Hello!

Welcome to the Insights, Innovation, and Economics blog. If you’re new here, feel free to read my general Introduction to the Blog to understand more about the blog. If you’re returning, thank you, and hope you have a great read!

Thesis: Even though nuclear has many benefits, there are still many problems that need to be resolved before nuclear energy can play a vital role in future energy resources. Nuclear may not even be a solution for any country in the future for many reasons.

If you haven’t read my Introduction to Nuclear Energy, I’d highly recommend it before reading this article as some of the terminology associated with this subject may be difficult to understand.

Credit Wall Street Journal

Nuclear Energy

Many proponents of nuclear energy, even myself at times, have often claimed that nuclear energy will be integral to our future energy production as a world.

An often cited example is nations like France where a majority of their energy production comes from nuclear power.

But, is this situation possible for all nations?

Not necessarily. And I’ll explain why, specifically highlighting how each situation affects 4 buckets of countries: (1) nations that currently have a large portion of their energy generated by nuclear (like France); (2) nations that are currently developing nuclear capabilities (like India); (3) nations that have had experience with nuclear reactors in the past but haven’t done much, if anything, with nuclear energy recently (like the United States) (4) nations that have no significant experience with nuclear energy.

Nuclear isn’t a viable solution for some, if not all, of these groups for the following reasons:

• Lack of Expertise
• Time
• Placement
• Waste Problem
• Regulatory Problems
• Public Perception
• Weapons
• Security
• Costs

Quick Note: This is a very long read, so strap in and be ready to learn.

Credit AP News

Lack of Expertise

Within our scenarios, some countries have large amounts of current nuclear expertise. These would be countries that are prioritizing reactor development currently.

Here are some stats:

Only 32 countries have nuclear reactors currently (3 countries that don’t have one are developing one currently making the total 35).

• 13 countries are currently developing a nuclear reactor and have developed a reactor in the last 20 years
• 5 countries are developing a nuclear reactor right now, but haven’t developed one in the last 20 years
• 5 countries have developed a reactor in the last 20 years but aren’t currently developing one
• 12 countries have an operating reactor but have not developed a reactor in the last 20 years and are not currently developing a reactor.

With 195 countries in total, this means that 160 countries do not have don’t have any current nuclear reactor expertise. In addition, the 12 countries that have an operating reactor but haven’t developed one in the last 20 years probably have lost their expertise since then.

So, only 23 countries have current relevant nuclear expertise (see map above).

This means if these other 172 countries wanted to build and operate a nuclear reactor, it would be significantly more difficult than the countries with current expertise.

But, these 23 countries with current nuclear expertise constitute 59% of the world’s population. To misconstrue this as a majority of the world doesn’t have nuclear expertise would be incorrect.

There is a lack of nuclear energy expertise in many places in the world, but the majority of the largest countries have been developing nuclear capabilities, which signals good signs for nuclear energy in the future.

To recap this section:

Nuclear can be (and is a solution) for countries that fall into bucket 1 or 2 (they have current reactors or currently are developing nuclear capabilities). Under these conditions, this means nuclear power could potentially be part of a future solution for around 23 countries.

Countries that have historical experience might not utilize nuclear as a future solution, and the countries that don’t have nuclear experience (162 total) probably won’t utilize nuclear as a future solution.

Credit TeachHUB

Time

Nuclear reactors take decades from start to finish. Within the realm of nuclear reactors, 3 major periods segment the nuclear process: (1) design, development, and construction; (2) operation; (3) decommission.

The goal of any nuclear project is to have the time to construct and decommission a nuclear reactor be as small as possible and the operating time to be as large as possible.

This makes economic sense as the construction and decommission segments cost money and the operation segment makes money.

Yet, as it currently stands in many countries, the time to develop and decommission a nuclear reactor is still large relative to the time of operation.

Let’s start first with the time to develop:

Yay here’s a complicated graph. Let’s break it down. There have been 119 reactors completed since 2000. The overall average time for these reactors to be completed is 6 years (the black line), mainly driven by China (51 reactors), South Korea (11), Pakistan (6), and Japan (5).

There are only 7 countries that have an average time of nuclear reactor development of less than 10 years. The other 12 countries have an average time of 16 years to develop a reactor (the red line).

Interesting fact: Of the 119 reactors completed since 2000, 38 took over a decade to be completed. The average development time for these 38 reactors was 20 years, showcasing the fact that if nuclear power plants go over schedule, they generally go over schedule by many years, not just by a little.

In addition, all of this timeframe data doesn’t take into account the design and regulation phases which generally take anywhere from 5 - 10+ years.

This further emphasizes the general lack of worldwide expertise regarding nuclear reactors.

The countries that have produced 3 or more nuclear reactors since 2000 generally have drastically lower development times than the countries only producing 1 or 2 reactors. This further demonstrates the thesis that more reactor production leads to more nuclear expertise.

The United States, the current nuclear powerhouse (although China is going to usurp that power soon), has only produced 2 nuclear reactors in the last 23 years with an average time of 18 years.

Are these characteristics of a truly viable solution?

Even if most countries started to produce nuclear reactors right now, it would be around 2040 before we saw many of them.

