By Palash Goiporia, Fall 2019.

Last month’s announcement of the closure of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Plant continues a worrying trend for nuclear energy in the United States. The Pennsylvania based nuclear fission reactor that infamously partially melted down some 40 years ago is the 8th major fission reactor to close in the last 6 years, with 9 more shutdowns scheduled over the next decade[1]. These closures combined with falling annual government investments into nuclear energy research suggest a strong shift away from an energy source that contributed towards almost 20% of electricity output in the United States in 2018, more than double that of any renewable source[2]. It is undeniable that nuclear energy is fundamental to not just the US energy market, but the global economy as well. Why then does US policy reflect a strong shift away from nuclear dependence, and why should we care about it?  

The fundamental advantage of nuclear energy is that fission is a controllable reaction, so it can be produced based on global demand. Nuclear energy’s main renewable competitors in solar and wind-based energy sources are dependent on uncontrollable factors such as sun and wind availability, and as of yet there is no realistic storage mechanism for them. This means that these sources are subject to surpluses and shortages and are unreliable as primary energy sources in the short term.

It is rather surprising then, that the annual nuclear budget, which is the primary source of nuclear investment due to limited private sector activity, is yet to cross $1 billion this decade, a figure that is dwarfed by the speculated required budget of anywhere between $20-50 billion[3]. Solar energy, on the other hand, saw a net investment of around $330 billion in 2015, 92% of which came from private sector investment[4]. Such investments have seen the price of solar energy plummet from almost $9 per watt to $3 a watt in the space of 10 years, severely outpricing expensive nuclear technology.   

To add to this dilemma, the current crop of nuclear reactors in the US is extremely outdated, working on mid-20th century scientific and engineering principles that have since changed. In fact, over the last few decades several national and private research labs have submitted designs for next generation, safe nuclear reactors that have remained unfunded. Of these was Argonne National Lab’s Experimental Breeder Reactor – II[5], a revolutionary reactor design that implemented state of the art passive safety systems, eliminating any scope for human error in nuclear reactor operations. Similarly, modern nuclear technologies such as Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) that greatly reduce the risk of nuclear accidents are quietly being ignored by the US government.   

SMRs work on the same fundamental reaction as breeder fission reactors but in a much smaller, more compact reactor. The compact design allows for fewer waste products per unit fuel and hence more energy extraction. Furthermore, the size limits fuel input to small amounts, greatly reducing the chance of radiation poisoning. SMRs take up about 1% of the space of conventional nuclear reactors and can go to energy outputs as low as 300 MWE[6]. They can be manufactured beforehand and installed on site quite easily, greatly reducing the technical skill required for operation and making them more accessible at the consumer level. Furthermore, smaller reactors can be used to effectively complement or replace renewable sources in areas not rich with wind and solar resources, making for a more equitable distribution of energy in the global market.  

However, it’s not just the reactors that are becoming cleaner and safer. Nuclear fuels and the fundamental reactions they depend on have also changed over time. Nuclear SMRs and most modern or futuristic reactors function on a thorium fuel cell rather than a uranium one, the former being three times more abundant and much less fissile (contains fewer unstable nuclei that will spontaneously decay) – eliminating the possibility of a spontaneous, uncontrollable reaction (aka a meltdown). Thorium contains trace amounts of fissile elements, meaning that the reaction is a lot more controllable and is unlikely to lead to a reactor meltdown. Thorium absorbs a neutron and then undergoes successive beta – decays to produce fissile uranium, meaning that high energy neutron emission is required to trigger the fission, which is controlled by circuit machinery and within human control. 

It is clear that even if we do attempt to transition to a 100% renewable energy-based economy in the future, to do so in the short term is counter-productive rather than ambitious. Even after several trillions of dollars of annual investment over the last decade, the capacity of renewables has only increased by 580 GW, a figure that would need to be increased 5-fold in order to keep up with our carbon emissions goals. Eliminate the contribution of nuclear energy, and the task becomes impossible.  One need only look at Germany, a country that has transitioned from nuclear energy to renewables over the last 2 decades, and as a result is still dependent on coal for 40% of its energy requirements[7]. China and Russia, two of the 4 biggest CO2 polluters in the world have made large investments into modern nuclear technology and are in the advanced stages SMR development, with commercial reactors potentially available by 2030. The US would do well to follow suit[8][9].  

Due to poor nuclear policy and a shoestring budget, fission-based energy, while still effective, has become expensive and outdated. Our current energy needs call for a 10-fold increase in nuclear investments. Government policy that promotes research into next generation nuclear technology is imperative. Offering incentives to private firms that specialize in Thorium based SMR development would be a big step in the right direction. Increasing awareness about the true facts of fission-based energy is essential for generating public interest and demand for nuclear energy. The stigma against nuclear energy is a thing of the past, and we need policy that looks to the future if we are to solve the global climate crisis.  

1. “Nuclear Energy in the U.S.: Recent Plant Closures and Policy Decisions.” Climate Nexus, October 7, 2019. https://climatenexus.org/climate-issues/energy/nuclear-energy-in-the-us-recent-plant-closures-and-policy-decisions/.  
2. “U.S. Energy Information Administration – EIA – Independent Statistics and Analysis.” U.S. nuclear industry – U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Accessed October 20, 2019. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/us-nuclear-industry.php.  
3. “FY 2019 Budget Justification.” Energy.gov. Accessed October 20, 2019. https://www.energy.gov/cfo/downloads/fy-2019-budget-justification.  
4. Deign, Jason. “Global Renewable Energy Investment on the Rise.” Greentech Media. Greentech Media, January 1, 2019. https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/global-renewable-energy-investment.  
5. Nuclear Engineering Division of Argonne National Laboratory. “Reactors Designed by Argonne National Laboratory.” Fast Reactor Technology – Reactors designed/built by Argonne National Laboratory. Accessed October 20, 2019. https://www.ne.anl.gov/About/reactors/frt.shtml.
6. “Advanced Small Modular Reactors (SMRs).” Energy.gov. Accessed October 20, 2019. https://www.energy.gov/ne/nuclear-reactor-technologies/small-modular-nuclear-reactors 
7. Nicholson, Esme. “Germany Bulldozes Old Villages For Coal Despite Lower Emissions Goals.” NPR. NPR, August 6, 2018. https://www.npr.org/2018/08/06/635911260/germany-turns-to-brown-coal-to-fill-its-energy-gap  
8. Co2 Emissions By Country 2019. Accessed October 20, 2019. http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/co2-emissions-by-country/. 
9. “Small Modular Reactors.” IAEA. IAEA, April 13, 2016. https://www.iaea.org/topics/small-modular-reactors