1. Radioactive Waste

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

2. Nuclear Accidents

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

3. High Initial Costs

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

Also Read: What is the IAEA Full Form?

Safety Measures and Regulations of Nuclear Energy

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

Also Read: What is the Full Form of AEC?

Concerns of Nuclear Proliferation

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

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

Future Prospects and Innovations of Nuclear Energy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related Articles

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

Deepika Joshi

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

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

Contact no. *

Connect With Us

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. take the first step today..

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

January 2024

September 2024

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Have something on your mind?

Make your study abroad dream a reality in January 2022 with

India's Biggest Virtual University Fair

Essex Direct Admission Day

Why attend .

Don't Miss Out

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

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

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

Nuclear power in the 21st century: Challenges and possibilities

Akos horvath.

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

Elisabeth Rachlew

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

Current status

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

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

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

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

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

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

Future evolution

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

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

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

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

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

Open and closed fuel cycle

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

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

Radiotoxicity of radioactive waste

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

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

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

Generation IV development

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and those for fuel cycle issues pertain to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Options for nuclear fusion beyond 2050

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Critical issues in fusion plasma physics based on magnetic confinement

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

Critical issues in fusion plasma technology

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

The goals of ITER

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Box 1 Explanations of abbreviations used in this article

Biographies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6 www.sckcen.be/pateros/ .

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

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

Contributor Information

Akos Horvath, Email: [email protected] .

Elisabeth Rachlew, Email: es.htk@kre .

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

Nuclear energy protects air quality by producing massive amounts of carbon-free electricity. It powers communities in 28 U.S. states and contributes to many non-electric applications, ranging from the  medical field to space exploration .

The Office of Nuclear Energy within the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) focuses its research primarily on maintaining the existing fleet of reactors, developing new advanced reactor technologies, and improving the nuclear fuel cycle to increase the sustainability of our energy supply and strengthen the U.S. economy.

Below are some of the main advantages of nuclear energy and the challenges currently facing the industry today.

Advantages of Nuclear Energy

Clean energy source.

Nuclear is the largest source of clean power in the United States. It generates nearly 775 billion kilowatthours of electricity each year and produces nearly half of the nation’s emissions-free electricity. This avoids more than 471 million metric tons of carbon each year, which is the equivalent of removing 100 million cars off of the road.

Creates Jobs

The nuclear industry supports nearly half a million jobs in the United States. Domestic nuclear power plants can employ up to 800 workers with salaries that are 50% higher than those of other generation sources. They also contribute billions of dollars annually to local economies through federal and state tax revenues.

Supports National Security

A strong civilian nuclear sector is essential to U.S. national security and energy diplomacy. The United States must maintain its global leadership in this arena to influence the peaceful use of nuclear technologies. The U.S. government works with countries in this capacity to build relationships and develop new opportunities for the nation’s nuclear technologies.

Challenges of Nuclear Energy

Public awareness.

Commercial nuclear power is sometimes viewed by the general public as a dangerous or unstable process. This perception is often based on three global nuclear accidents, its false association with nuclear weapons, and how it is portrayed on popular television shows and films.

DOE and its national labs are working with industry to develop new reactors and fuels that will increase the overall performance of these technologies and reduce the amount of nuclear waste that is produced.  

DOE also works to provide accurate, fact-based information about nuclear energy through its social media and STEM outreach efforts to educate the public on the benefits of nuclear energy.

Used Fuel Transportation, Storage and Disposal

Many people view used fuel as a growing problem and are apprehensive about its transportation, storage, and disposal. DOE is responsible for the eventual disposal and associated transport of all used fuel , most of which is currently securely stored at more than 70 sites in 35 states. For the foreseeable future, this fuel can safely remain at these facilities until a permanent disposal solution is determined by Congress.

DOE is currently evaluating nuclear power plant sites and nearby transportation infrastructure to support the eventual transport of used fuel away from these sites.

Subject to appropriations, the Department is moving forward on a government-owned consolidated interim storage facility project that includes rail transportation . 

The location of the storage facility would be selected through DOE's consent-based siting process that puts communities at the forefront and would ultimately reduce the number of locations where commercial spent nuclear fuel is stored in the United States.  

Constructing New Power Plants

Building a nuclear power plant can be discouraging for stakeholders. Conventional reactor designs are considered multi-billion dollar infrastructure projects. High capital costs, licensing and regulation approvals, coupled with long lead times and construction delays, have also deterred public interest.

Microreactor (left) - Small Modular Reactor (right)

DOE is rebuilding its nuclear workforce by  supporting the construction  of two new reactors at Plant Vogtle in Waynesboro, Georgia. The units are the first new reactors to begin construction in the United States in more than 30 years. The expansion project supported up to 9,000 workers at peak construction and created 800 permanent jobs at the facility when the units came online in 2023 and 2024.

DOE is also supporting the development of smaller reactor designs, such as  microreactors  and  small modular reactors , that will offer even more flexibility in size and power capacity to the customer. These factory-built systems are expected to dramatically reduce construction timelines and will make nuclear more affordable to build and operate.

High Operating Costs

Challenging market conditions have left the nuclear industry struggling to compete. DOE’s  Light Water Reactor Sustainability (LWRS) program  is working to overcome these economic challenges by modernizing plant systems to reduce operation and maintenance costs, while improving performance. In addition to its materials research that supports the long-term operation of the nation’s fleet of reactors, the program is also looking to diversify plant products through non-electric applications such as water desalination and  hydrogen production .

To further improve operating costs. DOE is also working with industry to develop new fuels and cladding known as  accident tolerant fuels . These new fuels could increase plant performance, allowing for longer response times and will produce less waste. Accident tolerant fuels could gain widespread use by 2025.

*Update June 2024

• Share full article

Advertisement

Should America Go Nuclear?

It’s carbon-free, but has a history of disasters. investing more in nuclear power can help get us to carbon-neutral by 2050. but is it worth it.

Today on The Argument, can nuclear power save us from the climate crisis?

Most reasonable people agree that unless we get our carbon emissions under control, we’re headed towards a climate disaster. But they don’t agree on how to do it. Wind farms and solar panels are part of the solution. So are better batteries and a more efficient electrical grid. But shouldn’t we be throwing everything at one of the biggest problems our planet has ever faced, like, ever, ever faced?

I’m Jane Coaston, and I’m curious about nuclear power. France gets more than 70 percent of its electricity from nuclear power, Sweden more than 40 percent. Here in the United States, we’re more skittish because though nuclear is clean, when it goes wrong, it goes really, really, really wrong. My guests today disagree on the risks and rewards of nuclear power. MC Hammond is a senior fellow at The Good Energy Collective, a progressive nonprofit that does nuclear research. She’s also a lawyer at Pillsbury Law. MC’s opinions today don’t represent the opinions or positions of her firm. Todd Larsen is the executive co-director for consumer and corporate engagement at Green America, a nonprofit group focused on environmental sustainability.

First and foremost, there are more than 50 nuclear power plants operating in the United States right now. MC, can you give us a very basic description of a nuclear power plant?

Yeah, absolutely. So I think that when people think about nuclear power plants, they think about the really big evaporation towers you see when you’re driving down the highway or The Simpsons. And not a lot of people understand just how nuclear power works. So not to take everybody back to 10th grade science class, but nuclear energy is created from breaking apart the nucleus of atoms, of really heavy elements like uranium. And when you break apart atoms, you create energy. And in a reactor, what happens is that energy creates heat. And that heat is used to create steam from water, and that steam goes into a steam turbine. And it turns and creates energy, and that’s how you turn your lights on in your house. Actually, in 2020, nuclear power replaced coal as the nation’s second largest source of generation. So it’s about 19 percent of the total energy generation on the grid. And it’s over half of the nation’s carbon-free electricity.

So Todd, you’re skeptical of expanding the United States’s use of nuclear power for a couple of reasons. Can you lay those out for us?

Sure, I’d be happy to. So there are very significant risks with nuclear power, all the way from uranium mining to the actual operation of the nuclear power plant, through to what do we do with the nuclear waste that’s produced by nuclear power plants in the United States and around the world. There’s also a major cost issue with nuclear power. Nuclear power is very expensive. Compared to other alternatives that we have, like wind and solar, new nuclear plants are at least twice as expensive. The nuclear plants that were under construction in the last 10 years all went over budget in the United States. The one in Georgia, the Vogtle plant that is being built, is about double its budget. It was projected to be $14 billion. And instead, it’s running about $28 billion. And the plants that were being constructed in South Carolina, the V.C. Sumner plants, utilities there spent $9 billion. And they never completed the plants. And those costs were passed on to ratepayers. And for $9 billion, you could have built a lot of wind and solar in the state of South Carolina. And that clean energy could be on the grid right now.

MC, clearly, the cost issue is huge. $9 billion for a plant that will not work is bad. But South Korea, in comparison, has been able to get its costs down. So this isn’t necessarily a across the board issue. Why is nuclear power so expensive? And is there a way, in your view, that that could change?

Yeah, absolutely. And I think Todd brings up such a great point with these really big plants and how expensive they are to operate. And that’s why what I work a lot on is smaller plants and advanced nuclear where they’re not so big, like bet-the-farm operations. So a lot of the power plants in the United States are really big, right? They’re one gigawatt of electricity, a lot of them, or two gigawatts. And we are looking at these smaller reactors. You have reactors that are 300 to 500 megawatts, kind of a size of a coal plant generally. But I want to go to your point, Jane, on South Korea and the reason that they’re able to build these plants generally on time and on budget. And they’ve really seen cost reductions. And they’ve seen cost reductions for the same reason we’ve seen cost reductions for wind and solar in the United States. They build the same thing over and over. And when you build the same thing over and over, you generally have a lot of learning from that. And you’re able to do it better the next time. And in some of these iterations, 30% to 40% cost reductions. In Georgia, those are a first of a kind plants for the United States, first of its kind, first in country. And when you build a first of a kind thing, it is going to be expensive. But that is why I think we need to learn from what we did with renewables to help reduce those costs, so we can have the tools to get to 100 percent carbon-free electricity.

I’ve joked that nuclear power has massive PR issue for understandable reasons. First, when you think about nuclear power, you think about Chernobyl or Three Mile Island. So I want to address the safety concerns first from you, MC. Why expand with these potential concerns?

Yeah, first, I just want to address Chernobyl because it was such a massive disaster. And just to be very clear, I know a lot of folks have watched the mini series where he explains at the end just how bad of a nuclear reactor design that was.

Yes, we’ve been talking about that series. And I have watched, like, 15 minutes of Chernobyl, and then I got too scared.

I really loved that mini-series because he explained what I think all of nuclear folks try to explain about Chernobyl, was just, like, how risky of a design that was. It was a massive reactor. And most reactors have something called the containment, which is just in case, you have a containment to contain the fission radiation. Chernobyl didn’t even have one. So that was one major design flaw that was one of the reasons it was such a large disaster. And the other thing is the way that it was designed, is, as a reactor that gets hotter, it increased its fission. And when I’m talking about these new advanced reactor designs, they’re designed the actual opposite way. So as they get too hot, they shut themselves down, which is the opposite of what happened to Chernobyl.

The concern here is Chernobyl takes place in 1986, but Fukushima takes place just a decade ago and is a massive disaster and one that ultimately reshaped the Japanese nuclear industry. After Fukushima, all nuclear reactors in Japan were shuttered, which eliminated 30 percent of total electricity production. And Japan is now the second largest net importer of fossil fuel in the world. Like, when nuclear goes wrong, it goes really wrong.

What happened at Fukushima is they had a substantial earthquake. And their power went out, so then their diesel generators kicked on, right? And then a giant tsunami came and flooded their generators. And that cut their backup power. When you cut the backup power, you lose your ability to put water coolant into the reactor. So, Fukushima relied on an external source of power to keep the plants cool. And these new designs, we call them in the industry walkaway safe, meaning I don’t need an external power source to shut the reactor down. When it gets too hot, it shuts itself down on its own.

Todd, I’m going to guess that if things get too hot, everything shuts down. That sounds better to me. Does that alleviate any of your concerns about the safety of nuclear energy?

Well, no, I think there are very serious risks to nuclear power. And first, let’s just talk about the fact that we do have nuclear power plants still in operation in the United States that have been around for several decades. So at Fukushima, what happened is the earthquake that occurred was of a magnitude much higher than had ever occurred in that area of Japan. And of course, that then led to the evacuation of thousands of people. That led to radiation being released into the water, not just in the community, but also into the ocean. So we’re still not done with Fukushima 10 years later. But I think what Fukushima shows for us here in the United States is that our plants are at risk, too. And then there’s the history of nuclear power in the United States so far, which doesn’t give anyone great confidence. There have been over 50 nuclear accidents that are significant in the United States. It just didn’t lead to the level of concern that we had with Three Mile Island with a partial meltdown. But if you look at, for example, Browns Ferry, which is a nuclear power plant in Alabama, workers there were trying to make a repair and put some insulation in place. And they wanted to test that the insulation was working to stop drafts, so they lit a candle. The candle lit the insulation on fire. It knocked out the cooling systems in Browns Ferry. It almost led to a nuclear meltdown. And the only thing that saved us is that the workers created a number of workarounds to the safety features at that plant and stopped the plant from melting down. And we have to also look at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission itself. It’s the regulator of nuclear power in the United States. And we trust it with our safety. But investigations have found that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is too friendly to the industry, that they watered down their recommendations to the industry based on industry pressure. And that’s very concerning.

I just want to pick up on a couple of the points that Todd made, which is what the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has done in response to the fire incident at Browns Ferry, in response to Fukushima. Every time there’s an incident, there are inspections and hearings and remediations. And finally, I’ll say, as somebody who’s been on the opposite side of the table of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission many times, they are certainly not friendly to me as a person in the industry. And I don’t know if that’s anecdotal experience. But I have to take a personal issue with that.

But Todd, you have, I think, some additional safety concerns that I want to get into. One is that spent fuel rods need to be maintained in pools of water or steel or concrete containers.

I think for many people, perhaps their best example of what a nuclear facility looks like is The Simpsons, which depicts nuclear waste as green ooze, which it isn’t.

It’s solid. But where we put that is a big problem.