However, let’s not take away from the countries that are prioritizing nuclear power and have figured out how to efficiently mass-produce these reactors. They will be driving innovation in the future and will probably use nuclear as a valuable solution for any future energy needs.

Note: another section highlights the costs for the construction and development of these nuclear reactors.

Credit Fairewinds

Time to Decommission:

Nuclear decommissioning refers to the process of complete or partial closure/dismantling of a nuclear facility with the ultimate aim of the termination of the operation and the closure of the regulatory license. During decommissioning, the facility is dismantled to the point that it no longer requires safety measures for radiation protection.

Before approaching the decommissioning phase and during the initial transitory period, detailed plans are developed for dormancy activities, subsequent deconstruction, and waste management. This includes complicated cost estimates, regulatory approvals, and complex waste contracts.

Transition Phase

During the initial transition phase, the nuclear reactor operations are shut down and the fuel is taken out of the reactor.

The first step in this stage is removing the fuel from the reactor core and transferring it to the spent (another word for used-up) fuel storage pool for initial cooling. This process may take 1-2 years.

After the fuel has been successfully taken from the reactor, emergency safety systems are installed to prepare for the subsequent dormancy phase. These safety systems, including backup power supplies, ventilation filters, containment seals, and radiation monitors, are added to keep the inactive facility in a stable state.

Some initial decontamination of accessible areas takes place to reduce topical surface radioactivity levels. This is only for low-level radiation zones–higher radiation zones are isolated.

Overall, the transition phase lasts anywhere from 6 months to 2 years on average. but could last longer depending on the type and size of the reactor.

Dormancy Phase

The dormancy phase is a designated period of safe closure of a nuclear reactor that allows for radioactive decay inside the shutdown reactor before the full dismantling phase occurs.

Consistent monitoring and maintenance are completed during this time, as workers continue to maintain critical safety systems, inspect component integrity, and provide physical security to ensure the reactor remains in a stable state.

The goal of dormancy is to dramatically decrease the amount of highly radioactive material present in the reactor.

During this phase, preparations for the next phase, the dismantling phase, occur. This includes creating detailed plans and procedures for cleaning contaminated surfaces, draining and flushing systems, ventilating areas, and eventually dismantling the entire reactor.

Crucial contracts are established surrounding the management, storage, and eventual disposal of waste with key industry and government partners. Transportation plans are developed to send radioactive materials to long-term storage sites or disposal facilities.

Overall, the dormancy phase can last anywhere from 2 years to over 50 years.

Credit DW

Dismantling Phase

The dismantling phase constitutes the physical demolition and removal of radioactive components from the nuclear reactor.

First, systems are decontaminated, meaning the piping, tanks, and containment volumes are flushed to remove remaining loose contamination to surfaces.

Major equipment, like the reactor vessel, pumps, steam generators, and cooling towers, is then removed. Then, buildings that were contaminated with radioactive material are decontaminated and gradually demolished.

Any material that is still highly radioactive is packaged into approved transportation vessels which are securely shipped to long-term waste sites.

During this phase, soil or groundwater remediation may be required if leaks occurred during the operational phase.

To effectively conclude this phase, final scans of the site need to verify radiation levels are below established limits. If the scans find large amounts of radiation, more decommissioning and disposal processes are necessary.

Overall, the dismantling phase can last anywhere from 2 years to over 20 years.

Environmental Restoration Phase

The environmental restoration phase contains the final site cleanup and restoration stages of the entire decommissioning process.

A detailed scan of the remaining buildings, foundations, soils, and groundwater is conducted to find any last traces of contamination. Any problematic spots are fixed (in whatever way is necessary). Once the site has been fully decontaminated, the site can be cosmetically restored.

If the site continued to test highly for radioactivity through all measures (how Chernobyl is now), long-term government stewardship may be necessary to continue monitoring and ensuring proper safety precautions.

This phase is complete when the site can be potentially reused under safer radiological conditions.

Overall, the environmental restoration phase can last anywhere from 1 year to over 10 years.

Most nuclear power plants require at least a few decades (5 - 100+ years) to perform the full sequence from reactor shutdown through to the final site release.

Note: another section highlights the costs for the decommissioning of these nuclear reactors.

To recap this section:

Nuclear can be an effective solution for countries that have developed over 3 reactors since 2000, as these countries generally have figured out how to produce a nuclear reactor in an effective time frame. Other countries don’t have the necessary expertise to produce a nuclear reactor in an efficient manner (10+ years).

Under these conditions, it means that nuclear power will probably be part of a future solution for around 7 countries. Other countries that don’t have the proper expertise to produce a nuclear reactor quickly and efficiently probably won’t utilize nuclear as a future solution as it becomes inefficient at that point.

Credit NucNet

Placement

A large (1,000-megawatt) nuclear facility needs just over one square mile of land to be built.

Where do you put it? Anywhere with a one-square-mile piece of land?

Contrary to some belief, nuclear power plants can’t be built anywhere. There are specific environmental factors necessary to operate a nuclear reactor: access to cooling water, stable geology, access to quality power grids, and nearby transportation routes.

Other potentially important qualities are nearby emergency services and potentially sparse population density.

