|
|
| Fig. 1: Share of U.S. nuclear electricity in total electricity production, 1995-2023. [3] (Image Source: A. Bonnet) |
The climate crisis has intensified global efforts to reduce carbon emissions, including those from electricity generation. As part of its pledge to achieve net-zero CO2 emissions by 2050, the United States aims to attain 100% clean electricity (not from fossil sources without carbon capture and sequestration) by 2035. [1] While renewable energy appears to be the most obvious candidate to replace fossil fuels, its intermittent nature prevents it from reliably meeting electricity demand at all times. Thus, achieving the 100% clean electricity goal will require additional reliable sources. In this context, nuclear energy emerges as a viable option worth exploring.
Nuclear power is a critical component for generating electricity. In 2021, the world consumed 25.31 × 1018 joules of nuclear energy, accounting for 4.25% of total primary energy consumption. [2] During the same year, nuclear power generated 819.1 TWh of electricity, representing 18.6% of the US total electricity generation. [2] Unlike renewable energy, nuclear power is not only clean but also reliable. Given these benefits, it is worth considering whether nuclear energy could replace a significant portion of the electricity currently derived from fossil fuels. In 2021, the United States had 92 operating commercial nuclear reactors, and 2692.5 TWh of electricity came from fossil fuels (20.2 TWh from oil, 1693.8 TWh from natural gas and 978.5 TWh from coal), 61.1% of total electricity generation. [2,3] Assuming that fossil fuel-sourced electricity is completely replaced with nuclear power, we can calculate the number of reactors needed as
| 92 reactors × | 2692.5 TWh 819.1 TWh |
= | 302 reactors |
Thus the United States would need a total of 302 reactors to entirely replace fossil-sourced electricity, an increase of 329%. With such an expansion, 79.7% of electricity could be generated by nuclear energy. The previous calculation is theoretical and serves as a reference point only. In practice, US energy production should not rely on a single energy source. A diversified energy source is essential to ensure reliability. Nevertheless, this calculation highlights the significant potential for nuclear energy development in the United States.
Tripling the number of nuclear reactors in the United States would be a massive challenge, even with large investments directed towards clean energy. Currently, the United States is far from fully taking advantage of its nuclear potential. Several factors contribute to the underdevelopment of nuclear energy in the United States. An important factor is the aging of US nuclear plants. From 2000 to 2023, 13 nuclear generating units were permanently shutdown and only 2 new ones came online. [3] Another factor is the lack of a permanent radioactive waste dump in the United States, primarily for political reasons. Funding for a plan for Yucca mountain in Nevada to be the permanent geological repository site for radioactive waste storage has been blocked due to opposition from Nevada politicians in Congress. [4,5] Consequently, without a permanent radioactive waste dump, nuclear utilities cannot hand over their spent fuel to the Department of Energy (DOE) for disposal, resulting in a blockage of the whole industry. In contrast, France, which leads the world in nuclear's share of electricity generation, manages its nuclear fleet with fuel reprocessing programs and facilities. [6] In addition to environmental opposition, significant resistance to nuclear expansion comes from the coal and hydrocarbon industries, which have interests in maintaining their market share in US energy production. They view nuclear power as a direct competitor for baseload power and resists nuclear expansion. [7] This opposition, backed by substantial economic resources, presents a considerable barrier to nuclear growth.
However, the arguments against generating more nuclear waste have merit. Nuclear waste remains radioactive for thousands of years and poses storage and proliferation risks that cannot be overlooked. [8] Balancing these long-term environmental risks with the short-term need to reduce carbon emissions remains a complex challenge.
The US nuclear energy sector faces considerable obstacles. The primary concern is not expanding the nuclear fleet, but preventing it from shrinking further. While nuclear electricity production has increased slightly from 673.52 TWh in 1995 to 779.19 TWh in 2023, its share in the overall U.S. energy mix has been gradually declining. [3] Nuclear power accounted for 22.3% of U.S. electricity in 1995, then fell to 19.7% by 2020, and further to 18.6% in 2023 (according to Fig. 1). However, public opinion is shifting. 45% of Americans supported nuclear energy and 33% opposed it in 2023; even those who oppose nuclear power, 56% favored keeping the existing plants operational but opposed building new ones. [9] It remains unclear whether this change in public opinion will translate into policy action, as it must overcome substantial political and economic hurdles. As such, the future of nuclear energy remains uncertain.
© Alexandre Bonnet. The author warrants that the work is the author's own and that Stanford University provided no input other than typesetting and referencing guidelines. The author grants permission to copy, distribute and display this work in unaltered form, with attribution to the author, for noncommercial purposes only. All other rights, including commercial rights, are reserved to the author.
[1] "On The Path to 100% Clean Electricity," U.S. Department of Energy, May 2023.
[2] "BP Statistical Review of World Energy," British Petroleum, June 2022.
[3] "Nuclear Power Reactors in the World," International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA-RDS-2/44, July 2024.
[4] A. Ravi, "Radioactive Waste Immobilization," Physics 241, Stanford University, 31 Jan 2022.
[5] N. Barber, "Yucca Mountain and the U.S. Nuclear Waste Storage Problem," Physics 241, Stanford University, 2 Mar 2021.
[6] K. Friedman, "NuClear or Unclear: French Nuclear Recycling and Its Future," Physics 241, Stanford University, 20 Mar 2024.
[7] K. Silverstein, "Are Fossil Fuel Interests Bankrolling The Anti-Nuclear Energy Movement?," Forbes, Jul 13, 2016.
[8] X. Xie, "Disposal of Nuclear Waste: Methods and Concerns," Physics 241, Stanford University, 25 Mar 2013.
[9] T. Gardner, "Americans Split on Nuclear Energy as Safety Worries Linger," Reuters, 6 Jun 22.