I think everybody who’s involved in nuclear power would agree that we could store nuclear waste better than we’re storing it now. There’s universal agreement on that. And there’s real risk in what we’re doing right now. The amount of nuclear waste produced and then put into wet storage and then dry storage is greater than those plants were designed for. Because everybody thought that eventually we’d have a permanent solution to nuclear waste in this country. And we don’t. But the biggest issue of this is what are we going to do in the long run with all this nuclear waste? It is radioactive for thousands of years, tens of thousands of years. We have to find a safe way to store it. If we continue to store it the way we are storing it even in dry casks, which are safer, they’re not designed to store nuclear waste for thousands of years. Metal is going to corrode. Concrete’s going to deteriorate. And that’s a tremendous risk. So one long-term solution we had, Yucca Mountain, was opposed by the local communities and eventually stopped.

Clearly, nobody wants to be near a nuclear waste, but there has to be a place to put it. But no one wants to be the place. So how does the industry respond to these concerns?

Yeah, I mean, folks like to say or critics of nuclear power like to say that we don’t have a long-term waste solution, when, as Todd rightly points out, we do. We know what to do with the waste. I mean, technically, it’s solved, it relates to the political willpower, I think, in terms of solving it. And to say that we don’t have a solution, that might be true for civilian waste in the United States. But we’re already storing Department of Defense waste in an underground facility, like we’ve been doing that since 1999. You haven’t heard about it because it’s pretty safe. And these casks similarily, those have been in operation since 1986. There hasn’t been an issue with those casks. And if we look at what other countries that have nuclear are doing, you have a consent-based siting program in Finland that’s resulted in a really mature project for a deep geological repository that they’re moving forward with. Sweden and France are not far behind in their geological repositories. But I want to kind of take a step back and think about the lessons that we’ve learned from Nevada and Yucca Mountain and how important it is to ensure that if we are going to build something in a community, that the community wants it.

So one of the issues, MC, the uranium mining process is very similar to the coal mining process in terms of the risks that it can pose to the local communities and to the land. As we were researching for this episode, one of our producers spoke with Joe Heath, general counsel from the Onondaga Nation, who said that mining on Navajo Nation land impacted people who weren’t adequately protected and polluted the air and water from drainage from the mining. What regulations are there in place to protect the people who were involved in the mining process? Doesn’t that pose a huge risk? Because it seems to me that nuclear power may be, quote unquote, “clean.” The mining process definitely isn’t.

We mine now very little uranium in the United States. A lot of our uranium is imported. But I think what’s important to understand is that the mining processes have changed significantly from those that really affect these indigenous peoples. And first and foremost is to remediate these issues that occurred in mining processes. Underground mining processes are harmful to people. My family comes from Appalachia coal Country. And we were really affected by that. My grandfather is an orphan.

I think we don’t want to underestimate the harms that are caused by uranium mining, first in the United States and now around the world. And I don’t think most people realize that the largest release of radioactive material in US history occurred due to uranium mining. It was the Church Rock mines in New Mexico. They released 1,100 tons of radioactive mill waste that contaminated miles of the Puerco River. And that’s in the Navajo Nation. And that’s what you were referring to, the Navajo Nation and their fears around — and their anger around uranium mining. That’s where this comes from. And if you’re looking at environmental justice, though, and you talk to advocates around the country, what they’re talking about is renewable energy. They don’t bring up, we want nuclear power in our community. They talk about we want community solar. We want more control of our energy market in our communities. And the way you’re going to get that is going to be through renewable energy. And that’s because renewable energy is the most cost effective form of energy in the United States at this point. It’s carbon neutral. It’s safe. It’s the way we should be going in this country. If we really care about the climate crisis and we care about environmental justice in this country, there really is no alternative to rapidly scaling up renewable energy with battery storage.

So, Todd, according to 2020 data, nuclear power plants operate at full power, on average, 337 out of 365 days a year. Compare that to hydroelectric, which delivers 151 days per year, and wind, 129 days per year. We’ve gotten into a lot of the concerns about the processes by which you get nuclear power and the risks that that comes with. But wouldn’t that make nuclear our most reliable alternative energy source?

I don’t think nuclear power is the best solution for us. And we can address reliability with the technologies we have with renewable energy these days. Now what we need to do in the United States is to pair renewable energy with storage technologies. And that way, when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing, you can produce energy. When those events are occurring, you can store the power for later and then put it back on the grid when you need it. There have been peer-reviewed studies that have looked at this. And it’s entirely possible to meet the energy needs of the United States with renewable energy alone. It’s all really about politics at this point.

But there’s also the matter that wind farms require 360 times more land area to produce the same amount of electricity as nuclear plants. Solar requires 75 times more space. According to the, now, granted, the nuclear energy trade group, the Nuclear Energy Institute, they said in 2015 that no wind or solar facility currently operating in the United States is large enough to match the output of 1,000 megawatt nuclear reactor. How do we make wind and solar work as well and generate as much electricity as nuclear already can?

Well, I think wind and solar can be integrated into the built environment that we already have in a lot of ways. And in particular, this works with solar energy. You can put solar panels all over the place. You can put them into communities that already exist. You can put them into fields and farms. And between all these different solutions, you can actually bring enough wind and solar into the United States in order to meet our energy needs.

Last month, the Biden administration announced that their $2 trillion infrastructure plan included significant funding for advanced nuclear research and development. So what is advanced nuclear?

So I think there is probably about 60 different advanced reactor companies in the United States working on different designs. But I’ll tell you about my favorite one, which is the pebble bed reactor. And the reason that I think it’s so cool is because it looks kind of like a gumball machine. But instead of using long fuel rods, like you see in normal reactors, pebble bed reactors use a pebble. It’s about the size of a tennis ball. It’s, like, eight pounds. And they put it into the reactor, and you take the old pebbles out of the bottom and you put the new fuel in at the top. You never have to shut it down to refuel because you can always cycle it through. And another really cool thing about these advanced designs is when they get too hot, they shut themselves down. It’s a matter of physics. So when you think about thermal expansion, so when you take a jar of pickles and you run it under hot water to get the top off, that’s because the metal on the lid expands. That’s what we call thermal expansion. And when you have thermal expansion in a nuclear reactor, it makes the neutrons a little bit further away from everybody so they can’t run into the other ones and continue that fission reaction. The other thing I really want to talk about actually with these designs that’s so cool that I think a lot of people don’t realize is they’re designed with giant batteries with them together. These work really, really well with the intermittency of wind and solar to help create an overall firm energy grid. And that’s one of the reasons I think these new reactor designs are so exciting for the clean energy community.

Todd, I am guessing that these advances in nuclear energy aren’t exactly alleviating your concerns with nuclear energy.

Well, there are two concerns that I have, one of which is that the technology is not ready to go. And these nuclear solutions, they will be commercialized sometime next decade, someplace between 2030 and 2040. And the nuclear industry has a history of projecting deadlines that it never meets. The other problem is that we keep hearing about the safety of them. But I know the Union of Concerned Scientists recently just released a massive study of so-called advanced reactors. And what they found is that a number of the so-called advanced reactors actually continue to pose safety risks. And they also pose risks of proliferation because a number of these reactors that are being proposed, including the ones proposed by TerraPower, Bill Gates’s company, these are breeder reactors. And they reprocess the fuel to be reused again. And when you have that kind of process, you’re opening the door to proliferation. So if these reactors are used throughout the world in an attempt to address climate change, what we could be seeing is an expansion of the proliferation of plutonium weapons grade material. And those can actually be used in nuclear bombs, so how are we going to control the risks from that? How are we going to control the risks of weapons of mass destruction coming out of these programs?

We, in the advanced nuclear community, we’re really incorporating proliferation concerns into the designs of the reactors themselves. It’s called safeguards by design and working very closely with the IEA in Vienna to ensure that these proliferation concerns are addressed. And I also want to say the designs that I’m talking about in the United States that are being developed are not breeder reactors. They’re different. They’re molten salt. They’re sodium fast reactors. So I’m talking about a different thing. I think people like to take breeder reactors out and make an example of them. That’s not what I’m talking about. And now we have a lot of really smart people in private companies and in 17 national labs around the country figuring out how to make them the absolute safest they can be. It’s a little bit of hubris, right? We don’t know the solutions we’re going to need to solve in the future. So why take a potential solution off the table? My perspective is not that I think everything should be nuclear all the time. I think it’s really important that it’s a strong mix. And I think we need to deploy wind and solar and batteries right now at scale as much as possible. But we shouldn’t have these solutions taken away from us or from future Americans, frankly. [MUSIC PLAYING]

MC Hammond is a lawyer specializing in energy at Pillsbury Law, and she’s a senior policy fellow at The Good Energy Collective, a progressive nonprofit focused on nuclear energy. Todd Larsen is the executive co-director for consumer and corporate engagement at Green America, a nonprofit group focused on environmental sustainability. Thank you both so much for joining me.

Thanks so much. This was really great.

Yeah, thanks for having me. Thank you.

If you want to learn more about nuclear power, I recommend the article “Why Nuclear Power Must Be Part of the Energy Solution” at Yale Environment 360, and for an opposing view, the Washington Post op-ed titled, “I Oversaw the US Nuclear Power Industry, Now I Think it Should be Banned,” by Gregory Jaczko. You can find links to all of these in our episode notes. And after the break, I’m calling opinion columnist Bret Stephens to ask him about a recent column.

Hi, my name is Gus Demora. I’m a senior in high school from Shreveport, Louisiana. And there’s been a lot of people angry about Biden’s strike on Iranian-backed militias in the Middle East. I’m wondering if there’s a better way for us to have foreign policy in the Middle East, other than liberal internationalism, where we use drone strikes and hard power.

What are you arguing about with your family, your friends, your frenemies? Tell me about the big debate you’re having in a voicemail by calling 347-915-4324. And we might play an excerpt of it on a future episode. [MUSIC PLAYING]

[DIAL TONE]

Hello. Bret Stephens is a columnist at Times Opinion. He wrote a piece last month called “America Could Use a Liberal Party.” I read the article, and it annoyed me because the premise of his grand new party seemed to be that there should be a party comprised of people who agree with him, who call themselves Republicans or Democrats, but really are more Bret Stephens’s. In my previous life, I probably would have just tweeted about it. But now Bret is my colleague. And I realized I could just talk to him directly. And maybe he would explain himself. So we spoke last month.

Jane, how are you doing?

I’m doing well. Thank you.

And you got your shot, I saw.

I did. I did. I’ve had my shot. It was an excellent process.

Are you feeling OK?

Yeah, there is really something to the impact of having the shot because for the entire day I had it, everything I felt, I was like, is that it? Is that the shot? What just happened? But no, I felt fine, and I feel fine.

Well, I’m very happy for you, and I feel I must tell you, a little bit envious. I can’t wait to get a needle in my arm and go on with trying to live a normal life.

I wanted to talk about one of your recent columns, “America Could Use a Liberal Party.” So, why?

Well, because I think it’s the unoccupied space in the American public square. When I use the term “liberal,” I’m not referring to I guess what — I don’t know — Nancy Pelosi or the editors of the nation would typically mean by liberal. I mean, the values of liberal democracy writ large, a commitment to the rule of law, to free speech, to respecting the outcome of elections, to believing in the presumption of innocence. But I think that increasingly, as particularly the Republican Party moves much further to the right and as parts of the Democratic Party move to the left, that is a zone of ideology, if you will, that the current party system doesn’t really represent. And I think a Liberal Party built on those lines, attracting former centrist Republicans and maybe some disenchanted Democrats, could work.

But if you asked someone from the Democratic National Committee or the Republican National Committee, they would both say that they already do this. Neither party, no matter what they actually do, is like, screw the rule of law. We hate freedom of speech. There should be no deference to personal autonomy. Why do you say that neither party, particularly Republicans, but you do talk about Democrats, why do you think that these parties aren’t doing those things?

Well, obviously, if you talk to the head of the DNC or the head of the RNC, they would tell you that, right? I just don’t think that they’re telling you or maybe they’re not telling themselves the truth. And I think it registers in the profound disenchantment that a growing number of Americans feel with the current political duopolies. So the real question is, who is going to harness it and how? And right now, the people who are harnessing that disenchantment, I think, fall kind of on what used to be the fringes, whether it’s Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or the Trumpians in the Republican Party. But I also think that there’s additional vacant space at the center of a lot of people who are just like, I don’t like these jerks. I don’t like where they’re taking the parties that used to represent me. And I want a different form of politics.

I want to read you a comment that someone left on your piece.

Because it goes back to the fact that — I know, I know. It’s going to be OK. It goes back to the point that you did make, saying that this is a concern you see predominantly for Republicans. And Robert in Illinois says, “As someone who self-identifies as a radical centrist, I think there’s a qualitative difference between the extremes of the left of the Democratic Party and the right of the Republican Party. In previous times at best, there were more like two teams playing the same game, more or less accepting the same rules. Now the Trump-influenced Republican Party is trying to destroy the rules of the game altogether because they think it is the only way they can win. I fail to see the equivalent undermining of democracy on the left.” And you acknowledge that liberalism on the right is the most dangerous form because it’s attempted to subvert an election. So is your piece, in some ways, calling for reforms of the Republican Party or asking the Democratic Party to not become like the Republican Party as it is now?

Well, look, I think Democrats who think that they’re immune from what happens to the Republican Party are fooling themselves. And I basically agree with that comment from Robert. But it is also true that there is a kind of liberalism on the left that is more apparent in cultural institutions. And I think if you scroll through some of those comments, as I did, you’ll find plenty of people attesting to the fact that there’s a kind of a culture of, keep your mouth shut and don’t disagree when it comes to university settings, even high school settings, magazine culture, and so on. And culture has a way of jumping over into politics. So yeah, I guess, my answer to your question is Democrats, don’t tilt the way that the Republican Party did.

You mentioned magazine politics or university politics and the influence that that kind of culture can have in the Democratic Party. But the party at large, they didn’t go for the kind of what we used to call political correctness and what is apparently called wokeness that you and others think that was coming from a lot of other Democratic candidates. They went for Joe Biden.

Again, I think that what the last election cycle showed is that the heart of the Democratic Party remains much more kind of middle of the road, working class values than I had feared or suspected. But on the other hand, I really do think that it was a kind of an 11th hour — I don’t want to say a miracle, but a surprise that [Bernie] Sanders, who had done so extraordinarily well in the early rounds of voting, whether in New Hampshire or in Iowa, came up short. So I’m just saying, look, I remember the Republican Party in 2015 and the sense that the idea that Donald Trump could take it over just seemed absurd. It just seemed ridiculous, and yet here we are five years later. So look, maybe, Jane, it’s my inner Jewish fatalism that that says, worry now, more to follow. But I think the Democrats are foolish just to assume that all is well and that the kind of very illiberal kind of left-wing progressivism that some of us see in elite circles can’t have a greater foothold on the mainstream of the Democratic Party.

