nuclear energy student essay

Nuclear Energy

Nuclear energy is the energy in the nucleus, or core, of an atom. Nuclear energy can be used to create electricity, but it must first be released from the atom.

Engineering, Physics

Loading ...

Nuclear energy is the energy in the nucleus , or core, of an atom . Atoms are tiny units that make up all matter in the universe , and energy is what holds the nucleus together. There is a huge amount of energy in an atom 's dense nucleus . In fact, the power that holds the nucleus together is officially called the " strong force ." Nuclear energy can be used to create electricity , but it must first be released from the atom . In the process of  nuclear fission , atoms are split to release that energy. A nuclear reactor , or power plant , is a series of machines that can control nuclear fission to produce electricity . The fuel that nuclear reactors use to produce nuclear fission is pellets of the element uranium . In a nuclear reactor , atoms of uranium are forced to break apart. As they split, the atoms release tiny particles called fission products. Fission products cause other uranium atoms to split, starting a chain reaction . The energy released from this chain reaction creates heat. The heat created by nuclear fission warms the reactor's cooling agent . A cooling agent is usually water, but some nuclear reactors use liquid metal or molten salt . The cooling agent , heated by nuclear fission , produces steam . The steam turns turbines , or wheels turned by a flowing current . The turbines drive generators , or engines that create electricity . Rods of material called nuclear poison can adjust how much electricity is produced. Nuclear poisons are materials, such as a type of the element xenon , that absorb some of the fission products created by nuclear fission . The more rods of nuclear poison that are present during the chain reaction , the slower and more controlled the reaction will be. Removing the rods will allow a stronger chain reaction and create more electricity . As of 2011, about 15 percent of the world's electricity is generated by nuclear power plants . The United States has more than 100 reactors, although it creates most of its electricity from fossil fuels and hydroelectric energy . Nations such as Lithuania, France, and Slovakia create almost all of their electricity from nuclear power plants . Nuclear Food: Uranium Uranium is the fuel most widely used to produce nuclear energy . That's because uranium atoms split apart relatively easily. Uranium is also a very common element, found in rocks all over the world. However, the specific type of uranium used to produce nuclear energy , called U-235 , is rare. U-235 makes up less than one percent of the uranium in the world.

Although some of the uranium the United States uses is mined in this country, most is imported . The U.S. gets uranium from Australia, Canada, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Uzbekistan. Once uranium is mined, it must be extracted from other minerals . It must also be processed before it can be used. Because nuclear fuel can be used to create nuclear weapons as well as nuclear reactors , only nations that are part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) are allowed to import uranium or plutonium , another nuclear fuel . The treaty promotes the peaceful use of nuclear fuel , as well as limiting the spread of nuclear weapons . A typical nuclear reactor uses about 200 tons of uranium every year. Complex processes allow some uranium and plutonium to be re-enriched or recycled . This reduces the amount of mining , extracting , and processing that needs to be done. Nuclear Energy and People Nuclear energy produces electricity that can be used to power homes, schools, businesses, and hospitals. The first nuclear reactor to produce electricity was located near Arco, Idaho. The Experimental Breeder Reactor began powering itself in 1951. The first nuclear power plant designed to provide energy to a community was established in Obninsk, Russia, in 1954. Building nuclear reactors requires a high level of technology , and only the countries that have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty can get the uranium or plutonium that is required. For these reasons, most nuclear power plants are located in the developed world. Nuclear power plants produce renewable, clean energy . They do not pollute the air or release  greenhouse gases . They can be built in urban or rural areas , and do not radically alter the environment around them. The steam powering the turbines and generators is ultimately recycled . It is cooled down in a separate structure called a cooling tower . The steam turns back into water and can be used again to produce more electricity . Excess steam is simply recycled into the atmosphere , where it does little harm as clean water vapor . However, the byproduct of nuclear energy is radioactive material. Radioactive material is a collection of unstable atomic nuclei . These nuclei lose their energy and can affect many materials around them, including organisms and the environment. Radioactive material can be extremely toxic , causing burns and increasing the risk for cancers , blood diseases, and bone decay .

Radioactive waste is what is left over from the operation of a nuclear reactor . Radioactive waste is mostly protective clothing worn by workers, tools, and any other material that have been in contact with radioactive dust. Radioactive waste is long-lasting. Materials like clothes and tools can stay radioactive for thousands of years. The government regulates how these materials are disposed of so they don't contaminate anything else. Used fuel and rods of nuclear poison are extremely radioactive . The used uranium pellets must be stored in special containers that look like large swimming pools. Water cools the fuel and insulates the outside from contact with the radioactivity. Some nuclear plants store their used fuel in dry storage tanks above ground. The storage sites for radioactive waste have become very controversial in the United States. For years, the government planned to construct an enormous nuclear waste facility near Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for instance. Environmental groups and local citizens protested the plan. They worried about radioactive waste leaking into the water supply and the Yucca Mountain environment, about 130 kilometers (80 miles) from the large urban area of Las Vegas, Nevada. Although the government began investigating the site in 1978, it stopped planning for a nuclear waste facility in Yucca Mountain in 2009. Chernobyl Critics of nuclear energy worry that the storage facilities for radioactive waste will leak, crack, or erode . Radioactive material could then contaminate the soil and groundwater near the facility . This could lead to serious health problems for the people and organisms in the area. All communities would have to be evacuated . This is what happened in Chernobyl, Ukraine, in 1986. A steam explosion at one of the power plants four nuclear reactors caused a fire, called a plume . This plume was highly radioactive , creating a cloud of radioactive particles that fell to the ground, called fallout . The fallout spread over the Chernobyl facility , as well as the surrounding area. The fallout drifted with the wind, and the particles entered the water cycle as rain. Radioactivity traced to Chernobyl fell as rain over Scotland and Ireland. Most of the radioactive fallout fell in Belarus.

The environmental impact of the Chernobyl disaster was immediate . For kilometers around the facility , the pine forest dried up and died. The red color of the dead pines earned this area the nickname the Red Forest . Fish from the nearby Pripyat River had so much radioactivity that people could no longer eat them. Cattle and horses in the area died. More than 100,000 people were relocated after the disaster , but the number of human victims of Chernobyl is difficult to determine . The effects of radiation poisoning only appear after many years. Cancers and other diseases can be very difficult to trace to a single source. Future of Nuclear Energy Nuclear reactors use fission, or the splitting of atoms , to produce energy. Nuclear energy can also be produced through fusion, or joining (fusing) atoms together. The sun, for instance, is constantly undergoing nuclear fusion as hydrogen atoms fuse to form helium . Because all life on our planet depends on the sun, you could say that nuclear fusion makes life on Earth possible. Nuclear power plants do not have the capability to safely and reliably produce energy from nuclear fusion . It's not clear whether the process will ever be an option for producing electricity . Nuclear engineers are researching nuclear fusion , however, because the process will likely be safe and cost-effective.

Nuclear Tectonics The decay of uranium deep inside the Earth is responsible for most of the planet's geothermal energy, causing plate tectonics and continental drift.

Three Mile Island The worst nuclear accident in the United States happened at the Three Mile Island facility near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, in 1979. The cooling system in one of the two reactors malfunctioned, leading to an emission of radioactive fallout. No deaths or injuries were directly linked to the accident.

Articles & Profiles

Media credits.

The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit. The Rights Holder for media is the person or group credited.

Illustrators

Educator reviewer, last updated.

October 19, 2023

User Permissions

For information on user permissions, please read our Terms of Service. If you have questions about how to cite anything on our website in your project or classroom presentation, please contact your teacher. They will best know the preferred format. When you reach out to them, you will need the page title, URL, and the date you accessed the resource.

If a media asset is downloadable, a download button appears in the corner of the media viewer. If no button appears, you cannot download or save the media.

Text on this page is printable and can be used according to our Terms of Service .

Interactives

Any interactives on this page can only be played while you are visiting our website. You cannot download interactives.

Related Resources

Home — Essay Samples — Environment — Human Impact — Nuclear Energy

Essays on Nuclear Energy

Brief description of nuclear energy, importance of writing essays on this topic, tips on choosing a good topic, essay topics, concluding thought, nuclear energy: safety, security, and ethical considerations, the promise of nuclear energy for climate change, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Bridging Perception and Reality in Nuclear Energy

The pros and cons when discussing the use of nuclear energy, nuclear energy: the future of humanity's energy source, an issue of safety of nuclear energy, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Nuclear Waste: an American Disaster

The history and use of nuclear energy, ernest rutherford, the father of nuclear physics, niels bohr's biography, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

Technetium-99m

The manhattan project - a top secret nuclear energy research program, a study on the effects of nuclear waste on the environment, iaea safeguards - serving nuclear non-proliferation, potential consequences of nuclear politics in south asia, the effects of fukushima daihatsu nuclear disaster, attitudes of the australian public to nuclear power, countering myths and misinformation around nuclear power, nuclear power economic: cost, comparison and waste, the role of nuclear energy in the global energy transition, nuclear innovation: balancing challenges and opportunities, relevant topics.

