The Nuclear Renaissance

Intro: 

• *Imagery about perceived notions of nuclear energy and radiation, particularly with respect to Chernobyl, then talk about nuclear energy as a clean zero carbon source* 
• This dichotomy inherent in the perception of nuclear energy has posed the industry as a volatile one, fluctuating along with public opinion.  
• *Talk about initial “atoms for peace” idea and how nuclear was initially proposed as a safe and reliable energy source* 
• However, this view of nuclear energy as a peaceful source of power was fell out of favor in 1979 and 1986 with the events of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.  
• *Explain what happened at these disasters* 
• The beginning of public distrust in nuclear resulting from the terrifying evacuation of Middletown Pennsylvania, coupled with the horrific deaths, injuries, sickness, and displacement from Chernobyl, brought the nuclear energy industry to a standstill.  
• Public pressures amounted to a decrease in both new reactor proposals and an increase in abandonment of ongoing reactor construction projects.  
• Before these incidents, in 1979, the world saw 234 reactor projects under construction. By 1995, this number had plateaued around twenty. (“World”) 
• It seemed as though the nuclear industry would be doomed to stagnation from its reputation gained from widely reported disasters.  
• However, in the recent years (2007 to present) nuclear energy has appeared to once again be on the rise, in terms of public perception, reactor construction, and government policy.  
• Although growth in the nuclear industry has not reattained its peak of the 1970s, its current shift towards improvement qualifies as a nuclear renaissance, as the previous 15 years have seen a re-framing of nuclear energy as clean energy, a significant increase in reactor construction projects, and a resurgence in public favor of nuclear energy.  

Causes / reason for change: 

• Green Energy 
• A signifier of the nuclear renaissance, and a determiner of change in public acceptance of nuclear energy has been the renewed view of nuclear energy as a carbon-free energy source essential to the fight against climate change.  
• A 2010 article observes that, “These events [of Chernobyl], coupled with the economic problems that have plagued the industry, resulted in no new nuclear plant orders by a US utility since 1978. Until recently, it seemed that no utility would ever do so. However, for the first time in decades, nuclear power has resurfaced globally and is being actively marketed as a “green” solution to climate change.” (Culley and Angelique) 
• Ultimately, a recent emphasis on the dangers of climate change won out over aging perceptions about the dangers of nuclear energy.  
• A 2011 poll of public perception concedes that, “It is possible that the re-framing of nuclear power as a “green” technology has led to the steady growth in support and reduction in opposition to the technology seen by the annual Ipsos MORI polls.” (Goodfellow et al.) 
• This view of nuclear energy as clean has also played a role outside of public opinion, but within the opinions of policymakers as well.  
• Government Policy: 
• The framing of nuclear energy as a clean power source has allowed for governments to adjust policy to support the industry.  
• It should be noted that government policy played a large role of the decline and stagnation of nuclear energy in the late 1980s and 90s, as deregulation of the US energy market in the 1990s made utilities seek energy options cheaper than nuclear, such as natural gas. (“Why”) 
• However, with a focus of nuclear as a green, climate-friendly energy, “policy initiatives outlined in the 2005 Energy Policy Act and subsequent government actions provide[d] billions in financial incentives for the construction of new nuclear plants” (Culley and Angelique) 
• This increase in funding gave nuclear energy more means for growth, and allowed it to be competitive in a free market against cheaper, carbon-emitting fuels like coal and natural gas.  
• Similarly, government intervention supporting nuclear energy as a clean energy source has helped encourage the growth of the industry in the past few years.  
• Individual US states and the Biden administration have made the decision to postpone plant shutdowns in order to keep the zero-carbon sources, at least until more renewables can come online (“Why”) 
• Still, government intervention, particularly in democratic societies such as the United States, is not sufficient to completely turn the tide in favor of nuclear energy. For that, one must look at the way in which the general public has begun to perceive nuclear energy.  
• Public Opinion: 
• Public opinion is a great signifier of a nuclear renaissance, and there is prominent evidence for a shift – not just through the narrative of nuclear power as a green energy but also because of increased factual information and decreased reliance on exaggerated information spread in the wake of nuclear disasters.  
• A community psychology study on anti-nuclear activists asserted that “suggested that the public’s lack of understanding of the nuclear issue contributed to the “Forgetting Period” and the inability to learn from past mistakes. Some spoke of the issue as being highly technical and therefore intimidating and not “sexy” enough for widespread public involvement.” (Culley and Angelique) 
• In the aftermath of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and even the relatively recent events of Fukushima, the public was given a constant stream of information painting nuclear energy in a negative light. 
• With the current portrayal of nuclear energy as clean and safe, there is not as much incentive for the general public to focus on the intricacies and possible danger of nuclear energy; public opinion is heavily reliant on the industry’s portrayal in popular media.  
• The American nuclear society states, “Public opinion on nuclear energy topics is based largely on impressions, as few feel very well informed about the topic. Only 20 percent feel very well informed about energy sources used to produce electricity, and only 19 percent feel very well informed about nuclear energy. These numbers are significantly higher than a year ago, however, when they were 14 percent and 13 percent, respectively. Information may be reaching more of the public.” (Bisconti) 
• That is not to say that the current, positive portrayal of nuclear energy is inaccurate.  
• American nuclear society also points to the fact that “The more informed people feel, the more they favor nuclear energy. Of those who feel very well informed, 68 percent strongly favor nuclear energy, and 7 percent are strongly opposed, a 10 to 1 ratio.” (Bisconti) 
• Therefore, an increase in factual information over the past years may also contribute to a greater public favor of nuclear energy.  