I think I want to ask you one question because you’ve talked a little bit in other conversations how sometimes you feel as if you’re the Komodo dragon of New York Times Opinion. You’re here to look scary. How much does that influence how you write and how you argue?

Well, I write with the idea that I’m trying to reach the persuadables person on the other side, not necessarily to convince them, but to at least say, yeah, I can see that. And that’s different from the way I used to write at the Wall Street Journal, where I could say with a reasonable amount of conviction that 95 percent of the audience already shared 95 percent of my premises, so that there was a lot that you can elide as a columnist. As a columnist, a lot of what goes into a column is what you’re not saying because you’re just assuming a basis for common agreement. And I can do a lot less of that at The Times. I think it has forced me to become a more careful writer. I can’t say I always succeed at it. And I’m sometimes surprised by what some readers take exception to. I mean, I still feel like a bit of a newbie at The Times. I’ve been here for four years. But it definitely forces me to write in a different way. And it forces me to think about how you reach people who are not going to see it your way either at the beginning of your column or at the end, but who might at least give something a second thought.

Well, Bret, thank you so much for your time for getting on the phone with me. And I hope you enjoy the rest of your day.

Thank you, Jane. [MUSIC PLAYING]

The Argument is a production of New York Times Opinion. It’s produced by Phoebe Lett, Elisa Gutierrez, and Vishakha Darbha; edited by Alison Bruzek and Paula Szuchman; with original music and sound design by Isaac Jones; and fact-checking by Kate Sinclair. Special thanks this week to Shannon Busta.

• Apple Podcasts
• Google Podcasts

Produced by ‘The Argument’

President Biden has set an ambitious goal for the United States to be carbon-neutral by 2050. Achieving it means weaning the country off fossil fuels and using more alternative energy sources like solar and wind. But environmentalists disagree about whether nuclear power should be part of the mix.

[You can listen to this episode of “The Argument” on Apple , Spotify , Google or wherever you get your podcasts .]

Todd Larsen, executive co-director for consumer and corporate engagement at Green America and Meghan Claire Hammond, senior fellow at the Good Energy Collective, a policy research organization focusing on new nuclear technology, join Jane Coaston to debate whether nuclear power is worth the risks.

And then the Times columnist Bret Stephens joins Jane to talk about why he thinks America needs a liberal party.

Mentioned in this episode

“ Why Nuclear Power Must Be Part of the Energy Solution ,” by Richard Rhodes in Yale Environment 360.

“ I oversaw the U.S. nuclear power industry. Now I think it should be banned ,” by Gregory Jaczko in The Washington Post

The TV mini-series “Chernobyl,” a depiction of the 1986 explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant

“ America Could Use a Liberal Party ,” by Bret Stephens

(A full transcript of the episode will be available midday on the Times website.)

Thoughts? Email us at [email protected] or leave us a voice mail message at (347) 915-4324. We want to hear what you’re arguing about with your family, your friends and your frenemies. (We may use excerpts from your message in a future episode.)

By leaving us a message, you are agreeing to be governed by our reader submission terms and agreeing that we may use and allow others to use your name, voice and message.

“The Argument” is produced by Phoebe Lett, Elisa Gutierrez and Vishakha Darbha and edited by Alison Bruzek and Paula Szuchman; fact-checking by Kate Sinclair and Michelle Harris; music and sound design by Isaac Jones.

  Take 10% OFF— Expires in h m s Use code save10u during checkout.

Chat with us

• Live Chat Talk to a specialist
• Self-service options
• Search FAQs Fast answers, no waiting
• Ultius 101 New client? Click here
• Messenger  

International support numbers

For reference only, subject to Terms and Fair Use policies.

• How it Works

Learn more about us

• Future writers
• Explore further

Ultius Blog

Sample argumentative essay against the production of nuclear power.

Select network

This sample argumentative essay explores nuclear power production, how it is increasingly growing in number, and issues with safety and health. As one of the hottest debates of our time, there is no shortage of situations to which this type of document apply. Particularly in the academic world, this is a discussion worthy of everything from brief essays to full dissertations .

Advantages and disadvantages of nuclear power

Nuclear power generation does emit relatively low amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2). The emissions of greenhouse gasses and therefore the contribution of nuclear power plants to global warming is therefore relatively little. This technology is readily available; it does not have to be developed first. It is possible to generate a high amount of electrical energy in one single plant. (Rohrer)

Disadvantages

The problem of radioactive waste is still an unsolved one. The waste from nuclear energy, also know as fusion energy , is extremely dangerous and it has to be carefully looked after for several thousand years (10,000 years according to United States Environmental Protection Agency standards). Nuclear power plants, as well as nuclear waste, could be preferred targets for terrorist attacks. No atomic energy plant in the world could withstand an attack similar to 9/11 in New York. Such a terrorist act would have catastrophic effects for the whole world.

During the operation of nuclear power plants, radioactive waste is produced, which in turn can be used for the production of nuclear weapons. In addition, the same know-how used to design nuclear power plants can to a certain extent be used to build nuclear weapons (nuclear proliferation). (Rohrer) For all intents and purposes, the argument against the production of nuclear power seems to be the strongest.

Meeting the world’s energy needs

Nuclear energy does not contribute much to the world’s overall energy needs . This is one argument against the production of nuclear powers.

In fact, “Electricity generation uses 40% of the world's primary energy. Nuclear provides 14% of world electricity” (World Nuclear Association).

With about 160 nuclear power resources in the United States and approximately 440 commercial nuclear power reactors globally, there is a lot of information available regarding nuclear energy generation (World Nuclear Association). While most countries do not rely solely on nuclear energy, there are about 13 countries that get about 25% of their electricity by means of nuclear energy (NEI). The top contenders are:

• France – 76.3%
• Ukraine – 56.5%
• Slovakia – 55.9%
• Hungary – 52.7%

Nuclear power disasters

Another argument against the production of nuclear power is the risk of horrific nuclear explosions in power plants. In 1986, a nuclear power plant in Europe suffered from an accident that has become known as one of the most devastating in regards to nuclear power activity in world history. The Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant exploded on April 26 when a sudden surge of power occurred during a systems test (The Chernobyl Gallery). Thirty-one people died and countless more were affected by exposure to radioactive substances released in the disaster.

"Nearly 400 million people resided in territories that were contaminated with radioactivity at a level higher than 4 kBq/m2 (0.11 Ci/km2) from April to July 1986. Nearly 5 million people (including, more than 1 million children) still live with dangerous levels of radioactive contamination in Belarus, Ukraine, and European Russia." (The Chernobyl Gallery)

The Mayak Nuclear Facility and the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi disasters

The second most disastrous nuclear disaster in history occurred in 1957. The Mayak Nuclear Facility in Kyshtym, Russia suffered a fate similar to that in the Chernobyl disaster.

"As a result of disregarding basic safety standards, 17,245 workers received radiation overdoses between 1948 and 1958. Dumping of radioactive waste into the nearby river from 1949 to 1952 caused several breakouts of radiation sickness in villages downstream." (Rabl)

There are many more nuclear power production incidents such as the Chernobyl and Kyshtym disasters that have had devastating effects on the environment, the human population, and even entire cities. Most recently, the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi disaster comes to mind. Accidents are rated based on a numbered system called the International Nuclear Events Scale, or INES. Events range from a Level 1, which is considered an Anomaly, to a Level 7, which is a Major Accident (Rogers). Some of the more disastrous incidents that have occurred are as follows:

• 1952 - Chalk River, Canada - Level 5
• 1957 - Windscale Pile, UK - Level 5
• 1979 - Three Mile Island, US - Level 5
• 1980 - Saint Laurent des Eaux, France - Level 4
• 1993 - Tomsk, Russia - Level 4
• 2011 - Fukushima, Japan - Level 5

Nuclear waste's impact on health and safety

The disposal of nuclear waste is yet another argument against the production of nuclear power.

“Nuclear waste is the material that nuclear fuel becomes after it is used in a reactor” (Rogers).

This waste is essentially an isotope of the Uranium Oxide fuel, or UO2, that nuclear reactors are powered by. This substance is highly radioactive and, if not disposed of properly, can leak into the environment, which subsequently can cause irreparable damage to the environment and people coming into contact with it.

The process of nuclear waste disposal is a lengthy process that can take years to mediate. Once the waste is captured, it must never become exposed to the outside world. The most method of disposal is underwater storage until the radiation in the waste decays and it can be moved to concrete tanks.

Keeping on the topic of nuclear waste disposal, the dangers of exposure to nuclear waste are catastrophic. In regards to plants, animals, and humans, exposure to radioactive waste can cause cancer, genetic problems, and death. Which brings to mind the nature and prospects of nuclear fusion- often called the "perfect" source of power - emitting neither radioactive waste nor greenhouse gasses that add to the global warming problem .

But because there is always the possibility of error in nuclear waste production, storage and disposal, there is always the risk that waste is somehow being exposed to the environment. The symptoms of exposure range from the following:

• Nausea and vomiting - within 10 minutes to 6 hours;
• Headache - within 2 hours to 24 hours;
• Dizziness and disorientation - immediately to 1 week;
• Hair loss, infections, low blood pressure - immediately to within 1 to 4 weeks. (Mayo Clinic Staff)

With the vast array of symptoms, illnesses, and effects of exposure to nuclear waste, it is easy to see why this is such a strong argument against the production of nuclear power.

Nuclear weapons' impact on the environment

The development and usage of nuclear weapons have become a hot topic of debates and essay assignments in recent years. It has always been, but even more so in the 20th and 21st centuries. Seldom do most people make the connection between nuclear weapons and nuclear power production. It was once deemed that the production of nuclear power for the sole purpose of electricity production. In the 1950s, President Dwight Eisenhower first came to the realization that the two concepts could be connected.

"In 1954 utilities which were to operate commercial nuclear reactors were given further incentive when Congress amended the Atomic Energy Act so that utilities would receive uranium fuel for their reactors from the government in exchange for the plutonium produced in those reactors." (NEIS) 1

As the process of linking nuclear power production and nuclear weapon development has become more evident, so has the fact that the connection is more political than historical. The political and microeconomic aspects of energy production are vast. Because of how little the world relies on nuclear power for energy production, it only makes sense that many countries would instead use nuclear energy solely for the production of nuclear weapons. This leaves this type of energy production in the hands of terrorist-friendly countries and organizations. These entities often camouflage their intentions with “peaceful” nuclear production (NEIS).

Alternative renewable energy sources

As the world’s population continues to grow at exacerbated rates, so does its need for renewable and sustainable energy sources. In years past, nuclear power was a feasible solution to the problem. Yet another argument against the production of nuclear power lay in the fact that there are many more options available. The world has taken notice to the natural energy that lights upon us everyday care of Mother Nature. Sun, wind, and water offer many opportunities at alternative energy sources without the aid of the environmentally detrimental energy that nuclear power provides (World Nuclear Association).

There is a rather large list of potential alternative energy sources that could prove to be healthier and safer options to nuclear power. These options include:

• Rivers and hydroelectricity
• Wind energy
• Solar energy
• Ocean energy
• Decentralized energy.

(World Nuclear Association)

The problem with these types of energy sources is the act of harnessing them. It makes sense that if the world is willing to accommodate the cost of nuclear power exploration that it would also be willing to harness much safer means of energy production that can be found in natural resources.

The argument against the production of nuclear power is a strong one and one popularly presented in opinion pieces and research papers alike . The production of nuclear power is dangerous and comes with many negative ramifications. Nuclear disasters are tragedies that are unlike any other in history and are unnecessary. The consequences of nuclear waste exposure are immeasurable and create long lasting legacies of destruction, fear, and pain.

Despite efforts from the US Department of Defense to move toward energy efficiency , the correlation between nuclear power production and nuclear weapon promotion will inevitably be the world’s ultimate demise. There are too many other renewable and sustainable energy sources available that nuclear power production should no longer be an option.

The world does not rely on nuclear energy heavily enough for it to be a necessity. The majority of countries that once sought the “peaceful” exploration of nuclear energy production now use it with malicious intent. As politics take precedence in all things global, the protection of the planet and its inhabitants has taken the backseat. The world once survived with nuclear power. Hopefully, we will see those days again.

Works Cited

EIA. "U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis." How Much Electricity Does a Nuclear Power Plant Generate? 3 Dec. 2015. Web. 02 June 2016. http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=104.

Mayo Clinic Staff. "Radiation Sickness." Symptoms. 2016. Web. 03 June 2016. http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/radiation-sickness/basics/symptoms/con-20022901.

NEI. "World Statistics." Nuclear Energy Institute. Web. 02 June 2016. http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/World-Statistics.

Rabl, Thomas. "The Nuclear Disaster of Kyshtym 1957 and the Politics of the Cold War | Environment & Society Portal." The Nuclear Disaster of Kyshtym 1957 and the Politics of the Cold War | Environment & Society Portal. 2012. Web. 03 June 2016. http://www.environmentandsociety.org/arcadia/nuclear-disaster-kyshtym-1957-and-politics-cold-war.

Rogers, Simon. "Nuclear Power Plant Accidents: Listed and Ranked since 1952." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 2011. Web. 03 June 2016. http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/mar/14/nuclear-power-plant-accidents-list-rank.

Rohrer, Jurg. "Time for Change." Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power. 2011. Web. 03 June 2016. http://www.timeforchange.org/pros-and-cons-of-nuclear-power-and-sustainability.

The Chernobyl Gallery. "What Is Chernobyl? | The Chernobyl Gallery." The Chernobyl Gallery What Is Chernobyl Comments. 2013. Web. 03 June 2016. http://chernobylgallery.com/chernobyl-disaster/what-is-chernobyl/.

World Nuclear Association. "Renewable Energy and Electricity." 2016. Web. 03 June 2016. http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/renewable-energy-and-electricity.aspx.

World Nuclear Association. "World Energy Needs and Nuclear Power." May 2016. Web. 02 June 2016. http://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/world-energy-needs-and-nuclear-power.aspx.

https://www.ultius.com/ultius-blog/entry/sample-argumentative-essay-against-the-production-of-nuclear-power.html

• Chicago Style

Ultius, Inc. "Sample Argumentative Essay against the Production of Nuclear Power." Ultius | Custom Writing and Editing Services. Ultius Blog, 05 Jul. 2016. https://www.ultius.com/ultius-blog/entry/sample-argumentative-essay-against-the-production-of-nuclear-power.html

Copied to clipboard

Click here for more help with MLA citations.

Ultius, Inc. (2016, July 05). Sample Argumentative Essay against the Production of Nuclear Power. Retrieved from Ultius | Custom Writing and Editing Services, https://www.ultius.com/ultius-blog/entry/sample-argumentative-essay-against-the-production-of-nuclear-power.html

Click here for more help with APA citations.

Ultius, Inc. "Sample Argumentative Essay against the Production of Nuclear Power." Ultius | Custom Writing and Editing Services. July 05, 2016 https://www.ultius.com/ultius-blog/entry/sample-argumentative-essay-against-the-production-of-nuclear-power.html.

Click here for more help with CMS citations.

Click here for more help with Turabian citations.

Ultius is the trusted provider of content solutions and matches customers with highly qualified writers for sample writing, academic editing, and business writing. 

Tested Daily

Click to Verify

About The Author

This post was written by Ultius.

• Writer Options
• Custom Writing
• Business Documents
• Support Desk
• +1-800-405-2972
• Submit bug report
• A+ BBB Rating!

Ultius is the trusted provider of content solutions for consumers around the world. Connect with great American writers and get 24/7 support.

© 2024 Ultius, Inc.

• Refund & Cancellation Policy

Free Money For College!

Yeah. You read that right —We're giving away free scholarship money! Our next drawing will be held soon.

Our next winner will receive over $500 in funds. Funds can be used for tuition, books, housing, and/or other school expenses. Apply today for your chance to win!

* We will never share your email with third party advertisers or send you spam.

** By providing my email address, I am consenting to reasonable communications from Ultius regarding the promotion.

Past winner

• Name Samantha M.
• From Pepperdine University '22
• Studies Psychology
• Won $2,000.00
• Award SEED Scholarship
• Awarded Sep. 5, 2018

Thanks for filling that out.

Check your inbox for an email about the scholarship and how to apply.

• Undergraduate
• High School
• Architecture
• American History
• Asian History
• Antique Literature
• American Literature
• Asian Literature
• Classic English Literature
• World Literature
• Creative Writing
• Linguistics
• Criminal Justice
• Legal Issues
• Anthropology
• Archaeology
• Political Science
• World Affairs
• African-American Studies
• East European Studies
• Latin-American Studies
• Native-American Studies
• West European Studies
• Family and Consumer Science
• Social Issues
• Women and Gender Studies
• Social Work
• Natural Sciences
• Pharmacology
• Earth science
• Agriculture
• Agricultural Studies
• Computer Science
• IT Management
• Mathematics
• Investments
• Engineering and Technology
• Engineering
• Aeronautics
• Medicine and Health
• Alternative Medicine
• Communications and Media
• Advertising
• Communication Strategies
• Public Relations
• Educational Theories
• Teacher's Career
• Chicago/Turabian
• Company Analysis
• Education Theories
• Shakespeare
• Canadian Studies
• Food Safety
• Relation of Global Warming and Extreme Weather Condition
• Movie Review
• Admission Essay
• Annotated Bibliography
• Application Essay
• Article Critique
• Article Review
• Article Writing
• Book Review
• Business Plan
• Business Proposal
• Capstone Project
• Cover Letter
• Creative Essay
• Dissertation
• Dissertation - Abstract
• Dissertation - Conclusion
• Dissertation - Discussion
• Dissertation - Hypothesis
• Dissertation - Introduction
• Dissertation - Literature
• Dissertation - Methodology
• Dissertation - Results
• GCSE Coursework
• Grant Proposal
• Marketing Plan
• Multiple Choice Quiz
• Personal Statement
• Power Point Presentation
• Power Point Presentation With Speaker Notes
• Questionnaire
• Reaction Paper
• Research Paper
• Research Proposal
• SWOT analysis
• Thesis Paper
• Online Quiz
• Literature Review
• Movie Analysis
• Statistics problem
• Math Problem
• All papers examples
• How It Works
• Money Back Policy
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• We Are Hiring

Nuclear Power Plants, Essay Example

Pages: 1

Words: 403

Hire a Writer for Custom Essay

Use 10% Off Discount: "custom10" in 1 Click 👇

You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work.

There are a number of individuals who believe that many more nuclear power plants should be built all around the world. The author of the article at hand, Sergio Chapa, talks about the matter in which many locations around the world, event those who have had mass leaking in their power plants and have caused the lives of many are now rebuilding many power plants. It has long been believed that the United States would never create nuclear power plants, however, the author talks about the manner in which there are now twenty-three predicted power plants within a couple of years in the United States. It appears as if the author is in favor of nuclear power plants because of the matter in which they do not pollute the earth and because they are cheap to use once put in place. The author argues that despite the fact that they take billions of dollars to make, once they are made, they are easily run by individuals. (Chapa, 2015)

The matter at hand is a complex one. Being cognizant of the actuality that there have been a number of individuals whom have died due to nuclear power plant leakages, many realize just how dangerous these power plants are. However, seeing as how the world would someday have to run out of carbon-based emissions, I believe that building more nuclear power plants is a great idea. The only problem that I have with the information that the article is suggesting is that there are too many power plants being built all at once. This process should be slowed down to ensure that individuals truly know what they are doing and that they do not get anything wrong like they have in previous years. If there were to be an explosion at any of these nuclear power plants, it is without a doubt that all processes would have to be re-thought. Therefore, it must be understood by all individuals that what is taking place here is that humanity is prioritizing progress over human lives. However, it must also be understood that without progress, humanity might cease to exist one day. Hence, it is completely justified for individuals to be building nuclear power plants all around the world. (Chapa, 2015)

Chapa, S. (2015, July 3). Ron Kirk, former Dallas mayor turned nuclear pitch man, says It’s time to build more nuclear reactors – San Antonio Business Journal. Retrieved from http://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/news/2015/07/03/former-dallas-mayor-its-time-to-build-more-nuclear.html

Stuck with your Essay?

Get in touch with one of our experts for instant help!

Reprocessing of Spent Nuclear Fuel, Essay Example

Processing of Used Nuclear Fuel, Essay Example

Time is precious

don’t waste it!

Plagiarism-free guarantee

Privacy guarantee

Secure checkout

Money back guarantee

Related Essay Samples & Examples

Voting as a civic responsibility, essay example.

Words: 287

Utilitarianism and Its Applications, Essay Example

Words: 356

The Age-Related Changes of the Older Person, Essay Example

Pages: 2

Words: 448

The Problems ESOL Teachers Face, Essay Example

Pages: 8

Words: 2293

Should English Be the Primary Language? Essay Example

Pages: 4

Words: 999

The Term “Social Construction of Reality”, Essay Example

Words: 371

• Partner With Us
• Newsletter Sign Up
• Microgrid Projects
• Technologies

White Papers

• Reliability/Resilience

U.S. Army Seeks Microreactor Nuclear Power Plant Solutions for Military Bases

The U.S. Army is looking to leverage the recent advancements in nuclear technology to shore up the energy resilience of its bases. As such, the Department of Defense’s (DOD) Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) and the U.S. Army are now accepting proposals to prototype on-site microreactor nuclear power plants at military installations.

The Army, through the Advanced Nuclear Power for Installations program, aims to deploy the technology to ensure its bases have the energy resilience needed to maintain operational readiness at all times.

“Modular advanced nuclear power is a joint and global need. DIU energy’s effort will help bolster and protect critical energy infrastructure by providing a supply of carbon-free energy for emerging, future mission and facility needs within the DOD, allowing for installation energy resilience,” said Andrew Higier, energy portfolio director at the DIU.

In March, the Senate Intelligence Committee sent a letter to Christine Wormuth, secretary of the Army, urging the exploration of advanced nuclear power technologies as a source of safe, secure, clean and reliable power on military bases.

The letter stated, in part, “It is critical that the United States lead in the development and deployment of advanced nuclear reactors to secure our own critical infrastructure with resilient, continuous power, especially for DOD mission-critical operations in remote and austere environments.”

Not only could the technology ensure military mission continuity, it could also help the Army achieve its goal of 99.9% reliable energy by 2030 .

Prototype capabilities outlined

The Army intends to deploy the prototype microreactor nuclear power plant at an installation in the continental U.S. by 2030. If successful, the technology could be used at bases around the globe.

According to the solicitation notice, submitted briefs must address “all stages of a microreactor’s life cycle, including design, construction, operation, deconstruction and returning the site to an unrestricted release status.” 

Proposed solutions must be capable of local control and dispatch and must meet 100% of all critical loads, which are anticipated to be between 3 MW and 10 MW.

The Army is also looking for the solutions to integrate with existing infrastructure and operations systems at the military installation.

Full details of the desired capabilities and features can be found in the solicitation notice .

Army investing in multiple energy resilience technologies

The Army is largely reliant on off-site providers to deliver the electricity its installations need to support critical missions around the world. Recognizing that this dependence on outside sources could put operations at risk during severe weather, cyberattacks or other outage-inducing events, the Army is investing in multiple types of on-site energy resilience technologies to ensure mission readiness.

Among those solutions are a growing number of microgrids . In 2022, the Army announced it would build microgrids at each of its 130 bases worldwide by 2035.

At U.S. Army Garrison-Fort Cavazos in Texas, for example, the Army has installed a microgrid to power critical services and infrastructure during outages and to reduce energy costs during ERCOT peak demand periods.

Fort Campbell in Kentucky , broke ground last year on a natural gas powered microgrid that will allow the base to maintain 100% mission capability for up to two weeks in the event of a grid failure. 

Kathy Hitchens | Special Projects Editor

I work as a writer and special projects editor for Microgrid Knowledge. I have over 30 years of writing experience, working with a variety of companies in the renewable energy, electric vehicle and utility sector, as well as those in the entertainment, education, and financial industries. I have a BFA in Media Arts from the University of Arizona and a MBA from the University of Denver.

Latest in Reliability/Resilience

First Nations Community-Owned Microgrid Launched in Australia

NREL Study Finds 5G Could Support Microgrids

After Some Jitters, ComEd Serves More Than 1,000 Customers with Bronzeville Microgrid Islanded from Grid

New Microgrid to Provide Resilience for a Houston Data Center and the Grid

Tribal Communities Want Energy Resilience with Microgrids: Is the U.S. Stepping Up?

The microgrid perspective.

Exploring the Potential of Community Microgrids Through Three Innovative Case Studies

Global Energy Trends 2023

• Games & Quizzes
• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center

hydroelectric power

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• National Geographic - Hydroelectric Energy: The Power of Running Water
• Energy Education - Hydropower
• Energy.gov - Hydropower Basics
• U.S. Energy Information Administration - Hydropower explained

Recent News

hydroelectric power , electricity produced from generators driven by turbines that convert the potential energy of falling or fast-flowing water into mechanical energy . In the early 21st century, hydroelectric power was the most widely utilized form of renewable energy ; in 2019 it accounted for more than 18 percent of the world’s total power generation capacity.

• Geothermal power
• Hydroelectric power
• Solar power
• Tidal power

In the generation of hydroelectric power, water is collected or stored at a higher elevation and led downward through large pipes or tunnels (penstocks) to a lower elevation; the difference in these two elevations is known as the head . At the end of its passage down the pipes, the falling water causes turbines to rotate. The turbines in turn drive generators , which convert the turbines’ mechanical energy into electricity. Transformers are then used to convert the alternating voltage suitable for the generators to a higher voltage suitable for long-distance transmission. The structure that houses the turbines and generators, and into which the pipes or penstocks feed, is called the powerhouse.

Hydroelectric power plants are usually located in dams that impound rivers , thereby raising the level of the water behind the dam and creating as high a head as is feasible . The potential power that can be derived from a volume of water is directly proportional to the working head, so that a high-head installation requires a smaller volume of water than a low-head installation to produce an equal amount of power. In some dams, the powerhouse is constructed on one flank of the dam, part of the dam being used as a spillway over which excess water is discharged in times of flood. Where the river flows in a narrow steep gorge, the powerhouse may be located within the dam itself.

In most communities the demand for electric power varies considerably at different times of the day. To even the load on the generators, pumped-storage hydroelectric stations are occasionally built. During off-peak periods, some of the extra power available is supplied to the generator operating as a motor, driving the turbine to pump water into an elevated reservoir . Then, during periods of peak demand, the water is allowed to flow down again through the turbine to generate electrical energy . Pumped-storage systems are efficient and provide an economical way to meet peak loads.

In certain coastal areas, such as the Rance River estuary in Brittany , France , hydroelectric power plants have been constructed to take advantage of the rise and fall of tides . When the tide comes in, water is impounded in one or more reservoirs . At low tide, the water in these reservoirs is released to drive hydraulic turbines and their coupled electric generators ( see tidal power ).

Falling water is one of the three principal sources of energy used to generate electric power, the other two being fossil fuels and nuclear fuels . Hydroelectric power has certain advantages over these other sources. It is continually renewable owing to the recurring nature of the hydrologic cycle . It does not produce thermal pollution . (However, some dams can produce methane from the decomposition of vegetation under water.) Hydroelectric power is a preferred energy source in areas with heavy rainfall and with hilly or mountainous regions that are in reasonably close proximity to the main load centers. Some large hydro sites that are remote from load centers may be sufficiently attractive to justify the long high-voltage transmission lines. Small local hydro sites may also be economical, particularly if they combine storage of water during light loads with electricity production during peaks. Many of the negative environmental impacts of hydroelectric power come from the associated dams, which can interrupt the migrations of spawning fish , such as salmon , and permanently submerge or displace ecological and human communities as the reservoirs fill. In addition, hydroelectric dams are vulnerable to water scarcity . In August 2021 Oroville Dam , one of the largest hydroelectric power plants in California, was forced to shut down due to historic drought conditions in the region.

Nuclear Energy Benefits 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

Nuclear energy use has taken priority in many countries today. It is argued that it affects the environment negatively and can pose a great risk to human beings and their existence. However, it is the most cost effective and environmentally friendly way of generating electricity. In addition, the risks associated with the source of energy can be avoided. This essay will argue that nuclear energy is the most effective way of generating electricity.

One of the factors why nuclear energy is an effective source of energy is that it is cost effective. Electricity generated from nuclear energy is economical and saves cost when compared with other forms of electricity from renewable sources like sun, wind, biomass and water.

It is cost effective in the sense that the processes of conducting research and developing it receive government support in terms of finances. As result, research and development costs that are supposed to be incurred in producing nuclear energy are not reflected in electricity. In other renewable sources of electricity, funding is done by private bodies hence increasing the cost of electricity.