Water

A massive, reliable water source like an ocean, large river, or big lake is needed to continually cool the nuclear reactor components. Enormous volumes of cooling water circulate past the reactor core and steam turbines, generating electricity carrying.

Claude, a generative AI by Anthropic, estimated that this factor makes putting a nuclear reactor inland impractical, taking around 25-35% of the world’s total landmass and making it initially unacceptable for a nuclear reactor.

Geology

Nuclear reactors, now subject to strict regulations in many countries, are still susceptible to large-scale geological changes. So, when placing nuclear reactors, countries tend to avoid earthquake risks, fault lines, unfavorable soil conditions, or other geological complications.

This generally eliminates regions prone to major earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic activity, etc., which Claude estimates includes around 10-15% of the world’s total landmass. Popular examples include the Pacific Ring of Fire, Asia collision zones, and the Rift Valley in Africa.

Credit Terrapass

Infrastructure

As nuclear reactors generate large amounts of concentrated electricity, the proper energy grid infrastructure needs to be in place to facilitate the transfer of nuclear electricity to places that need it. Supply needs to be able to go to demand.

In addition, nuclear power plants need massive transportation infrastructure. This could be in the form of roads, waterways, or any other form of infrastructure for large-scale transportation.

Large sparsely populated areas often lack proximity to energy grid connections, robust transportation routes, piping/water access, or the emergency services to make a nuclear power plant feasible.

In addition, these sparsely populated areas also generally lack the demand necessary for a large-scale nuclear reactor, and without the necessary microreactor technology, aren’t ripe for nuclear reactor deployment anytime soon.

This rules out many underdeveloped nations as they don’t have the proper infrastructure or electricity transmission backbone to support large nuclear power plants. Claude estimates this accounts for around 25% or more of the world’s landmass.

Population Density

There’s a conundrum concerning population density and nuclear reactors. Given the potential hazards, nuclear power plants operate best when located relatively far from major population centers to lower accident risks.

So, the ideal placement of a nuclear reactor is in the middle of nowhere with perfect infrastructure and a substantial water source, yet is still decently close to a population source that needs power. Where does this exist in the world?

To recap this section:

Claude estimates at least 50-75% of the total global land area today would pose substantial obstacles to hosting a nuclear power program. The most suitable locations remain coastal, developed grid centers with low nearby population density.

This placement issue isn’t just a nuclear problem. Some renewables have this same property. Hydroelectric power sources have to be placed on a source of water. Wind terminals have to be placed in a windy place. Solar has to be placed in a place that receives sun.

Nuclear can be an ineffective solution for countries that don’t have the necessary infrastructure in place to support a nuclear reactor. This generally rules out bucket 4 (the countries that haven’t ever had a nuclear reactor and aren’t developing one currently), as they’ve lacked the expertise and infrastructure to properly develop one up until now.

In addition, more developed nations (like buckets 1, 2, and 3) have better chances of having the infrastructure necessary to support a nuclear reactor. So, under these conditions (placement constraints), only around 35 countries could potentially utilize nuclear power as a future solution.

Where this becomes interesting is with rapidly developing nations. These nations tend to dabble in nuclear energy, seen as a way to create a source of quality energy without having to rely on an external party for fossil fuels. These nations could potentially utilize nuclear power as a future solution under our placement criteria, but they would need to have the correct infrastructure (which may pose a problem).

Credit Forbes

Waste

Nuclear reactions don’t use up all of the fuel inputs, creating a waste byproduct. And, unfortunately, this waste can be highly radioactive. This waste poses a serious threat to humans, animals, plants, and basically everything on earth we care about.

So, what do we do with it?

It needs to be meticulously and permanently disposed of in the right place (or places). But where is that?

In most cases, the highly radioactive material is collected and stored in inactive nuclear power plants. In 2019, one reactor was encased in steel and concrete (which will only safely store the material for around a century).

But these solutions are only temporary. This still leaves us with our nuclear waste problem today. If you read the news, you’ll often see a headline like “Nuclear Waste Is Piling Up. Does the U.S. Have a Plan?”

Humanity has been searching for an effective long-term solution to nuclear waste for years. Currently, the top contender seems to be Finland.

Finland created a plan to bury their nuclear waste underground in a mine around 400+ meters deep. The waste is first encapsulated inside copper containers and then buried. Because nothing similar to this has been tried before, there are large technical uncertainties and many unpredictable factors that could go wrong for us or future generations.

Granted, only around 0.5% of nuclear waste actually needs to be stored in these places. The rest (99.5%) is low-level waste that can easily be stored or repurposed.

The nuclear industry has developed and implemented most of the necessary technologies required for the final disposal of this nuclear waste. The international scientific community does agree on the methodology behind deep geological repositories. The remaining issue is public acceptance of the waste plans.

To recap this section:

In countries with a current operating reactor, a waste problem continues to be an issue. For countries that don’t have a reactor, or are currently developing one, the waste problem isn’t an imminent issue yet, but it will become one if they build any reactors.

The waste problem doesn’t preclude any countries from having nuclear as a solution, but if countries don’t have the infrastructure in place to prevent waste problems, then nuclear waste may be a large issue.

