why nuclear energy is bad essay

Cooling towers of a nuclear power plant with lightning in the background.

Nuclear energy isn’t a safe bet in a warming world – here’s why

Honorary Senior Research Associate, UCL Energy Institute, University College London, UCL

Disclosure statement

Paul Dorfman is founder and chair of the Nuclear Consulting Group, an independent, non-profit virtual institute dedicated to providing expert research and analysis of nuclear issues.

University College London provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation UK.

View all partners

The overwhelming majority of nuclear power stations active today entered service long before the science of climate change was well-established. Two in five nuclear plants operate on the coast and at least 100 have been built just a few metres above sea level. Nuclear energy is, quite literally, on the frontline of climate change – and not in a good way.

You can listen to more articles from The Conversation, narrated by Noa, here .

Recent scientific data indicates sea levels globally will rise further and faster than earlier predictions suggested. Even over the next couple of decades, as extreme weather events become more frequent and destructive, strong winds and low atmospheric pressure will drive bigger storm surges that could threaten coastal installations.

Nuclear power plants must draw from large sources of water to cool their reactors, hence why they’re often built near the sea. But nuclear plants further inland will face similar problems with flooding in a warming world. Increasingly severe droughts and wildfire only ramp up the threat.

A large nuclear facility on a hill opposite a body of water.

Around 516 million people worldwide live within a 50-mile (80km) radius of at least one operating nuclear power plant, and 20 million live within a ten-mile (16km) radius. These people bear the health and safety risks of any future nuclear accident. Efforts to build plants resistant to climate change will significantly increase the already considerable expense involved in building, operating and decommissioning nuclear plants, not to mention maintaining their stockpiles of nuclear waste.

Nuclear power is often credited with offering energy security in an increasingly turbulent world, but climate change will rewrite these old certainties. Extreme floods, droughts and storms which were once rare are becoming far more common, making industry protection measures, drafted in an earlier age, increasingly obsolete. Climate risks to nuclear power plants won’t be linear or predictable. As rising seas, storm surges and heavy rainfall erodes coastal and inland flood defences, natural and built barriers will reach their limits.

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission concludes the vast majority of its nuclear sites were never designed to withstand the future climate impacts they face, and many have already experienced some flooding. A recent US Army War College report also states that nuclear power facilities are at high risk of temporary or permanent closure due to climate threats – with 60% of US nuclear capacity at risk from future sea-level rise, severe storms, and cooling water shortages.

Two people look on as a motorway is engulfed by ocean water.

Before even thinking about building any more nuclear power stations, the industry must consider how models of future weather extremes and climate impacts are likely to affect them. Not only should they account for changing weather patterns over seasons, years and decades, but try to assume the worst in terms of the potential for sudden extreme events. Before any project is greenlit, the costings of all these necessary precautions must feed into the final forecast.

Nuclear power may become a significant casualty of intensifying climate impacts. As things stand, nuclear infrastructure is largely unprepared. Some reactors could soon become unfit for purpose. This should prompt a substantial reassessment of nuclear’s role in helping the world reach net zero emissions.

Climate change
Nuclear energy
Extreme weather
Sea level rise
Decarbonisation
Nuclear power plants
Audio narrated

Admissions Officer

Director of STEM

Community member - Training Delivery and Development Committee (Volunteer part-time)

Chief Executive Officer

Head of Evidence to Action

Essay Service Examples Environment Nuclear Energy

Nuclear Energy Essay

Proper editing and formatting
Free revision, title page, and bibliography
Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Our writers will provide you with an essay sample written from scratch: any topic, any deadline, any instructions.

Cite this paper

Join our 150k of happy users

Get original paper written according to your instructions
Save time for what matters most

Fair Use Policy

EduBirdie considers academic integrity to be the essential part of the learning process and does not support any violation of the academic standards. Should you have any questions regarding our Fair Use Policy or become aware of any violations, please do not hesitate to contact us via [email protected].

We are here 24/7 to write your paper in as fast as 3 hours.

Provide your email, and we'll send you this sample!

By providing your email, you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy .

Say goodbye to copy-pasting!

Get custom-crafted papers for you.

Enter your email, and we'll promptly send you the full essay. No need to copy piece by piece. It's in your inbox!

The 3,122-megawatt Civaux Nuclear Power Plant in France, which opened in 1997. GUILLAUME SOUVANT / AFP / Getty Images

Why Nuclear Power Must Be Part of the Energy Solution

By Richard Rhodes • July 19, 2018

Many environmentalists have opposed nuclear power, citing its dangers and the difficulty of disposing of its radioactive waste. But a Pulitzer Prize-winning author argues that nuclear is safer than most energy sources and is needed if the world hopes to radically decrease its carbon emissions.

In the late 16th century, when the increasing cost of firewood forced ordinary Londoners to switch reluctantly to coal, Elizabethan preachers railed against a fuel they believed to be, literally, the Devil’s excrement. Coal was black, after all, dirty, found in layers underground — down toward Hell at the center of the earth — and smelled strongly of sulfur when it burned. Switching to coal, in houses that usually lacked chimneys, was difficult enough; the clergy’s outspoken condemnation, while certainly justified environmentally, further complicated and delayed the timely resolution of an urgent problem in energy supply.

For too many environmentalists concerned with global warming, nuclear energy is today’s Devil’s excrement. They condemn it for its production and use of radioactive fuels and for the supposed problem of disposing of its waste. In my judgment, their condemnation of this efficient, low-carbon source of baseload energy is misplaced. Far from being the Devil’s excrement, nuclear power can be, and should be, one major component of our rescue from a hotter, more meteorologically destructive world.

Like all energy sources, nuclear power has advantages and disadvantages. What are nuclear power’s benefits? First and foremost, since it produces energy via nuclear fission rather than chemical burning, it generates baseload electricity with no output of carbon, the villainous element of global warming. Switching from coal to natural gas is a step toward decarbonizing, since burning natural gas produces about half the carbon dioxide of burning coal. But switching from coal to nuclear power is radically decarbonizing, since nuclear power plants release greenhouse gases only from the ancillary use of fossil fuels during their construction, mining, fuel processing, maintenance, and decommissioning — about as much as solar power does, which is about 4 to 5 percent as much as a natural gas-fired power plant.

Nuclear power releases less radiation into the environment than any other major energy source.

Second, nuclear power plants operate at much higher capacity factors than renewable energy sources or fossil fuels. Capacity factor is a measure of what percentage of the time a power plant actually produces energy. It’s a problem for all intermittent energy sources. The sun doesn’t always shine, nor the wind always blow, nor water always fall through the turbines of a dam.

In the United States in 2016, nuclear power plants, which generated almost 20 percent of U.S. electricity, had an average capacity factor of 92.3 percent , meaning they operated at full power on 336 out of 365 days per year. (The other 29 days they were taken off the grid for maintenance.) In contrast , U.S. hydroelectric systems delivered power 38.2 percent of the time (138 days per year), wind turbines 34.5 percent of the time (127 days per year) and solar electricity arrays only 25.1 percent of the time (92 days per year). Even plants powered with coal or natural gas only generate electricity about half the time for reasons such as fuel costs and seasonal and nocturnal variations in demand. Nuclear is a clear winner on reliability.

Third, nuclear power releases less radiation into the environment than any other major energy source. This statement will seem paradoxical to many readers, since it’s not commonly known that non-nuclear energy sources release any radiation into the environment. They do. The worst offender is coal, a mineral of the earth’s crust that contains a substantial volume of the radioactive elements uranium and thorium. Burning coal gasifies its organic materials, concentrating its mineral components into the remaining waste, called fly ash. So much coal is burned in the world and so much fly ash produced that coal is actually the major source of radioactive releases into the environment.

Anti-nuclear activists protest the construction of a nuclear power station in Seabrook, New Hampshire in 1977. AP Photo

In the early 1950s, when the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission believed high-grade uranium ores to be in short supply domestically, it considered extracting uranium for nuclear weapons from the abundant U.S. supply of fly ash from coal burning. In 2007, China began exploring such extraction, drawing on a pile of some 5.3 million metric tons of brown-coal fly ash at Xiaolongtang in Yunnan. The Chinese ash averages about 0.4 pounds of triuranium octoxide (U3O8), a uranium compound, per metric ton. Hungary and South Africa are also exploring uranium extraction from coal fly ash.

What are nuclear’s downsides? In the public’s perception, there are two, both related to radiation: the risk of accidents, and the question of disposal of nuclear waste.

There have been three large-scale accidents involving nuclear power reactors since the onset of commercial nuclear power in the mid-1950s: Three-Mile Island in Pennsylvania, Chernobyl in Ukraine, and Fukushima in Japan.

Studies indicate even the worst possible accident at a nuclear plant is less destructive than other major industrial accidents.

The partial meltdown of the Three-Mile Island reactor in March 1979, while a disaster for the owners of the Pennsylvania plant, released only a minimal quantity of radiation to the surrounding population. According to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission :

“The approximately 2 million people around TMI-2 during the accident are estimated to have received an average radiation dose of only about 1 millirem above the usual background dose. To put this into context, exposure from a chest X-ray is about 6 millirem and the area’s natural radioactive background dose is about 100-125 millirem per year… In spite of serious damage to the reactor, the actual release had negligible effects on the physical health of individuals or the environment.”

The explosion and subsequent burnout of a large graphite-moderated, water-cooled reactor at Chernobyl in 1986 was easily the worst nuclear accident in history. Twenty-nine disaster relief workers died of acute radiation exposure in the immediate aftermath of the accident. In the subsequent three decades, UNSCEAR — the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, composed of senior scientists from 27 member states — has observed and reported at regular intervals on the health effects of the Chernobyl accident. It has identified no long-term health consequences to populations exposed to Chernobyl fallout except for thyroid cancers in residents of Belarus, Ukraine and western Russia who were children or adolescents at the time of the accident, who drank milk contaminated with 131iodine, and who were not evacuated. By 2008, UNSCEAR had attributed some 6,500 excess cases of thyroid cancer in the Chernobyl region to the accident, with 15 deaths. The occurrence of these cancers increased dramatically from 1991 to 1995, which researchers attributed mostly to radiation exposure. No increase occurred in adults.

The Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, located near Avila Beach, California, will be decommissioned starting in 2024. Pacific Gas and Electric

“The average effective doses” of radiation from Chernobyl, UNSCEAR also concluded , “due to both external and internal exposures, received by members of the general public during 1986-2005 [were] about 30 mSv for the evacuees, 1 mSv for the residents of the former Soviet Union, and 0.3 mSv for the populations of the rest of Europe.” A sievert is a measure of radiation exposure, a millisievert is one-one-thousandth of a sievert. A full-body CT scan delivers about 10-30 mSv. A U.S. resident receives an average background radiation dose, exclusive of radon, of about 1 mSv per year.