Analysis – Did it happen? 

• How to determine a renaissance: 
• The changes in the perception of nuclear as a green energy and greater public and political acceptance of nuclear energy all provided compelling means for an increase in the implementation of nuclear energy; a nuclear renaissance. However, did an observable shift actually occur, and to what extent? 
• It is important to recognize the key opposition to nuclear energy, namely the concerns of costly capital investment requirements for nuclear projects as well as the risk inherent in the use of nuclear materials.  
• A 2013 analysis of the concept of nuclear renaissance foreshadowed, “For technological optimists, these concerns will yield to the necessity of low-carbon energy. For alarmists, they are enough to stop construction of nuclear power plants” (Stuhlburg et al, 148) 
• The opposing viewpoints of optimist and alarmist groups resulted in both a slow of progress towards nuclear progression or recession, and a skewing of viewpoints around the state of the industry, making the matter of a nuclear renaissance hard to define precisely.  
• One way to define a nuclear renaissance is that, “nuclear power will experience a revival of plant construction on the order of thirty new reactors per year, similar to the sector’s heyday in the 1960s and early 1970s, but also that the collective growth in nuclear power capacity will be sufficient to offset a significant share of global emissions of greenhouse gases that otherwise would have been emitted from the burning of fossil fuels.” (Stuhlburg et al, 124-125) 
• However, another way to define a nuclear renaissance would simply be a significant increase in public favor of nuclear energy as well as a significant increase in initiated and completed nuclear projects compared to previous decades of stagnation.  
• It did not happen 
• Contrasting the idea of a nuclear renaissance, in both its rigid and flexible definitions, there exists evidence that the nuclear energy industry has instead stagnated.
  “From 2007 to 2008, both the U.S. and E. U. added more renewable capacity than conventional coal, gas, oil and nuclear capacity. The global share of nuclear energy did not grow at all; it actually shrank by about 1 %, and the amount invested in 2008 was one-tenth the amount invested in renewables and energy efficiency. Put another way, nonhydroelectric renewable resources as a whole grew at an annual rate of 23% in 2008, and wind energy alone added 10 GW that year … nuclear energy additions have stagnated at about 2 GW/yr.” (Sovacool and D’Agostino) 
• Although this data does reflect the early stages of the nuclear renaissance period, it makes an important point about nuclear energy in comparison to renewables. Despite the perception of nuclear as a green energy, renewable energy sources are inherently favored by environmental activists, and this has been shown to increase their implementation in society and policy. This contrasts with the rigid definition of a nuclear renaissance, which requires that nuclear energy be responsible for a majority of emission reduction.  
• Similarly, increases in the economic efficiency of fossil fuels has offset the explosion of the nuclear industry into a renaissance. New techniques like fracking and the export of lower-cost fossil fuels has “undermined worldwide nuclear industry sales by rendering nuclear plants noncompetitive in open power markets, where such less expensive alternatives are now available. Indeed, switching to gas has reduced emissions, lowered generating costs, and increased efficiency compared to coal.” (Duffey and Pioro) 
• It has been long known that nuclear power generation requires great initial investment, and this has been its downfall in the past few years as other forms of electricity generation have proven to be cheaper. This has undermined nuclear energy’s purpose of reducing carbon-emissions, since renewables were seen as sufficient for this purpose, while conversely the cost of carbon-emitting fuels reached enough of a low that its cheap cost was viewed to outweigh the consequences of its pollution.  
• However, there has been noticeable growth in the nuclear energy industry was still achieved despite competition from these other energy sources.  
• Yes, it is happening 
• By examining trends in nuclear construction projects and public opinion, one can see that there has been a significant favorable growth in the nuclear industry, particularly after 2007.  
• Nuclear reactors under construction stagnated around 30 globally between 1994 and 2005, then rapidly increased to 60 reactors at a time since 2009 (“World”) 
• Similarly, 2010 saw the most reactor construction starts (15) since 1992, which means 2024 is set to see the most reactors come online (15) since 1987, the year after the Chernobyl disaster 
• However, in the past 10 years there has only been an average of 7 reactor startups per year, an increase from the average of 4.5 per year from 1990 – 2013, but still far from the qualifying number of 30 to signify a nuclear renaissance. (“World”) 
• It is still important to note there have been only 4 cancelled plant construction projects in the past 10 years, compared to an average of 13.7 cancelled per decade between 1990 – 2013, most of those were caused in the aftermath of Chernobyl and Fukushima. (“World”) 
• When examining these shifts, it is important to attribute a lot of this growth to China, which has seen the largest increase in reactor projects in the past years of the nuclear renaissance (“World”). This is due both to China’s climate goals and the nature of its government structure, as “China’s ability to expand nuclear energy production is enhanced by the state’s greater capacity to site facilities compared to democratic countries such as India.” (Stuhlburg et al, 159) 
• However, there is still a growth of the nuclear industry in democratic societies such as America. Although there has not been quite a shift towards more reactor construction, recent surveys have shown a significant shift in public acceptance of nuclear energy.  
• “For three decades, a perception gap told a story of stigma attached to nuclear energy; the majority of Americans judged public opinion about nuclear energy to be less favorable than their own. In April 2019, for the first time ever in 36 years of surveying the national public about nuclear energy, a majority of Americans said they believe that a majority of people in their community favor nuclear energy; 53 percent perceive the majority to be in favor, and 47 percent perceive the majority to be opposed. That finding suggests that the image of nuclear energy may be changing. Among younger Americans, ages 18 to 34, 58 percent perceive public opinion to be majority favorable, and 42 percent perceive it to be majority unfavorable.” (Bisconti) 
• Since people tend to perceive public opinion as less favorable than their opinions of nuclear energy, this data suggests that a majority of Americans are ready to accept nuclear energy. Both a worldwide shift towards more nuclear plants and a shift in the United States towards acceptance of nuclear energy signifies a nuclear renaissance, not to the extent of the rigid definition of a renaissance, but to an extent that a noticeable revival is constituted.  