Credit Capitol Markets

Regulations

All sources of energy are subject to regulations. Yet, these normal regulations aren’t what’s preventing nuclear from becoming popular. It’s the additional regulations compared to these other power sources that prevent nuclear energy from becoming a viable solution.

It’s been assumed throughout the history of nuclear that since the development of widespread regulations (specifically the Nuclear Regulatory Commission), the costs of nuclear power have increased.

There’s a direct correlation between the expansion of regulations and the cost and time to develop nuclear reactors.

Credit AmericanForum

Yet correlation doesn’t mean causation. But, it seems like the data speaks for itself. Every major disaster or even minor catastrophe leads to a large increase in nuclear regulations in the United States.

Granted, you can always improve safety by spending more money. This process is known as “ratcheting.” Similar to the process of a ratchet strap, always tightening and never loosening, nuclear regulatory requirements are always tightening. As regulatory requirements increased, time and cost increased as more materials, more studies, and more processes were required.

Here’s a little history about the history of nuclear regulations in the United States:

The Atomic Energy Act of 1946 created the Atomic Energy Commission, the precursor to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). In doing this, Congress decided to bring the development of nuclear weapons and nuclear power under civilian leadership instead of the military.

Until the 1970s, the nuclear industry had relatively low regulations. However, in the 1970s, the nuclear regulators began making changes that many people theorize initiated the stagnation of nuclear power in the United States.

At this point, the nuclear power industry was strongly profitable and was not worried about the regulatory ratchet. However, the regulatory codes and standards quickly ballooned:

As of January 1, 1971, the United States had some hundred codes and standards applicable to nuclear plant design and construction; by 1975, the number had surpassed 1,600; and by 1978, 1.3 new regulatory or statutory requirements, on average, were being imposed on the nuclear industry every working day.

Credit FREOPP

In 1974, the Energy Reorganization Act established the NRC, an independent commission that oversees nuclear energy, nuclear medicine, etc.

Since the establishment of the NRC, only 2 reactors have been approved and built. All other reactors built since then were approved before 1974. That’s almost 50 years of a lack of nuclear power and a continued increase in regulations. Does that seem like a coincidence?

To recap this section:

Overly strict regulations prevent nuclear from being an effective solution. In many established and developed countries, especially those that have experimented with nuclear in the past, the nuclear regulations can be very strict, preventing many new projects from being established.

In developing or emerging countries, these regulations may not be in place yet, which encourages nuclear development, however, these reactors may not be completely safe.

Credit ROI CX Solutions

Public Perception

For nuclear to be a practical solution, the public has to be okay with its development. This ultimately means the people in the political sphere, but generally, they need buy-in from their constituents (everyday people).

What is currently preventing nuclear from becoming a solution from a public perspective?

The biggest preventers are accidents and NIMBY fears.

Accidents

The facts speak for themselves. Nuclear reactors can have accidents. Nuclear reactors have had accidents (Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima).

This does not mean that they will have accidents in the future. But there’s always going to be the possibility that they could have an accident.

When nuclear energy has had accidents, these accidents have been detrimental to the environment and the overall public perception of nuclear energy.

Current regulations are extremely strict in some countries to try to prevent any potential accidents, but you can only do so much. The possibility of having an accident continues to get smaller and smaller, but the outcome of an accident is still just as big.

Consider the equation:

Many times when considering the cost of nuclear power, people don’t consider the costs of a potential accident, however small.

But, the fact remains that other popular sources of energy being proposed to replace fossil fuels (solar & wind) won’t have accidents like nuclear. So, for this reason, these energy sources are prioritized as a solution even if they are on paper an inferior source of energy generation than nuclear power (because the true cost of nuclear is greater than the cost of these substitutes).

NIMBY

NIMBY stands for “Not In My Backyard”. Here, it relates to the thought that many proponents of nuclear energy want it as a solution, but don’t want it necessarily placed near them for fear of a nearby accident.

If there’s even a small chance of a nuclear accident, many people won’t want to live near a nuclear reactor.

But they’re fine with it being located on the other side of the country.

This leads to a complicated conclusion as the public perception of nuclear energy compared to other energy sources is lower (due to these factors).

Is it worth the negative public perception in the case of a potential accident? And is it worth putting money into properly educating people on the risks and benefits of nuclear simply in order for them to back your idea when other energy sources can so easily be used?

To recap this section:

Each country’s public perception of nuclear energy is vastly different. For nuclear to be an effective solution from a public perception, the politicians have to convince people that nuclear is an effective solution.

Historically, we’ve seen that the cost and effort to re-educate consumers (about anything) is large and potentially unfeasible for many larger countries.

This being said, these concerns could influence nuclear power to fail to be a solution for any country in any bucket (1, 2, 3, or 4).

Credit NPR

Weapons

Coming back to the idea of public perception, the word “nuclear” is often associated with nuclear weapons. So, anytime anyone mentions nuclear, it tends to be with a negative connotation, even if they’re just talking about nuclear energy.

Why? Could nuclear power plants be used to create nuclear weapons?

Nuclear power plants can’t be used as nuclear weapons, their fundamental structure is very different. That’s the first concern out of the way. However, there are still concerns about nuclear proliferation and diversion.