• Ocean Pollution
• Water Pollution
• Fast Fashion
• Deforestation
• Plastic Bags
• Endangered Species
• Air Pollution
• Global Warming

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• ENVIRONMENT

What is nuclear energy and is it a viable resource?

Nuclear energy's future as an electricity source may depend on scientists' ability to make it cheaper and safer.

Nuclear power is generated by splitting atoms to release the energy held at the core, or nucleus, of those atoms. This process, nuclear fission, generates heat that is directed to a cooling agent—usually water. The resulting steam spins a turbine connected to a generator, producing electricity.

About 450 nuclear reactors provide about 11 percent of the world's electricity. The countries generating the most nuclear power are, in order, the United States, France, China, Russia, and South Korea.

The most common fuel for nuclear power is uranium, an abundant metal found throughout the world. Mined uranium is processed into U-235, an enriched version used as fuel in nuclear reactors because its atoms can be split apart easily.

In a nuclear reactor, neutrons—subatomic particles that have no electric charge—collide with atoms, causing them to split. That collision—called nuclear fission—releases more neutrons that react with more atoms, creating a chain reaction. A byproduct of nuclear reactions, plutonium , can also be used as nuclear fuel.

Types of nuclear reactors

In the U.S. most nuclear reactors are either boiling water reactors , in which the water is heated to the boiling point to release steam, or pressurized water reactors , in which the pressurized water does not boil but funnels heat to a secondary water supply for steam generation. Other types of nuclear power reactors include gas-cooled reactors, which use carbon dioxide as the cooling agent and are used in the U.K., and fast neutron reactors, which are cooled by liquid sodium.

Nuclear energy history

The idea of nuclear power began in the 1930s , when physicist Enrico Fermi first showed that neutrons could split atoms. Fermi led a team that in 1942 achieved the first nuclear chain reaction, under a stadium at the University of Chicago. This was followed by a series of milestones in the 1950s: the first electricity produced from atomic energy at Idaho's Experimental Breeder Reactor I in 1951; the first nuclear power plant in the city of Obninsk in the former Soviet Union in 1954; and the first commercial nuclear power plant in Shippingport, Pennsylvania, in 1957. ( Take our quizzes about nuclear power and see how much you've learned: for Part I, go here ; for Part II, go here .)

Nuclear power, climate change, and future designs

Nuclear power isn't considered renewable energy , given its dependence on a mined, finite resource, but because operating reactors do not emit any of the greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming , proponents say it should be considered a climate change solution . National Geographic emerging explorer Leslie Dewan, for example, wants to resurrect the molten salt reactor , which uses liquid uranium dissolved in molten salt as fuel, arguing it could be safer and less costly than reactors in use today.

Others are working on small modular reactors that could be portable and easier to build. Innovations like those are aimed at saving an industry in crisis as current nuclear plants continue to age and new ones fail to compete on price with natural gas and renewable sources such as wind and solar.

The holy grail for the future of nuclear power involves nuclear fusion, which generates energy when two light nuclei smash together to form a single, heavier nucleus. Fusion could deliver more energy more safely and with far less harmful radioactive waste than fission, but just a small number of people— including a 14-year-old from Arkansas —have managed to build working nuclear fusion reactors. Organizations such as ITER in France and Max Planck Institute of Plasma Physics are working on commercially viable versions, which so far remain elusive.

Nuclear power risks

When arguing against nuclear power, opponents point to the problems of long-lived nuclear waste and the specter of rare but devastating nuclear accidents such as those at Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima Daiichi in 2011 . The deadly Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine happened when flawed reactor design and human error caused a power surge and explosion at one of the reactors. Large amounts of radioactivity were released into the air, and hundreds of thousands of people were forced from their homes . Today, the area surrounding the plant—known as the Exclusion Zone—is open to tourists but inhabited only by the various wildlife species, such as gray wolves , that have since taken over .

In the case of Japan's Fukushima Daiichi, the aftermath of the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami caused the plant's catastrophic failures. Several years on, the surrounding towns struggle to recover, evacuees remain afraid to return , and public mistrust has dogged the recovery effort, despite government assurances that most areas are safe.

Other accidents, such as the partial meltdown at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island in 1979, linger as terrifying examples of nuclear power's radioactive risks. The Fukushima disaster in particular raised questions about safety of power plants in seismic zones, such as Armenia's Metsamor power station.

Other issues related to nuclear power include where and how to store the spent fuel, or nuclear waste, which remains dangerously radioactive for thousands of years. Nuclear power plants, many of which are located on or near coasts because of the proximity to water for cooling, also face rising sea levels and the risk of more extreme storms due to climate change.

LIMITED TIME OFFER

Receive up to 2 bonus issues, with any paid gift subscription!

Related Topics

• NUCLEAR ENERGY
• NUCLEAR WEAPONS
• TOXIC WASTE
• RENEWABLE ENERGY

You May Also Like

This pill could protect us from radiation after a nuclear meltdown

Scientists achieve a breakthrough in nuclear fusion. Here’s what it means.

This young nuclear engineer has a new plan for clean energy

The true history of Einstein's role in developing the atomic bomb

The controversial future of nuclear power in the U.S.

• History & Culture
• Photography
• Environment
• Paid Content

History & Culture

• Mind, Body, Wonder
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Your US State Privacy Rights
• Children's Online Privacy Policy
• Interest-Based Ads
• About Nielsen Measurement
• Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
• Nat Geo Home
• Attend a Live Event
• Book a Trip
• Inspire Your Kids
• Shop Nat Geo
• Visit the D.C. Museum
• Learn About Our Impact
• Support Our Mission
• Advertise With Us
• Customer Service
• Renew Subscription
• Manage Your Subscription
• Work at Nat Geo
• Sign Up for Our Newsletters
• Contribute to Protect the Planet

Copyright © 1996-2015 National Geographic Society Copyright © 2015-2024 National Geographic Partners, LLC. All rights reserved

Making Sense of Nuclear Energy

Watch this brief, video picture of practice that captures everyday classroom life and provides real-life examples of how students learn and think about energy topics.

Earth Science

Nuclear energy, especially fission and fusion reactions, are difficult to understand for people of any age but can be especially hard for students. The idea that microscopic atoms are either combined (fusion) or split (fission) to make energy sounds almost like science fiction. Nuclear energy may also be associated with the atomic bomb, nuclear wastes, and incidents such as the Chernobyl accident. These associations can leave students believing that nuclear energy is a negative energy solution. Discussing how nuclear energy is produced is essential for students to develop a more accurate and complete understanding of this energy resource. Watch this video of 4th and 5th grade students in San Diego, California—a coastal community. The purpose of this classroom video is to listen to students' ideas about nuclear energy. For additional classroom context, video analysis, and reflection opportunities, read the Picture of Practice page for "Making Sense of Nuclear Energy" in https://www.nationalgeographic.org/education/programs/environmental-literacy-guides/

Media Credits

The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit. The Rights Holder for media is the person or group credited.

Educator Reviewers

Last updated.

October 19, 2023

User Permissions

For information on user permissions, please read our Terms of Service. If you have questions about how to cite anything on our website in your project or classroom presentation, please contact your teacher. They will best know the preferred format. When you reach out to them, you will need the page title, URL, and the date you accessed the resource.

If a media asset is downloadable, a download button appears in the corner of the media viewer. If no button appears, you cannot download or save the media.

Text on this page is printable and can be used according to our Terms of Service .

Interactives

Any interactives on this page can only be played while you are visiting our website. You cannot download interactives.

Related Resources

Back to the Future Josh Freed

Leslie and mark's old/new idea.

The Nuclear Science and Engineering Library at MIT is not a place where most people would go to unwind. It’s filled with journals that have articles with titles like “Longitudinal double-spin asymmetry of electrons from heavy flavor decays in polarized p + p collisions at √s = 200 GeV.” But nuclear engineering Ph.D. candidates relax in ways all their own. In the winter of 2009, two of those candidates, Leslie Dewan and Mark Massie, were studying for their qualifying exams—a brutal rite of passage—and had a serious need to decompress.

To clear their heads after long days and nights of reviewing neutron transport, the mathematics behind thermohydraulics, and other such subjects, they browsed through the crinkled pages of journals from the first days of their industry—the glory days. Reading articles by scientists working in the 1950s and ‘60s, they found themselves marveling at the sense of infinite possibility those pioneers had brought to their work, in awe of the huge outpouring of creative energy. They were also curious about the dozens of different reactor technologies that had once been explored, only to be abandoned when the funding dried up.

The early nuclear researchers were all housed in government laboratories—at Oak Ridge in Tennessee, at the Idaho National Lab in the high desert of eastern Idaho, at Argonne in Chicago, and Los Alamos in New Mexico. Across the country, the nation’s top physicists, metallurgists, mathematicians, and engineers worked together in an atmosphere of feverish excitement, as government support gave them the freedom to explore the furthest boundaries of their burgeoning new field. Locked in what they thought of as a life-or-death race with the Soviet Union, they aimed to be first in every aspect of scientific inquiry, especially those that involved atom splitting.

