Climate Change, Energy Security, and Nuclear Power.

For decades, nuclear energy has been considered an important option for ensuring global energy security, and it has recently started being promoted as a solution for climate change mitigation. However, nuclear power remains highly controversial due to its associated risks e nuclear accidents and problematic radioactive waste management. This review aims to assess the viability of global nuclear energy economically (energy-wise), climatically and environmentally. To this end, the nuclear sector's energyand climate-related advantages were explored alongside the downsides that mainly relate to radioactive pollution. Economically, it was found that nuclear energy is still an important power source in many countries around the world. Climatically, nuclear power is a low-carbon technology and can therefore be a viable option for the decarbonization of the world's major economies over the following decades, if coupled with other large-scale strategies such as renewable energies. These benefits are however outweighed by the radioactive danger associated to nuclear power plants, either in the context of the nuclear accidents that have already occurred or in that of the large amounts of long-lived nuclear waste that have been growing for decades and that represent a significant environmental and societal threat.

Because of the sheer magnitude and urgency of the global climate challenge, the United States must consider all forms of energy-as long as they do not otherwise undermine international and environmental security. Unfortunately, the nuclear power industry in its present state suffers from too many security, safety, and environmental exposure problems and excessive costs to qualify as a leading means to combat global warming pollution. Large-scale nuclear plants remain uneconomic to build. And while the nuclear fuel cycle emits little global warming pollution, nuclear power still poses globally significant risks that need to be further reduced, including: • Diversion of "peaceful" nuclear facilities and materials to secret nuclear weapons programs; • Theft and terrorist use of nuclear materials; • Accidental releases of radioactivity, ranging from locally harmful to potentially catastrophic; • The vulnerability of some spent nuclear fuel storage pools to terrorist attack; • Occupational and public health risks associated with uranium mining and milling; and • Long-term leakage from underground repositories intended to isolate high-level radioactive waste and spent fuel from the human and natural environment for tens to hundreds of thousands of years. If and when the nuclear industry establishes-and includes within its future cost structure-a nuclear fuel production, utilization, and long-term waste disposal regime that fully protects international security, public health, the environment, and future generations, NRDC would not seek to exclude new nuclear generation from competing on a level playing field with other reduced-carbon energy sources. Specifically, this means that nuclear power, without further government subsidy, could compete in the market for reduced-carbon energy alternatives developed in response to a national cap on carbon emissions, or to a new federal carbon-intensity portfolio standard seeking reductions in carbon emissions from electric power generation. However, for nuclear power to qualify as a significant global carbon reducer, the international nuclear industry, the respective governments, and the International Atomic Energy Agency must ensure that: • Nuclear fuel cycles do not afford access, or the technical capabilities for access, to nuclear explosive materials, principally separated plutonium and highly enriched uranium; • The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty regulating nuclear power's peaceful use is reinterpreted to prohibit the spread of latent as well as overt nuclear weapons capabilities, by barring national ownership and control of uranium enrichment plants in non-weapon states; • The occupational and public health risks associated with uranium mining, milling, and the nuclear fuel cycle are remedied; and • Existing and planned discharges of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste will be safely sequestered in geologic repositories. Until such time as the nuclear industry is able to meet these requirements, NRDC favors more practical, economical, and environmentally sustainable approaches to reducing both U.S. and global carbon emissions, including clean, flexible, renewable energy and efficiency technologies.

Nuclear Energy , 2025

Nuclear energy stands at a pivotal juncture in 2025, contributing 2,500 TWh (10% of global electricity) and avoiding 2.5 Gt CO₂ annually through 440 reactors (371 GW capacity). This study synthesizes its multifaceted role in the global energy landscape, exploring technological evolution, policy frameworks, sustainability imperatives, economic viability, societal perceptions, and future challenges. Current Generation II and III+ reactors offer a low-carbon footprint (12 g CO₂e/kWh), yet aging fleets (35-year average) demand $200–$400 billion in modernization to sustain output. Innovations like Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), Generation IV designs, and fusion promise scalability, enhanced safety (CDF 10⁻⁸/year), and resource longevity (thorium, reprocessing), potentially tripling capacity to 1,100 GW by 2050 per COP28 goals, though $10–$20 billion/year in R&D and $4–$7 trillion in infrastructure are needed. Policy varies—China and Russia expand (57 GW and 29 GW), while Germany and Japan retract post-Fukushima—guided by IAEA oversight and NPT frameworks yet strained by funding and harmonization gaps. Sustainability balances low emissions against waste (300,000 tons) and mining impacts, with recycling and deep geological disposal advancing slowly. Economically, nuclear’s $100–$180/MWh LCOE competes with renewables ($30–$90/MWh) and fossils ($40–$140/MWh), hindered by high capital costs ($6–$10 billion/GW). Public trust, at 50% globally, reflects historical accidents’ legacy, necessitating education for acceptance. Geopolitically, nuclear fosters energy independence but ties nations to fuel (Russia’s 46% enrichment) and tech dependencies. The path forward demands balanced innovation, robust regulation, and inclusive dialogue to align nuclear with net-zero emissions (7 Gt CO₂/year avoidance by 2050) and sustainable development, leveraging fusion and advanced fission for a long-term, low-carbon future.

JPPI (Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan Indonesia)

The growth of the world's human population demands greater energy fulfillment and the main energy source that has been used so far is fossil fuels. Nuclear energy produced in a nuclear reactor is used as a competitive contributor with other sources of electrical energy such as coal, oil, gas, water, and others. So that the contribution of energy from various aspects becomes something that must be taken as a mutually beneficial strategic partner in meeting future energy needs that are economical and environmentally friendly at both national and international levels. The result of this research is energy is a primary need in modern human life. Almost all aspects of life require energy as its prime mover. In the beginning, people used fossil energy to fulfill their needs. The limited amount of fossil energy on earth has resulted in many people competing to create renewable energy with the characteristics of low cost, high stability, and high efficiency. Energy savings are urgent to...