The other factor that makes nuclear energy cost effective is that the risks associated with this type of energy are passed on to all the citizens as opposed to a few individuals or companies that own nuclear plants. This is because there is usually legal liability underinsurance for the plants. The cost would have been very high if the companies that operate the plants were required to take insurance covers for dangers that occur at the plants (Time for Change, n.d).

Apart from cost effectiveness, nuclear energy is also environmentally friendly. Studies on energy impacts mostly focus on the impacts on the environment. Some impacts like displacement of people and interruptions caused on the land are not considered very important. Nuclear energy is environmentally friendly in that it does not emit greenhouse gases.

The operations of nuclear energy plants do not produce these gases which are associated with global warming. The emissions associated with nuclear energy cycle are indeed moderate hence nuclear power plants can instead be used to prevent global warming.

In addition, replacing coal with nuclear energy has many environmental benefits. The electricity supplied from nuclear energy throughout the world is only 14.8 percent. On the other hand, the energy supplied by coal is more than 40 percent. The fuel cycle generated when coal is used to produce energy is harmful to the environment.

In fact, it is categorized among energy sources that cause huge destruction to the environment. This leaves nuclear energy an environmentally friendly source of energy when compared with other renewable sources of energy (O’Sullivan, 2009).

During nuclear energy production, uranium nuclei are split without instances of pollution in the process. This is contrary to what happens in other energy production means which burn certain materials. For example, burning of coal to produce energy is associated with air pollution.

The different types of air pollution caused consequently lead to environmental issues which affect the health of human beings. For example, mercury produced during coal burning is harmful to the nervous system.

There are various ways that can be used to reduce the risks associated with nuclear energy. One of its risks is the harm that may arise from disposal of wastes produced during the processes of energy generation. The radioactive wastes produced during the processes are difficult to recycle or dispose using the normal disposal or recycling means.

One way of avoiding the risk associated with such wastes is by storing them in long term facilities which give them enough time to decay without being disturbed. By doing this, harmful isotopes are allowed to safely decay until they pose no risk to human lives (Lindsay, 2004).

The other way of reducing the risks associated with nuclear energy is conducting major improvements in nuclear energy plants. The major improvements include increasing safety levels in uranium mines. In addition, cleaner storage facilities are important in reducing the risks associated with nuclear energy. When these measures are combined with increased accuracy and versatility, nuclear energy turns out to be one of the best energy sources (Hagler, 2011).

Despite the objections that are raised regarding the use of nuclear energy, it is undoubtedly the most effective way of generating energy. When compared with other renewable ways of generating energy such as coal, nuclear energy has many benefits. For example, it is cost effective and environmentally friendly.

Hagler, A. (2011). Health Hazards from Energy Production: A Comparison of Nuclear and Coal Power . Web.

Lindsay, H. (2004). Environmental Policy Issues . Web.

O’Sullivan, L. (2009). The Environmental Effects of Nuclear as an Alternative Energy Source. Web.

Time for Change . (n.d). Cost advantage of nuclear energy . Web.

• Nuclear and Coal-Fired Power Generation
• Nuclear Power Provides Cheap and Clean Energy
• Nuclear Energy in Australia
• Urbanization and the Environment
• Fossil fuels have no future
• Effects of Global Warming: Currently and Future
• The Process of the Water Cycle
• Water Pollution Origins and Ways of Resolving
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, June 26). Nuclear Energy Benefits. https://ivypanda.com/essays/nuclear-energy/

"Nuclear Energy Benefits." IvyPanda , 26 June 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/nuclear-energy/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'Nuclear Energy Benefits'. 26 June.

IvyPanda . 2018. "Nuclear Energy Benefits." June 26, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/nuclear-energy/.

1. IvyPanda . "Nuclear Energy Benefits." June 26, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/nuclear-energy/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Nuclear Energy Benefits." June 26, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/nuclear-energy/.

Solar Energy Essay

500 words essay on solar energy.

Solar energy is the energy which the earth receives from the sun which converts into thermal or electrical energy. Moreover, solar energy influences the climate of the earth and weather to sustain life. It has great potential which we must use to our advantage fully. Through the solar energy essay, we will look at this in detail and know more about it carefully.

Importance of Solar Energy

Solar energy is very important as it is a clean and renewable source of energy. Thus, this means it will not damage the earth in any way. In addition, it is available on a daily basis. Similarly, it does not cause any kind of pollution.

As it is environment-friendly, it is very important in today’s world. It is so much better than other pollution sources of energies like fossil fuels and more. Further, it has low maintenance costs.

Solar panel systems do not require a lot of solar power energy. Moreover, they come with 5-10 years of warranty which is very beneficial. Most importantly, it reduces the cost of electricity bills.

In other words, we use it mostly for cooking and heating up our homes. Thus, it drops the utility bills cost and helps us save some extra money. Further, solar energy also has many possible applications.

A lot of communities and villages make use of solar energy to power their homes, offices and more. Further, we can use it in areas where there is no access to a power grid. For instance, distilling the water is Africa and powering the satellites in space.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Uses of Solar Energy

In today’s world, we use solar energy for a lot of things. Firstly, we use solar power for many things as small as calculators to as big as power plants which power the entire city. We use the most common solar power for small things.

For instance, many calculators use solar cells to operate, thus they never run out of batteries. Moreover, we also have some watches which run on solar cells. Similarly, there are also radios which run on solar cells.

Thus, you see so many things run on solar power. All satellites run on solar power otherwise they won’t be able to function. Moreover, large desalinization plants make use of solar power if there is little or no freshwater.

In addition, many countries have solar furnaces. We also use solar power commercially and residentially. You will find its uses in transportation service too. In fact, soon, solar powers will also be out on the streets.

Conclusion of Solar Energy Essay

To sum it up, solar energy is a cost-effective means of energy which is quite useful for people that have huge families. When we install solar panels, we can get solar energy which will reduce electricity costs and allow us to lead a sustainable lifestyle. Thus, we must all try to use it well to our advantage.

FAQ of Solar Energy Essay

Question 1: What is solar energy in simple words?

Answer 1: Solar energy is basically the transformation of heat, the energy which is derived from the sun. We have been using it for thousands of years in numerous different ways all over the world. The oldest uses of solar energy are for heating, cooking, and drying.

Question 2: What are the advantages of solar energy?

Answer 2: There are many advantages of solar energy. Firstly, it is a renewable source of energy which makes it healthy. Moreover, it also reduces the electricity bills of ours. After that, we can also use it for diverse applications. Further, it also has low maintenance costs.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

Download the App

Home — Essay Samples — Science — Technology & Engineering — Hydroelectric Power

Essays on Hydroelectric Power

Hydroelectric power is a renewable energy source that is generated by harnessing the power of flowing water. It is a clean and reliable source of energy that has been used for centuries to power various machines and devices. In recent years, there has been a growing interest in hydroelectric power as a viable alternative to traditional fossil fuels. This essay will discuss the benefits of hydroelectric power and explore various topics related to this important energy source.

One of the most compelling reasons to consider hydroelectric power as an essay topic is its environmental impact. Unlike fossil fuels, which release harmful pollutants into the atmosphere, hydroelectric power is a clean and sustainable source of energy. By using the natural power of flowing water, hydroelectric power plants can generate electricity without producing harmful emissions. This makes hydroelectric power an attractive option for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and combating climate change.

Another important aspect of hydroelectric power is its reliability and consistency. Unlike solar or wind power, which are dependent on weather conditions, hydroelectric power can be generated consistently throughout the year. This makes it a reliable source of energy that can help meet the growing demand for electricity. In addition, hydroelectric power plants can be designed to store water in reservoirs, allowing for greater control over energy production and distribution.

The construction of hydroelectric power plants can also have a significant impact on local ecosystems and communities. Large-scale hydroelectric projects can alter the natural flow of rivers and disrupt the habitats of various plant and animal species. This can lead to environmental degradation and loss of biodiversity. On the other hand, small-scale hydroelectric projects can be designed to minimize their impact on the environment and provide sustainable energy solutions for local communities.

Hydroelectric power also has the potential to provide economic benefits to countries and regions that invest in this energy source. The construction and operation of hydroelectric power plants can create jobs and stimulate economic growth in areas that may be struggling with high unemployment rates. In addition, the generation of hydroelectric power can reduce dependence on imported fossil fuels, saving money and improving energy security.

There are also important debates surrounding the social and cultural impacts of hydroelectric power. The construction of large-scale hydroelectric projects can lead to the displacement of local communities and the loss of cultural heritage sites. This has led to conflicts and protests in many parts of the world, as communities seek to protect their land and way of life. On the other hand, hydroelectric power can also bring new opportunities for economic development and improved living standards for local communities.

One important topic to consider when writing an essay on hydroelectric power is the potential for technological advancements and innovations in this field. New technologies and engineering designs are constantly being developed to improve the efficiency and environmental performance of hydroelectric power plants. These innovations can help to make hydroelectric power an even more attractive and viable option for meeting the world's energy needs.

Another important aspect to consider is the role of government policies and regulations in promoting the development of hydroelectric power. Many countries have adopted incentives and subsidies to encourage investment in renewable energy sources, including hydroelectric power. These policies can have a significant impact on the growth of the hydroelectric power industry and the adoption of this important energy source.

The choice of hydroelectric power as an essay topic offers a wide range of interesting and important issues to explore. From its environmental and economic benefits to its social and cultural impacts, hydroelectric power is a complex and multifaceted topic that can provide valuable insights into the challenges and opportunities of transitioning to a more sustainable energy future. By examining these topics in depth, students can gain a deeper understanding of the complexities of energy policy and the potential of hydroelectric power to contribute to a more sustainable and secure future.

Hydroelectric Power

Hydroelectric power as a renewable energy, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Hydroelectricity as an Alternative Source of Power to Fossil Fuels

How hydroelectric power could benefit zambia, using kirchmayer’s method for short term hydro-thermal scheduling, the three gorges project, let us write you an essay from scratch.

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

Relevant topics

• Genetic Engineering
• Engineering
• Intelligent Machines
• Mechanical Engineering
• Civil Engineering
• Biomedical Engineering
• Electronics

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

No need to pay just yet!

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

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

Geography Notes

Essay on geothermal energy: top 11 essays | energy management.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Here is a compilation of essays on ‘Geothermal Energy’ for class 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. Find paragraphs, long and short essays on ‘Geothermal Energy’ especially written for school and college students.

Essay on Geothermal Energy

Essay Contents:

• Essay on the Effect of Geothermal Energy on Environment

Essay # 1. Introduction to Geothermal Energy:

Geothermal energy is the earth’s natural heat available inside the earth. This thermal energy contained in the rock and fluid that filled up fractures and pores in the earth’s crust can profitably be used for various purposes. Heat from the Earth, or geothermal — Geo (Earth) + thermal (heat) — energy can be and is accessed by drilling water or steam wells in a process similar to drilling for oil.

Geothermal resources range from shallow ground to hot water and rock several miles below the Earth’s surface, and even farther down to the extremely hot molten rock called magma. Mile-or-more-deep wells can be drilled into underground reservoirs to tap steam and very hot water that can be brought to the surface for use in a variety of applications.

This geothermal energy originates from the original formation of the planet, from radioactive decay of minerals, from volcanic activity and from solar energy absorbed at the surface. It has been used for bathing since Paleolithic times and for space heating since ancient Roman times, but is now better known for generating electricity.

Worldwide, about 10,715 megawatts (MW) of geothermal power is online in 24 countries. An additional 28 gigawatts of direct geothermal heating capacity is installed for district heating, space heating, spas, industrial processes, desalination and agricultural applications.

India has reasonably good potential for geothermal; the potential geothermal provinces can produce approximately 10,600 MW of power.

Geothermal power is cost effective, reliable, sustainable, and environmentally friendly, but has historically been limited to areas near tectonic plate boundaries. Recent technological advances have dramatically expanded the range and size of viable resources, especially for applications such as home heating, opening a potential for widespread exploitation.

Geothermal wells release greenhouse gases trapped deep within the earth, but these emissions are much lower per energy unit than those of fossil fuels. As a result, geothermal power has the potential to help mitigate global warming if widely deployed in place of fossil fuels.

The earth’s geothermal resources are theoretically more than adequate to supply humanity’s energy needs, but only a very small fraction may be profitably exploited. Drilling and exploration for deep resources is very expensive. Forecasts for the future of geothermal power depend on assumptions about technology, energy prices, subsidies, and interest rates.

Essay # 2. History of Geothermal Energy Worldwide:

The oldest known pool fed by a hot spring, built in the Qin dynasty in the 3rd century BC.

Hot springs have been used for bathing at least since Paleolithic times. The oldest known spa is a stone pool on China’s Lisan mountain built in the Qin dynasty in the 3rd century BC, at the same site where the Huaqing Chi palace was later built. In the first century AD, Romans conquered Aquae Sulis, now Bath, Somerset, England, and used the hot springs there to feed public baths and underfloor heating.

The admission fees for these baths probably represent the first commercial use of geothermal power. The world’s oldest geothermal district heating system in Chaudes-Aigues, France, has been operating since the 14th century. The earliest industrial exploitation began in 1827 with the use of geyser steam to extract boric acid from volcanic mud in Larderello, Italy.

In 1892, America’s first district heating system in Boise, Idaho was powered directly by geothermal energy, and was copied in Klamath Falls, Oregon in 1900. A deep geothermal well was used to heat greenhouses in Boise in 1926, and geysers were used to heat greenhouses in Iceland and Tuscany at about the same time. Charlie Lieb developed the first down-hole heat exchanger in 1930 to heat his house. Steam and hot water from geysers began heating homes in Iceland starting in 1943.

Global geothermal electric capacity. Upper red line is installed capacity; lower green line is realized production.

In the 20th century, demand for electricity led to the consideration of geothermal power as a generating source. Prince Piero Ginori Conti tested the first geothermal power generator on 4 July 1904, at the same Larderello dry steam field where geothermal acid extraction began.

It successfully lit four light bulbs. Later, in 1911, the world’s first commercial geothermal power plant was built there. It was the world’s only industrial producer of geothermal electricity until New Zealand built a plant in 1958.

By this time, Lord Kelvin had already invented the heat pump in 1852, and Heinrich Zoelly had patented the idea of using it to draw heat from the ground in 1912. But it was not until the late 1940s that the geothermal heat pump was successfully implemented. The earliest one was probably Robert C. Webber’s home-made 2.2 kW direct-exchange system, but sources disagree as to the exact timeline of his invention.

J. Donald Kroeker designed the first commercial geothermal heat pump to heat the Commonwealth Building (Portland, Oregon) and demonstrated it in 1946. Professor Carl Nielsen of Ohio State University built the first residential open loop version in his home in 1948. The technology became popular in Sweden as a result of the 1973 oil crisis, and has been growing slowly in worldwide acceptance since then.

