As energy security becomes a growing source of angst, it is clear that large-scale, reliable use of renewable resources remain a distant reality in many countries. That has allowed a more controversial — and almost perfect — alternative to make a comeback: nuclear. Trouble is, nobody wants a reactor in their backyard, and the memories of past accidents remain a serious concern.
With energy costs rising and few solutions at hand, governments and companies are turning to nuclear power as a cleaner and cheaper source to help them reach their ambitious climate goals.
Even if a few years away, the development of, and investment in, nuclear energy sources and storage methods could ensure that industrial operations highly dependent on high temperatures and preheating processes for raw materials are able to function as the world navigates its way through this energy crisis. With all the supply chain snarls over the past year, a power shortage is the last thing consumers and businesses need.
Illustration: Yusha
In Japan, the median levelized cost of energy (the present cost of energy generation of a generator over its lifetime) is far lower than utility scale solar and offshore wind. A survey showed that more than 80 percent of Japanese companies are in favor of restarting nuclear reactors to meet power needs.
Electric utility Kansai Electric Power Co is resuming work at one its idled reactors earlier than planned to manage energy demand. Bringing the Mihama No. 3 reactor online would lower the need for liquefied natural gas, and the firm’s nuclear generation could grow 76 percent by next year, as it brings back more reactors, Bloomberg Intelligence research showed.
In India and China, it is proving competitive, too, where dirtier options like coal are now more expensive. South Korea is focused on reviving nuclear power, which contributes to about 27 percent of the nation’s energy mix.
Earlier this year, the administration of US President Joe Biden issued a notice of intent for the implementation of a US$6 billion nuclear credit program that supports the operation of reactors — “the nation’s largest source of clean power” — across the country. Last week, the US Department of Energy awarded more than US$60 million for 74 nuclear projects.
British jet engine maker Rolls-Royce, backed by the UK government and other investors, said late last year it was going to begin building smaller and cheaper reactors. Some of its compact modular reactors are expected to come online by 2029 and the regulatory processes are already underway.
The return to nuclear makes sense: The cost of extending the lifetime of power plants and building reactors in countries that have stuck by the energy form is cheaper and competitive. Those that have not are struggling with their aging fleet of reactors and lack of other sources.
The biggest stumbling block is the deep-seated anxieties around safety and waste disposal.
Memories of nuclear accidents such as Three Mile Island in 1979, Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima Dai-ichi in 2011 continue to loom large in both public and corporate memory. Yet what is often forgotten is that on a deaths-per-unit of electricity basis, nuclear remains at the bottom of the list, while coal is at the top.
The progress that has been made on alleviating issues around nuclear power is underappreciated. For instance, safety in reactors is typically based on an assessment of the core melting. To address these concerns, 14 countries have come up with lower-risk designs and a new generation of reactors.
These systems are to use different coolants, like molten salts or liquid metal, and methods that ultimately make nuclear power production cleaner, secure and more efficient. Reactors that use such materials seek to reduce or cut the production of dangerous gases that explode under pressure.
A host of start-ups are working on making nuclear power more acceptable. NuScale Power is building small modular reactors that could eventually power 60,000 homes per unit. The firm, which has received more than US$450 million of support from Washington, is working with the US and Romanian governments to build a plant in the eastern European country.
Sweden’s Seaborg Technologies has teamed up with Samsung Heavy Industries to build a floating, compact molten salt reactor that could change energy use in logistics. Bill Gates-backed TerraPower — also focused on small reactors — has partnered with South Korea’s industrial conglomerate SK Group to build these plants.
Nuclear power stands to be the solution, or at least fill major energy gaps, in the coming years. In addition to the nuclear fission used in commercial reactors, start-ups are pushing toward nuclear fusion technologies and have raised billions of dollars from the likes of Tiger Global and Gates.
Rejecting the power source out of fear is not going to get us too far, nor will scaremongering. Companies and countries should not shy away from openly discussing nuclear energy and raising awareness. Public acceptance is key. Without it, we will be breathing dirty air and living through outages.
Anjani Trivedi is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering industrial companies in Asia. Previously, she was a reporter for the Wall Street Journal.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers