9.9% of global electricity is generated from Nuclear
What is Nuclear?
Nuclear power is the use of nuclear reactions that release nuclear energy to generate heat. The heat is used to turn a steam turbine, which turns a generator, which in turn generates electricity. Most electricity from nuclear power is produced by nuclear fission of uranium and plutonium.
Nuclear energy has been used since the 1950s. France gets 67.4% of its electricity from nuclear power. Nuclear energy was the principal source of decarbonization in several countries in the 1970s and 80s, such as France which increased its nuclear generation from 7.6% in 1976 to 70% in 1986, and Belgium which increased from 0.3% in 1974 to 66.9% in 1986. It proves that large-scale low-carbon electricity production is economically possible.
Electricity from nuclear power is generated continuously and therefore does not require electricity storage or backup sources like intermittent energy sources do.
The share of nuclear in electricity worldwide peaked at 17.6% in 1996. Some countries such as Germany and Belgium are planning to shut down all of their nuclear power plants, while others like Mainland China and India are expanding their nuclear energy capacity.
Is Nuclear a low-carbon energy source?
Yes, due to its relatively low lifecycle emissions, Nuclear is considered to be a low-carbon energy source.
The median estimate of lifecycle emissions from Nuclear is 12 gCO2eq / kWh. Where do our emissions numbers come from?
| Wind | 11 gCO2eq / kWh | Low-carbon |
| Nuclear | 12 gCO2eq / kWh | Low-carbon |
| Hydropower | 24 gCO2eq / kWh | Low-carbon |
| Geothermal | 38 gCO2eq / kWh | Low-carbon |
| Solar | 45 gCO2eq / kWh | Low-carbon |
| Biofuels | 230 gCO2eq / kWh | Low-carbon |
| Gas | 490 gCO2eq / kWh | High-carbon / fossil fuel |
| Oil | 650 gCO2eq / kWh | High-carbon / fossil fuel |
| Coal | 820 gCO2eq / kWh | High-carbon / fossil fuel |
Nuclear compared to other low-carbon energy electricity sources
Most significant producers of electricity from Nuclear
| {{ rd.regionname }} | {{ rd.value }}% |
What are the pros of Nuclear energy?
When it comes to reducing global warming, nuclear power offers a number of advantages.
Nuclear can help reduce global warming
First of all, nuclear power can generate large amounts of low-carbon electricity, which does not contribute to global warming. Indeed, it is a low-carbon energy source that emits very low levels of greenhouse gases (12 gCO2eq / kWh) unlike natural gas (490 gCO2eq / kWh) and coal (820 gCO2eq / kWh).
Nuclear generates electricity continuously (without intermittency)
Secondly, nuclear plants produce electricity in a continuous way and therefore do not require storage, as opposed to intermittent low-carbon energy sources such as solar and wind power that depend on daylight and meteorological conditions.
Nuclear has very low fuel costs
Third, nuclear reactors require very small amounts of enriched uranium to produce large amounts of electricity. While 1 kg of coal produces 8 kWh of heat, and 1 kg of oil produces 12 kWh, 1 kg of natural uranium generates 45,000 kWh. As a result, mining along with uranium cost is reduced and represents just 6% of the cost (https://www.euronuclear.org/glossary/fuel-comparison/).
Nuclear is cheap in the long-term
The average price of electricity produced by new nuclear reactors is 69 US$ / MWh according to the International Energy Agency (IEA), compared to 50 US$ / MWh for onshore wind, 56 US$ / MWh for solar, 71 US$ / MWh for gas and 88 US$ / MWh for coal.
Nevertheless, it is by extending the life of existing nuclear power plants that nuclear becomes the most economical way to produce low-carbon electricity, with an estimated average cost of 32 US$ / MWh.
Nuclear is well-known
Fourth, nuclear energy is a well-known technology that has been supplying low-carbon electricity in industrialized countries since the 1950s.
What are the cons of Nuclear energy?
Some radioactive waste must be stored for a very long time.
The most radioactive waste from nuclear reactors needs to be stored for several millennia. Underground disposal in stable geological layers can be a storage solution.
Major nuclear accidents can have catastrophic consequences.
According to OurWorldInData, nuclear energy is one of the safest energy sources in the world at just 0.07 deaths per TWh. It is 467 times safer than brown coal.
Nevertheless, nuclear accidents can have catastrophic consequences. Since the first nuclear reactors were built in 1954, there have been two Level 7 major nuclear accidents.