The statistics of Chernobyl irradiations cited here are so low that they must seem intentionally minimized to those who followed the extensive media coverage of the accident and its aftermath. Yet they are the peer-reviewed products of extensive investigation by an international scientific agency of the United Nations. They indicate that even the worst possible accident at a nuclear power plant — the complete meltdown and burnup of its radioactive fuel — was yet far less destructive than other major industrial accidents across the past century. To name only two: Bhopal, in India, where at least 3,800 people died immediately and many thousands more were sickened when 40 tons of methyl isocyanate gas leaked from a pesticide plant; and Henan Province, in China, where at least 26,000 people drowned following the failure of a major hydroelectric dam in a typhoon. “Measured as early deaths per electricity units produced by the Chernobyl facility (9 years of operation, total electricity production of 36 GWe-years, 31 early deaths) yields 0.86 death/GWe-year),” concludes Zbigniew Jaworowski, a physician and former UNSCEAR chairman active during the Chernobyl accident. “This rate is lower than the average fatalities from [accidents involving] a majority of other energy sources. For example, the Chernobyl rate is nine times lower than the death rate from liquefied gas… and 47 times lower than from hydroelectric stations.”

Nuclear waste disposal, although a continuing political problem, is not any longer a technological problem.

The accident in Japan at Fukushima Daiichi in March 2011 followed a major earthquake and tsunami. The tsunami flooded out the power supply and cooling systems of three power reactors, causing them to melt down and explode, breaching their confinement. Although 154,000 Japanese citizens were evacuated from a 12-mile exclusion zone around the power station, radiation exposure beyond the station grounds was limited. According to the report submitted to the International Atomic Energy Agency in June 2011:

“No harmful health effects were found in 195,345 residents living in the vicinity of the plant who were screened by the end of May 2011. All the 1,080 children tested for thyroid gland exposure showed results within safe limits. By December, government health checks of some 1,700 residents who were evacuated from three municipalities showed that two-thirds received an external radiation dose within the normal international limit of 1 mSv/year, 98 percent were below 5 mSv/year, and 10 people were exposed to more than 10 mSv… [There] was no major public exposure, let alone deaths from radiation.”

Nuclear waste disposal, although a continuing political problem in the U.S., is not any longer a technological problem. Most U.S. spent fuel, more than 90 percent of which could be recycled to extend nuclear power production by hundreds of years, is stored at present safely in impenetrable concrete-and-steel dry casks on the grounds of operating reactors, its radiation slowly declining.

An activist in March 2017 demanding closure of the Fessenheim Nuclear Power Plant in France. Authorities announced in April that they will close the facility by 2020. SEBASTIEN BOZON / AFP / Getty Images

The U.S. Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) near Carlsbad, New Mexico currently stores low-level and transuranic military waste and could store commercial nuclear waste in a 2-kilometer thick bed of crystalline salt, the remains of an ancient sea. The salt formation extends from southern New Mexico all the way northeast to southwestern Kansas. It could easily accommodate the entire world’s nuclear waste for the next thousand years.

Finland is even further advanced in carving out a permanent repository in granite bedrock 400 meters under Olkiluoto, an island in the Baltic Sea off the nation’s west coast. It expects to begin permanent waste storage in 2023.

A final complaint against nuclear power is that it costs too much. Whether or not nuclear power costs too much will ultimately be a matter for markets to decide, but there is no question that a full accounting of the external costs of different energy systems would find nuclear cheaper than coal or natural gas.

Nuclear power is not the only answer to the world-scale threat of global warming. Renewables have their place; so, at least for leveling the flow of electricity when renewables vary, does natural gas. But nuclear deserves better than the anti-nuclear prejudices and fears that have plagued it. It isn’t the 21st century’s version of the Devil’s excrement. It’s a valuable, even an irreplaceable, part of the solution to the greatest energy threat in the history of humankind.

On gulf coast, an activist rallies her community against gas exports.

By Jocelyn C. Zuckerman

Can a California Oilfield Be Retrofitted to Store Solar Energy?

By Stephen Robert Miller

In a Dammed and Diked Mekong, a Push to Restore the Flow

By Stefan Lovgren

More From E360

E360 film contest winner, in california, a solitary herder cares for his goats and the hills, as ‘doomsday’ glacier melts, can an artificial barrier save it, e360 film contest, for 60,000 years, australia’s first nations have put fire to good use, faced with heavier rains, cities scramble to control polluted runoff, in montana’s northern plains, swift foxes are back from the brink, as canadian river shrivels, northern communities call for a highway, in warming world, global heat deaths are grossly undercounted, biodiversity, the ‘internet of animals’ could transform what we know about wildlife, grim dilemma: should we kill one owl species to save another, with co2 levels rising, world’s drylands are turning green, as world’s springs vanish, ripple effects alter ecosystems.

What Does Science Say About the Need for Nuclear?

By Jessica McDonald

Posted on November 1, 2019

While Sen. Bernie Sanders has said “scientists tell us” that it’s possible to go carbon neutral without relying on nuclear power, fellow Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Cory Booker, who backs the use of some nuclear energy, has said the data is on his side. Who’s right? Both have a point, but neither is telling the full story.

Most experts agree that Sanders is correct that it’s technologically possible to decarbonize the grid without using nuclear power. But many researchers also say keeping nuclear on the table makes decarbonization easier and more likely.

Booker, a New Jersey senator and a former mayor of Newark, has called for reaching “100% clean energy” in the electricity sector by 2030. His plan includes a $20 billion investment in next-generation advanced nuclear research and development by the end of the next decade.

During power generation, nuclear plants release no greenhouse gases, but they come with additional safety, security and waste disposal challenges .

He Said, He Said

The candidates’ divide on nuclear power became apparent on Sept. 4 during CNN’s climate crisis town hall , a two-day event in which the 10 leading Democratic presidential hopefuls were quizzed about their approaches to tackling climate change.

After Sanders was asked about his position on nuclear power by a graduate student in the audience, CNN’s chief climate correspondent, Bill Weir, followed up, pointing out that the U.S. gets 20% of its electricity from nuclear, and France gets about 70% . Referencing the amount of land required for solar and wind, Weir asked how it would be possible to go “carbon neutral without nuclear in the short term.”

“I think you can,” Sanders replied . “And I think the scientists tell us, in fact, that we can.” He went on to mention the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011 and 1986’s Chernobyl disaster.

Booker, meanwhile, made his counterclaim hours later. “[N]uclear is more than 50 percent of our non-carbon causing energy,” he said. “So people who think that we can get there without nuclear being part of the blend just aren’t looking at the facts.”

Later, in a Sept. 19 interview with the HuffPost , Booker called out his colleagues who oppose nuclear power, saying, “As much as we say the Republicans when it comes to climate change must listen to science, our party has the same obligation to listen to scientists,” he said. “The data speaks for itself.”

“If we had a president who was going to pull us out of nuclear, we’d be more reliant on fossil fuels,” Booker added. “It’s as simple as that.”

As we’ll explain, there is support for each perspective, although Jesse Jenkins , an energy systems engineer and professor at Princeton University, said both politicians are “making stronger claims than there’s a scientific basis.” Sanders, Jenkins explained, can point to published studies that outline how one can get to zero-carbon without nuclear. “Those exist,” he said. And bolstering Booker’s side, he said, is the “predominance of the evidence” that suggests the most cost-effective way of decarbonizing would include “some nuclear.”

The debate over nuclear energy isn’t limited to Booker and Sanders, even if relatively few Democratic candidates have addressed nuclear power in their climate plans. Former Vice President Joe Biden backs nuclear technology research, as does entrepreneur Andrew Yang, who views nuclear as a “stopgap” measure and plans on having next-gen reactors up and running by 2027.

Although not written into her climate plan , Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts said during her town hall segment that she would not build any more nuclear plants and would “start weaning” the country off nuclear energy. Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota also committed to not expanding the number of nuclear plants “unless we can find safe storage.”

Without diving into the details of individual plans, we’ll lay out what scientists know about the role of nuclear energy in decarbonizing the electrical grid.

Nuclear Not Necessary

To start, we’ll consider Sanders’ claim that “scientists tell us” that it’s possible to get to a zero-carbon electrical grid without nuclear power.

“The shortest answer is yes, that’s true. Scientists do tell us that we can,” said Drew Shindell , a climate scientist at Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment.

Ryan Jones , an expert in electricity systems and a co-founder of Evolved Energy Research , a consulting company that models low-carbon transitions, agreed. “Anyone who says that nuclear is 100% necessary on a technical basis, I would claim, just hasn’t looked at the alternatives in enough detail,” he said in an email.

Most experts FactCheck.org contacted, including those who think nuclear power should remain an option, said that from a technical perspective, nuclear is not needed to decarbonize the grid.

But technically possible is not the same as practically feasible, or the most cost-effective. In that regard, many, although not all, researchers say nuclear — or something like it — is likely to be necessary to some degree. And even if nuclear is ultimately not needed, they say, the safer strategy is not to exclude it.

“All the evidence says it is possible to decarbonize the energy system in the U.S. without using nuclear power,” said Jones. But, he added, there are cases, such as places that don’t have good wind resources, in which building new nuclear plants can reduce the cost of decarbonizing. Depending on the region, he said, “getting to 100% renewable energy is either very expensive or necessitates significant new transmission to import resources from elsewhere.”

That’s where nuclear can be helpful. It doesn’t have to be nuclear — Jones said carbon capture and sequestration, or CCS, for example, would also work. Sanders’ plan, notably, specifically excludes CCS.

Jones also made a point to note that there is a difference between building new nuclear plants, which he said likely wouldn’t be ready to go until after 2030 anyway, and maintaining the nation’s existing reactors. Much of the future of nuclear power depends on the development of advanced technologies, but there is little disagreement that keeping safely operating plants around for as long as possible would be a boon for the climate. “Maintaining our existing fleet is a good way to keep costs low and an accelerated retirement schedule simply makes it that much harder,” he said.

Shindell said that while Sanders is correct in a strict sense, the “more complete” answer is that eliminating nuclear as an option would complicate the effort to decarbonize, requiring the “most extreme” levels of action in other areas to reach the zero-carbon goal. “The more you take away one zero-carbon option,” he said, “the harder you have to push on the others.”

Global Assessments

When scientists have modeled the ways the planet as a whole can avoid the worst effects of climate change — and limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels — nuclear power is almost always part of the solution. In the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2018 special report , scientists described 85 pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 degrees, or overshooting that threshold and returning to 1.5 degrees or below by 2100.