Implications – Is it good or bad? 

• Negatives: 
• With the existence of a nuclear renaissance established, it is important to examine the consequences of such a renaissance – can the costs of nuclear energy outweigh its ability to reduce carbon emissions? 
• One must acknowledge costs of an increased nuclear fleet pose a drawback to the benefits of a nuclear renaissance.  
• “Although the accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl are widely known, no less than 76 nuclear accidents totaling $19.1 billion in damages have occurred worldwide from 1 947 to 2008. These figures correspond to at least one incident and $332 million in damages every year for the past three decades.” (Sovacool and D’Agostino) 
• Even though current reactor technology has developed to a point where accidents are highly unlikely to cause human harm, incidents do occur and cause financial harm.  
• Similarly, cost of operating reactors remains a non-negligible issue. Some issues result since, “Lack of knowledge about known reserves of uranium fuel, as well as long supply chains and almost complete dependence on importers, have contributed to large price spikes on the global market. The cost of uranium for reactors in the U.S., for example, jumped from $ 10/lb in 1994 to $60/lb in 2008.” (Sovacool and D’Agostino) 
• Taking both the costs of operation and the cost of accidents into consideration, a nuclear renaissance would imply a heavy cost on utilities. Although this would likely be offset by profit from electricity generation, it is nonetheless a greater concern compared to other methods of electricity production.  
• Can this cost be offset by the reduction in carbon emissions that nuclear energy provides? It is important to note that a transition to nuclear energy is unlikely to fully reduce emissions, as to do so: 
• “worldwide we would need to build at least 1,500 new plants—a new plant every one to two weeks until about 2050. Given that the NRC estimates it would take at least 20 years for licensing and construction processes to unfold for each plant in the best case scenario, this is not likely feasible.” (Culley and Angelique) 
• A nuclear renaissance, at least of the current magnitude, will not solve the climate change crisis. Yet there are still benefits to any extent of nuclear energy implementation.  
• Positives: 
• Even in spite of cost, aspects of nuclear energy provide advantages over both renewable energy and fossil fuels, meaning that the changes of nuclear renaissance are of benefit to developing nations and the world as a whole.  
• For starters, nuclear energy does not fluctuate based on external conditions in the way that wind and solar do, and additionally nuclear plants only need to refuel around once every eighteen months.  
• This means that “For countries reliant on imported fuel sources (particularly those with uranium reserves), diversification through nuclear power potentially provides a source of reassurance for reasons of energy security.” (Stuhlburg et al, 127) 
• Despite higher costs, switching to nuclear energy would be a beneficial move for many countries, especially those reliant on Russian natural gas during the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian war.  
• Additionally, the main benefit of nuclear energy is its safety. Despite its connotation as a dangerous technology, regulations and a lack of pollutants actually make nuclear energy among one of the safest power sources.  
• Taking into account air pollution, accidents and greenhouse gas emissions, on average coal plants cause 24.62 deaths per terawatt hour of energy produced, oil 18.43 deaths, natural gas 2.82, and nuclear only 0.03. This puts it on par with deaths per terawatt hour of wind and solar, 0.04 and 0.02 respectively (“World”) 
• When examining nuclear energy in terms of its main competitor, natural gas, nuclear is responsible for on average 94 times less deaths for the same unit energy produced. This is mainly because of deaths attributed to carbon emission, it goes to show how any replacement of fossil fuel, no matter the magnitude, will have a significant impact on human well-being.  
• As a footnote, both a contributing factor and positive implication of the nuclear renaissance is the development of the next generation of nuclear reactor technology.  
• Both governments, independent startups, and established nuclear suppliers are pursuing innovative methods of nuclear power generation, including higher temperature gas-cooled reactors, molten salt reactors, and microreactors.  
• Reactors of this next generation of designs would be safer, more efficient, and require a lower initial cost to build, meaning that development in this area could both fuel the nuclear renaissance and provide an increasing benefit throughout the progression of the renaissance. (“Why”) 