1955: Argonne's BORAX III reactor provided all the electricity for Arco, Idaho, the first time any community's electricity was provided entirely by nuclear energy. Source: Wikimedia Commons

Though nuclear engineers were mostly men in those days, Leslie imagined herself working alongside them, wearing a white lab coat, thinking big thoughts. “It was all so fresh, so exciting, so limitless back then,” she told me. “They were designing all sorts of things: nuclear-powered cars and airplanes, reactors cooled by lead. Today, it’s much less interesting. Most of us are just working on ways to tweak basically the same light water reactor we’ve been building for 50 years.”

1958: The Ford Nucleon scale-model concept car developed by Ford Motor Company as a design of how a nuclear-powered car might look. Source: Wikimedia Commons

But because of something that she and Mark stumbled across in the library during one of their forays into the old journals, Leslie herself is not doing that kind of tweaking—she’s trying to do something much more radical. One night, Mark showed Leslie a 50-year-old paper from Oak Ridge about a reactor powered not by rods of metal-clad uranium pellets in water, like the light water reactors of today, but by a liquid fuel of uranium mixed into molten salt to keep it at a constant temperature. The two were intrigued, because it was clear from the paper that the molten salt design could potentially be constructed at a lower cost and shut down more easily in an emergency than today’s light water reactors. And the molten salt design wasn’t just theoretical—Oak Ridge had built a real reactor, which ran from 1965-1969, racking up 20,000 operating hours.

The 1960s-era salt reactor was interesting, but at first blush it didn’t seem practical enough to revive. It was bulky, expensive, and not very efficient. Worse, it ran on uranium enriched to levels far above the modern legal limit for commercial nuclear power. Most modern light water reactors run on 5 percent enriched uranium, and it is illegal under international and domestic law for commercial power generators to use anything above 20 percent, because at levels that high uranium can be used for making weapons. The Oak Ridge molten salt reactor needed uranium enriched to at least 33 percent, possibly even higher.

Aircraft Reactor Experiment building at ORNL (Extensive research into molten salt reactors started with the U.S. aircraft reactor experiment (ARE) in support of the U.S. Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion program.) Wikimedia Commons

1964: Molten salt reactor at Oak Ridge. Source: Wikimedia Commons

But they were aware that smart young engineers were considering applying modern technology to several other decades-old reactor designs from the dawn of the nuclear age, and this one seemed to Leslie and Mark to warrant a second look. After finishing their exams, they started searching for new materials that could be used in a molten salt reactor to make it both legal and more efficient. If they could show that a modified version of the old design could compete with—or exceed—the performance of today’s light water reactors, they knew they might have a very interesting project on their hands.

First, they took a look at the fuel. By using different, more modern materials, they had a theory that they could get the reactor to work at very low enrichment levels. Maybe, they hoped, even significantly below 5 percent.

There was a good reason to hope. Today’s reactors produce a significant amount of nuclear “waste,” many tons of which are currently sitting in cooling pools and storage canisters at plant sites all over the country. The reason that the waste has to be managed so carefully is that when they are discarded, the uranium fuel rods contain about 95 percent of the original amount of energy and remain both highly radioactive and hot enough to boil water. It dawned on Leslie and Mark that if they could chop up the rods and remove their metal cladding, they might have a “killer app”—a sector-redefining technology like Uber or Airbnb—for their molten salt reactor design, enabling it to run on the waste itself.

By late 2010, the computer modeling they were doing suggested this might indeed work. When Leslie left for a trip to Egypt with her family in January 2011, Mark kept running simulations back at MIT. On January 11, he sent his partner an email that she read as she toured the sites of Alexandria. The note was highly technical, but said in essence that Mark’s latest work confirmed their hunch—they could indeed make their reactor run on nuclear waste. Leslie looked up from her phone and said to her brother: “I need to go back to Boston.”

Watch Leslie Dewan and Mark Massie on the future of nuclear energy

Climate Change Spurs New Call for Nuclear Energy

In the days when Leslie and Mark were studying for their exams, it may have seemed that the Golden Age of nuclear energy in the United States had long since passed. Not a single new commercial reactor project had been built here in over 30 years. Not only were there no new reactors, but with the fracking boom having produced abundant supplies of cheap natural gas, some electric utilities were shutting down their aging reactors rather than doing the costly upgrades needed to keep them online.

As the domestic reactor market went into decline, the American supply chain for nuclear reactor parts withered. Although almost all commercial nuclear technology had been discovered in the United States, our competitors eventually purchased much of our nuclear industrial base, with Toshiba buying Westinghouse, for example.* Not surprisingly, as the nuclear pioneers aged and young scientists stayed away from what seemed to be a dying industry, the number of nuclear engineers also dwindled over the decades. In addition, the American regulatory system, long considered the gold standard for western nuclear systems, began to lose influence as other countries pressed ahead with new reactor construction while the U.S. market remained dormant.

Yet something has changed in recent years. Leslie and Mark are not really outliers. All of a sudden, a flood of young engineers has entered the field. More than 1,164 nuclear engineering degrees were awarded in 2013—a 160 percent increase over the number granted a decade ago.

So what, after a 30-year drought, is drawing smart young people back to the nuclear industry? The answer is climate change. Nuclear energy currently provides about 20 percent of the electric power in the United States, and it does so without emitting any greenhouse gases. Compare that to the amount of electricity produced by the other main non-emitting sources of power, the so-called “renewables”—hydroelectric (6.8 percent), wind (4.2 percent) and solar (about one quarter of a percent). Not only are nuclear plants the most important of the non-emitting sources, but they provide baseload—“always there”—power, while most renewables can produce electricity only intermittently, when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining.

In 2014, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations-based organization that is the leading international body for the assessment of climate risk, issued a desperate call for more non-emitting power sources. According to the IPCC, in order to mitigate climate change and meet growing energy demands, the world must aggressively expand its sources of renewable energy, and it must also build more than 400 new nuclear reactors in the next 20 years—a near-doubling of today’s global fleet of 435 reactors. However, in the wake of the tsunami that struck Japan’s Fukushima Daichi plant in 2011, some countries are newly fearful about the safety of light water reactors. Germany, for example, vowed to shutter its entire nuclear fleet.

November 6, 2013: The spent fuel pool inside the No.4 reactor building at the tsunami-crippled Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s (TEPCO) Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. Source: REUTERS/Kyodo (Japan)

The young scientists entering the nuclear energy field know all of this. They understand that a major build-out of nuclear reactors could play a vital role in saving the world from climate disaster. But they also recognize that for that to happen, there must be significant changes in the technology of the reactors, because fear of light water reactors means that the world is not going to be willing to fund and build enough of them to supply the necessary energy. That’s what had sent Leslie and Mark into the library stacks at MIT—a search for new ideas that might be buried in the old designs.

They have now launched a company, Transatomic, to build the molten salt reactor they see as a viable answer to the problem. And they’re not alone—at least eight other startups have emerged in recent years, each with its own advanced reactor design. This new generation of pioneers is working with the same sense of mission and urgency that animated the discipline’s founders. The existential threat that drove the men of Oak Ridge and Argonne was posed by the Soviets; the threat of today is from climate change.

Heeding that sense of urgency, investors from Silicon Valley and elsewhere are stepping up to provide funding. One startup, TerraPower, has the backing of Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and former Microsoft executive Nathan Myhrvold. Another, General Fusion, has raised $32 million from investors, including nearly $20 million from Amazon founder Jeff Bezos. And LPP Fusion has even benefited, to the tune of $180,000, from an Indiegogo crowd-funding campaign.

All of the new blood, new ideas, and new money are having a real effect. In the last several years, a field that had been moribund has become dynamic again, once more charged with a feeling of boundless possibility and optimism.

But one huge source of funding and support enjoyed by those first pioneers has all but disappeared: The U.S. government.

The "Atoms for Peace" program supplied equipment and information to schools, hospitals, and research institutions within the U.S. and throughout the world. Source: Wikipedia

From Atoms for Peace to Chernobyl

December 8, 1953: U.S. President Eisenhower delivers his "Atoms for Peace" speech to the United Nations General Assembly in New York. Source: IAEA

In the early days of nuclear energy development, the government led the charge, funding the research, development, and design of 52 different reactors at the Idaho laboratory’s National Reactor Testing Station alone, not to mention those that were being developed at other labs, like the one that was the subject of the paper Leslie and Mark read. With the help of the government, engineers were able to branch out in many different directions.

Soon enough, the designs were moving from paper to test reactors to deployment at breathtaking speed. The tiny Experimental Breeder Reactor 1, which went online in December 1951 at the Idaho National Lab, ushered in the age of nuclear energy.

Just two years later, President Dwight D. Eisenhower made his Atoms for Peace speech to the U.N., in which he declared that “The United States knows that peaceful power from atomic energy is no dream of the future. The capability, already proved, is here today.” Less than a year after that, Eisenhower waved a ceremonial "neutron wand" to signal a bulldozer in Shippingport, Pennsylvania to begin construction of the nation’s first commercial nuclear power plant.

1956: Reactor pressure vessel during construction at the Shippingport Atomic Power Station. Source: Wikipedia

By 1957 the Atoms for Peace program had borne fruit, and Shippingport was open for business. During the years that followed, the government, fulfilling Eisenhower’s dream, not only funded the research, it ran the labs, chose the technologies, and, eventually, regulated the reactors.

The U.S. would soon rapidly surpass not only its Cold War enemy, the Soviet Union, which had brought the first significant electricity-producing reactor online in 1954, but every other country seeking to deploy nuclear energy, including France and Canada. Much of the extraordinary progress in America’s development of nuclear energy technology can be credited to one specific government institution—the U.S. Navy.

Rickover’s choice has had enormous implications. To this day, the light water reactor remains the standard—the only type of reactor built or used for energy production in the United States and in most other countries as well. Research on other reactor types (like molten salt and lead) essentially ended for almost six decades, not to be revived until very recently.

Once light water reactors got the nod, the Atomic Energy Commission endorsed a cookie-cutter-like approach to building additional reactors that was very enticing to energy companies seeking to enter the atomic arena. Having a standardized light water reactor design meant quicker regulatory approval, economies of scale, and operating uniformity, which helped control costs and minimize uncertainty. And there was another upside to the light water reactors, at least back then: they produced a byproduct—plutonium. These days, we call that a problem: the remaining fissile material that must be protected from accidental discharge or proliferation and stored indefinitely. In the Cold War 1960s, however, that was seen as a benefit, because the leftover plutonium could be used to make nuclear weapons.

2005: An ICBM loaded into a silo of the former ICBM missile site, now the Titan Missile Museum. Source: Wikipedia

With the triumph of the light water reactor came a massive expansion of the domestic and global nuclear energy industries. In the 1960s and ‘70s, America’s technology, design, supply chain, and regulatory system dominated the production of all civilian nuclear energy on this side of the Iron Curtain. U.S. engineers drew the plans, U.S. companies like Westinghouse and GE built the plants, U.S. factories and mills made the parts, and the U.S. government’s Atomic Energy Commission set the global safety standards.

In this country, we built more than 100 light water reactors for commercial power production. Though no two American plants were identical, all of the plants constructed in that era were essentially the same—light water reactors running on uranium enriched to about 4 percent. By the end of the 1970s, in addition to the 100-odd reactors that had been built, 100 more were in the planning or early construction stage.

And then everything came to a screeching halt, thanks to a bizarre confluence of Hollywood and real life.

On March 16, 1979, The China Syndrome —starring Jane Fonda, Jack Lemmon, and Michael Douglas—hit theaters, frightening moviegoers with an implausible but well-told tale of a reactor meltdown and catastrophe, which had the potential, according to a character in the film, to render an area “the size of Pennsylvania permanently uninhabitable.” Twelve days later, the Number 2 reactor at the Three Mile Island plant in central Pennsylvania suffered an accident that caused the release of some nuclear coolant and a partial meltdown of the reactor core. After the governor ordered the evacuation of “pregnant women and preschool age children,” widespread panic followed, and tens of thousands of people fled in terror.

1979: Three Mile Island power station. Source: Wikipedia

But both the evacuation order and the fear were unwarranted. A massive investigation revealed that the release of radioactive materials was minimal and had posed no risk to human health. No one was injured or killed at Three Mile Island. What did die that day was America’s nuclear energy leadership. After Three Mile Island, plans for new plants then on the drawing board were scrapped or went under in a blizzard of public recrimination, legal action, and regulatory overreach by federal, state, and local officials. For example, the Shoreham plant on Long Island, which took nearly a decade to build and was completed in 1984, never opened, becoming one of the biggest and most expensive white elephants in human history.

The concrete "sarcophagus" built over the Chernobyl nuclear power plant's fourth reactor that exploded on April 26, 1986. Source: REUTERS

Chernobyl sarcophogi Magnum

The final, definitive blow to American nuclear energy was delivered in 1986, when the Soviets bungled their way into a genuine nuclear energy catastrophe: the disaster at the Chernobyl plant in Ukraine. It was man-made in its origin (risky decisions made at the plant led to the meltdown, and the plant itself was badly designed); widespread in its scope (Soviet reactors had no containment vessel, so the roof was literally blown off, the core was exposed, and a radioactive cloud covered almost the whole of Europe); and lethal in its impact (rescuers and area residents were lied to by the Soviet government, which denied the risk posed by the disaster, causing many needless deaths and illnesses and the hospitalization of thousands).

After Chernobyl, it didn’t matter that American plants were infinitely safer and better run. This country, which was awash in cheap and plentiful coal, simply wasn’t going to build more nuclear plants if it didn’t have to.

But now we have to.

The terrible consequences of climate change mean that we must find low- and zero-emitting ways of producing electricity.

November 2014: Leslie Dewan and Mark Massie at MIT. Source: Sareen Hairabedian, Brookings Institution

The Return of Nuclear Pioneers

Five new light water reactors are currently under construction in the U.S., but the safety concerns about them (largely unwarranted as they are) as well as their massive size, cost, complexity, and production of used fuel (“waste”) mean that there will probably be no large-scale return to the old style of reactor. What we need now is to go back to the future and build some of those plants that they dreamed up in the labs of yesterday.

Which is what Leslie and Mark are trying to do with Transatomic. Once they had their breakthrough moment and realized that they could fuel their reactor on nuclear waste material, they began to think seriously about founding a company. So they started doing what all entrepreneurial MIT grads do—they talked to venture capitalists. Once they got their initial funding, the two engineers knew that they needed someone with business experience, so they hired a CEO, Russ Wilcox, who had built and sold a very successful e-publishing company. At the time they approached him, Wilcox was in high demand, but after hearing Leslie and Mark give a TEDx talk about the environmental promise of advanced nuclear technology, he opted to go with Transatomic— because he thought it could help save the world.

November 1, 2014: Mark Massie and Leslie Dewan giving a TEDx talk . Source: Transatomic

In their talk, the two founders had explained that in today’s light water reactors, metal-clad uranium fuel rods are lowered into water in order to heat it and create steam to run the electric turbines. But the water eventually breaks down the metal cladding and then the rods must be replaced. The old rods become nuclear waste, which will remain radioactive for up to 100,000 years, and, under the current American system, must remain in storage for that period.

The genius of the Transatomic design is that, according to Mark’s simulations, their reactor could make use of almost all of the energy remaining in the rods that have been removed from the old light water reactors, while producing almost no waste of their own—just 2.5 percent as much as produced by a typical light water reactor. If they built enough molten salt reactors, Transatomic could theoretically consume not just the roughly 70,000 metric tons of nuclear waste currently stored at U.S. nuclear plants, but also the additional 2,000 metric tons that are produced each year.

Like all molten salt reactors, the Transatomic design is extraordinarily safe as well. That is more important than ever after the terror inspired by the disaster that occurred at the Fukushima light water reactor plant in 2011.When the tsunami knocked out the power for the pumps that provided the water required for coolant, the Fukushima plant suffered a partial core meltdown. In a molten salt reactor, by contrast, no externally supplied coolant would be needed, making it what Transatomic calls “walk away safe.” That means that, in the event of a power failure, no human intervention would be required; the reactor would essentially cool itself without water or pumps. With a loss of external electricity, the artificially chilled plug at the base of the reactor would melt, and the material in the core (salt and uranium fuel) would drain to a containment tank and cool within hours.

Leslie and Mark have also found materials that would boost the power output of a molten salt reactor by 30 times over the 1960s model. Their redesign means the reactor might be small and efficient enough to be built in a factory and moved by rail. (Current reactors are so large that they must be assembled on site.)

Click image to play or stop animation

Transatomic, as well as General Fusion and LPP Fusion, represent one branch of the new breed of nuclear pioneers—call them “the young guns.” Also included in this group are companies like Terrestrial Energy in Canada, which is developing an alternative version of the molten salt reactor; Flibe Energy, which is preparing for experiments on a liquid-thorium fluoride reactor; UPower, at work on a nuclear battery; and engineers who are incubating projects not just at MIT but at a number of other universities and labs. Thanks to their work, the next generator of reactors might just be developed by small teams of brilliant entrepreneurs.

Then there are the more established companies and individuals—call them the “old pros”—who have become players in the advanced nuclear game. These include the engineering giant Fluor, which recently bought a startup out of Oregon called NuScale Power. They are designing a new type of light water “Small Modular Reactor” that is integral (the steam generator is built in), small (it generates about 4 percent of the output of a large reactor and fits on the back of a truck), and sectional (it can be strung together with others to generate more power). In part because of its relatively familiar light water design, Fluor and a small modular reactor competitor, Babcock & Wilcox, are the only pioneers of the new generation of technology to have received government grants—for $226 million each—to fund their research.

