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.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US