Shindell, who was one of the coordinating lead authors on the chapter , told us that it was a rare scenario that met or mostly met the 1.5 degrees limit and didn’t have nuclear power in the mix. “Very few, almost none in fact, can achieve 1.5 without nuclear,” he said. “It’s a very extreme scenario that can do that. And it requires enormous gains in all the zero-carbon sources.”

A large number of scenarios expanded nuclear power, Shindell said, to around double today’s level. He estimated that 90% of the scenarios included nuclear capacity above today’s level, and just one or two scenarios phased out nuclear entirely by 2100.

There are pathways, the report says, that “no longer see a role for nuclear fission by the end of the century.” But none include no nuclear as early as 2030 or 2050.

Because the scenarios are global, the results don’t necessarily mean that the U.S. must keep or expand its nuclear power. And the scenarios are inherently limited to the types of studies scientists do, Shindell said. Still, the IPCC findings suggest that in a broad sense, most roads to success include nuclear reactors.

Consider, too, the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report from 2014, which was the first to include scenarios that excluded certain technologies. In the nuclear phase out scenario, eight of nine tested scenarios were able to reach the target CO2 concentration level of 430-480 parts per million, or the equivalent of reaching 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. But the limitation in technology increased the median costs by 7% (see figure 6.24 and table SPM.2 ). The phase out assumed that existing plants could operate until the end of their lifetime, but did not allow for any new nuclear plants beyond those already under construction.

A 2013 study cited in the 2014 IPCC report used an integrated assessment model to learn what might happen globally if nations stopped building any new nuclear plants in 2020. The authors concluded it was “in principle feasible” to transform the energy system and limit carbon dioxide concentrations to 450 parts per million. But they noted that it would require “massive and rapid expansion” of other low-emissions technology, such as renewables and carbon capture and sequestration.

“This underscores the fact that, in general, nuclear energy can be regarded as a choice rather than a necessity, and different regional and national attitudes toward nuclear energy can be accommodated,” the paper reads. “On the other hand, the forced phase-out of nuclear energy by 2020 would increase the required investments into the energy system transformation and would limit future supply-side flexibility, resulting in comparatively higher costs of CO2.”

Local Assessments

On a more local level, such as for individual countries or regions, scientists can perform much more detailed models of the electrical grid or energy system over space and time to determine the viability of various power mixes and their costs. Sometimes, such models are designed to find the lowest-cost option, while others are set up to test the robustness of the system.

What’s clear from these modeling efforts is that the clearest and cheapest path forward to decarbonization is to rapidly expand renewable power, especially wind and solar. In a variety of studies, including those from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and others , large amounts of renewable power can be added to the grid without sacrificing reliability and without imposing excessively high costs. But there is some disagreement on how far renewables, on their own, can go.

One prominent paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2015 argued that in the U.S., 100% renewable energy is possible at low cost by 2050-2055. But numerous scientists objected to that analysis, and two separate groups, including one with more than 20 authors, published critiques ; the original authors also penned rebuttals .

Christopher Clack, the lead author of the primary critique and the founder and CEO of Vibrant Clean Energy , a company that does high-resolution electrical grid modeling, says he has yet to be convinced that 100% renewables is possible in the U.S. In his view, the concept is theoretically possible, but unlikely to be feasible in practice.

“We can get all the way within a model, but in reality we probably cannot due to the imperfections of forecasts, dispatch, measurements, etc.,” he said. And for him, cost is not an ancillary issue. “If it is not possible at low-cost, it is not possible in reality,” he said, “because alternatives will be used instead.”

Regardless, each time he’s looked at studies that claim to show a successful 100% renewable grid, he’s found problems. Some models, he said, don’t go into granular enough detail, which can “smear out” challenging times for an all-renewable grid, such as an extreme cold snap. Other papers, he said, rely on unproven technology or unrealistic costs.

The fundamental issue for renewables, of course, is weather variability, and how to handle the times when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine. In Clack’s view, this challenge can mostly — but not fully — be solved by adding storage and creating a more connected and responsive electrical grid. In 2016, while working for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Clack published one of the first “supergrid” papers in Nature Climate Change , which showed that by building out high-voltage, direct-current transmission lines, the U.S. could lower its electricity-sector carbon dioxide emissions by as much as 80% below 1990’s level, without an increase in the cost of electricity.

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory similarly found that existing renewable technology, coupled with a more flexible grid, “is more than adequate” to supply 80% of the nation’s electricity in 2050.

But to actually provide 100% of the nation’s electricity at a reasonable cost, Clack said there needs to be a non-variable source, which could include — but isn’t limited to — nuclear power.

The importance of including some non-variable sources was also underscored in a 2018 review co-authored by Princeton’s Jenkins. That paper, which appeared in the journal Joule , reviewed 40 studies published since the IPCC’s 2014 report that explored pathways on either a global or local scale for “deep decarbonization,” defined as an 80%-100% cut in current CO2 emissions. It f ound that all 20 of the studies that took an agnostic approach to finding the most affordable way to go about deep decarbonization ultimately selected a power mix that included at least one low-carbon “firm” resource, such as nuclear power or fossil fuels coupled with CCS.

As Jenkins explained it, while wind and solar can do the bulk of the work, as renewable penetration approaches 100%, problems emerge and costs rise sharply. He told us that most storage — largely lithium-ion batteries — can help with daily variation, but is insufficient for when the sun and wind stall for weeks at a time over a large geographic area, or what’s known as the “dark doldrums.” Adding even more storage capacity might be able to do the trick, he said, but that storage would be expensive to build and rarely used. The economics of such a scenario are bleak. Even assuming costs fall to less than a third of today’s, Jenkins’ review calculated that it would cost more than $7 trillion to build out enough lithium-ion batteries to store a week’s worth of electricity in the U.S. That’s almost 19 times the amount spent on the nation’s electricity over one year.

Not everyone holds this view. Daniel Kammen , a professor of energy at the University of California, Berkeley, and director of the school’s Renewable & Appropriate Energy Laboratory , objected to the 2015 PNAS paper, but nevertheless thinks that 100% renewables are an achievable goal. “They are wrong,” he said in an email, adding that 100% clean energy is possible with solar, wind and hydro when supported with storage. Kammen, who is a former science envoy to the State Department under Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump, did not reply to further questions, but pointed to his lab’s energy system model . In 2016 , his group used the model to evaluate costs under a variety of assumptions for a large swath of western North America to reach a target of 85% below 1990 emissions levels by 2050.

Trieu Mai , a senior energy researcher at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, said the science remains unsettled over the economic viability of the various zero-carbon power options.

“I do not believe there has been sufficient analysis to conclusively say which technologies are necessary to reach zero emission power or energy systems,” he said in an email. “There is strong consensus in the literature that growth in renewable energy will be required,” he added, “but the extent of this growth (i.e., whether it should reach 100%) is still under debate.”

In the end, the larger question of how to decarbonize the energy system may come down to differences in philosophy rather than the science, which is not clear-cut, and involves assumptions about the future.

“There isn’t a single scientific truth here,” said Jenkins. “It’s a debate about priorities and feasibility, which is defined in a number of different ways by a number of different parties.”

For Jenkins, though, banking only on solar and wind would be a “mistake.” “Given the high stakes,” he wrote in his 2018 review, “it would be prudent to expand and improve a wide set of clean energy resources, each of which may fill the critical niche for firm, low-carbon power should other technologies falter.”

“If we’re really in a ‘climate crisis,’ then you go to war with your full arsenal,” Jenkins said. “You don’t hold anything back. And you don’t purposefully make this crisis harder by limiting our already limited options.”

Why Nuclear Energy Is Not Good? Essay

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

Introduction

Why nuclear energy is not best alternative.

Energy source that is being proposed and used by people in the public, one must always look at safety and economic use. This paper provide thesis argument: nuclear energy is not good.

Making nuclear plant that would be good for replacing fossil fuels must require many nuclear plants which each need billion dollars. In the end this means the country would have to waste with so much money before it can remove the energy demand for the United States even as much as the fossil fuels (Mackenzie, 1977). Even the day and time needed to create a nuclear plant would be bog problem because one plant take about ten years in order to complete.

Again even shutting a nuclear plant involves massive expensive because it must be decommissioned by a decommissioning authority. Even those who say net production is cost effective for unit of nuclear energy produced may not be saying the truth because most of these estimate forget that nuclear energy is recipient of many government subsidies.

Most researches in renewable energy are done with help of government inventions and subsidies in it. If these are removed because they cannot be there in the future then cost of producing this power would be so high. Therefore, it would not be good idea to make large scale nuclear energy because it would be good to improve current energy sources in because of costs.

Another problem and issue is environmental damage being taken by this source of electricity. Nuclear energy is bad for total of nuclear waste removed at time of production and this waste often radioactive (Diesendorf, 2007). It is because of these problem, factories must have system in place that allow disposals and this must be very expensive that make a number of them very much uneconomical.

If they have not been in position to do so then the environment suffer through the emission of any kind of heat in waste or because radioactive emissions that be very harmful to the human body. Furthermore, even process of mining the material to begin with for nuclear energy production i.e. uranium mining would being radioactive dumps which being in some sort of negative cycles. One method used to remove of this kind of waste has been making of electricity during the use of heat from the waste.

Here, people who support of nuclear energy say that natural gas can be generated through such method and this may therefore increase the convenience of the waste. But, major reason for take up nuclear energy is to protect the environment from carbon emissions. It would not be good to use clean energy to make dirty one (Lowe & Brook, 2010). Another method in getting rid these effects is US must build repository.

Still, do not forget radioactive nature of the materials, there must be radioactive resistant material that you use so to prevent the spread of these radiations to outside world. Also, nuclear energy building factories are using too much of resource – they want too much of water in order to make cooling effect.

Some plants like this one in Southern Australia consumers thirty million liters of water and plans in future for tripling this water. When economic activity bring to much of using of important natural resource like the water then it is environmental sustainability should always be wrong since it now competing with other kinds of uses that may be more important to the people (Bodansky, 2008).

Last one; many nuclear firm will like to focus on high level of the waste like the one radioactive material from factory after completing the process but very small number of them will think on low level wastes like radiation clothing (that may been used so that it can cover workers not to get radioactive emissions), rags, syringes and other smaller produces of radioactive emissions that may not attract many attention from manufacturers but this still be a dangerous thing to the public.

One other issue concerning nuclear energy is likely harm is may present to the public. Any employee who works at nuclear plant is risky always of being exposed to low level of radiations that may be responsible for many sick persons. Still, some disastrous events even occur especially around this form of energy.

The most big case of them was the Chernobyl accident. Not just this, smaller accidents have occurred or will be going to occur in the everyday to day making nuclear energy. For example, in Minnesota, it was said contaminated equipment transported from another location, this could put many at big danger (Cooke, 2009). And this is not enough, any people who live near nuclear plants always put the other at problem of long term health effects.