In 1960, Pacific Gas and Electric began operation of the first successful geothermal electric power plant in the United States at The Geysers in California. The original turbine lasted for more than 30 years and produced 11 MW net power.

The binary cycle power plant was first demonstrated in 1967 in the U.S.S.R. and later introduced to the U.S. in 1981. This technology allows the generation of electricity from much lower temperature resources than previously. In 2006, a binary cycle plant in Chena Hot Springs, Alaska, came on-line, producing electricity from a record low fluid temperature of 57°C (135°F).

Installed geothermal electric capacity as of 2007 is around 10000 MW. The main countries having major electric generation installed capacities (as of 2007) are USA (3000MW), Philippines(2000MW), Indonesia (1000MW), Mexico (1000MW), Italy (900 MW), Japan(600MW), New Zealand (500MW), Iceland (450MW). The other region includes the Latin American countries, African countries and Russia.

Essay # 3. Formation of Geothermal Resources:

Geothermal energy is made up of heat from the earth. Underneath the earth’s relatively, thin crust, temperature range from 1000-4000°C and in some areas, pressures exceed 20,000 psi. Geothermal energy is most likely generated from radioactive, thorium, potassium and uranium dispersed evenly through the earth’s interior which produce heat as part of the decaying process. This process generates enough heat to keep the lose of the earth at temperature approaching 4000°C.

Composed primarily of molten Ni and Fe the core is surrounded by a layer of molten rock, the mantle at approx. 1000°C. Nine major crystal plates float on the mantle, and currents in the mantle cause the plates to drift, colliding in some areas and diverging in others.

When two continental plates coverage, a complex series of chemical reactions involving water and other substances combine to generate large bodies of molten rock called magna chamber that rise through the crust often resulting in volcanic activity. Molten rock also rises in the earth’s crust where the plates are moving away from each other and in other areas where the crust is thin.

Volcanoes, hot springs, geysers and fumaroles are natural clues as to the presence of geothermal resources near the surface and where economic drilling operations can tap their heat and pressure. Additional heat can be generated by friction as two plates converge and one moves on top of other.

Essay # 4. Types of Geothermal Resources:

There are following types of geothermal resources:

(i) Hydrothermal.

(ii) Geopressured.

(iii) Hot Dry Rock.

(iv) Active Volcanic Vents and Magna.

(i) Hydrothermal:

Hydrothermal resources contain superheated rock trapped by a layer of impermeable rock. The highest quality reserves with temperature over 240°C contain steam with little or no condensate (vapour dominated resources).

Some hydrothermal reserves are very hot ranging from 150-200°C, but roughly 2/3rd are of moderate temperature (100-180°C). Only two sizeable high quality dry steam reserves have been located to date on in the US and one in Italy. The geysers in northern California is perhaps the world’s largest dry steam field and could provide 2000 MWe capacity for upto 30 years.

(ii) Geopressured:

It contains moderate-temperature brines containing dissolved methane. They are trapped under high pressure in deep sedimentary formations sealed between impermeable layers of clay and shale. Pressures vary from 5000 to over 20,000 psi at depths of 1500 to 15000 metres. Temperature range from 90 to over 200°C, although they seldom exceed 150°C, each barrel of fluid at 10,000 psi and 150°C could contain between 20 and 50 standard cubic feed (SCF) of methane.

(iii) Hot Dry Rock:

It contains high temperature rocks, ranging from 90-650°C that may be fractured and contain little or no water. The rocks must be artificially fractured and heat transfer fluid circulated to extract their energy. Hot dry rock resources are much more extensive than hydrothermal or geo-pressured, but extracting their energy is more difficult.

(iv) Active Volcanic Vents and Magma:

It occurs in many parts of the world. Magma is molten rock at temperature ranging from 700°C to 1600°C, lying under the earth crust, the molten rock is part of the mantle and in approx. 24 to 28 km thick. Magma chambers represent a huge energy source, the largest of all geothermal resources but they rarely occur near the surface of the earth and extracting their energy is difficult.

Essay # 5. Geothermal Electricity:

As per the International Geothermal Association (IGA) sources, about 10,715 MW of geothermal power in 24 countries is online. In 2010, the United States led the world in geothermal electricity production with 3,086 MW of installed capacity from 77 power plants.

The largest group of geothermal power plants in the world is located at the Geysers, a geothermal field in California. The Philippines is the second highest producer, with 1,904 MW of capacity online. Geothermal power makes up approximately 18% of the country’s electricity generation.

Geothermal electric plants were traditionally built exclusively on the edges of tectonic plates where high temperature geothermal resources are available near the surface. The development of binary cycle power plants and improvements in drilling and extraction technology enable enhanced geothermal systems over a much greater geographical range.

Demonstration projects are operational in Landau-Pfalz, Germany, and Soultz-sous-Forest, France, while an earlier effort in Basel, Switzerland was shut down after it triggered earthquakes. Other demonstration projects are under construction in Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America.

The thermal efficiency of geothermal electric plants is low, around 10-23%, because geothermal fluids do not reach the high temperatures of steam from boilers. The laws of thermodynamics limits the efficiency of heat engines in extracting useful energy. Exhaust heat is wasted, unless it can be used directly and locally, for example in greenhouses, timber mills, and district heating.

System efficiency does not materially affect operational costs as it would for plants that use fuel, but it does affect return on the capital used to build the plant. In order to produce more energy than the pumps consume, electricity generation requires relatively hot fields and specialized heat cycles. Because geothermal power does not rely on variable sources of energy, unlike, for example, wind or solar, its capacity factor can be quite large – up to 96% has been demonstrated. The global average was 73% in 2005.

Essay # 6. Geothermal Power Plants Technology:

To convert geothermal energy into electrical energy, heat must be extracted first to convert it into useable form. Mile-or-more-deep wells can be drilled into underground reservoirs to tap steam and very hot water that drive turbines that drive electricity generators.

There are basically four types of geothermal power plants which are operating today. The description of these power plants is as follows:

(i) Flashed Steam Plant:

The extremely hot water from drill holes when released from the deep reservoirs high pressure steam (termed as flashed steam) is released. This force of steam is used to rotate turbines. The steam gets condensed and is converted into water again, which is returned to the reservoir. Flashed steam plants are widely distributed throughout the world.

(ii) Dry Steam Plant:

Usually geysers are the main source of dry steam. Those geothermal reservoirs which mostly produce steam and little water are used in electricity production systems. As steam from the reservoir shoots out, it is used to rotate a turbine, after sending the steam through a rock-catcher. The rock-catcher protects the turbine from rocks which come along with the steam.

(iii) Binary Power Plant:

In this type of power plant, the geothermal water is passed through a heat exchanger where its heat is transferred to a secondary liquid, namely isobutene, isopentane or ammonia-water mixture present in an adjacent, separate pipe. Due to this double-liquid heat exchanger system, it is called a binary power plant.

The secondary liquid which is also called as working fluid should have lower boiling point than water. It turns into vapour on getting required heat from the hot water. The vapour from the working fluid is used to rotate turbines.

The binary system is therefore useful in geothermal reservoirs which are relatively low in temperature gradient. Since the system is a completely closed one, there is minimum chance of heat loss. Hot water is immediately recycled back into the reservoir. The working fluid is also condensed back to the liquid and used over and over again.

(iv) Hybrid Power Plant:

Some geothermal fields produce boiling water as well as steam, which are also used in power generation. In this system of power generation, the flashed and binary systems are combined to make use of both steam and hot water. Efficiency of hybrid power plants is however less than that of the dry steam plants.

Enhanced Geothermal System:

The term enhanced geothermal systems (EGS), also known as engineered geothermal systems (formerly hot dry rock geothermal), refers to a variety of engineering techniques used to artificially create hydrothermal resources (underground steam and hot water) that can be used to generate electricity.

Traditional geothermal plants exploit naturally occurring hydrothermal reservoirs and are limited by the size and location of such natural reservoirs. EGS reduces these constraints by allowing for the creation of hydrothermal reservoirs in deep, hot but naturally dry geological formations. EGS techniques can also extend the lifespan of naturally occurring hydrothermal resources.

Given the costs and limited full-scale system research to date, EGS remains in its infancy, with only a few research and pilot projects existing around the world and no commercial-scale EGS plants to date. The technology is so promising, however, that a number of studies have found that EGS could quickly become widespread.

Essay # 7. Other Applications of Geothermal Energy:

In the geothermal industry, low temperature means temperatures of 300°F (149°C) or less. Low-temperature geothermal resources are typically used in direct-use applications, such as district heating, greenhouses, fisheries, mineral recovery, and industrial process heating. However, some low-temperature resources can generate electricity using binary cycle electricity generating technology.

Direct heating is far more efficient than electricity generation and places less demanding temperature requirements on the heat resource. Heat may come from co-generation via., a geothermal electrical plant or from smaller wells or heat exchangers buried in shallow ground.

As a result, geothermal heating is economic at many more sites than geothermal electricity generation. Where natural hot springs are available, the heated water can be piped directly into radiators. If the ground is hot but dry, earth tubes or down-hole heat exchangers can collect the heat.

But even in areas where the ground is colder than room temperature, heat can still be extracted with a geothermal heat pump more cost-effectively and cleanly than by conventional furnaces.

These devices draw on much shallower and colder resources than traditional geothermal techniques, and they frequently combine a variety of functions, including air conditioning, seasonal energy storage, solar energy collection, and electric heating. Geothermal heat pumps can be used for space heating essentially anywhere.

Geothermal heat supports many applications. District heating applications use networks of piped hot water to heat many buildings across entire communities. In Reykjavik, Iceland, spent water from the district heating system is piped below pavement and sidewalks to melt snow.

Essay # 8. Economics Related to Geothermal Energy Harnessing :

Geothermal power requires no fuel (except for pumps), and is therefore immune to fuel cost fluctuations, but capital costs are significant. Drilling accounts for over half the costs, and exploration of deep resources entails significant risks.

Unlike traditional power plants that run on fuel that must be purchased over the life of the plant, geothermal power plants use a renewable resource that is not susceptible to price fluctuations. The price of geothermal is within range of other electricity choices available today when the costs of the lifetime of the plant are considered.

Most of the costs related to geothermal power plants are related to resource exploration and plant construction. Like oil and gas exploration, it is expensive and because only one in five wells yield a reservoir suitable for development. Geothermal developers must prove that they have reliable resource before they can secure millions of dollar required to develop geothermal resources.

Although the cost of generating geothermal has decreased during the last two decades, exploration and drilling remain expensive and risky. Drilling Costs alone account for as much as one-third to one-half to the total cost of a geothermal project. Locating the best resources can be difficult; and developers may drill many dry wells before they discover a viable resource.

Because rocks in geothermal areas are usually extremely hard and hot, developers must frequently replace drilling equipment. Individual productive geothermal wells generally yield between 2 MW and 5 MW of electricity; each may cost from $1 million to $5 million to drill. A few highly productive wells are capable of producing 25 MW or more of electricity.

Transmission:

Geothermal power plants must be located near specific areas near a reservoir because it is not practical to transport steam or hot water over distances greater than two miles. Since many of the best geothermal resources are located in rural areas, developers may be limited by their ability to supply electricity to the grid. New power lines are expensive to construct and difficult to site.

Many existing transmission lines are operating near capacity and may not be able to transmit electricity without significant upgrades. Consequently, any significant increase in the number of geothermal power plants will be limited by those plants ability to connect, upgrade or build new lines to access to the power grid and whether the grid is able to deliver additional power to the market.

Direct heating applications can use much shallower wells with lower temperatures, so smaller systems with lower costs and risks are feasible. Residential geothermal heat pumps with a capacity of 10 kilowatt (kW) are routinely installed.

District heating (Cities etc.) systems may benefit from economies of scale if demand is geographically dense, as in cities, but otherwise piping installation dominates capital costs. Direct systems of any size are much simpler than electric generators and have lower maintenance costs per kW.h, but they must consume electricity to run pumps and compressors.

Essay # 9. Barriers in the Way of Geothermal Energy:

i. Finding a suitable build location.

ii. Energy source such as wind, solar and hydro are more popular and better established; these factors could make developers decided against geothermal.

iii. Main disadvantages of building a geothermal energy plant mainly lie in the exploration stage, which can be extremely capital intensive and high-risk; many companies who commission surveys are often disappointed, as quite often, the land they were interested in, cannot support a geothermal energy plant.

iv. Some areas of land may have the sufficient hot rocks to supply hot water to a power station, but many of these areas are located in harsh areas of the world (near the poles), or high up in mountains.

v. Harmful gases can escape from deep within the earth, through the holes drilled by the constructors. The plant must be able to contain any leaked gases, but disposing of the gas can be very tricky to do safely.

Essay # 10. Sustainability of Geothermal Energy:

Geothermal power is considered to be sustainable because any projected heat extraction is small compared to the Earth’s heat content. The Earth has an internal heat content of 10 31 joules (3. 10 15 TW.hr). About 20% of this is residual heat from planetary accretion, and the remainder is attributed to higher radioactive decay rates that existed in the past.

Natural heat flows are not in equilibrium, and the planet is slowly cooling down on geologic timescales. Human extraction taps a minute fraction of the natural outflow, often without accelerating it.

Even though geothermal power is globally sustainable, extraction must still be monitored to avoid local depletion. Over the course of decades, individual wells draw down local temperatures and water levels until a new equilibrium is reached with natural flows. The three oldest sites, at Larderello, Wairakei, and the Geysers have experienced reduced output because of local depletion.

Heat and water, in uncertain proportions, were extracted faster than they were replenished. If production is reduced and water is re injected, these wells could theoretically recover their full potential. Such mitigation strategies have already been implemented at some sites. The extinction of several geyser fields has also been attributed to geothermal power development.

Essay # 11. Effect of Geothermal Energy on Environment :

Fluids drawn from the deep earth carry a mixture of gases, notably carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), hydrogen sulphide (H 2 S), methane (CH 4 ) and ammonia (NH 3 ). These pollutants contribute to global warming, acid rain, and noxious smells if released.

Existing geothermal electric plants emit an average of 122 kilograms (269 lb) of CO 2 per megawatt-hour (MW-h) of electricity, a small fraction of the emission intensity of conventional fossil fuel plants. Plants that experience high levels of acids and volatile chemicals are usually equipped with emission-control systems to reduce the exhaust.