In Fukushima, Japan in 2011, a tsunami blocked the reactor cooling systems, resulting in a nuclear accident. While around 20,000 people died as a consequence of the tsunami, no official deaths or cancers have been associated with the nuclear accident. Nevertheless, the debate continues about potential links between the accident and thyroid cancer. An exclusion zone was set up around the plant and around 80,000 people were displaced.
In Chernobyl on April 26, 1986, the explosion of a nuclear reactor was caused by a series of human errors (incomplete documentation and lack of training of operators) during a safety test of the plant followed by a technical failure in the emergency shutdown mechanism of the plant. The number of deaths is still being debated. 30 people died during the accident, and an additional 16,000 people may have died from cancer caused by the release of radioactivity into the atmosphere. An exclusion zone around the Ukrainian power plant was set up.
Significant changes of low-carbon power due to Nuclear
| Region | Years | Change |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1976 → 1986 | 31.2 → 88.1% |
| South Korea | 1982 → 1986 | 12.9 → 50% |
| Argentina | 1977 → 1985 | 23 → 60% |
| Spain | 1981 → 1988 | 28.6 → 63.7% |
| Hungary | 1982 → 1988 | 0.6 → 33.7% |
| Armenia | 1995 → 2002 | 39.9 → 71.4% |
| Finland | 1980 → 1983 | 41.3 → 67% |
| Belgium | 1974 → 1977 | 1.2 → 26.5% |
| 1980 → 1987 | 41.2 → 70.8% | |
| Belgium | 1983 → 1988 | 47.7 → 68.4% |
| Slovakia | 1997 → 2002 | 52.5 → 72.7% |
| Romania | 2003 → 2014 | 32.9 → 59.8% |
| Spain | 2005 → 2010 | 35.4 → 53.6% |
| Sweden | 1974 → 1981 | 76.5 → 95.8% |
| Czechia | 2000 → 2013 | 22.4 → 47% |
| Germany | 1974 → 1985 | 8.4 → 30.5% |
| Japan | 1977 → 1985 | 19.8 → 38.3% |
| Hungary | 2003 → 2009 | 27.5 → 44% |
| Czechia | 1985 → 1990 | 7 → 22.4% |
| Slovenia | 2007 → 2014 | 59.4 → 76% |
| 1980 → 1988 | 31.7 → 48.5% | |
| Bulgaria | 1986 → 1996 | 31 → 49.2% |
| Bulgaria | 2006 → 2007 | 52.6 → 41.4% |
| EU | 1980 → 1985 | 29.6 → 42.5% |
| Sweden | 2001 → 2003 | 96.1 → 85% |
| People's Republic of China | 2011 → 2020 | 18.8 → 33.7% |
| 1980 → 1985 | 16.5 → 28.4% | |
| Lithuania | 1995 → 2005 | 90.5 → 75.5% |
| Mexico | 2016 → 2021 | 18.6 → 29.8% |
| United Kingdom | 1980 → 1993 | 13.5 → 28.3% |
| Japan | 1998 → 2003 | 43.5 → 34% |
| Czechia | 2016 → 2020 | 41.5 → 50.4% |
| South Africa | 1983 → 1988 | 0.5 → 8.9% |
| United States | 1973 → 1983 | 18 → 27.1% |
| Japan | 2006 → 2007 | 37.9 → 32.5% |
| Canada | 2003 → 2020 | 71.6 → 83.5% |
| Iran | 2008 → 2019 | 3.6 → 11.6% |
| France | 1991 → 1997 | 86.5 → 92.1% |
| India | 2015 → 2020 | 18 → 23% |
| Germany | 1986 → 1988 | 28.4 → 32.4% |
| Slovenia | 2016 → 2020 | 67 → 70.6% |
| United States | 1985 → 1990 | 27 → 30.8% |
| France | 2013 → 2014 | 90.3 → 93.2% |
| Hungary | 2018 → 2019 | 41.7 → 44.4% |
| South Africa | 1993 → 1998 | 5 → 8.2% |
| EU | 1990 → 1997 | 43.9 → 47.2% |
| 1986 → 1993 | 26.4 → 29.4% | |
| Switzerland | 1987 → 1988 | 97.3 → 99.3% |
Blog
Dec 09, 2021
Where do our emissions numbers come from?
Nov 27, 2021
Confronting climate change requires ambition
Sep 08, 2021
Misleading claims about renewable power generation share in Denmark
May 10, 2021
What can we learn about decarbonization from past experiences?
Jan 21, 2021
Why are we not talking about hydropower?