Those who work or live near the factories may be in danger to long term complications like cancer. Even though the chance of having affects by these issues may be highly small when safety measures and throwing away are obeyed, studies show serious problem there is still a danger of getting a health problem because of going near radioactive emissions or radioactive work.

These many risk of nuclear energy i.e. safety problem and around health of workers and residents, the building factories is not and environmental problems are many. Make this nuclear energy not a good and clean energy for the United States and world.

Mackenzie, J. (1977). The nuclear power controversy. Biology quarterly review, 52(4), 467

Cooke, S. (2009). A cautionary history on nuclear age. NY: Black inc

Diesendorf, M. (2007). Greenhouse solutions and sustainable energy. NSW: New South Wales university press

Lowe, I. & Brook, B. (2010). Why vs. Why: Nuclear power. Sydney: Pantera Press

Bodansky, D. (2008). Environmental paradox of nuclear power. Environmental practice, 3(2), 86

Energy and Momentum in the Daily Life
Should There Be a Limit to What Scientists Can Discover and Create When It Relates to the Wealfare of Humanity?
The Effect of Nuclear Energy on the Environment
Radioactive Decay Types: Environments
Impact of Nuclear Energy in France
Theoretical Aspects of Quantum Teleportation
The Wonders of the Universe
The Evolution of Electricity
Ethnography Reflection
Foundations of Earth Science
Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, July 31). Why Nuclear Energy Is Not Good? https://ivypanda.com/essays/renewable-energy/

"Why Nuclear Energy Is Not Good?" IvyPanda , 31 July 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/renewable-energy/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'Why Nuclear Energy Is Not Good'. 31 July.

IvyPanda . 2018. "Why Nuclear Energy Is Not Good?" July 31, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/renewable-energy/.

1. IvyPanda . "Why Nuclear Energy Is Not Good?" July 31, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/renewable-energy/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Why Nuclear Energy Is Not Good?" July 31, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/renewable-energy/.

When you hear the words “clean energy,” what comes to mind?

Most people immediately think of solar panels or wind turbines, but how many of you thought of nuclear energy?

Nuclear is often left out of the “clean energy” conversation despite it being the second largest source of low-carbon electricity in the world behind hydropower.

So, just how clean and sustainable is nuclear?

Try these quick facts for starters.

1. Nuclear energy protects air quality

McGuire Nuclear Station located in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.

Nuclear is a zero-emission clean energy source.

It generates power through fission, which is the process of splitting uranium atoms to produce energy. The heat released by fission is used to create steam that spins a turbine to generate electricity without the harmful byproducts emitted by fossil fuels.

According to the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), the United States avoided more than 471 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions in 2020. That’s the equivalent of removing 100 million cars from the road and more than all other clean energy sources combined.

It also keeps the air clean by removing thousands of tons of harmful air pollutants each year that contribute to acid rain, smog, lung cancer and cardiovascular disease.

2. Nuclear energy’s land footprint is small

DeSoto County Florida solar power system

Despite producing massive amounts of carbon-free power, nuclear energy produces more electricity on less land than any other clean-air source.

A typical 1,000-megawatt nuclear facility in the United States needs a little more than 1 square mile to operate. NEI says wind farms require 360 times more land area to produce the same amount of electricity and solar photovoltaic plants require 75 times more space.

To put that in perspective, you would need more than 3 million solar panels to produce the same amount of power as a typical commercial reactor or more than 430 wind turbines (capacity factor not included).

See more comparisons here .

3. Nuclear energy produces minimal waste

Nuclear fuel is extremely dense.

It’s about 1 million times greater than that of other traditional energy sources and because of this, the amount of used nuclear fuel is not as big as you might think.

All of the used nuclear fuel produced by the U.S. nuclear energy industry over the last 60 years could fit on a football field at a depth of less than 10 yards!

That waste can also be reprocessed and recycled, although the United States does not currently do this.

However, some advanced reactor designs being developed could operate on used fuel.

The NICE Future Initiative is a global effort under the Clean Energy Ministerial that makes sure nuclear will be considered in developing the advanced clean energy systems of the future.

*Updated June 2022

Partner With Us
Newsletter Sign Up
Microgrid Projects
Technologies

White Papers

Generation/Fuels

A Plan to Create an Energy Infrastructure in Rwanda Focused on Small Nuclear-Based Microgrids

Nearly 35% of Rwandan residents lack access to electricity and the country has no oil reserves and few gas reserves.

To help provide electricity and improve the quality of life in rural areas, small nuclear reactor provider Nano Nuclear Energy, working with the Rwandan government, plans to create an infrastructure based on microgrids that include nuclear microreactors – which have a capacity of less than 20 MW – and small modular nuclear reactors, which range in size from 12 MW to hundreds of megawatts.

Electricity for water and food

The microreactors and small nuclear reactors would help power critical services such as medical facilities, desalination plants and vertical farming operations – along with powering homes – ensuring residents have improved access to water and food, said James Walker, CEO of Nano Nuclear Energy.

“If you have a remote community and there's no power there, even things like water and food become pretty difficult to navigate,” Walker said.

With the nuclear-based microgrids, small desalination operations can be created to produce clean water, along with vertical farming operations that

can provide food.

The company plans to deploy its small reactors in Rwanda. Nano Nuclear is now developing prototype microreactors and small modular nuclear reactors, but has none commercially operating.

Nano Nuclear has signed an agreement with the Rwanda Atomic Energy Board to provide training, technical assistance and educational programs to help jump-start the nuclear industry, said Walker.

The Rwandan government will pay for the training, and Walker expects some funding to come from international investors.

Decarbonization efforts spur interest in nuclear power

With efforts to decarbonize power systems as soon as possible, interest in small modular reactors and microreactors has jumped in the U.S. as well as abroad. The Department of Energy (DOE) estimates that the U.S. will need approximately 700 GW to 900 GW of additional carbon-free and firm electricity capacity to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.

Oklo, the small nuclear reactor design firm backed by OpenAI founder Sam Altman, is seeing early opt-in for its technology to power commercial and industrial facilities .

Oklo’s second quarter financial update reported its customer pipeline has grown 93% to 1,350 MW in the past year. Many of the customer agreements are nonbinding letters of intent and term sheets that Oklo hopes to turn into power purchase agreements (PPA) over the rest of this year and early 2025, although the company has some PPA deals already committed. Much of the interest comes from data centers.

In June, the DOE announced a notice of intent to fund up to $900 million to support deployment of new small modular reactor technologies. The funding, made possible by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, will incentivize growth of smaller, advanced nuclear reactor projects.

Safety concerns about waste disposal

Some microgrid providers have expressed concerns about the safety of deploying nuclear power in microgrids, especially in urban settings. By definition, microgrids are located close to the load, and it’s unclear whether homeowners or businesses would want nuclear-based microgrids located close by. To ensure safety, nuclear plants need to be secure – leak-free – and operators need to be able to safely store nuclear waste.

Despite such concerns, efforts are picking up to deploy nuclear power as a microgrid resource.

Idaho National Laboratory (INL), working with software company Xendee, has developed a model that allows users to compare the economics of adding small nuclear reactors to microgrids along with other sources of energy.

Meanwhile, INL is focusing on industrial decarbonization in microgrid applications, said Timothy McJunkin, distinguished researcher at INL. “Those applications are expected to require the high grade heat that nuclear energy supplies to get to zero carbon,” he said.

Developing nuclear-based microgrids that cost less than diesel generators

In Rwanda, one of the goals is to replace diesel fuel – which is generally imported – in microgrids in rural areas, or to build new microgrids based on microreactors or small modular reactors in regions that lack power, said Walker. That means developing nuclear-based microgrids that cost less than remote diesel generators. Nano Nuclear’s research has shown that it’s possible to deploy the smaller nuclear reactors in remote northern Canadian communities of about 800 people at lower costs than using diesel generators, Walker said.

To conduct its research, Nano Nuclear began conversations with many different industries and regions where the microreactors would be deployed to get a sense of the cost of remote diesel. The talks focused on remote Canadian communities, mining sites and island communities, Walker said. The company also talked with a major diesel generator supplier. Once it had established the diesel costs, Nano Nuclear brought in two Wharton School modelers to work with Nano Nuclear’s engineers to examine whether the reactors could outcompete the costs of the diesel over the lifetime of the system.

“The capital costs of the microreactors came in way under the cost of the diesel over the lifetime of the reactor–especially as the number of reactors produced was increased–which meant that selling power over a contracted period of time to an end user could potentially be done more inexpensively than regularly importing diesel,” Walker said.

Initially, the plan is for Nano Nuclear to provide nuclear expertise courses for graduating Rwandan students as a means of developing the industry.

The role of renewable energy

Eventually, microgrids deployed in rural areas of Rwanda could use nuclear microreactors or small modular reactors as baseload power and add solar, wind or geothermal power. Or, if existing microgrids include renewable resources, nuclear energy could be added. In some cases, Nano Nuclear would partner with local microgrid companies to deploy the facilities, Walker said.

The plan would require Rwanda to establish licensing requirements and standards, possibly based on International Atomic Energy Agency licensing requirements.

“We want them to have a national regulator and a competent workforce and once you have that in place, you can begin deploying the reactors,” Walker said.

Deploying small modular nuclear reactors would be more complex than installing microreactors, Walker said. “A microreactor you can think of as similar to a big diesel generator. It can be shipped in and plugged in and start operating.”

The only microreactors that are now deployed are research reactors, mostly at U.S. universities, Walker said.

Regulations and licensing can slow deployment of nuclear

It will be easier to develop these smaller nuclear plants in Rwanda because the country has less bureaucracy than other parts of Africa. “The larger African countries like Nigeria are more bureaucratic, whereas the Rwandan system would be very streamlined and very easy to work with,” Walker said.

Nano Nuclear also plans to deploy microreactors and small modular reactors in the U.S., but existing standards from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) could slow down that process and create extra licensing costs, he said.

Nano Nuclear expects to start deploying the smaller reactors in Rwanda by 2028.

“We'll complete the design and construction of our prototype in the next two to three years, during which time we would have started the licensing process to get this reactor certified by the NRC, and at that point, once it’s been licensed, we can start deploying it as a commercial product,” said Walker.

However, NRC approval doesn’t necessarily mean that the numbers will work out.

Cost concerns about small nuclear reactors

NuScale Power received NRC’s standard design approval for its NuScale Power Module, a small nuclear reactor, in September 2020. But the company and the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems terminated the Carbon Free Power Project in November 2023. NuScale wanted to develop the six-reactor 462-MW project with the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems and launch it in 2030, but as costs increased, several towns pulled out of the project.