Nuclear Proliferation

Nuclear proliferation refers to the spread of nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons technology, or fissile material to countries that do not already possess them. The term can also be used to refer to the possible acquisition of nuclear weapons by terrorist organizations.

In other words, if a country can enrich uranium and reprocess plutonium (like you would do in a nuclear reactor), then they could also have the ability to manufacture nuclear warheads.

To explain the physics a little more, some radioactive materials (such as Plutonium 239 and Uranium 235) spontaneously fission in the right configuration. In other words, their nuclei split apart, giving off very large amounts of energy.

Inside a warhead, trillions of these fissions occur inside a small space within a fraction of a second, resulting in a massive explosion.

Inside a nuclear reactor, these fissions are slower and more spread out, with the resulting energy used to boil water to turn turbines, generating electricity.

As you can see, the inputs and technology between nuclear power and nuclear weapons are very close. These connections are largely kept secret by many governments.

In the waste section above, the topic of the reprocessing of nuclear fuel was discussed. Historically, a major objection to this reprocessing has been the refinement of plutonium. This plutonium has to be carefully guarded as four kilograms is enough to make a nuclear bomb.

Granted, there hasn’t been a documented example of nuclear waste theft (although if it had happened, the government probably wouldn’t want to let us know about it).

Yet, there’s still the thought that nuclear energy is very similarly related to nuclear weapons. Putting nuclear energy in the wrong hands could also put nuclear weapon components into the wrong hands.

And that’s just not the case with other sources of energy like wind or solar.

Credit Visual Capitalist

Diversion of Resources

Building on the idea of nuclear proliferation detailed above, the diversion of resources in relation to nuclear energy is a big concern. Many people are afraid that countries that have current expertise in nuclear reactors and/or currently have or have had operating reactors could divert resources from nuclear energy production and put them towards nuclear weapons production.

Let’s start with the easier of the two problems, nuclear expertise.

As mentioned in a few of the previous sections, nuclear expertise in many countries is sub-standard at best. So, the problem of diverting nuclear expertise from energy production to weapons production isn’t very well-founded in many countries, as they don’t have the energy production expertise to begin with.

As for nuclear materials and inputs, this is more of a concern. All 32 countries with an operating reactor need nuclear material inputs on hand to facilitate ongoing reactions. Put in plain terms, these countries need to be able to constantly source enough nuclear-reactor-grade uranium to maintain their reactor(s).

So, if, in a time of dire need or a time of nefarious deed, these reactor input materials could be repurposed to build nuclear weapons.

There are two sides to this thought.

First, if this diversion of resources is done by an outside party (outside of the government itself), there are generally safety precautions in place directly at the nuclear power plant to prevent this. In addition, almost every country’s government wouldn’t want this to happen, so immediate military presence would be necessary to contain this threat.

So, this scenario is highly unlikely to occur, and even less likely to succeed (but still possible - the probably isn’t 0).

Second, if this is done by the government of the country themselves, this is much harder to stop. The common political example used in the United States is Russia. Russia has some currently operating nuclear power plants. So, in a situation in which they deem nuclear weapons necessary, they could take the material used by these reactors and repurpose it directly into a nuclear weapon.

This is a decently likely scenario to occur as the government wouldn’t prevent itself from acting in this way, so the only potential preventer would be an outside 3rd party.

To recap this section:

For countries that already have nuclear expertise, almost all of these countries have nuclear material, meaning that these countries are at risk for nuclear weapon capabilities through proliferation or diversion risks.

No matter what country you are in, if nuclear energy is a solution, nuclear weapons from nuclear energy materials and expertise could pose a problem (however small). Granted, many of the countries that have these complex nuclear reactors already in place already have a large arsenal of nuclear weapons, so they potentially wouldn’t need any more, but it’s always a concern.

This being said, these concerns could influence nuclear power to fail to be a solution for any country under any bucket (1, 2, 3, or 4).

Credit Stimson Center

Security

Nuclear security involves the prevention, detection, and response to theft, sabotage, unauthorized access, illegal transfer, or other malicious acts at or regarding a nuclear power plant or nuclear material.

Nuclear security is different from nuclear safety, but they work hand in hand. If a facility or radioactive source is not secure, it could pose a potential safety hazard.

There are 2 main parts to nuclear security, physical and digital, both extremely important to keep radioactive material out of the wrong hands and to prevent potential nuclear accidents.

Physical Security

Physical protection is primarily to prevent access to or control over the nuclear facility or nuclear material. Protective measures generally include physical barriers (walls, fences, gates, etc.), restricted access, radiation detection portals, surveillance cameras, x-ray scanners, and intrusion detection sensors.

Cybersecurity

As nuclear reactors increasingly switch to digital infrastructure, the opportunity for cyber vulnerability increases.

The threat from cyberattacks affects nuclear power in two different ways: undermining the security of nuclear material or facility operations; and compromising nuclear command and control systems.

The Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) was founded in 2001 to protect United States citizens from the risk of catastrophic attacks from weapons of mass destruction and disruption. They cite that “many nuclear cybersecurity practices haven’t caught up to the risk.”

The NTI explains that across the nuclear power industry worldwide, the technical capability to address cyber threats is extremely limited, even in countries with advanced nuclear power and research programs.