In addition to dissolved gases, hot water from geothermal sources may hold in solution trace amounts of toxic chemicals such as mercury, arsenic, boron, and antimony. These chemicals precipitate as the water cools, and can cause environmental damage if released. The modern practice of injecting cooled geothermal fluids back into the Earth to stimulate production has the side benefit of reducing this environmental risk.

Direct geothermal heating systems contain pumps and compressors, which may consume energy from a polluting source. This parasitic load is normally a fraction of the heat output, so it is always less polluting than electric heating. However, if the electricity is produced by burning fossil fuels, then the net emissions of geothermal heating may be comparable to directly burning the fuel for heat.

For example, a geothermal heat pump powered by electricity from a combined cycle natural gas plant would produce about as much pollution as a natural gas condensing furnace of the same size. Therefore the environmental value of direct geothermal heating applications is highly dependent on the emissions intensity of the neighbouring electric grid.

Plant construction can adversely affect land stability Enhanced geothermal systems can trigger earthquakes as part of hydraulic fracturing.

Geothermal has minimal land and freshwater requirements. Geothermal plants use 3.5 square kilometres (1.4 sq mi) per gigawatt of electrical production (not capacity) versus 32 and 12 square kilometres (4.6 sq mi) for coal facilities and wind farms respectively. They use 20 litres (5.3 US gal) of freshwater per MW-h versus over 1,000 litres (260 US gal) per MW-h for nuclear, coal, or oil.

Related Articles:

• Essay on the Renewable Sources of Energy (The Best One) | Energy Management
• Essay on Solar Energy: Top 6 Essays | India | Energy Management
• Essay on Ocean Thermal Energy: Top 6 Essays | Energy Management
• Essay on Biomass: Top 7 Essays | India | Bio Energy | Energy Management

Energy Management , Essay , Essay on Geothermal Energy , Geothermal Energy

Privacy Overview

Create an account

Create a free IEA account to download our reports or subcribe to a paid service.

Overview and key findings

Tracking cop28 progress.

• United States
• Latin America and the Caribbean
• European Union
• Middle East
• Japan and Korea
• Southeast Asia

Cite report

IEA (2024), World Energy Investment 2024 , IEA, Paris https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-investment-2024, Licence: CC BY 4.0

Share this report

• Share on Twitter Twitter
• Share on Facebook Facebook
• Share on LinkedIn LinkedIn
• Share on Email Email
• Share on Print Print

Report options

The world now invests almost twice as much in clean energy as it does in fossil fuels…, global investment in clean energy and fossil fuels, 2015-2024, …but there are major imbalances in investment, and emerging market and developing economies (emde) outside china account for only around 15% of global clean energy spending, annual investment in clean energy by selected country and region, 2019 and 2024, investment in solar pv now surpasses all other generation technologies combined, global annual investment in solar pv and other generation technologies, 2021-2024, the integration of renewables and upgrades to existing infrastructure have sparked a recovery in spending on grids and storage, investment in power grids and storage by region 2017-2024, rising investments in clean energy push overall energy investment above usd 3 trillion for the first time.

Global energy investment is set to exceed USD 3 trillion for the first time in 2024, with USD 2 trillion going to clean energy technologies and infrastructure. Investment in clean energy has accelerated since 2020, and spending on renewable power, grids and storage is now higher than total spending on oil, gas, and coal.

As the era of cheap borrowing comes to an end, certain kinds of investment are being held back by higher financing costs. However, the impact on project economics has been partially offset by easing supply chain pressures and falling prices. Solar panel costs have decreased by 30% over the last two years, and prices for minerals and metals crucial for energy transitions have also sharply dropped, especially the metals required for batteries.

The annual World Energy Investment report has consistently warned of energy investment flow imbalances, particularly insufficient clean energy investments in EMDE outside China. There are tentative signs of a pick-up in these investments: in our assessment, clean energy investments are set to approach USD 320 billion in 2024, up by more 50% since 2020. This is similar to the growth seen in advanced economies (+50%), although trailing China (+75%). The gains primarily come from higher investments in renewable power, now representing half of all power sector investments in these economies. Progress in India, Brazil, parts of Southeast Asia and Africa reflects new policy initiatives, well-managed public tenders, and improved grid infrastructure. Africa’s clean energy investments in 2024, at over USD 40 billion, are nearly double those in 2020.

Yet much more needs to be done. In most cases, this growth comes from a very low base and many of the least-developed economies are being left behind (several face acute problems servicing high levels of debt). In 2024, the share of global clean energy investment in EMDE outside China is expected to remain around 15% of the total. Both in terms of volume and share, this is far below the amounts that are required to ensure full access to modern energy and to meet rising energy demand in a sustainable way.

Power sector investment in solar photovoltaic (PV) technology is projected to exceed USD 500 billion in 2024, surpassing all other generation sources combined. Though growth may moderate slightly in 2024 due to falling PV module prices, solar remains central to the power sector’s transformation. In 2023, each dollar invested in wind and solar PV yielded 2.5 times more energy output than a dollar spent on the same technologies a decade prior.

In 2015, the ratio of clean power to unabated fossil fuel power investments was roughly 2:1. In 2024, this ratio is set to reach 10:1. The rise in solar and wind deployment has driven wholesale prices down in some countries, occasionally below zero, particularly during peak periods of wind and solar generation. This lowers the potential for spot market earnings for producers and highlights the need for complementary investments in flexibility and storage capacity.

Investments in nuclear power are expected to pick up in 2024, with its share (9%) in clean power investments rising after two consecutive years of decline. Total investment in nuclear is projected to reach USD 80 billion in 2024, nearly double the 2018 level, which was the lowest point in a decade.

Grids have become a bottleneck for energy transitions, but investment is rising. After stagnating around USD 300 billion per year since 2015, spending is expected to hit USD 400 billion in 2024, driven by new policies and funding in Europe, the United States, China, and parts of Latin America. Advanced economies and China account for 80% of global grid spending. Investment in Latin America has almost doubled since 2021, notably in Colombia, Chile, and Brazil, where spending doubled in 2023 alone. However, investment remains worryingly low elsewhere.

Investments in battery storage are ramping up and are set to exceed USD 50 billion in 2024. But spending is highly concentrated. In 2023, for every dollar invested in battery storage in advanced economies and China, only one cent was invested in other EMDE.

Investment in energy efficiency and electrification in buildings and industry has been quite resilient, despite the economic headwinds. But most of the dynamism in the end-use sectors is coming from transport, where investment is set to reach new highs in 2024 (+8% compared to 2023), driven by strong electric vehicle (EV) sales.

The rise in clean energy spending is underpinned by emissions reduction goals, technological gains, energy security imperatives (particularly in the European Union), and an additional strategic element: major economies are deploying new industrial strategies to spur clean energy manufacturing and establish stronger market positions. Such policies can bring local benefits, although gaining a cost-competitive foothold in sectors with ample global capacity like solar PV can be challenging. Policy makers need to balance the costs and benefits of these programmes so that they increase the resilience of clean energy supply chains while maintaining gains from trade.

In the United States, investment in clean energy increases to an estimated more than USD 300 billion in 2024, 1.6 times the 2020 level and well ahead of the amount invested in fossil fuels. The European Union spends USD 370 billion on clean energy today, while China is set to spend almost USD 680 billion in 2024, supported by its large domestic market and rapid growth in the so-called “new three” industries: solar cells, lithium battery production and EV manufacturing.

Overall upstream oil and gas investment in 2024 is set to return to 2017 levels, but companies in the Middle East and Asia now account for a much larger share of the total

Change in upstream oil and gas investment by company type, 2017-2024, newly approved lng projects, led by the united states and qatar, bring a new wave of investment that could boost global lng export capacity by 50%, investment and cumulative capacity in lng liquefaction, 2015-2028, investment in fuel supply remains largely dominated by fossil fuels, although interest in low-emissions fuels is growing fast from a low base.

Upstream oil and gas investment is expected to increase by 7% in 2024 to reach USD 570 billion, following a 9% rise in 2023. This is being led by Middle East and Asian NOCs, which have increased their investments in oil and gas by over 50% since 2017, and which account for almost the entire rise in spending for 2023-2024.

Lower cost inflation means that the headline rise in spending results in an even larger rise in activity, by approximately 25% compared with 2022. Existing fields account for around 40% total oil and gas upstream investment, while another 33% goes to new fields and exploration. The remainder goes to tight oil and shale gas.

Most of the huge influx of cashflows to the oil and gas industry in 2022-2023 was either returned to shareholders, used to buy back shares or to pay down debt; these uses exceeded capital expenditure again in 2023. A surge in profits has also spurred a wave of mergers and acquisitions (M&A), especially among US shale companies, which represented 75% of M&A activity in 2023. Clean energy spending by oil and gas companies grew to around USD 30 billion in 2023 (of which just USD 1.5 billion was by NOCs), but this represents less than 4% of global capital investment on clean energy.

A significant wave of new investment is expected in LNG in the coming years as new liquefaction plants are built, primarily in the United States and Qatar. The concentration of projects looking to start operation in the second half of this decade could increase competition and raise costs for the limited number of specialised contractors in this area. For the moment, the prospect of ample gas supplies has not triggered a major reaction further down the value chain. The amount of new gas-fired power capacity being approved and coming online remains stable at around 50-60 GW per year.

Investment in coal has been rising steadily in recent years, and more than 50 GW of unabated coal-fired power generation was approved in 2023, the most since 2015, and almost all of this was in China.

Investment in low-emissions fuels is only 1.4% of the amount spent on fossil fuels (compared to about 0.5% a decade ago). There are some fast-growing areas. Investments in hydrogen electrolysers have risen to around USD 3 billion per year, although they remain constrained by uncertainty about demand and a lack of reliable offtakers. Investments in sustainable aviation fuels have reached USD 1 billion, while USD 800 million is going to direct air capture projects (a 140% increase from 2023). Some 20 commercial-scale carbon capture utilisation and storage (CCUS) projects in seven countries reached final investment decision (FID) in 2023; according to company announcements, another 110 capture facilities, transport and storage projects could do the same in 2024.

Energy investment decisions are primarily driven and financed by the private sector, but governments have essential direct and indirect roles in shaping capital flows

Sources of investment in the energy sector, average 2018-2023, sources of finance in the energy sector, average 2018-2023, households are emerging as important actors for consumer-facing clean energy investments, highlighting the importance of affordability and access to capital, change in energy investment volume by region and fuel category, 2016 versus 2023, market sentiment around sustainable finance is down from the high point in 2021, with lower levels of sustainable debt issuances and inflows into sustainable funds, sustainable debt issuances, 2020-2023, sustainable fund launches, 2020-2023, energy transitions are reshaping how energy investment decisions are made, and by whom.

This year’s World Energy Investment report contains new analysis on sources of investments and sources of finance, making a clear distinction between those making investment decisions (governments, often via state-owned enterprises (SOEs), private firms and households) and the institutions providing the capital (the public sector, commercial lenders, and development finance institutions) to finance these investments.

Overall, most investments in the energy sector are made by corporates, with firms accounting for the largest share of investments in both the fossil fuel and clean energy sectors. However, there are significant country-by-country variations: half of all energy investments in EMDE are made by governments or SOEs, compared with just 15% in advanced economies. Investments by state-owned enterprises come mainly from national oil companies, notably in the Middle East and Asia where they have risen substantially in recent years, and among some state-owned utilities. The financial sustainability, investment strategies and the ability for SOEs to attract private capital therefore become a central issue for secure and affordable transitions.

The share of total energy investments made or decided by private households (if not necessarily financed by them directly) has doubled from 9% in 2015 to 18% today, thanks to the combined growth in rooftop solar installations, investments in buildings efficiency and electric vehicle purchases. For the moment, these investments are mainly made by wealthier households – and well-designed policies are essential to making clean energy technologies more accessible to all . A comparison shows that households have contributed to more than 40% of the increase in investment in clean energy spending since 2016 – by far the largest share. It was particularly pronounced in advanced economies, where, because of strong policy support, households accounted for nearly 60% of the growth in energy investments.

Three quarters of global energy investments today are funded from private and commercial sources, and around 25% from public finance, and just 1% from national and international development finance institutions (DFIs).

Other financing options for energy transition have faced challenges and are focused on advanced economies. In 2023, sustainable debt issuances exceeded USD 1 trillion for the third consecutive year, but were still 25% below their 2021 peak, as rising coupon rates dampened issuers’ borrowing appetite. Market sentiment for sustainable finance is wavering, with flows to ESG funds decreasing in 2023, due to potential higher returns elsewhere and credibility concerns. Transition finance is emerging to mobilise capital for high-emitting sectors, but greater harmonisation and credible standards are required for these instruments to reach scale.

A secure and affordable transitioning away from fossil fuels requires a major rebalancing of investments

Investment change in 2023-2024, and additional average annual change in investment in the net zero scenario, 2023-2030, a doubling of investments to triple renewables capacity and a tripling of spending to double efficiency: a steep hill needs climbing to keep 1.5°c within reach, investments in renewables, grids and battery storage in the net zero emissions by 2050 scenario, historical versus 2030, investments in end-use sectors in the net zero emissions by 2050 scenario, historical versus 2030, meeting cop28 goals requires a doubling of clean energy investment by 2030 worldwide, and a quadrupling in emde outside china, investments in renewables, grids, batteries and end use in the net zero emissions by 2050 scenario, 2024 and 2030, mobilising additional, affordable financing is the key to a safer and more sustainable future, breakdown of dfi financing by instrument, currency, technology and region, average 2019-2022, much greater efforts are needed to get on track to meet energy & climate goals, including those agreed at cop28.

Today’s investment trends are not aligned with the levels necessary for the world to have a chance of limiting global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and to achieve the interim goals agreed at COP28. The current momentum behind renewable power is impressive, and if the current spending trend continues, it would cover approximately two-thirds of the total investment needed to triple renewable capacity by 2030. But an extra USD 500 billion per year is required in the IEA’s Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario (NZE Scenario) to fill the gap completely (including spending for grids and battery storage). This equates to a doubling of current annual spending on renewable power generation, grids, and storage in 2030, in order to triple renewable capacity.

The goal of doubling the pace of energy efficiency improvement requires an even greater additional effort. While investment in the electrification of transport is relatively strong and brings important efficiency gains, investment in other efficiency measures – notably building retrofits – is well below where it needs to be: efficiency investments in buildings fell in 2023 and are expected to decline further in 2024. A tripling in the current annual rate of spending on efficiency and electrification – to about USD 1.9 trillion in 2030 – is needed to double the rate of energy efficiency improvements.