Meanwhile, nuclear startup TerraPower broke ground, ceremonially, in June on its planned Natrium reactor demonstration project in Wyoming. The first advanced reactor project to move from design to construction, it isn’t expected to be completed for five years.

With the clock ticking on decarbonizing the energy sector, nuclear power can potentially provide advantages over other energy sources, under the right conditions.

“A lot of these zero-carbon-emitting energy systems like wind, solar, geothermal and hydro are locationally dependent,” Walker said. They need wind, sunshine, dams, rivers and geothermal vents. “For nuclear, you can put it anywhere,” he noted.

But safety and cost concerns remain – concerns that Nano Nuclear hopes to overcome in Rwanda.

Lisa Cohn | Contributing Editor

I focus on the West Coast and Midwest. Email me at [email protected]

I’ve been writing about energy for more than 20 years, and my stories have appeared in EnergyBiz, SNL Financial, Mother Earth News, Natural Home Magazine, Horizon Air Magazine, Oregon Business, Open Spaces, the Portland Tribune, The Oregonian, Renewable Energy World, Windpower Monthly and other publications. I’m also a former stringer for the Platts/McGraw-Hill energy publications. I began my career covering energy and environment for The Cape Cod Times, where Elisa Wood also was a reporter. I’ve received numerous writing awards from national, regional and local organizations, including Pacific Northwest Writers Association, Willamette Writers, Associated Oregon Industries, and the Voice of Youth Advocates. I first became interested in energy as a student at Wesleyan University, Middletown, Connecticut, where I helped design and build a solar house.

Twitter: @LisaECohn

Linkedin: LisaEllenCohn

Facebook: Energy Efficiency Markets

Latest in Generation/Fuels

PowerSecure to Run Microgrid Generator with 100% Renewable Fuel

Rendering of Aurora PowerHouse. Image credit Oklo Inc.

Microgrid Nuclear Reactor Momentum: Oklo's Customer Pipeline Grows 93%

Microgrids On-Grid, Off-Grid, Big and Small for EV Charging

Fertile Ground for Microgrids: EIA Report Shows Commercial Sector Electricity Demand Surging in States Attracting Data Centers

Bloom Energy Bringing Fuel Cell Power to CoreWeave Data Center Project in Illinois

The microgrid perspective.

Propane Is a Sustainable Choice for Growing Microgrid Need

7 Strategies to Make Microgrids a Fit for Utility Grid Modernization

Working to make nuclear energy more competitive

Assil Halimi has loved science since he was a child, but it was a singular experience at a college internship that stoked his interest in nuclear engineering. As part of work on a conceptual design for an aircraft electric propulsion system, Halimi had to read a chart that compared the energy density of various fuel sources. He was floored to see that the value for uranium was orders of magnitude higher than the rest. “Just a fuel pellet the size of my fingertip can generate as much energy as a ton of coal or 150 gallons of oil,” Halimi points out.

Having grown up in Algeria, in an economy dominated by oil and gas, Halimi was always aware of energy’s role in fueling growth. But here was a source that showed enormous potential. “The more I read about nuclear, the more I saw its direct relationship with climate change and how nuclear energy can potentially replace the carbonized economy,” Halimi says. “The problem we’re dealing with right now is that the source of energy is not clean. Nuclear [presented itself] as an answer, or at least as a promise that you can dig into,” he says. “I was also seeing the electrification of systems and the economy evolving.”

A tectonic shift was brewing, and Halimi wanted in.

Then an electrical engineering major at the Institut National des Sciences Appliquées de Lyon (INSA Lyon), Halimi added nuclear engineering as a second major. Today, the second-year doctoral student at MIT's Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering (NSE) has expanded on his early curiosity in the field and researches methods of improving the design of small modular reactors. Under Professor Koroush Shirvan’s advisement, Halimi also studies high burnup fuel so we can extract more energy from the same amount of material.

A foot in two worlds

The son of a computer engineer father and a mother who works as a judge, Halimi was born in Algiers and grew up in Cherchell, a small town near the capital. His interest in science grew sharper in middle school; Halimi remembers being a member of the astronomy club. As a middle and high schooler, Halimi traveled to areas with low light pollution to observe the night skies.

As a teenager, Halimi set his goals high, enrolling in high school in both Algeria and France. Taking classes in Arabic and French, he found a fair amount of overlap between the two curricula. The divergence in the nonscientific classes gave Halimi a better understanding of the cultural perspectives. After studying the French curriculum remotely, Halimi graduated with two diplomas. He remembers having to take two baccalaureate exams, which didn’t bother him much, but he did have to miss viewing parts of the 2014 World Cup soccer tournament.

A multidisciplinary approach to engineering

After high school, Halimi moved to France to study engineering at INSA Lyon. He elected for a major in electrical engineering and, ever the pragmatist, also signed up for a bachelor’s degree in math and economics. “You can build a lot of amazing things, but you have to take costs into account to make sure you’re proposing something feasible that can make it in the real world,” Halimi says, explaining his motivation to study economics.

Wrapping up his bachelor’s in math and economics in two short years, Halimi decided to pursue a double curriculum in electrical and nuclear engineering during his final year of engineering studies. Since his school in Lyon did not offer the double curriculum, Halimi had to move to Paris to study at The French Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission (CEA), part of the University of Paris-Saclay. The summer before he started, he traveled to Japan and toured the Fukushima nuclear power plant.

Halimi first conducted research at MIT NSE as part of an internship in nuclear engineering when he was still a student in France. He remembers wanting to explore work on reactor design, when an advisor at CEA recommended interning with Shirvan.

Pragmatism in nuclear energy adoption

Halimi’s work at MIT NSE focuses on high burnup fuel assessment and small modular reactor (SMR) design.

Existing nuclear plants have faced stiff competition during the last decade. Improving the fuel efficiency (high burnup) is a potential way of improving the economic competitiveness of the existing reactor fleet. One challenge is that materials degrade when you keep them longer in the reactor. Halimi evaluates fuel performance and safety features of more efficient fuel operation using advanced computer simulation tools. At the 2022 TopFuel Light Water Reactor Fuel Performance Conference, Halimi presented a paper describing strategies to achieve higher burnups. He is now working on journal paper about this work.

Halimi’s research on SMR design is motivated by the industry’s move to smaller plants that take less time to construct. The challenge, he says, is that if you simply make the reactors smaller, you lose the advantages of economies of scale and might end up with a more expensive economic proposal. Halimi’s goal is to analyze how smaller reactors can compensate for economies of scale by improving their technical design. Other advantages stacked in favor of smaller reactors is that they can be constructed faster and in series.

Halimi analyzes the fuel performance, core design, thermal hydraulics, and safety of these small reactors. “One efficient way that I particularly assess to improve their economics is high power density operation,” he says. In late 2021 Halimi published a paper on the relationship between cost and reactor power density in Nuclear Engineering and Design Journal . The research has been featured in other conference papers.

When he’s not working, Halimi makes time to play soccer and hopes to get back into astronomy. “I sold all my gear when I moved from Europe so I need to buy new ones at some point,” he says.

Halimi is convinced that nuclear power will be a serious contender in the energy landscape. “You have to propose something that will make everyone happy,” Halimi laughs when he describes work in nuclear science and engineering.

The work ahead is daunting — “Nuclear power is safe, sustainable, and reliable; now we need to be on time and on budget [to achieve] climate goals” he says — but Halimi is ready. By addressing both the competitiveness of the existing reactors through high burnup fuels and designing the next generation of nuclear plants, he is adopting a dual-pronged approach to make nuclear energy an economical and viable alternative to carbon-based fuels.

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

Chapter: 5 conclusions and recommendations, conclusions and recommendations.

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

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

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

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

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

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

Electricity Demand

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

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

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

Construction Costs

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

Construction Time

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

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

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

Performance

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

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

Public Attitudes

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

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

no perceived urgency for new capacity;

nuclear power is believed to be more costly than alternatives;

concerns that nuclear power is not safe enough;

little trust in government or industry advocates of nuclear power;

concerns about the health effects of low-level radiation;

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

concerns about proliferation of nuclear weapons.

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

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

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

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

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

better communication on the risk of low-level radiation;

resolving the high-level waste disposal issue; and

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

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

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

Institutional Changes

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

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

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

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

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

See discussion of costs and construction schedules in .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Industry and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

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

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

Department of Energy

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

Environmental Protection Agency

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

Administration and Congress

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alternative Reactor Technologies

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

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

The term “passive safety features” refers to the use of gravity, natural circulation, and stored energy to provide essential safety functions in such LWRs.

safety in operation;

economy of construction and operation;

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

fuel cycle and environmental considerations;

safeguards for resistance to diversion and sabotage;

technology risk and development schedule; and

amenability to efficient and predictable licensing.

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

Large Evolutionary Light Water Reactors

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

Mid-sized Light Water Reactors with Passive Safety Features

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

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

CANDU Heavy Water Reactor

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

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

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

Modular High-Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor

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

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

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

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

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

Safe Integral Reactor and Process Inherent Ultimate Safety Reactor

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

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

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

Liquid Metal Reactor

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

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

Net Assessment

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

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

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

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

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

FIGURE 5.1 Assessment of advanced reactor technologies.

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

The Committee has concluded the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alternative Research and Development Programs

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

The Gas Cooled Reactor Associates estimates that, if the MHTGR is selected as the new tritium production reactor, development costs for a commercial MHTGR could be reduced from about $1 billion to $0.3 - 0.6 billion.[DOE, 1990 in ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

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

Get Email Updates

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

New developments in renewable energy are making headlines and inspiring hope in communities worldwide, from a remote Arctic village working to harness solar and wind power under challenging conditions to a U.S. Air Force base planning an advanced, utility-scale geothermal power system.

As much of the world grapples with mitigating the effects of climate change and global warming, innovation and advancements in renewable energy have emerged as a bright spot. Solar energy, wind energy, hydropower, geothermal energy and biomass energy generation is better for the planet than the burning of fossil fuels including oil, natural gas and coal.

But for all of the advantages of renewable energy, its development and use has disadvantages, too. Let’s take a look at both.

The advantages of renewable energy power sources are wide-ranging, and some are more obvious than others.

Inexhaustible supply

One of the main benefits of renewable energy sources like the sun, wind and water is that they will never run out. In contrast, non-renewable resources are not only finite, but cost more as their availability declines and require more extreme extraction methods with greater environmental impacts.

Carbon-free energy generation

The goal of the clean energy transition is decarbonization . Carbon dioxide emissions reached 11.2 gigatonnes (Gt) in 2022 from oil alone, whereas renewable energy generation emits little to no carbon emissions to power homes, cars and businesses.