Another of the “old pros,” the well-established General Atomics, in business since 1955, is combining the benefits of small modular reactors with a design that can convert nuclear waste into electricity and also produce large amounts of heat and energy for industrial applications. The reactor uses helium rather than water or molten salt as its coolant. Its advanced design, which they call the Energy Multiplier Module reactor, has the potential to revolutionize the industry.

Somewhere in between is TerraPower. While it’s run by young guns, it’s backed by the world’s second richest man (among others). But even Bill Gates’s money won’t be enough. Nuclear technology is too big, too expensive, and too complex to explore in a garage, real or metaphorical. TerraPower has said that a prototype reactor could cost up to $5 billion, and they are going to need some big machines to develop and test it.

So while Leslie, Mark, and others in their cohort may seem like the latest iteration of Silicon Valley hipster entrepreneurs, the work they’re trying to do cannot be accomplished by Silicon Valley VC-scale funding. There has to be substantial government involvement.

Unfortunately, the relatively puny grants to Fluor and Babcock & Wilcox are the federal government’s largest contribution to advanced nuclear development to date. At the moment, the rest are on their own.

The result is that some of the fledgling enterprises, like General Atomic and Gates’s TerraPower, have decamped for China. Others, like Leslie and Mark’s, are staying put in the United States (for now) and hoping for federal support.

UBritish Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne (2nd R) chats with workers beside Taishan Nuclear Power Joint Venture Co Ltd General Manager Guo Liming (3rd R) and EDF Energy CEO Vincent de Rivaz (R), in front of a nuclear reactor under construction at a nuclear power plant in Taishan, Guangdong province, October 17, 2013. Chinese companies will be allowed to take stakes in British nuclear projects, Osborne said on Thursday, as Britain pushes ahead with an ambitious target to expand nuclear energy. REUTERS/Bobby Yip (CHINA - Tags: POLITICS BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY ENERGY) Source: REUTERS

June 2008: A nearly 200 ton nuclear reactor safety vessel is erected at the Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research at Kalpakkam, near the southern Indian city of Chennai. Source: REUTERS/Babu (INDIA)

Missing in Action: The United States Government

There are American political leaders in both parties who talk about having an “all of the above” energy policy, implying that they want to build everything, all at once. But they don’t mean it, at least not really. In this country, we don’t need all of the above—virtually every American has access to electric power. We don’t want it—we have largely stopped building coal as well as nuclear plants, even though we could. And we don’t underwrite it—the public is generally opposed to the government being in the business of energy research, development, and demonstration (aka, RD&D).

In China, when they talk of “all of the above,” they do mean it. With hundreds of millions of Chinese living without electricity and a billion more demanding ever-increasing amounts of power, China is funding, building, and running every power project that they possibly can. This includes the nuclear sector, where they have about 29 big new light water reactors under construction. China is particularly keen on finding non-emitting forms of electricity, both to address climate change and, more urgently for them, to help slow the emissions of the conventional pollutants that are choking their cities in smog and literally killing their citizens.

Since (for better or for worse) China isn’t hung up on safety regulation, and there is zero threat of legal challenge to nuclear projects, plans can be realized much more quickly than in the West. That means that there are not only dozens of light water reactor plants going up in China, but also a lot of work on experimental reactors with advanced nuclear designs—like those being developed by General Atomic and TerraPower.

Given both the competitive threat from China and the potentially disastrous global effects of emissions-induced climate change, the U.S. government should be leaping back into the nuclear race with the kind of integrated response that it brought to the Soviet threat during the Cold War.

But it isn’t, at least not yet. Through years of stagnation, America lost—or perhaps misplaced—its ability to do big, bold things in nuclear science. Our national labs, which once led the world to this technology, are underfunded, and our regulatory system, which once set the standard of global excellence, has become overly burdensome, slow, and sclerotic.

The villains in this story are familiar in Washington: ideology, ignorance, and bureaucracy. Let’s start with Congress, currently sporting a well-earned 14 percent approval rating. On Capitol Hill, an unholy and unwitting alliance of right-wing climate deniers, small-government radicals, and liberal anti-nuclear advocates have joined together to keep nuclear lab budgets small. And since even naming a post office constitutes a huge challenge for this broken Congress, moving forward with the funding and regulation of a complex new technology seems well beyond its capabilities at the moment.

Then there is the federal bureaucracy, which has failed even to acknowledge that a new generation of reactors is on the horizon. It took the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the successor to the Atomic Energy Commission) years to approve a design for the new light water reactor now being built in Georgia, despite the fact that it’s nearly identical to the 100 or so that preceded it. The NRC makes no pretense of being prepared to evaluate reactors cooled by molten salt or run on depleted uranium. And it insists on pounding these new round pegs into its old square holes, demanding that the new reactors meet the same requirements as the old ones, even when that makes no sense.

At the Department of Energy, their heart is in the right place. DOE Secretary Ernest Moniz is a seasoned political hand as well as an MIT nuclear physicist, and he absolutely sees the potential in advanced reactor designs. But, constrained by a limited budget, the department is not currently in a position to drive the kind of changes needed to bring advanced nuclear designs to market.

President Obama clearly believes in nuclear energy. In an early State of the Union address he said, “We need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country." But the White House has been largely absent from the nuclear energy discussion in recent years. It is time for it to reengage.

May 22, 1957: A GE supervisor inspects the instrument panel for the company’s boiling water power reactor in Pleasanton, CA. Source: Bettmann/Corbis/AP Images

Getting the U.S. Back in the Race

So what, exactly, do the people running the advanced nuclear companies need from the U.S. government? What can government do to help move the technology off of their computers and into the electricity production marketplace?

First, they need a practical development path. Where is Bill Gates going to test TerraPower’s brilliant new reactor designs? Because there are no appropriate government-run facilities in the United States, he is forced to make do in China. He can’t find this ideal. Since more than two-thirds of Microsoft Windows operating systems used in China are pirated, he is surely aware that testing in China greatly increases the risk of intellectual property theft.

Thus, at the center of a development path would be an advanced reactor test bed facility, run by the government, and similar to what we had at the Idaho National Lab in 1960s. Such a facility, which would be open to all of the U.S. companies with reactors in development, would allow any of them to simply plug in their fuel and materials and run their tests

But advanced test reactors of the type we need are expensive and complex. The old one at the Idaho lab can’t accommodate the radiation and heat levels required by the new technologies. Japan has a newer one, but it shut down after Fukushima. China and Russia each have them, and France is building one that should be completed in 2016. But no one has the cutting-edge, truly advanced incubator space that the new firms need to move toward development.

Second is funding. Mark and Leslie have secured some venture capital, but Transatomic will need much more money in order to perform the basic engineering on an advanced test reactor and, eventually, to construct demonstration reactors. Like all startups, Transatomic faces a “Valley of Death” between concept and deployment; with nuclear technology’s enormous costs and financial risk, it’s more like a “Grand Canyon of Death.” Government must play a big role in bridging that canyon, as it did in the early days of commercial nuclear energy development, beginning with the first light water reactor at Shippingport.

For Further Reading

President Obama, It's Time to Act on Energy Policy November 2014, Charles Ebinger

Transforming the Electricity Portfolio: Lessons from Germany and Japan in Deploying Renewable Energy September 2014, John Banks, Charles Ebinger, and Alisa Schackmann

The Road Ahead for Japanese Energy June 2014

Planet Policy A blog about the intersection of energy and climate policy

Third, they need a complete rethinking of the NRC approach to regulating advanced nuclear technology. How can the brand new Flibe Energy liquid-thorium fluoride reactor technology be forced to meet the same criteria as the typical light water reactor? The NRC must be flexible enough to accommodate technology that works differently from the light water reactors it is familiar with. For example, since Transatomic’s reactor would run at normal atmospheric pressure, unlike a light water reactor, which operates under vastly greater pressure, Mark and Leslie shouldn’t be required to build a huge and massively expensive containment structure around their reactors. Yet the NRC has no provision allowing them to bypass that requirement. If that doesn’t change, there is no way that Transatomic will be able to bring its small, modular, innovative reactors to market.

In addition, the NRC must let these technologies develop organically. They should permit Transatomic and the others to build and operate prototype reactors before they are fully licensed, allowing them to demonstrate their safety and reliability with real-world stress tests, as opposed to putting them through never-ending rounds of theoretical discussion and negotiation with NRC testers.

None of this is easy. The seriousness of the climate change threat is not universally acknowledged in Washington. Federal budgets are now based in the pinched, deficit-constrained present, not the full employment, high-growth economy of the 1950s. And the NRC, in part because of its mission to protect public safety, is among the most change-averse of any federal agency.

But all of this is vital. Advanced nuclear technology could hold a key to fighting climate change. It could also result in an enormous boon to the American economy. But only if we get there first.

Who Will Own the Nuclear Power Future?

Josh Freed, Third Way's clean energy vice president, works on developing ways the federal government can help accelerate the private sector's adoption of clean energy and address climate change. He has served as a senior staffer on Capitol Hill and worked in various public advocacy and political campaigns, including advising the senior leadership of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Nuclear energy is at a crossroads. One path sends brilliant engineers like Leslie and Mark forward, applying their boundless skills and infectious optimism to world-changing technologies that have the potential to solve our energy problems while also fueling economic development and creating new jobs. The other path keeps the nuclear industry locked in unadaptable technologies that will lead, inevitably, to a decline in our major source of carbon-free energy.

The chance to regain our leadership in nuclear energy, to walk on the path once trod by the engineers and scientists of the 1950s and ‘60s, will not last forever. It is up to those who make decisions on matters concerning funding and regulation to strike while the iron is hot.

This is not pie-in-the-sky thinking—we have done this before. At the dawn of the nuclear age, we designed and built reactors that tested the range of possibility. The blueprints then languished on the shelves of places like the MIT library for more than fifty years until Leslie Dewan, Mark Massie, and other brilliant engineers and scientists thought to revive them. With sufficient funding and the appropriate technical and political leadership, we can offer the innovators and entrepreneurs of today the chance to use those designs to power the future.

Join the conversation on Twitter using #BrookingsEssay or share this on Facebook .

This Essay is also available as an eBook from these online retailers: Amazon Kindle , Barnes & Noble , Apple iTunes , Google Play , Ebooks.com , and on Kobo .

This article was written by Josh Freed, vice president of the Clean Energy Program at Third Way. The author has not personally received any compensation from the nuclear energy industry. In the spirit of maximum transparency, however, the author has disclosed that several entities mentioned in this article are associated in varying degrees with Third Way. The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) and Babcock & Wilcox have financially supported Third Way. NEI includes TerraPower, Babcock & Wilcox, and Idaho National Lab among its members, as well as Fluor on its Board of Directors. Transatomic is not a member of NEI, but Dr. Leslie Dewan has appeared in several of its advertisements. Third Way is also working with and has received funding from Ray Rothrock, although he was not consulted on the contents of this essay. Third Way previously held a joint event with the Idaho National Lab that was unrelated to the subject of this essay.

* The essay originally also referred to Hitachi buying GE's nuclear arm. GE owns 60 percent of Hitachi.

Like other products of the Institution, The Brookings Essay is intended to contribute to discussion and stimulate debate on important issues. The views are solely those of the author.

Graphic Design: Marcia Underwood and Jessica Pavone Research: Fred Dews, Thomas Young, Jessica Pavone, Kevin Hawkins Editorial: Beth Rashbaum and Fred Dews Web Development: Marcia Underwood and Kevin Hawkins Video: George Burroughs- Director, Ian McAllister- Technical Director, Sareen Hairabedian and Mark Hoelscher Directors of Photography, Sareen Hairabedian- Editor, Mark Hoelscher- Color Correction and Graphics, Zachary Kulzer- Sound, Thomas Young- Producer

1775 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Washington , DC 20036

• Media Relations

More Brookings Essays

Published 12/12/2014

© 2014 The Brookings Institution

• Terms and Conditions
• Brookings Privacy Policy

Log In | Join AACT | Renew Membership

AACT Member-Only Content

You have to be an AACT member to access this content, but good news: anyone can join!

• AACT member benefits »
• Forgot User Name or Password?

Save Your Favorite AACT Resources! ×

Log in or join now to start building your personalized "My Favorites" page. Easily save all the resources you love by logging in and clicking on the star icon next to any resource title.

Nuclear Energy Debate Mark as Favorite (37 Favorites)

ACTIVITY in Renewable Energy , Interdisciplinary , History , Radiation , Pros Cons of Nuclear Power , Radiation . Last updated February 19, 2021.

In this activity, students will watch a debate between experts on the merits and drawbacks of nuclear energy. They will use this debate, as well as additional research, to write a short position paper on whether or not to continue using nuclear energy that explains and defends their opinion, as well as the chemistry involved in nuclear energy production.

Grade Level

High School

NGSS Alignment

This activity will help prepare your students to meet the performance expectations in the following standards:

• HS-ETS1-1: Analyze a major global challenge to specify qualitative and quantitative criteria and constraints for solutions that account for societal needs and wants.
• Engaging in Argument from Evidence
• Obtaining, Evaluating, and Communicating Information

By the end of this activity, students should be able to:

• Identify the pros and cons of using nuclear power as an energy source.
• Make a conclusion supported by specific evidence.

Chemistry Topics

This activity supports students’ understanding of:

• Pros and cons of nuclear power

Teacher Preparation : 5 minutes

Lesson : 60–120 minutes

• Video equipment
• Internet access
• No safety precautions need to be observed for this activity.

Teacher Notes

• This lesson fits well towards the end of a unit on nuclear energy. Prior to the lesson, students should have learned what nuclear chemistry is and should be able to differentiate between natural and artificial transmutation. They should have also learned about fission and fusion and how these two processes can be used to create energy. One AACT activity that could introduce these topics is the Fission vs. Fusion Reading activity.
• This activity can be completed in class with additional support from the teacher, as part of a sub lesson, or at home as homework. It could also be used as a post-AP Chemistry exam activity.
• Show the TED Talk debate over nuclear power in class and have students take notes on both sides of the argument. You may want to pause it periodically to allow students to keep up in their notes.
• As students are writing their initial response to the question “Do you think the U.S. should continue to develop nuclear power plants? Why or why not?” the teacher should circulate to make sure that every student is able to come up with an initial conclusion.
• Encourage students to be respectful of each other’s ideas in their discussions. This article from the University of Michigan provides valuable ways to prepare for and approach discussions that may involve controversial issues or opinions.
• Let’s Talk Science: https://letstalkscience.ca/educational-resources/stem-in-context/what-are-pros-and-cons-nuclear-energy (Note that this is a Canadian website so there are references to Canadian organizations and energy usage.)
• ProCon.org: https://alternativeenergy.procon.org/questions/is-nuclear-power-safe-for-humans-and-the-environment/
• Wall Street Journal: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB121432182593500119#cx
• The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Student Corner: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/students.html
• Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy, STEM Resources: https://www.energy.gov/ne/information-resources/stem-resources
• World Nuclear Association, Nuclear Power in the USA: https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-t-z/usa-nuclear-power.aspx
• U.S. Energy Information Association, Energy Kids: https://www.eia.gov/kids/energy-sources/uranium/
• Whether you provide students with the above resources or you let them find their own, encourage them to assess the quality of their resources so they are sure they are getting scientifically accurate information. This article is a good place for students to look for guidance on evaluating internet resources. Also be sure to indicate which format (APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.) you want them to use for their citations. Resources such as www.easybib.com or www.bibme.org might be helpful tools.
• As students are researching, the teacher should circulate and check in to make sure that all students are able to use evidence to support their conclusion.
• Students’ position essays on nuclear energy will serve as a summative evaluation. They will be evaluated on both their demonstration that they understand the chemistry content and their ability to formulate a claim and use evidence to back it up.
• Nuclear Energy Power Plants
• Town Meeting
• The Tokaimura Nuclear Accident
• Love It or Leave It: Living in the Nuclear Age
• Nuclear Waste Challenge
• Fission vs. Fusion Reading

For the Student

Does the World Need Nuclear Energy?

While watching the TED debate between Stewart Brand and Mark Jacobson, take notes on the arguments for and against nuclear energy.

After watching the debate, what would your answer be to the question: Should the U.S. continue to develop nuclear energy? Why or why not? Write a ~1 paragraph initial response in the space below.

Do some additional research on nuclear energy, including more up-to-date energy statistics for the US and globally, and write a one to two page response to the question: Should the U.S. continue to develop nuclear energy? Why or why not? Cite evidence from the video and additional research.

Your response should include:

• An explanation of the chemistry behind nuclear energy
• Your position on the nuclear energy debate
• Evidence to support your position
• Acknowledgement of and reasons for disagreeing with the opposing position
• A bibliography page with at least 3 reliable sources, cited properly

Use the space below to brainstorm for your essay, take notes on your additional research, and record the sources you consulted. (Use additional pages if you'd like.)

Position (circle one): The U.S. (should / should not) continue to develop nuclear energy.

Source: ______________________________________________________

Source: _______________________________________________________

Please submit these notes with your final essay on ________________.

Share this page

Nuclear energy is released from the nucleus of atoms through the processes of fission or fusion.

Contributors

What is nuclear.

Nuclear energy is the energy held in the nucleus of an atom; it can be obtained through two types of reactions –  fission  and  fusion 1 .

Nuclear fission produces energy through the splitting of atoms, which releases heat  energy  that can generate steam and then be used to turn a  turbine to produce electricity. 2 All of today’s nuclear plants use fission to generate electricity . The fuel most commonly used for fission is uranium, although additional elements such as plutonium or thorium can be used.