Measures to guard against nuclear-related cyber threats are virtually non-existent in countries with new or emerging nuclear programs.

Even in the United States, officials are uncertain that the current command and control systems present in nuclear reactors will operate as planned if attacked by a sophisticated cyber opponent.

A big underlying problem with nuclear security is that it’s expensive to implement and usually only mandated through government regulation. So, in countries that lack truly stringent nuclear regulations, the threat of nuclear security breaches is significantly higher.

To recap this section:

For countries newer to nuclear, and even older countries without strict regulations regarding effective cyber security measures, nuclear reactors could be susceptible to a cyber attack.

Countries in bucket 4 that haven’t built a nuclear reactor yet will be highly targeted by cyberattacks if they choose to build a nuclear reactor.

Physical attacks are easier to prevent, and most, if not all, nuclear reactors have sufficient measures in place to prevent or dissuade an attack of that measure by a small party (although a large attack could overwhelm current protections in most reactors).

Credit Questline Digital

Cost

It’s no secret that nuclear power has large costs.

But how large is too large? Given the amount of energy it produces, is the investment worth the returns?

Many of the cost expectations associated with nuclear power deal with the concept of a learning curve, an economic principle that theorizes that the more you do something, the better you learn how to do it.

Basically, the thought is that if we build more nuclear reactors, the costs will go down over time.

Yet, a 2020 study by MIT revealed that the learning curves associated with nuclear energy are often negative. Costs just keep rising.

What different components make up these large costs? And why do they keep getting larger?

Front-End Capital Costs

Capital costs include the cost of site preparation, construction, manufacturing, commissioning, and financing of a nuclear power plant.

Building a large nuclear reactor takes thousands of workers, huge amounts of resources, thousands of individual components, and many other systems.

Financing costs change the capital costs drastically depending on the construction time of the plant and the interest rate on the debt.

The World Nuclear Association reports that upfront capital costs account for around 60% of the total lifetime costs of the nuclear power plant.

There are three types of capital costs, the first occurring before construction, the second occurring during and after construction, but before operation starts, and the third being the financing costs required to fund this entire process.

Credit Go Green

Pre-Construction Costs

Pre-construction activities include designing and achieving regulatory approval for the reactor. These activities include the following: site selection studies, environmental impact assessments, reactor design, safety analysis reports, and license application preparation.

Site selection studies assess multiple potential nuclear reactor housing sites for a variety of important factors (see placement section above for more info), including seismic suitability, water resources, weather, geology, infrastructure, community impact, etc.

To explain each site selection study briefly:

• Geotechnical Studies (geology and seismic) - geological, seismological, and geophysical evaluations to assess subsurface composition, fault lines, and stability.
• Hydrological Studies (water resources) - temperature, tides, and storm studies to understand safety systems, water intake structures, and site perimeter components.
• Meteorology Studies (weather) - climate records to help design reactor ventilation and filtration systems.
• Infrastructure Studies (infrastructure) - transportation and electrical grid studies to understand the interaction with nuclear operations over the lifespan of a plant.

• Community Impact Studies (community impact) - assessing how the construction and operation of a nuclear reactor might impact localities and municipalities.

Environmental impact assessments obtain the relevant environmental approvals before moving into the licensing stage.

To explain each environmental impact assessment briefly:

• Scientific Studies - Ecology, ecosystem, endangered species, and radiological modeling research to predict potential environmental hazards.
• Impact Report Documentation Studies - Integrate the Site Selection Study findings into environmental impact statements required at the state and federal levels.

Here’s a current example:

North Carolina State University recently announced a $3 million grant for its nuclear program from the state legislature to do the following: (1) Conduct a site assessment; (2) Study and analyze the environmental impacts; (3) Analyze the requirements for licensing a reactor; and (4) Cost estimation of the reactor engineering and construction.

Assuming that this translates decently to large-scale reactors, we can break down the cost as follows:

Site Selection Studies:

• Geotechnical Studies - $15-25 million
• Hydrological Studies - $10-15 million
• Meteorological Studies - $5-8 million
• Infrastructure Studies - $7-12 million
• Community Impact Studies - $3-7 million

Environmental Impact Assessment Studies:

• Scientific Studies - $20-30 million
• Impact Report Documentation Studies - $10-15 million

So far, we’re already at $70 - $112 million.

Credit Science Photo Gallery

Before and while all of this is going on, the reactor and facilities are being constantly designed and redesigned to provide the most optimal outcome. There are many different sections to nuclear power plant design, all detailed below:

• Reactor Core Design - Designing of the module that will contain the reactor and reactions. Many iterative cycles are completed to maximize efficiency and safety.
• Balance of Nuclear Plant - Designing the steam supply system to extract heat from the core and convert it into electricity.
• Structures and Layout - Designing containment structures, ventilation, and spent fuel pools along with material selection in the optimal layout.
• Regulatory Feedback - Throughout the design and regulatory period, continual back-and-forth with nuclear regulators may result in many small tweaks that build up costs over time.

We can break down the cost for each of these as follows:

• Reactor Core Design - $20-30 million
• Balance of Nuclear Plant - $50-75 million
• Structures and Layout - $30-50 million
• Regulatory Feedback - $50+ million

The design process alone can bankrupt many nuclear startups, costing $150+ million to complete.