A cleaner, healthier environment

The burning of fossil fuels, like coal, releases airborne pollutants such as nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide, while the mining of these resources can result in water pollution and damage animal habitats. Using renewable energy in place of fossil fuels can reduce these pollutants and help mitigate risks to human health and natural environments.

Energy independence

Renewable energy provides for stronger energy security by opening up new opportunities for domestic energy production, thereby reducing reliance on foreign-sourced energy supply. For example, since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, European countries have sought to reduce their imports of Russian oil and gas. In 2023, domestic renewable energy production in Europe rose to account for a record 44% of the EU’s electricity mix while imports from Russia declined, helping build a more stable, resilient power grid.

Less maintenance

For certain types of renewable energy sources, the maintenance and maintenance costs of their infrastructure are minimal. Solar photovoltaic systems, for example, generally don’t have moving parts and can last 25 years or more with little maintenance. Hydroelectric power plants typically have low operating costs and require little maintenance as well, with long-lasting equipment that can remain in operation for decades.

Affordable energy

When it comes to costs, renewable energy sources once compared unfavorably to fossil fuels. But as fossil fuel prices rise renewable energy has emerged as an affordable alternative energy option. An estimated 96% of new utility-scale solar and wind power projects had lower generation costs than new coal and natural gas plants. As more renewable energy resources are integrated into power grids, businesses are also implementing energy management programs to optimize energy usage and reduce overall energy costs.

Job creation

While both clean energy and fossil fuel industries have seen job growth in recent years, growth has been markedly faster in the former. As a result, clean energy roles now account for more than half of the 67 million jobs in the global energy sector. Such growth is fueling demand for additional workers and retraining for existing fossil fuel workers to transition to the renewable energy industry.

For all the celebrated benefits of renewable energy, the sector has some downsides as well. Understanding the disadvantages of renewable energy can help organizations better plan its deployment. Here are some of the cons of renewable energy projects today:

High upfront costs

Shifting to renewable energy technologies saves money in the long run but component costs and initial costs for set-up can be expensive. For example, small businesses can expect to pay USD 100,000 or more for commercial solar installations, depending on their energy needs. However, legislation for incentives, tax credits and various rebates can help offset these costs.

Location and landmass requirements

Most renewable energy power generation is location dependent—solar farms require unobstructed sunlight, hydropower requires water movement, wind farms require open spaces and traditional geothermal power requires proximity to sources of hot water. In many cases, renewable energy systems require a lot of space—more than traditional power stations. Research conducted by the ICF Climate Center found that large-scale renewable energy installations require 10 times more land than coal- and natural gas-fired power plants.

Production volatility

Renewable electricity generation is vulnerable to weather conditions: solar power is susceptible to cloudy days, hydropower to droughts and wind power to calm days. As such, guaranteeing the amount of energy produced at any given time is a challenge. To help companies adapt to this volatility, solutions like the IBM Environmental Intelligence Suite use sensors, geospatial data , advanced analytics, machine learning , artificial intelligence (AI) and weather data to generate day-ahead wind and solar forecasts .

Storage requirements

Due to the intermittent nature of renewable power, batteries are required to collect energy during peak production periods for distribution in a controlled, consistent manner during periods of low- to non-production. Energy storage systems to support utility-scale applications are costly but technology is being developed to support more affordable long-term storage.

Supply chain limitations

Supply chain hurdles are hindering the installation of renewable energy projects. According to a report by McKinsey, project developers face three main challenges : access to raw materials and rare earth metals amid a projected shortage; access to the talent and machinery necessary; and little supplier diversification for critical components. For example, in the case of polysilicon, a material used in solar panels, 79% of global capacity is concentrated in China, making the solar PV industry vulnerable to disruptions in that country.

Carbon footprint and waste

Although solar and wind power emit no harmful emissions during power generation, the manufacturing, installation and transportation of renewable energy equipment does often produce greenhouse gas emissions . Additionally, waste products are created during asset production process and disposal, with wind turbine blades and solar panels taking up space in landfills.

Businesses in the renewable energy industry or interested in sourcing renewable power can proactively monitor renewable energy trends with the right tools. The IBM Environmental Intelligence Suite uses historical energy generation data, weather data and more to generate high-accuracy energy forecasts for wind and solar assets to inform key decision-making at the enterprise level.

Try the IBM Environmental Intelligence Suite for free

Book a live demo

Share full article

For more audio journalism and storytelling, download New York Times Audio , a new iOS app available for news subscribers.

Why Tipping Is Everywhere

In the united states, many say tipping is expected in more places these days. here’s how tipping culture exploded..

This transcript was created using speech recognition software. While it has been reviewed by human transcribers, it may contain errors. Please review the episode audio before quoting from this transcript and email [email protected] with any questions.

Hello. Excuse me?

My name is Sabrina. This is Claire. We’re journalists. Could we ask you a question?

You just did.

[LAUGHS]: Another one. [UPBEAT MUSIC]

What is your view of tipping?

I think it’s become excessive. Whatever they do, they got that jar and they’re wanting you to put a tip in there.

They have the iPad. And it’s like, all right, how much you want to tip? And it’s like you bought a $5 coffee. It’s like, all right, well, tip $3.

There’s a lot of pressure. You feel like you have to tip. And I feel like people are watching you at that moment.

Yeah, yeah. I feel a lot more pressure to tip more. Wages haven’t kept up, so I feel like I should be tipping more. And it’s annoying because my wages haven’t gone up either, so it’s annoying.

The other day I just bought a loaf of bread, and the tip thing came up, gave me the option of 15 percent or 20 percent. Do I really have to tip somebody to buy a loaf of bread?

I went to the self-service machine. And it was like, add a tip. And it’s like add a tip for what? I’m the one that did the work, you know what I’m saying?

You’re like, I should be tipping myself.

I actually am a tip worker. We’re literally paid less wages in order for the customers to pay us.

What do tips mean for you and your work?

It’s how I feed my family.

Yes. 100 percent.

Unless you work in the service industry, you don’t really understand how crucial tipping is.

Tips mean a lot. They are 60 percent, 50 percent of my paycheck. And my hourly is pretty low to begin with.

Whatever I get at the end of the night goes towards dinner. Or for example, I didn’t have money for sanitary pads one time. And then that tip, grabbed it.

I feel like a lot of people feel like you did nothing for me. You just put a cup on the counter and I took it. Like, why should I pay you extra for that?

What do you say to someone who says that? You didn’t do anything, you just put my food in a bag.

If you knew what my paycheck looked every week, you would think different. Or maybe not, maybe you don’t feel bad for me and you’re like, get a different job. But like, this is a job I’m good at and the job I like. And I’d like to be able to make a living off of it. That extra dollar or two really makes a difference.

From “The New York Times,” I’m Sabrina Tavernise and this is “The Daily.”

Tipping, once contained to certain corners of the economy, has exploded, creating confusion and angst and now even becoming an issue in the presidential campaign. Today, economics reporter, Ben Casselman, cracks open the mystery of this new era of tipping.

It’s Thursday, August 29.

So Sabrina.

Can I ask you a personal question?

What is your philosophy on tipping?

[LAUGHS]: Exactly.

Sabrina, I think I’m a sucker. Look, I’ve always tried to be a good tipper in restaurants. It feels like part of the deal.

I worked as a waitress for many years. That was the only way I actually made money. If there’s no tip, there’s no salary. Restaurants, it’s a rule.

Absolutely. But now tipping is everywhere. You see these tip screens in places you never would have tipped before. I mean, never mind the coffee shop, you see it at the fast food place. You see it at the oil change place. I’ve heard stories of people seeing it at the self-checkout line. Who’s even getting that tip?

And every time a tip screen pops up, I always tip.

Oh, my god, Ben, so do I.

It’s totally irrational. I hate it. But there’s some part of me, and I don’t love this about myself, that is just convinced somebody is going to be sitting there judging me or I’m terrified that they’re going to. And, oh, my god, if I click No Tip, am I a bad person?

And someone behind me in line might see that.

I can’t click that No Tip button.

I am exactly the same. Every single time I’m presented with this iPad screen thingy, the tips come up. I press max, 30 percent. My husband, an economist, thinks this is ridiculous.

He says, you’re tipping 30 percent on a bottle of water someone just handed you. Don’t do that. That is crazy. But I keep doing it because I can, so I should. I don’t know, I have guilt about it.

Your husband is objectively correct. This is crazy. But tipping is not about objective cold economic logic. It’s emotional. It’s cultural.

There are norms around it. And right now, we have no idea what those norms are. And so we’re all stuck in this panicked moment of trying to decide which button you press and whether you should be expected to tip in this circumstance.

OK, so we are both suckers. We’ve established that. What we need to do now is figure out this panicked moment. I want you to explain this to me, Ben. Why has tipping exploded?

I think there are three reasons. The first of these is just technology. Several years ago, we started to see these tablet-based checkout systems everywhere. And it’s very easy to just add a tip screen onto there, that little, do you want to add a tip, 10 percent, 15 percent, 20 percent.

Right. And as I had less cash and then no cash in my wallet, this was always the way I paid for things.

Yeah, so it became very easy technologically to add tipping. But then the real shift came in the pandemic.

If you think back to that moment, many of us were lucky enough to be able to work from home and to be relatively safe. And we felt a lot of gratitude for the people who weren’t able to do that, who were bringing us food and delivering groceries. And so there was an explosion in tipping. And an explosion in tipping, even in places where we didn’t used to tip.

If you go and pick up takeout at a restaurant, you probably always tip your delivery driver. But if you went to the restaurant and you picked it up, you didn’t tip there. But now in the pandemic moment, they add a tip screen saying, would you like to tip? And yeah, of course, I’d like to tip. These people are risking their lives out there to make my chicken tikka masala.

Right. You basically wanted to tip the UPS guy.

Yes. And so we were tipping everybody. And so that allowed tipping to spread into these new areas. It got a beachhead in places where it didn’t used to be.

And maybe if the story ended there, it would have been this moment in time and then it all would have gone back to the way it always used to be. But that didn’t happen because we had this intense worker shortage when things started to reopen.

And how does that fit into this?

Businesses start to reopen. They need workers. They’re having a hard time finding them. Workers are reluctant to come back for all sorts of reasons. And tipping became a way of attracting workers.

Businesses were paying more, but they were also looking for other ways to get workers. And saying, we’ll add a tip screen that’ll boost your pay further. And if there’s one coffee shop where there’s a tip screen and there’s another coffee shop where there isn’t, you can be pretty sure which one you’re going to go work at.

Completely. I mean, we were talking to workers yesterday, and they were very specific about which chain stores allowed tips and which ones didn’t. And they much preferred working for the ones that allowed tips. I mean, it makes sense.