Nuclear fusion is a nuclear reaction in which two or more atomic nuclei collide at a very high speeds and join to form a new type of atomic nucleus. During this process, matter is not conserved because some of the matter of the fusing nuclei is converted into photons, which produces usable energy.  This process is what allows the sun and stars to give off energy. Fusion power offers the prospect of an almost inexhaustible source of energy for future generations; however, creating the conditions for nuclear fusion presents a potentially insurmountable scientific and engineering challenge 3 . A recent experiment  has shown that nuclear fusion can be achieved, however, it has not yet been successfully demonstrated on a commercial scale.

Today, nuclear power plants account for 11% of global electricity generation with about 80% of that installed capacity being in OECD countries 4 All of this capacity is nuclear fission.

Nuclear energy, through fission, can release 1 million times more energy per atom than  fossil fuels 5 . It can also be integrated into  electricity grids , which currently utilize fossil fuel generation, with few changes to existing infrastructure.

Nuclear has large power-generating capacity and low operating costs, making it ideal for base load generation. However, up front capital costs are intensive and present financial risk to investors given the extended time frames power plants must operate to recuperate their costs [6] .

Nuclear energy does not emit greenhouse gas emissions. For this reason, it is often seen as a substitute for fossil fuel energy generation and a solution for mitigating climate change.

However, nuclear fission has a wide variety of environmental and health issues associated with electricity generation. The largest concern is the generation of radioactive wastes such as uranium mill tailings, spent (used) reactor fuel, and other radioactive wastes. Some of these materials can remain radioactive and hazardous to both human health and the environment for thousands of years. Several large nuclear meltdowns in history released radioactive waste that had lasting negative impacts on the environment and surrounding communities. This has made nuclear fission technologies controversial.

Dive deeper

Recent blog posts about nuclear.

No items found.

External resources

International organizations.

Nuclear Energy Agency

International Atomic Energy Agency

International Nuclear Societies Council

World Nuclear Association

International Nuclear Law Association

International Institute of Nuclear Energy

International or Prominent Industry Association

US Nuclear Regulatory Commission

American Nuclear Society

European Nuclear Society

Australian Nuclear Association

Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO)

China Nuclear Energy Agency

Japan Atomic Energy Agency

Latin American Section-American Nuclear Society

Korean Nuclear Society

BATAN Indonesia

Research institution

Institute for Nuclear Research Ukraine

Institute for Nuclear Research Hungarian

Daltoon Nuclear Institute

Joint Institute for Nuclear Research

Institute for Nuclear Research Pitesti

National Research Nuclear University MEPhI

Nuclear Energy Institute

International Research Institute for Nuclear Decommissioning (IRID)

Belgian Nuclear Research Center

Nuclear AMRC UK

European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN)

UNB – Centre for Nuclear Energy Research

Culham Centre for Fusion Energy (CCFE)

Soreq Nuclear Research Center

South West Nuclear Hub

Academic Journal

Journal of Nuclear Physics

Nuclear Engineering and Design

Journal of Nuclear Materials

Journal of Nuclear and Particle Physics

International Journal of Nuclear Energy Science and Technology

US Department of Energy

Whatisnuclear.com

Nuclear Energy

Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission – in Canada 

Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission  – Nuclear Power Plants Safety Systems

Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission  – Understanding Nuclear Power Plants: Total Station Blackout

Nuclear Energy Institute 2

Jonathon Porrit

Environmental Impact

Foro Nuclear

Nucleartourist.com

Business Analysis

Business Day Live

Health Impact

The New England Journal of Medicine

New Scientist

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC)

The Health Physics Society University of Michigan

LiveScience

Sustainability

ScienceDirect

The Natural Edge Project

Pearce – Michigan Technological University

Other Interesting essays/articles

The Independent

Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission  – Nuclear in your neighbourhood

The University of Manchester

Breaking Energy

Triple Pundit

• Nuclear Energy (2015). What is nuclear energy? http://nuclear-energy.net/what-is-nuclear-energy ↩
• United States Environmental Protection Agency (2015). Nuclear energy. http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/nuclear.html ↩
• World Nuclear Association (n.d.). Nuclear fusion power. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/current-and-future-generation/nuclear-fusion-power/  ↩
• World Energy Outlook (2014). Nuclear power: Retreat, revival or renaissance? http://www.iea.org/media/news/2014/press/141112_WEO_FactSheet_Nuclear.pdf ↩
• MacKay, D.J.C. (2018). Sustainable energy without the hot air. http://www.withouthotair.com .  ↩
• Department of Energy and Climate Change (2013). Investing in renewable technologies: CFD contract terms and strike price. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/investing-in-renewable-technologies-cfd-contract-terms-and-strike-prices ↩

It seems JavaScript is either disabled or not supported by your browser. To view this site, enable JavaScript by changing your browser options and try again.

Jump to main content

Nuclear Energy: What's Your Reaction?

Nuclear energy is a highly-debated topic, even among energy experts.  Is nuclear fission a safe and carbon-free energy alternative to fossil fuels, or do the risks outweigh the benefits?

How do we find a solution to a complex problem? We need tools to help us better understand the various dimensions of a problem, what factors we must weigh in deciding whether a solution is good/viable or not, and where to find credible information to help us draw conclusions. In this lesson, students will obtain, evaluate, and critically discuss information about the highly-debated topic of nuclear energy. As citizens of the fictitious town of Solutionville, students must decide whether or not they support building a nuclear power plant in the community to replace coal as their source of electricity.

Students should enter into this activity having practiced how to critically evaluate sources of information, identify those that are credible, and defend a position with evidence. There are many excellent tutorials and activities available online that can be done in class or as homework. Choose from the short list below, or design your own!

KQED NOW Classroom: Making Informed Decisions and Critical Thinking

Annenberg Classroom: The Credibility Challenge

Acadia University Library: Credible Sources Count!

• Purdue University CERIAS: Site Credibility

What types of factors should we consider when analyzing a potential solution to a problem?

• Is nuclear power a ‘good’ or better alternative to burning fossil fuels?

Students will gather, read, and synthesize information from multiple appropriate and credible sources to decide whether or not nuclear power should replace fossil fuels as the energy source in a fictitious community.  

• Students will practice weighing the benefits and drawbacks of a potential solution to a complex problem.

Video: Nuclear Energy: Is Fission the Future?

Computer with internet access and projector

Warm-Up Slide   also available in  Spanish

Student Activity Guide   (1 per student)  also available in Spanish

Nuclear Energy Reading  (1 electronic copy for reference) 

• Laptops or tablets with internet access or access to a computer lab
• Sticky notes
• Print out one Student Activity Guide for each student.
• Reserve tablets/laptops with internet access or a computer lab for your class.

Warm-Up (15 minutes)

1. Display the Warm-Up Slide on the screen so that students can read the following:

Nearly 40% of food in the United States is wasted. Because producing food requires a lot of water and energy, it is not just the food that is wasted, but water and energy resources as well. Imagine that a school tries to reduce food waste in their own cafeteria by fining students who do not finish the food they buy for lunch. For every piece of food that is bought from the cafeteria and thrown away instead of being eaten, a student must pay $1.00.

2. Agree/Disagree: Establish one side of the classroom as the ‘Agree’ side and one as the ‘Disagree’ side. Have students stand up and walk to whichever side they identify with given the following prompt:  Students should be fined for uneaten food bought from the school cafeteria.

3. Choose students from both sides to defend their position, using the sentence frames ‘I agree…because...’ or ‘I disagree...because…’. List some of their reasons on a chart on the board.

I agree because...

• students probably can’t afford to pay fines, so they will be careful to not throw away food.
• students will be more selective and thoughtful about the food that they buy.
• uneaten food is a waste of important resources, and students should be accountable for this.

I disagree because...

• students will choose to bring their lunch more often from home, and the school will lose money.
• students might find other improper ways to dispose of food, such as hiding it or dumping it outside.
• students might eat too much because even though they are full, they don’t want to pay a fine.

4. After a brief discussion and some sharing, give students a chance to switch sides if they have changed their mind.

5. Ask for volunteers to propose an alternate solution to the issue.  Examples: Provide to-go containers to students so that they can save uneaten food, or make the plate sizes smaller so that students can’t physically buy as much food.

6. Popcorn style or in groups, have students brainstorm a list of information that would be helpful to have in order to weigh the pros and cons of a proposed solution to a societal problem (an issue that affects people).  Examples: Scientific data and evidence, thoughts, opinions, and concerns of the people affected by the issue and the proposed solution, expert advice and knowledge, models, etc.

Nuclear Energy Inquiry (45 minutes)

1. Introduce students to the premise of the activity:

The (fictitious) town of Solutionville is trying to figure out a way to replace their current coal-fired power plants with cleaner and more sustainable energy sources. At a recent town meeting, it was proposed that the town build a nuclear power plant. As a voting citizen of Solutionville, you must decide whether or not you support building a nuclear power plant to provide energy and electricity to homes and businesses.

2. Conduct an anonymous poll to determine how many residents of Solutionville (students in the class) currently support nuclear energy.

Teacher Tip: For a fast, easy, and anonymous poll, you can use clickers or a free app like Socrative which lets students vote using their smartphones, tablets, or a web browser. Apps like Socrative allow you to display the results of a poll to the class in real time.