Once the relevant studies have been completed and the nuclear facility has been designed, the designs and relevant documentation are submitted to the regulators for approval.

The regulators undergo complex safety analysis reports that model accident scenarios and mitigations. These are very expensive, costing over $50-100 million for the documentation alone.

In addition, the license application preparation process–collecting, compiling, and submitting justification across areas like sitting, design, operations, waste management, and decommissioning– is very expensive, amounting to over $100 million.

In total, all pre-construction processes cost on average around $370 - $500+ million, and we haven’t even begun construction yet.

Credit Power Technology

Construction Costs

During construction, costs include expenses related to materials, equipment, engineering, and labor.

In nuclear energy, the most common terminology used for this section is “overnight cost”, or the cost of the capital used during the construction period (not including financing costs).

The World Nuclear Association estimates that around 56% of the overnight costs relate to direct costs (physical materials and goods) and 24% relate to indirect costs (costs of labor and engineering). The other 20% is for contingencies, owners’ costs, and the cost of testing systems and training staff.

With relatively few nuclear plants constructed in North America and Western Europe recently, the amount of readily available information on the costs of building modern nuclear plants is somewhat limited, but considerable conclusions can be drawn from the data we do have.

Here’s an excerpt from a World Nuclear Association report on the overnight cost of energy in the United States:

The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) calculated that, in constant 2002 values, the realized overnight cost of a nuclear power plant built in the USA grew from $1500/kWe in the early 1960s to $4000/kWe in the mid-1970s… Its 2020 report, Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric Power Generating Technologies gave an estimate for a new US nuclear plant of $6041/kWe (overnight cost).

To summarize, since the 1960s, the cost of building a nuclear power plant has increased around 4x. This isn’t a horrible growth rate (around 2.3% per year) – similar to the targetted inflation rate.

To put that in nominal terms, for a new 1,000-megawatt plant (the average size of all operating United States plants currently), the cost would be around $6 billion.

Financing Costs

Assuming that pre-construction costs are going to be around $500 million and construction costs are around $6 billion, this already brings us to a heavy financing total, even before any energy is produced.

The estimated interest rate for nuclear energy projects is anywhere from 3 - 10% per year. Over a long construction period, the interest on funds borrowed can compound into very significant amounts.

The table below details the interest rate and number of years to complete a reactor in a 2-way table (starting with the base value of $6.5 billion):

Given a $6.5 billion starting cost, you can see that the interest rate heavily impacts the overall project cost. All of the scenarios highlighted in green signal project timelines and interest rates that equate to total pre-operation costs of less than $20 billion. Yellow is $25-50 billion, orange is $50-100 billion, and red is anything over $100 billion.

Put another way, if you multiply the number in a box by 1000, you get the price per kilowatt hour of energy (or largely greater than the estimated $6,000/kwh operating cost above).

As you can see, given our timeline estimates from the Time section above, for the average reactor (6 years), we’re talking anywhere from $9 - 28 billion. For the countries that don’t have much experience in reactors (3 or less) the average time was 16 years, leaving us a cost of $20 billion+.

So, this highlights the importance of nuclear expertise and building many recent nuclear reactors to keep nuclear costs low.

Credit Nuclear Engineering International

Operational Costs

Nuclear power plants are expensive to build but relatively cheap to run.

For operation, costs typically include the cost of fuel, operations, and any necessary ongoing maintenance. These costs continue over the life of a nuclear power plant.

During operation, the reactor needs fuel to run. For most, if not all reactors operating in the future, this fuel is Uranium. The World Nuclear Association reports that nuclear-reactor-grade Uranium costs around $1,600 per kg.

Assuming that a 1,000-megawatt reactor uses around 27 tons of Uranium per year, this breaks down to around $60 - $100 million per year in fuel costs.

Usually, several hundred staff are needed to maintain daily nuclear reactor operations, and their salaries aren’t cheap. This includes reactor operators, maintenance engineers, radiation professionals, security, etc., and it’s estimated that this staff could cost anywhere between $50 - $100 million per year, depending on the size of the reactor.

As mentioned previously above, nuclear reactors are usually pretty modern on the inside. Reactors require replacement and repairs on many parts in order to keep the vessel in working order and up to regulatory specifications. It’s estimated that this requires $50 - $100 million per year in repairs and replacement parts.

Byproducts from the nuclear reaction (waste) need to be packaged and transported safely to special waste processing sites, amounting to over $10 - $20 million per year.

As mandated by United States regulations (by the NRC), a portion of the revenue made from generating electricity must go towards a trust to cover the eventual decommissioning of the reactor. This generally amounts to around $20 - $50 million per year (or around $1 billion over the plant’s life).

In addition to these costs, plants pay millions per year in nuclear liability insurance policies, taxes, and safety oversight fees, the costs of which are difficult to truly estimate.

For our estimation purposes, we can ballpark that nuclear reactor operations amount to $200 - $375 million per year.

In the United States, 75% of our operating nuclear power plants have been operational for at least 37 years. Assuming this continues in the future, we can estimate around 40 years of operating time on average for each reactor.