And I asked them, as a proportion of your earnings, how much are tips? Tips are a lot. Does that mean you make less in the place that doesn’t have the screen that allows it? Absolutely.

We saw workers demanding this. In fact, when some Starbucks stores were unionizing, one of the things they demand is, we want to be able to take tips on credit card payments.

Interesting, yeah.

This became a source of negotiation between businesses and their workers. And the thing is, once that happens, it’s really hard to put the genie back in the bottle.

But why? I mean, this all sprung up into our lives in the matter of a couple of years. So why can’t it go back to the way it was just as quickly?

Imagine that coffee shop worker that you were talking to yesterday, who’s now making, in many cases, 20 percent, 30 percent, even 40 percent of their earnings in tips. The business can’t just say, never mind, we’re going to get rid of the tip screen. Maybe, we’ll put out a tip jar and people can leave $1 or $2 when they want to. That’s a huge pay cut for that worker.

OK, they could instead say we’re going to get rid of tipping and we’re going to raise your pay. Instead of paying you $15 an hour and $5 in tips, we’ll give you $20 an hour. But now the business is going have to raise prices as a result.

And you, Sabrina, the coffee-drinking public are going to say, no way, I’m not going there and paying $8 for my latte or whatever the price may be. And so for the business, they can’t just get rid of the tip, because they can’t just cut off the pay and they can’t raise prices enough to raise pay accordingly.

Right. Nonstarter for the business.

Can’t work for them. And the worker is certainly not going to stick around if they try to do that.

So has there been some experimentation with this? I mean, have restaurants actually tried to go tipless?

Yeah, so we’ve seen an example of exactly this. A few years back, Danny Meyer, a big New York restaurateur, and a bunch of other restaurants as well tried getting rid of tipping completely. They said, this system is unfair, it’s unequal. We’re going to raise wages for everybody, for waiters, but also for cooks.

We’re going to raise our prices, accordingly, to pay for that. And customers will understand. They’ll understand that they’re paying the same amount at the end of the day, it just is in the form of a direct cost instead of a cost plus a tip. And it didn’t work.

For a bunch of reasons. But mostly because customers looked at the price on the menu and people didn’t want to pay it. I also think, look, we all complain about tipping. But customers also kind of like the tip. They kind of like looking generous.

You get to show off to your date or to your father-in-law. And, of course, you can, at least in theory, express your dissatisfaction by withholding a tip or by tipping less. Not you and me, we apparently don’t do that. But some people do, I hear.

The restaurant’s like, suckers, OK, great. Yeah, we don’t even have to worry about them.

Customers rebelled against the idea of not tipping. And most of those restaurants eventually went back to the old model.

Interesting. So we do have this love-hate relationship with tipping.

Yes. We hate being asked, but we like the control. And I think that is part of why all these changes feel so difficult for so many people, because it doesn’t necessarily feel like you have the control anymore.

That screen in front of you with the barista watching you, with the person in line behind watching you —

Oh, my gosh, I’m sweating already.

— you don’t feel like can press the No Tip button. Or at least suckers like you and me don’t.

Exactly. The choice is gone.

The choice is gone. Or the choice, at least, is sort of psychologically more taxing.

Right. [LAUGHS]

You feel pressured to do it.

OK, so that’s the customer experience. But with this new uptick in tipping, one question I always have is, is the worker on the other side of the screen getting this tip or will the business owner pocket it?

The worker is getting the tip with some caveats. By law, the business owner or the managers, they can’t take the tips. If you click a Tip button or you leave $1 in the tip jar or you tip in any way, if that ends up in the pockets of the business owner or the general manager or what have you, that is wage theft. It happens. We certainly hear stories about it happening, but it’s certainly not legal and it’s certainly not the norm.

That doesn’t mean that the worker, the person who hands you your latte, is the person getting your dollar. It often gets pooled across all of the workers who are working that shift or even all of the workers who work over an entire week. But it’s going to the workers.

People like us can rest assured that the workers are getting the full benefit of that tip that you’re pushing.

In many ways, what you are doing as the customer is you are subsidizing the wage. If you, you coffee shop worker, want to get $25 an hour, you don’t care whether that’s $20 in pay and $5 in tip or $25 in pay or any breakdown of that.

$25 is $25.

$25 is $25. When I leave a tip of $1, on some level, that’s $1 less that coffee shop has to pay you, the barista. Tips are helping the business pay their workers. They’re shifting. The business is shifting some of the burden for paying its workers off of its revenue onto its customers.

In other words, you and I, Ben, we are kind of helping foot the bill for these wages.

Absolutely. And from the businesses’ perspective, that’s a pretty great deal, because they basically get to charge, say, $4 for the latte and then for the customers who are willing to pay more, they’re basically charging more. Those people throw on the tip.

It’s a way of the business getting the maximum dollars that it can out of the maximum number of customers that it can attract.

But for workers, this system where they’re increasingly reliant on customer tips carries some real risks.

[UPBEAT MUSIC]

We’ll be right back.

Tell me about these risks of our tipping system.

Look, tipping has always had a lot of problems associated with it. If you think in restaurants, they’re often really big pay disparities where the servers at the front of the house, who are getting tipped, often make a lot more money, especially at a nice restaurant, than the cooks and dishwashers and all of the people at the back of the house.

You hear these stories of people going to cooking school and then basically bailing on the cooking career and becoming waitresses and waiters because it’s just more money.

Yeah. And then within tipped occupations, there’s a lot of inequity here. There have been studies that have shown that a pretty young woman gets tipped better than other people, that white people often get tipped better. There are tons of problems around sexual harassment, because if your earnings are dependent on the table that you’re serving liking you, then maybe you put up with things that workers shouldn’t have to put up with.

Those are the problems that have always existed in this system. But then as tipping spreads, the risk is, first, just more workers have to deal with this, but also that more workers become more dependent on tips for their earnings.

In the short term, this has all worked out pretty well for workers. This has been a period where they’ve been in hot demand, and so their wages have been rising. And at the same time, they’ve gotten all these tips on top of that. And that’s been really great.

But it’s not clear that that’s true over the longer term. Over the long run, you could imagine that all of these businesses get to just raise wages more slowly, that tips sort of eat away at wages over time. And then if we ever see customers pull back a little bit, tip less, then all of a sudden, all of these workers could really suffer.

Basically, you’re describing a system in which the earnings are just more vulnerable, more dependent on the kindness of strangers.

Yeah. And more at risk if those strangers become a little less kind.

Yes. And this issue has become so much a part of the national conversation that it’s actually entered the presidential race. Both former President Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris have announced policy plans to help service workers. And essentially, they’re calling for no tax on tips.

Yeah, that’s right. So President Trump announced this several weeks ago as his big new “no taxes on tips” proposal. Kamala Harris followed up and basically endorsed that proposal, again, a little while later. We don’t have a lot of details on how this would work. But essentially, it would mean that if you earn tips, those tips are exempt at least from federal income tax.

What would that mean?

Let me tell you, economists hate this idea. Left-wing economists and right-wing economists, this is one point they can kind of all agree on.

And why do they hate it?

Because they say it’s unfair. It singles out this one group of workers for special treatment. The person who works at McDonald’s who doesn’t get tipped, they don’t benefit from this. The retail worker doesn’t benefit from this. It’s just this one group of workers who get this special treatment where they don’t have to pay taxes.

Right. Right.

But there’s also maybe an even more fundamental issue, which is that if you think you hate tipping now, if these proposals go through, you’re going to see so much more tipping.

Uh-oh, I’m holding on to my hat.

Because it’s basically a subsidy for tips.

As a worker, we said before, you don’t care whether you make, $25 an hour or $20 plus $5 an hour in tips, except that if some of that money isn’t taxed, you want more of that. You want more tips.

Basically, you want your entire salary to be a tip.

Ideally, right? And so that works great for the business perspective. Great, I don’t need to pay my workers.

[LAUGHS]: Wee!

It’s all tips now. Workers happy about that. What that means is you’re going to see more businesses looking for ways to have their workers count as tipped. Maybe you start to see tips in places that we’re not seeing them at all. Maybe you really do start to pay tips at a retail outlet, at a gas station.

Grocery store?

At a grocery store, why not? And the issue there, beyond just it being annoying for you and me, is that it further ingrains this system. All those problems that we were talking about in tipping now involves even more workers across the economy. And they’re even more vulnerable to that possibility that you and I start tipping a little bit less.

Ben, how would you describe where we are in this tipping moment? Is this just the new normal?

I think we’re still in a period of transition here. The fact that we’re having this conversation on some level tells you that we’re not totally in a new normal yet. You don’t leave a restaurant and say to yourself, man, I can’t believe I was asked to tip. But we’re still all the time having this conversation about, you wouldn’t believe I got asked to tip at the self-checkout.

Right. The bakery, for god’s sake.

It’s still a transition. It’s still happening. Over time, norms will develop. We’ll figure out the places where we tip and the places where we don’t, and how much and all of that.

But the dust hasn’t quite settled yet.

It hasn’t settled. But I think what we do know is that we’re not going back. We’re now going back to a world where we only tip in those set of circumstances where we used to. And remember, this whole transition has happened during a period of relative economic strength, when people have had money to go out and spend and to tip. The question is, what happens when that’s no longer true?

Right. When there’s a recession, people are going to be nervous about their pocketbooks and probably won’t be as generous.

Whenever we get to the next recession, it will be the first one in this new era of tipping.

And there’s a whole new group of workers who are going to lose out when that happens, who are dependent on tips and will suffer when customers start pulling those tips back.

Ben, thank you.

Sabrina, thank you so much. And the screen is just going to ask you a couple of questions at the end here.

[LAUGHS]: Ben, 30 percent.

Here’s what else you should know today. On Wednesday, at least 10 Palestinians were killed when hundreds of Israeli troops launched major raids overnight in the occupied West Bank, targeting Palestinian militants, after what Israel said was months of rising attacks. The operation, the largest since 2023, followed months of escalating Israeli raids in the occupied territory, where nearly three million Palestinians live under Israeli military rule.

And the Supreme Court maintained a temporary pause on a new plan by President Biden to wipe out tens of millions of dollars of student debt. The plan was part of the president’s approach to forgiving debt after the Supreme Court rejected a more ambitious proposal last year that would have canceled more than $400 billion in loans. The scaled-down plan was directed at certain types of borrowers, including people on disability and public service workers. The court’s decision leaves millions of borrowers enrolled in the new plan in limbo.

Today’s episode was produced by Mooj Zadie, Asthaa Chaturvedi, Eric Krupke, and Clare Toeniskoetter. It was edited by Lisa Chow and Brendan Klinkenberg, contains original music by Dan Powell, Marion Lozano, and Rowan Niemisto, and was engineered by Chris Wood. Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly.

