Countries around the world are trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions without hurting their economies. As a result, more people are talking about a possible “nuclear comeback.” Supporters say nuclear power is reliable and produces almost no carbon emissions. Critics, however, worry about past disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima, as well as the high cost of building new plants. With opinions divided, the big question is: could new nuclear reactors help fight climate change, or are they a costly and risky distraction from safer options?
Even after three decades without a major Western accident, nuclear remains polarizing. A 2024 survey by the Pew Research Center found that only 56 percent of U.S. adults favor building additional reactors [1]. Fear persists due to vivid media images of past disasters and lingering confusion about waste. Yet the same survey shows support creeping upward as climate worries mount, evidence that opinions may be shifting if scientists communicate risks clearly.
Reactors and Safety
The plants that melted down in 1986 and 2011 were designed in the 1960s. By contrast, today’s Generation IV and Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) embed passive safety: gravity-fed coolant, natural convection, and negative temperature coefficients that halt the chain reaction without operator action. In May 2025 the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved NuScale’s 77 MWe SMR design—the first in the West to receive a full safety green-light [2], [3]. Each module sits inside an underground pool; if power is lost, heat simply dissipates into surrounding water and concrete.
Figure 1. Model of a Small Modular Reactor System (U.S Department of Energy)
Peer-reviewed analyses show core-damage frequencies for modern SMRs are two orders of magnitude lower than for 1970s light-water reactors [4]. After more than 18,000 reactor-years of global operation, the total number of serious nuclear accidents remains small compared with coal-mine collapses, gas explosions, or dam failures.
According to the World Nuclear Association nuclear energy causes fewer fatalities per terawatt-hour (TWh) than coal, oil, natural gas, and even biomass, primarily because it produces no air pollution during operation [5]. In contrast, fossil fuels contribute to millions of deaths each year from air pollution [6], mine accidents, and transportation hazards. Even renewable sources like hydroelectricity can be riskier—especially in the case of dam failures, which have caused thousands of deaths. When properly regulated and managed, nuclear power offers a remarkably safe way to produce large amounts of electricity with minimal environmental and human health risks.
Figure 2. Deaths per terawatt-hour of electricity, by energy source (Our World in Data, 2023 ourworldindata.org)
Radioactive waste
Worldwide, commercial reactors have produced about 400,000 metric tons of spent fuel—enough to fill a single U.S. football field to a depth of 15 meters. High-level waste is glass-encapsulated and stored in steel-and-concrete casks that pass airplane-crash and fire tests. Finland’s Onkalo project, now in final trial runs, is the first deep-geological repository slated to begin permanent disposal in 2025 [7], [8]. Multi-barrier canisters will sit 450 m below bedrock, isolated from groundwater for 100,000 years—longer than human history to date.
Critics counter that U.S. efforts have stalled, but the science is clear. Geologic disposal works, and the volume is tiny relative to society’s chemical-toxic wastes and the byproducts of other forms of energy production, some of which never decay.
Low-carbon power
Popularity of wind, solar and batteries is increasing, but their variability imposes steep integration costs beyond 70 percent grid penetration. The International Energy Agency now projects that meeting net-zero pledges will require doubling to tripling global nuclear capacity by 2050 [10]. Countries already using large shares such as France, Sweden, and Ontario exhibit some of the world’s lowest electricity-sector emissions.
A 2022 Nature Energy study comparing 123 national power systems concluded that pathways including a firm low-carbon source (nuclear or fossil and carbon capture) decarbonized 2–4 times faster than renewable-only approaches [11]. Simply put, the grid needs something that stays on during the many occasions there is no wind or sun.
Conclusion
Evidence indicates that modern nuclear plants are dramatically safer than the fossil fuels they can displace; their waste is small and manageable; and their firm output complements renewables in ways batteries alone cannot yet match affordably. Perfect? No. Indispensable? The climate math says yes.
Refusing nuclear on principle and emotional connotation risks locking in gas turbines and generators for decades, or forcing massive overbuilds of wind, solar, storage, and transmission that have their own downsides. The smarter path is pragmatic: build renewables and next-gen reactors, invest in grids, and keep evaluating real-world data.
References
[1] Pew Research Center, “Majority of Americans Support More Nuclear Power in the Country,” 5 Aug 2024. pewresearch.org
[2] NuScale Power Corp., “SMR Achieves Standard Design Approval from US NRC,” Press Release, 7 Jun 2025. nuscalepower.com
[3] U.S. Dept. of Energy, Office of Nuclear Energy, “NRC Approves NuScale Power’s Uprated SMR Design,” 2025. energy.gov
[4] D. Ingersoll, “Deliberately Small Reactors and the Second Nuclear Era,” Prog. Nucl. Energy, vol. 51, pp. 589–603, 2009.
[5] World Nuclear Association, “Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors,” World‑Nuclear.org, Apr. 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/safety-of-nuclear-power-reactors.
[6] J. Lelieveld et al., “Air pollution deaths attributable to fossil fuels: observational and modelling study,” BMJ, vol. 383, no. 8410, p. e077784, Nov. 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2023-077784.
[7] NucNet, “Finland Completes Key Trial for World’s First Deep Geological Repository,” 2025. nucnet.org
[8] Posiva Oy, “Trial Run Begins at Onkalo Repository,” 2024. ans.org
[9] Lazard, Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis v17.0, 2024. energy.gov
[10] International Energy Agency, The Path to a New Era for Nuclear Energy, Executive Summary, 2025. iea.org
[11] K. Koopmans et al., “Extent of Global Decarbonization of the Power Sector,” Nature Energy, vol. 7, pp. 1021–1030, 2022. nature.com
[12] U.S. Department of Energy, "Advanced Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)," Office of Nuclear Energy. https://www.energy.gov/ne/advanced-small-modular-reactors-smrs.
No comments:
Post a Comment