Over 40 years this means $8+ billion in total operating costs for the life of the reactor.

Credit iStock

Decommissioning Costs

The details of what happens during the decommissioning process are above in the Time section.

We’ll make this cost section easy. The International Atomic Energy Agency in 2023 estimated that decommissioning costs for a large reactor could be around $2 - $4 billion over the long time that it takes to decommission a nuclear reactor (decades).

Similarly, the World Nuclear Association estimates that decommissioning costs are around 9 - 15% of the initial capital cost of a nuclear power plant.

Other Costs

Nuclear reactors generally don’t have large negative externalities for the average reactor. As the costs for nuclear waste disposal are included in the operating and decommissioning costs, the only external costs for nuclear energy would be the costs of dealing with a serious accident (see the image about the true cost of nuclear energy above).

Granted, these costs of a serious accident, in practice, are almost always borne by the government, so how much do they truly impact a project’s costs? Not at all. But they should be noted here.

The Real Cost of Nuclear Energy

Summing up the costs from each of these sections, we get anywhere from $20 billion upwards in cost for a 1000-megawatt plant. But is this estimate accurate?

Not totally. Those costs are spread across the lifetime of a nuclear power plant (50+ years), so it isn’t an accurate representation of what you would pay today.

What would you pay today?

In finance, we calculate the present value of these future payments by using a discount rate (time value of money) to describe all future cash flows in present values so we can make a better decision today.

For simplicity, I’m going to use the average scenarios from above of 6 years and 16 years and discount rates from 1 - 10% per year. In addition, we’re going to assume the spending for capital occurs all upfront and decommissioning occurs the same amount every year during the decommissioning phase.

In our scenario, I’m assuming a 40-year operating time and a 30-year decommissioning time.

As you can see, for a nuclear-efficient country (countries that have built at least 3 reactors since 2000 and have an average time of development of 6 years), these countries could easily keep costs down–under $50 billion in every scenario.

For countries that don’t have current expertise in nuclear or are trying to build their expertise in nuclear energy, you can see how costs easily ramp up to exponential levels.

But, these costs are only relevant in comparison to other forms of energy.

How do we compare these costs to other types of energy?

The basic metric for comparing most forms of energy production is the Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE). It measures the total cost to build and operate the energy source over its lifetime divided by the total electricity dispatched over the lifetime of the energy source.

In other words, the LCOE represents the price that electricity must be from that source for the project to break even (in actuality the energy may be priced higher or lower than this).

Credit Wikipedia & Lazard

Here’s a graph of the LCOE over time from Wikipedia. As you can see, over the last decade, nuclear has become the most expensive type of energy out there. Granted, there have been many who argue the LCOE isn’t the best metric for energy cost calculation out there.

Nevertheless, the data undeniably shows that nuclear power is super expensive (billions of dollars).

Who can take on these costs?

Companies? Governments? Individuals?

As it stands now, generally only government-sponsored utilities have taken on the risk and costs associated with building nuclear power plants. Companies get involved during each step of the process as independent contractors and there might be one main engineering company running the project, but, at the end of the day, the government is funding the project.

What company can go out and raise billions of dollars to fund a technology that won’t start returning money for at least a decade?

Unfortunately, the size of nuclear costs only favors the truly massive nuclear companies (like Westinghouse), and crowds out many of the startup companies in the space.

To recap this section:

For a country to build a single nuclear reactor (or mass produce one), the costs are incredibly high. So, only countries with very developed economies will be able to effectively handle these costs.

This traditionally has been the case, as only highly developed economies have implemented many nuclear reactors in the past (the United States and China leading that statistic).

For smaller countries and underdeveloped countries, nuclear is probably not a possible solution given the investments necessary.

Credit nuclear-news

Nuclear is Not a Viable Solution

For all of the reasons outlined above, nuclear power is not a viable solution for many countries.

Maybe let’s put it the opposite way. For what countries could nuclear be an effective solution?

1) Countries with current nuclear expertise (23 total)

2) Countries that have built at least 3 reactors since 2000, as these countries can build new reactors in an efficient timeframe (7 total)

3) Countries that have the necessary infrastructure to support a nuclear reactor

4) Countries with an effective plan for waste management and the infrastructure to support it

5) Countries without overly strict regulations preventing the development of new nuclear reactors, but that still have enough regulations to keep the reactors safe

6) Countries with a positive, current public perspective on nuclear energy

7) Countries that have an effective plan to control nuclear weapon proliferation, and that aren’t at a high risk of nuclear war through diversion risk

8) Countries with effective physical and cybersecurity measures to keep the reactor operations safe

9) Countries with financing capabilities to afford all aspects of the nuclear reactor creation, operation, and decommission process

How many countries do you know that satisfy all of those statements above? Very few, if any.

There are a lot of reasons why nuclear power isn't a viable solution for many countries. So why are there still so many nuclear proponents?

If you take all of the negative things away from nuclear, nuclear is a great solution. It runs all day, it’s relatively inexpensive to run day-to-day, and it creates large amounts of energy for the space it runs out of.

Yet, when you consider the good and the bad, nuclear isn’t a viable solution for almost all countries.

Anywho, that’s all for today.

-Drew Jackson