3. Show students the video Nuclear Energy: Is Fission the Future? and discuss some of the benefits and drawbacks of nuclear energy presented in the video.

4. Divide students into groups of three. Hand out one Student Activity Guide to each student, and briefly go over the instructions. Give students about 30 minutes for research.

5. On the board, draw a chart of benefits and drawbacks of nuclear energy like the one in the Nuclear Energy Reading . Briefly discuss the difference between environmental, social/cultural, and economic dimensions.

6. Ask each group to write the benefits and drawbacks of nuclear energy on sticky notes (one per note) and to put them in the appropriate row/column on the board.

7. Discuss the class chart. Ask students to explain their thinking and to justify their points by citing the sources they read.

Did you consider all three of these dimensions when conducting your research and analysis?

Do you think it is important or useful to consider all three of these dimensions in weighing a potential solution to a problem? Why or why not?

8. Voting day! Hold a community vote on whether or not to build a nuclear power plant, then present the results of both the initial poll and final voting results to the students. Before taking the official vote, consider allowing one advocate from each side, if interested, to ‘make their case’ in front of the class; students can both practice listening for evidence and listening respectfully.

Wrap-Up and Reflection

9. At the end of the lesson, or for homework, have students write a reflection on what they learned.

How easy or hard was it to find credible information about nuclear energy? Did you find any opinions or arguments about nuclear energy that were not backed by evidence or good reasoning? If so, did you still consider them valid considerations?

In your research, did you find more people or organizations supporting or more opposing nuclear energy, or did they seem to be equal? Why do you think this was/is?

Did anyone change their mind between the initial poll and final vote? What made them change their mind, and why?

• Why is it important to be able to distinguish credible vs. non-credible sources of information?
• How could you encourage people to be more informed voting citizens? (E.g., social media campaign)

Examples of credible resources on nuclear energy:  United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission website ,  U.S. Energy Information Administration: Nuclear & Uranium

California Academy of Sciences Science News: Nuclear Fusion in Our Backyard

• KQED NOW Classroom: General Reading Comprehension Learning Activity

NGSS Disciplinary Core Ideas (Grades 6-8)

MS-ESS3.A: Natural Resources

MS-ESS3.C: Human Impacts on Earth Systems

MS-PS1.B Chemical Reactions

NGSS Science and Engineering Practices (Grades 6-8)

Obtaining, Evaluating, and Communicating Information

Engaging in Argument from Evidence  

Common Core English Language Arts

Teacher Tip: Consider picking one or two of the below to explicitly reference during the activity to reinforce how important they are as a skill that spans both science and language arts:

​ Trace and evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text, distinguishing claims that are supported by reasons and evidence from claims that are not.

Write arguments to support claims with clear reasons and relevant evidence.

Gather relevant information from multiple print and digital sources; assess the credibility of each source.

Draw evidence from informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research.  

​ Trace and evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text, assessing whether the reasoning is sound and the evidence is relevant and sufficient to support the claims.

Gather relevant information from multiple print and digital sources, using search terms effectively; assess the credibility and accuracy of each source.

Delineate and evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text, assessing whether the reasoning is sound and the evidence is relevant and sufficient; recognize when irrelevant evidence is introduced.

Draw evidence from informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research.

Data and Energy Use Technology allows us to communicate almost instantaneously even though we may be miles apart from each other!  But the networks and infrastructure that make this possible require energy.  How energy-intensive are our emails, texts, and Snapchats?  Learn more about your digital footprint in this short video.

Energy is an important part of our everyday lives. We use energy to cook, get around, and send emails. In this unit, we'll explore the issues associated with fossil fuels and how people are coming up with innovative sustainable energy alternatives for a brighter future.

         Browse All Materials:

• Activity: The Heat is On: Cause and Effect and Climate
• Activity: Building Better Buses: Transportation Design Challenges
• Activity: Optimal and Sustainable: Renewable Energy Revamp
• ​ Video: Renewable Energy: Powered by Poop
• Activity: Nuclear Energy: What's Your Reaction?  [you are here]
• Video: Your Digital Footprint: Data and Energy Use   [up next!]
• Supplemental Video: The Chemistry of Clothes
• Supplemental Video: How To Measure a Changing Climate
• Supplemental Video: The Climate is Changing but How's the Weather?

Attached Files

Food, water, energy—we need solutions to the environmental issues of our day.

Academy Day is for everyone! (Especially you.)

Flutter in on April 4 for a celebration of science and community. Make a gift to support affordable access and get a cool keychain in return!

A message from United Cleanup Oak Ridge, LLC

Oak Ridge: The Future Begins With Cleanup

High school students rewarded for nuclear-themed essays

The envelope, please: The top winner was Kaeleigh Seigler of Aiken Scholars Academy, who won $1,000 for her essay “Nuclear Technology in Medicine.” There were two $750 winners: Alya Akhtar of Lakeside High School for her essay “Nuclear Technology Revolutionizing Today and Tomorrow’s Medicine,” and Monica Burns of Richmond County Technical Career Magnet School for “Nuclear Technology in the Medical Industry.”

In addition to the top three winners, seven other students received a prize of $500 for their essay efforts:

• Blaise Bell of Richmond County Technical Career Magnet School for “How Nuclear Technology has Improved the Medical Field.”
• Paige Dayton of South Carolina Governor’s School for “Nuclear Science in Medicine.”
• Treshon Hinkins of Lucy C. Laney High School for “Impact of Nuclear Technology on Medicine.”
• John Ledbetter of South Aiken High School for “Clean Energy Sources and Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions.”
• Kaitlyn Redd of Williston Elko High School for “Nuclear Technology in the Medical Field.”
• Maria Reyes of Mead Hall Episcopal School for “Nuclear Medicine and How It Saves Lives.”
• Alan Sairany of Greenbrier High School for “The Impacts and Implications of Nuclear Energy on Emerging Technologies.”

Marissa Reigel, chair of the CNTA Essay Committee, praised all the student participants, saying, “We were very impressed with the quality of the essays we received from all the students this year. It was exciting to see the breadth of information the students included in their essays.”

Concerned “Citizens”: The CNTA was formed in 1991 by a group of citizens and companies in the central Savannah River region of South Carolina and Georgia. It is a self-described grassroots organization that is “pronuclear and proud of it. We carry out educational programs to provide factual information about the benefits and risks of nuclear technologies and the Savannah River Site.” The CNTA also advocates for new missions to “keep SRS viable well into the 21st century.”

The organization established the essay contest in 2006 to increase awareness among area students of nuclear technologies and their impacts on society. Over the years, the organization has awarded more than $70,000 to contest participants.

For this year’s contest, students could choose from one of three topics on which to write:

• “Discuss at least two uses of nuclear technology in medicine and their impact on the medical industry.”
• “Discuss the differences in greenhouse gas generation between these [various energy] sources and nuclear energy. Consider the ‘cradle-to-grave’ cycle of each energy source.”
• “Discuss the use of nuclear technology in emerging technologies and the potential impacts of these uses on society.”

Related Articles

Local high schoolers shadow SRS engineers

Fifteen area high school students recently completed job shadow experiences with leaders, engineers, and education outreach personnel at the Department of Energy’s Savannah River Site in...

New method ensures integrity of Savannah River’s radioactive material containers

Department of Energy contractor Savannah River Nuclear Solutions (SRNS) said its Savannah River Site employees recently used an innovative method to ensure the integrity of radioactive...

Training program focuses on supply chain

So far this year, Savannah River Nuclear Solutions Supply Chain Management (SCM) apprenticeship program has transitioned 12 new graduates to its team. According to SRNS, the apprentices and...

SRS employees use novel training exercise to align waste mission

More than 3,000 employees with Department of Energy contractor Savannah River Mission Completion (SRMC) participated in a vision casting initiative, learning more about the past, present, and...

Savannah River interns featured at CNTA breakfast event

Three college interns from the Savannah River Site were the keynote speakers at a recent Up & Atom Breakfast hosted by Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness (CNTA). The breakfast was...

Savannah River, Hanford collaborate on tank waste workshop

More than 100 people from Savannah River National Laboratory and the Hanford Site participated recently in a workshop to share analytical knowledge focused on the cleanup of radioactive tank...

Student interns accept full-service roles at Savannah River

Dozens of students from the Savannah River Nuclear Solutions (SRNS) Internship Program were recently offered a chance at full-service positions during what SRNS called a signing day event held...

Potential careers at SRS highlighted for college students

Claflin University students recently toured the Department of Energy’s Savannah River Site in South Carolina to learn about the facilities and occupations there. ...

Pronuclear golf outing a success

Thirty teams of players participated in the 21st annual Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness (CNTA) Charity Golf Tournament at the Houndslake Country Club in Aiken, S.C. The tournament,...

Nuclear oversight board to discuss Savannah River safety concerns

The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) is scheduled to visit the Department of Energy’s Savannah River Site in South Carolina the week of May 8 to discuss ongoing safety...