Anticipated oil and gas investment in 2024 is broadly in line with the level of investment required in 2030 in the Stated Policies Scenario, a scenario which sees oil and natural gas demand levelling off before 2030. However, global spare oil production capacity is already close to 6 million barrels per day (excluding Iran and Russia) and there is a shift expected in the coming years towards a buyers’ market for LNG. Against this backdrop, the risk of over-investment would be strong if the world moves swiftly to meet the net zero pledges and climate goals in the Announced Pledges Scenario (APS) and the NZE Scenario.

The NZE Scenario sees a major rebalancing of investments in fuel supply, away from fossil fuels and towards low-emissions fuels, such as bioenergy and low-emissions hydrogen, as well as CCUS. Achieving net zero emissions globally by 2050 would mean annual investment in oil, gas, and coal falls by more than half, from just over USD 1 trillion in 2024 to below USD 450 billion per year in 2030, while spending on low-emissions fuels increases tenfold, to about USD 200 billion in 2030 from just under USD 20 billion today.

The required increase in clean energy investments in the NZE Scenario is particularly steep in many emerging and developing economies. The cost of capital remains one of the largest barriers to investment in clean energy projects and infrastructure in many EMDE, with financing costs at least twice as high as in advanced economies as well as China. Macroeconomic and country-specific factors are the major contributors to the high cost of capital for clean energy projects, but so, too, are risks specific to the energy sector. Alongside actions by national policy makers, enhanced support from DFIs can play a major role in lowering financing costs and bringing in much larger volumes of private capital.

Targeted concessional support is particularly important for the least-developed countries that will otherwise struggle to access adequate capital. Our analysis shows cumulative financing for energy projects by DFIs was USD 470 billion between 2013 and 2021, with China-based DFIs accounting for slightly over half of the total. There was a significant reduction in financing for fossil fuel projects over this period, largely because of reduced Chinese support. However, this was not accompanied by a surge in support for clean energy projects. DFI support was provided almost exclusively (more than 90%) as debt (not all concessional) with only about 3% reported as equity financing and about 6% as grants. This debt was provided in hard currency or in the currency of donors, with almost no local-currency financing being reported.

The lack of local-currency lending pushes up borrowing costs and in many cases is the primary reason behind the much higher cost of capital in EMDE compared to advanced economies. High hedging costs often make this financing unaffordable to many of the least-developed countries and raises questions of debt sustainability. More attention is needed from DFIs to focus interventions on project de-risking that can mobilise much higher multiples of private capital.

Subscription successful

Thank you for subscribing. You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link at the bottom of any IEA newsletter.

Switch language:

Vifor Wind Farm, Romania

The wind farm is estimated to have an operational life of up to 35 years.

Project Type

Onshore wind farm

Buzau County

First Look Solutions

Total Capacity

Expected commissioning.

Phase one: 2025, phase two: 2026  

The 460.8MW Vifor wind farm project is located in Buzau County in south-east Romania. It is poised to become Romania’s second-largest wind farm.

The project is owned by First Look Solutions, a special-purpose vehicle, jointly owned by Rezolv Energy, an independent renewable energy producer, and Low Carbon, a renewable energy investment company.

Recommended White Papers

Mitigating Corrosion/Erosion in Waste to Energy and Biomass Boilers

Demand flexibility, predictive load management and the future of plant efficiency, recommended buyers guides.

Power condition monitoring for power plants 

Wind turbine monitoring: condition, structural health and blade monitoring systems .

The clean energy generated from the project will be sufficient to power upwards of 270,000 homes, simultaneously offsetting around 540,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions each year.

The wind farm is estimated to have an operational life of up to 35 years and will significantly contribute to Romania’s 2030 EU renewable energy targets.

The Vifor wind farm, comprising five subprojects, is situated within the administrative boundaries of Costeşti, Gheraseni, Smeeni, Luciu, and Ţinteşti communes in Buzau County, south-east Romania.

The wind farm’s substation area, considered the central hub, is approximately 85km north-east of the Bucharest outskirts.

The north-western extremity of the wind farm lies roughly 6km from the Buzau city outskirts.

The total area covered by the wind farm spans 2,777ha, out of which 147.8ha will be impacted by construction, with permanent facilities occupying an additional 44.5ha.

Vifor wind farm details

The Vifor wind farm will incorporate a total of 72 EnVentus V162 wind turbine generators (WTGs), each with a capacity of 6.4MW.

The turbines will feature a three-bladed rotor with a diameter of 162m, and a rotor swept area of 20,612m². The turbines will be perched atop 166m-tall hubs.

All WTGs across the project area are intended to be interconnected via underground cable lines to a single transformer station.

A 1.4km overhead transmission line with a 400kV capacity will carry the electricity from the transformer to the national grid.

The wind farm will utilise a network of existing agricultural roads and newly constructed access roads. Underground cable lines will be installed along these roads.

Development phases

The implementation of the project is structured into two distinct phases.

The 192MW phase one will see the installation of 30 WTGs and is set for commissioning by the end of 2025.

The subsequent phase will include the installation of an additional 42 wind turbines, cumulatively generating 269MW, with commissioning expected in late 2026.

The wind farm’s development is segmented into five subprojects, each defined by its geographical location.

The Costeşti wind farm, located within the Costeşti commune, will consist of seven wind turbines with a total capacity of 44.8MW.

The Gheraseni wind farm in the Gheraseni commune will also feature seven turbines with a total capacity of 44.8MW.

The Smeeni commune will host the Smeeni wind farm, equipped with 21 turbines and a combined capacity of 134.4MW.

The Luciu Wind Farm, in the Luciu commune, will be home to 30 turbines, yielding a total of 192MW.

Lastly, the Ţinteşti subproject will include seven turbines, resulting in a total capacity of 44.8MW.

Grid connection details

The project includes the construction of the central power collection substation within the Pogoanele subproject in Luciu commune, under the ownership of the Pogoanele Town Local Council.

The substation will step up the electric power generated by the wind turbines from 33kV to 400kV, facilitating its transfer to the grid.

Electricity generated from all subprojects will be conveyed to the collection substation via 33kV underground cable lines, which avoids the need to install intermediate transformer stations, thereby minimising the project’s environmental footprint.

Project financing

Rezolv Energy and Low Carbon have secured financing facilities amounting to €291m ($313m) to support the construction of the Vifor wind farm’s phase one.

The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development is providing a €32m loan for the first phase of the project.

Contractors involved

Vestas, a renewable wind energy and turbine manufacturing company, will develop the project under a turnkey engineering, procurement, and construction contract.

Vestas will supply the wind turbines and provide operations and maintenance services for the initial 15 years of operation.

Rezolv will take over the operations after this period while Vestas will continue to provide maintenance services for the wind turbines under a long-term service agreement.

Related Projects

More Projects

US, China and UK deemed best markets for BESS investment – report

Power plant profile: cfe-san luis potosi combined cycle power plant, mexico, power plant profile: amiral combined cycle cogeneration plant, saudi arabia, power plant profile: connahs quay ccgt low carbon power plant, uk, sign up for our daily news round-up.

Give your business an edge with our leading industry insights.

Sign up to the newsletter

Your corporate email address.

Power Technology In Brief

Future Power Technology

Thematic Take

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

Thank you for subscribing

View all newsletters from across the GlobalData Media network.

Paragraph on Plants

Ai generator.

This paragraph highlights the essential role of plants with a tone of appreciation. Plants, through photosynthesis, provide oxygen and absorb carbon dioxide, supporting life. They offer food, medicine, and beauty, crucial for ecological balance and well-being. Protecting plants is vital for our planet’s health.

Checkout → Free Paragraph Writer Tool

Short Paragraph on Plants

Plants are more than just greenery; they are vital for our ecosystem and personal well-being. They provide oxygen, improve air quality, and offer numerous health benefits. Plants also teach us about growth and resilience, making them an integral part of our lives and environment.

Medium Paragraph on Plants

Plants play a crucial role in sustaining life on Earth, uniting people across cultures in their appreciation. They are essential for producing oxygen, improving air quality, and providing food and medicine. Caring for plants teaches responsibility and patience, offering lessons in growth and resilience. For communities, plants enhance the environment, promote well-being, and foster a connection with nature. Whether in urban gardens or rural landscapes, plants are invaluable in maintaining ecological balance and supporting human health.

Long Paragraph on Plants

Plants, vital to our survival, offer far more than aesthetic appeal. They produce the oxygen we breathe, sequester carbon dioxide, and maintain ecological balance. Beyond their environmental contributions, plants provide food, medicine, and raw materials. They also promote mental and physical well-being, reducing stress and improving air quality. Engaging with plants, whether through gardening or simply enjoying green spaces, fosters a sense of connection to nature and teaches valuable life lessons about patience, growth, and resilience. The preservation and cultivation of plants are crucial for sustaining biodiversity and addressing climate change, making them indispensable to both personal and planetary health.

Tone-wise Paragraph Examples on Plants

Formal tone.

Plants are essential components of the ecosystem, contributing significantly to environmental sustainability and human health. They play a vital role in producing oxygen, improving air quality, and providing food and medicinal resources. The study and cultivation of plants also offer valuable insights into ecological balance and environmental stewardship, promoting a deeper understanding of nature’s intricate systems.

Informal Tone

Plants are awesome! They’re not just pretty to look at; they’re super important for keeping our planet healthy. They give us oxygen, help clean the air, and even provide food and medicine. Taking care of plants is fun and rewarding, teaching us patience and how cool nature really is.

Persuasive Tone

Consider the profound impact of plants on our lives. They are more than decorative; they are vital to our survival and well-being. Engaging with plants can transform your environment, improve air quality, and provide emotional benefits. Embrace the care and cultivation of plants, and let them enhance your life. Incorporate more greenery into your surroundings and support conservation efforts. It’s an investment in your health and the planet’s future.

Reflective Tone

Reflecting on the role of plants, it’s evident that they offer more than just aesthetic value. They are fundamental to life, providing oxygen, food, and medicine. Engaging with plants can be a journey of discovery and appreciation, teaching us about the delicate balance of nature and our place within it.

Inspirational Tone

Embrace the power of plants, which offer more than just natural beauty. They inspire individuals to appreciate the environment, promote well-being, and foster a lifelong passion for nature. Let plants motivate you to nurture and protect our planet, joining the millions who find joy and purpose in cultivating green spaces.

Optimistic Tone

Plants are incredible, offering endless opportunities for joy and growth. Each plant is a chance to learn, improve our environment, and experience the wonders of nature. Embrace the positive impact of plants as they encourage personal and ecological well-being. With every new plant, we find new reasons to be hopeful and excited about the future.

Urgent Tone

Now is the time to recognize the significant benefits of plants. They are crucial for our survival, providing oxygen, food, and medicine. Don’t wait to make a difference! Engage with plants to improve your health and support the environment. Act now, and harness the transformative power of plants to secure a healthier future for all.

Word Count-wise Paragraph Examples on Plants

Plants provide oxygen, improve air quality, and offer numerous health benefits. They bring communities together and enhance well-being. Through their care, we learn about growth and resilience. Plants are more than just greenery; they are vital to our ecosystem and personal lives, making them indispensable to both nature and humanity.

Plants are essential for sustaining life, producing oxygen, and improving air quality. They also provide food, medicine, and enhance our environment. Caring for plants teaches responsibility and patience, offering valuable life lessons in growth and resilience. For communities, plants promote well-being and foster a connection with nature. Whether in urban gardens or rural landscapes, plants are crucial for maintaining ecological balance and supporting human health.

Plants go beyond their aesthetic appeal; they are fundamental to our ecosystem and personal well-being. They produce oxygen, improve air quality, and provide food and medicine. Engaging with plants, whether through gardening or enjoying green spaces, fosters a sense of connection to nature and teaches valuable life lessons about patience, growth, and resilience. For communities, plants enhance the environment, promote mental and physical health, and support ecological balance. Their preservation and cultivation are crucial for sustaining biodiversity and addressing climate change, making plants indispensable to both personal and planetary health.

Plants, vital to our survival, offer far more than aesthetic appeal. They produce the oxygen we breathe, sequester carbon dioxide, and maintain ecological balance. Beyond their environmental contributions, plants provide food, medicine, and raw materials. They also promote mental and physical well-being, reducing stress and improving air quality. Engaging with plants, whether through gardening or simply enjoying green spaces, fosters a sense of connection to nature and teaches valuable life lessons about patience, growth, and resilience. The preservation and cultivation of plants are crucial for sustaining biodiversity and addressing climate change, making them indispensable to both personal and planetary health. Whether in urban settings or natural landscapes, plants play a pivotal role in enhancing our lives and environment.

Plants are essential to life on Earth, offering more than just aesthetic appeal. They produce oxygen, sequester carbon dioxide, and support ecological balance. Beyond these environmental contributions, plants provide food, medicine, and raw materials. They also enhance mental and physical well-being, reducing stress and improving air quality. Engaging with plants, whether through gardening or enjoying green spaces, fosters a connection to nature and teaches valuable life lessons about patience, growth, and resilience. Plants play a crucial role in maintaining biodiversity and addressing climate change, making their preservation and cultivation vital for both personal and planetary health. For communities, plants enhance the environment, promote social well-being, and support ecological balance. Their presence in urban and rural settings alike is indispensable, contributing significantly to the quality of life and environmental sustainability. Plants are not just greenery; they are fundamental to our existence and the health of our planet.

Plants are essential to life on Earth, providing more than just natural beauty. They produce the oxygen we breathe, sequester carbon dioxide, and maintain ecological balance. Beyond their environmental contributions, plants offer food, medicine, and raw materials crucial for human survival. They also promote mental and physical well-being, reducing stress, enhancing mood, and improving air quality. Engaging with plants, whether through gardening or simply enjoying green spaces, fosters a sense of connection to nature and teaches valuable life lessons about patience, growth, and resilience. The preservation and cultivation of plants are crucial for sustaining biodiversity and combating climate change, making them indispensable to both personal and planetary health. For communities, plants enhance the environment, promote social cohesion, and provide educational opportunities. Their presence in urban gardens, parks, and rural landscapes supports ecological balance and enriches human life. The universal appeal of plants lies in their ability to unite people, foster well-being, and contribute to a sustainable future. By integrating more plants into our surroundings and supporting conservation efforts, we can ensure a healthier planet and improve our quality of life. Plants are not just greenery; they are vital to our existence and the health of our environment, offering endless benefits to humanity.

Text prompt

• Instructive
• Professional

10 Examples of Public speaking

20 Examples of Gas lighting