Conclusion: 

• *Recap the nuclear renaissance – causes and what happened* 
• Still, the hope of a complete nuclear renaissance has not yet seen complete fruition. Although reactor construction remains at an elevated level compared to the decade preceding the renaissance, it has not yet reached its same peak as in the 1970s.  
• *Recap the implications of the change* 
• We currently stand at a turning point in the climate crisis, in America and globally. Nuclear energy, despite its drawbacks, offers a safe, reliable, and proven solution to produce energy with zero-carbon emission. The nuclear renaissance, even if limited in scope, shows a shift in public acceptance of nuclear as this clean energy source, and highlights humanity’s ability to work towards the common goal of combatting climate change.  
• While the path to a complete nuclear renaissance is one wrought with many challenges, it can be made possible with public understanding and advocacy. In a matter so heavily dependent on public opinion, it is the shared responsibility of both citizens, policymakers, and innovators to create informed dialogs and support measures to advance the promise of nuclear energy in the battle against climate change.  

 

Sources:

Bisconti, Ann S. “Public Opinion on Nuclear Energy: Turning a Corner?” American Nuclear Society, 12 Jul 2019, https://www.ans.org/news/article-314/public-opinion-on-nuclear-energy-turning-a-corner/ 

Culley, Marci R., Holly Angelique. “Nuclear Power: Renaissance or Relapse? Global Climate Change and Long-Term Three Mile Island Activists’ Narratives.” American Journal of Community Psychology, 16 March 2010, pp. 231–246. https://doi-org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/10.1007/s10464-010-9299-8 

Duffey, Romney, and Igor Pioro. “What Happened to the Nuclear Renaissance?” The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 11 Nov 2011, https://www.asme.org/topics-resources/content/what-happened-to-the-nuclear-renaissance 

Goodfellow, Martin J., et al. “Nuclear Renaissance, Public Perception and Design Criteria: An Exploratory Review.” Energy Policy, vol. 39, no. 10, Oct 2011, pp. 6199-6210. https://www-sciencedirect-com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/science/article/pii/S030142151100543X?via%3Dihub 

Ritchie, Hannah, and Pablo Rosado. “Nuclear Energy.” Our World in Data, 10 Jul 2020, https://ourworldindata.org/nuclear-energy 

Sovacool, Benjamin K., and Anthony D’Agostino. “Nuclear Renaissance: A Flawed Proposition.” Chemical Engineering Progress, vol. 106, no. 7, Jul 2010, pp. 29-29,31,33,35. ProQuest, https://ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/magazines/nuclear-renaissance-flawed-proposition/docview/650608864/se-2. 

Stuhlburg, Adam N., et al. The Nuclear Renaissance and International Security, Stanford University Press, 2013. 

“Why Nuclear Energy is on The Verge of a Renaissance.” YouTube, uploaded by CNBC, 7 Jun 2023, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfNgRc4sJt8 

“World Nuclear Power Reactors 1951 – 2023.” World Nuclear Industry Status Report, 30 Sept 2023, https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/reactors.html#tab=iso;