[THEME MUSIC]

That’s it for “The Daily.” I’m Sabrina Tavernise. See you tomorrow.

Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts

Hosted by Sabrina Tavernise

Featuring Ben Casselman

Produced by Mooj Zadie Asthaa Chaturvedi Eric Krupke and Clare Toeniskoetter

Edited by Lisa Chow and Brendan Klinkenberg

Original music by Dan Powell Marion Lozano and Rowan Niemisto

Engineered by Chris Wood

Listen and follow ‘The Daily’ Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | YouTube | iHeartRadio

Tipping, once contained to certain corners of the economy, has exploded, creating confusion and angst. Now, it is even becoming an issue in the U.S. presidential campaign.

Ben Casselman, who covers the U.S. economy for The New York Times, cracks open the mystery of this new era of tipping.

On today’s episode

Ben Casselman , a reporter covering the U.S. economy for The New York Times.

A Square payment screen at the counter at a coffee shop. Three blue squares offer the options between 15%, 20% and 25%. A bowl of money is sitting next to it.

Background reading

How to deal with the many requests for tips .

Former President Donald J. Trump called Vice President Kamala Harris a “copycat” over her “no tax on tips” plan.

There are a lot of ways to listen to The Daily. Here’s how.

We aim to make transcripts available the next workday after an episode’s publication. You can find them at the top of the page.

The Daily is made by Rachel Quester, Lynsea Garrison, Clare Toeniskoetter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Chris Wood, Jessica Cheung, Stella Tan, Alexandra Leigh Young, Lisa Chow, Eric Krupke, Marc Georges, Luke Vander Ploeg, M.J. Davis Lin, Dan Powell, Sydney Harper, Michael Benoist, Liz O. Baylen, Asthaa Chaturvedi, Rachelle Bonja, Diana Nguyen, Marion Lozano, Corey Schreppel, Rob Szypko, Elisheba Ittoop, Mooj Zadie, Patricia Willens, Rowan Niemisto, Jody Becker, Rikki Novetsky, Nina Feldman, Will Reid, Carlos Prieto, Ben Calhoun, Susan Lee, Lexie Diao, Mary Wilson, Alex Stern, Sophia Lanman, Shannon Lin, Diane Wong, Devon Taylor, Alyssa Moxley, Olivia Natt, Daniel Ramirez and Brendan Klinkenberg.

Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Paula Szuchman, Lisa Tobin, Larissa Anderson, Julia Simon, Sofia Milan, Mahima Chablani, Elizabeth Davis-Moorer, Jeffrey Miranda, Maddy Masiello, Isabella Anderson, Nina Lassam and Nick Pitman.

Ben Casselman writes about economics with a particular focus on stories involving data. He has covered the economy for nearly 20 years, and his recent work has focused on how trends in labor, politics, technology and demographics have shaped the way we live and work. More about Ben Casselman

IMAGES

3 Reasons Why Nuclear Energy Is Terrible!—Part 2 Instructional Video
≫ Positive and Negative Effects of Nuclear Energy Free Essay Sample on
Essay on Nuclear Energy in 500+ words for School Students
≫ Negative Impact of Nuclear Pollution and Ways to Control It Free
Disadvantages Of nuclear Power by pauls_micus
📚 Essay on Nuclear Energy: A Comprehensive Analysis of Viability

VIDEO

5 Simple Reasons Nuclear is a Bad Idea
Is nuclear energy worth it?
Nuclear Energy: It's Not All Bad
India’s big nuclear power bet
Why Nuclear Energy is the Future!

COMMENTS

What are the Pros and Cons of Nuclear Energy ...
3 Reasons Why Nuclear Energy Is Terrible! (2015) by Kurzgesagt - In a Nutshell (4:09 min.). 1. Nuclear Weapons . In 1945, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki introduced the world to nuclear technology. Even since, people think of weapons of mass destruction when they hear the word "nuclear.". Some processes used to generate electricity using nuclear energy can also help build nuclear ...
6 reasons why nuclear energy is not the way to a green and peaceful
With the costs and efficiency of renewable energy solutions improving year on year, and the effects of our rapidly changing climate accelerating across the globe, we need to take an honest look at some of the myths being perpetuated by the nuclear industry and its supporters. Here are six reasons why nuclear power is not the way to a green and peaceful zero carbon future.
Reconsidering the Risks of Nuclear Power
The Problems with Nuclear Energy . Nuclear energy isn't all good news, though. ... I have been doing research for an essay and I found this article very helpful. Jordan does a great job of summarizing the evidence and the studies done by the various research groups. ... Nuclear power is just bad science, bad engineering, bad planning. Reply ...
PDF Nuclear Energy: the Good, the Bad, and the Debatable
Nuclear energy is produced when an atom's nucleus is split into smaller nuclei by the process called fission. The fission of large atoms, such as Uranium 235 and Plutonium 239, produces a great deal of energy. In fact, the fission of 1 gram of Uranium 235 produces the same amount of energy as the combustion, or burning, of 3 tons of coal (1)!
Nuclear energy isn't a safe bet in a warming world
A recent US Army War College report also states that nuclear power facilities are at high risk of temporary or permanent closure due to climate threats - with 60% of US nuclear capacity at risk ...
Advantages and 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 ...
Nuclear Energy Argumentative Essay by EduBirdie.com
Why it is wonderful. First, nuclear energy saves lives. It may be counterintuitive, but a big study by NASA has shown that nuclear energy has prevented 1.8 million deaths between 1945 and 2015. It is ranked last in deaths per energy unit produced. This is because nuclear waste is stored somewhere, while gasses from oil or coal-burning plants ...
Nuclear Power Still Doesn't Make Much Sense
The agency says that nuclear capacity will need to double by 2050, with two-thirds of that growth occurring in developing economies. Still, even with nuclear's doubling, the I.E.A. says nuclear ...
Why Leaving Nuclear Energy Behind is the Wrong Choice
Many more people could die in the future due to emissions that occur today, which is why it is so urgent that the world moves away from fossil fuels and towards clean sources of energy. If the United States decided to make a concerted effort to grow the nuclear sector, there would be some key short-term economic costs and long-term benefits.
Pros and Cons of Nuclear Energy Essay
Pollution is another topic with both pros and cons. Fossil fuels release harmful pollutants into the air such as carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide. Nuclear power does not release any of those toxins into the atmosphere. However, a pollution problem with nuclear energy is thermal pollution, where a plant's "hot effluents" are put into a ...
Why Nuclear Power Must Be Part of the Energy Solution
Even plants powered with coal or natural gas only generate electricity about half the time for reasons such as fuel costs and seasonal and nocturnal variations in demand. Nuclear is a clear winner on reliability. Third, nuclear power releases less radiation into the environment than any other major energy source.
What Does Science Say About the Need for Nuclear?
Nuclear Not Necessary. To start, we'll consider Sanders' claim that "scientists tell us" that it's possible to get to a zero-carbon electrical grid without nuclear power. "The shortest ...
Why nuclear power isn't the answer to climate change
Nuclear is not, and has never been, a major energy force. Global annual nuclear energy generation peaked in 2006. Meanwhile its percentage contribution to global electricity generation has declined from its historic peak in 1993 of 17% to about 10% today. The only countries with significant growth are China, India, Russia and South Korea.
Opinion
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 ...
Why Nuclear Energy is Not Good?
Therefore, it would not be good idea to make large scale nuclear energy because it would be good to improve current energy sources in because of costs. Another problem and issue is environmental damage being taken by this source of electricity. Nuclear energy is bad for total of nuclear waste removed at time of production and this waste often ...
10 reasons why nuclear energy represents the future
In fact, nuclear power is the primary source of green energy in the U.S., accounting for 50% of non-fossil fuels and 20% of total energy production since 1990. Expanding the reach of nuclear energy may hold the keys to unlocking a carbon-free energy economy thanks to these 10 reasons below. 1. Emission free. Nuclear energy generation relies on ...
A fresh look at nuclear energy
It is time to take a fresh look at the role that nuclear energy can play in decarbonizing the world's energy system. Nuclear is already the largest source of low-carbon energy in the United States and Europe and the second-largest source worldwide (after hydropower). In the September report of the MIT Energy Initiative, The Future of Nuclear ...
3 Reasons Why Nuclear is Clean and Sustainable
3. Nuclear energy produces minimal waste. Nuclear fuel is extremely dense. It's about 1 million times greater than that of other traditional energy sources and because of this, the amount of used nuclear fuel is not as big as you might think. All of the used nuclear fuel produced by the U.S. nuclear energy industry over the last 60 years ...
PDF 2016 Essay Competition Winner Essays
Philippine statement by Honorable Mario G. Montejo, Secretary of Science and Technology, Republic of the Philippine on the Occasion of the High Level Meeting on Nuclear Safety and Security. Nuclear Security Summit Washington 2016. 2016. National progress report: Philippines.
A Plan to Create an Energy Infrastructure in Rwanda Focused on Small
Nearly 35% of Rwandan residents lack access to electricity and the country has no oil reserves and few gas reserves.. To help provide electricity and improve the quality of life in rural areas, small nuclear reactor provider Nano Nuclear Energy, working with the Rwandan government, plans to create an infrastructure based on microgrids that include nuclear microreactors - which have a ...
Working to make nuclear energy more competitive
The research has been featured in other conference papers. When he's not working, Halimi makes time to play soccer and hopes to get back into astronomy. "I sold all my gear when I moved from Europe so I need to buy new ones at some point," he says. Halimi is convinced that nuclear power will be a serious contender in the energy landscape.
Nuclear Power: Technical and Institutional Options for the Future
However, expansion of commercial nuclear energy has virtually halted in the United States. In other countries, too, growth of nuclear generation has slowed or stopped. The reasons in the United States include reduced growth in demand for electricity, high costs, regulatory uncertainty, and public opinion. In the United States, concern for ...
Renewable Energy Advantages & Disadvantages
New developments in renewable energy are making headlines and inspiring hope in communities worldwide, from a remote Arctic village working to harness solar and wind power under challenging conditions to a U.S. Air Force base planning an advanced, utility-scale geothermal power system.. As much of the world grapples with mitigating the effects of climate change and global warming, innovation ...
What Phil Donahue Meant to Me
If we don't put a halt to this new kind of nuclear war fighting, which we're moving into, we are going to guarantee that we have a nuclear war. michael barbaro The day after that, a celebrity.
The Push to Ban Phones in School
The Daily is made by Rachel Quester, Lynsea Garrison, Clare Toeniskoetter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Chris Wood, Jessica Cheung, Stella Tan ...
Why Tipping Is Everywhere
Or maybe not, maybe you don't feel bad for me and you're like, get a different job. But like, this is a job I'm good at and the job I like. And I'd like to be able to make a living off of it.