Editing Nuclear power (section)

=== Comparison with renewable energy ===
{{See also|Renewable energy debate}}

Slowing [[global warming]] requires a transition to a [[low-carbon economy]], mainly by burning far less [[fossil fuel]]. Limiting global warming to 1.5{{nbsp}}°C is technically possible if no new fossil fuel power plants are built from 2019.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Smith|display-authors=etal|date=15 January 2019 |title=Current fossil fuel infrastructure does not yet commit us to 1.5 °C warming |journal=Nature |volume=10|issue=1|page=101|bibcode=2019NatCo..10..101S|doi=10.1038/s41467-018-07999-w|pmid=30647408|pmc=6333788}}</ref> This has generated considerable interest and dispute in determining the best path forward to rapidly replace fossil-based fuels in the [[global energy consumption|global energy mix]],<ref>{{cite magazine|url=https://spectrum.ieee.org/what-it-would-really-take-to-reverse-climate-change|title=What It Would Really Take to Reverse Climate Change|magazine=IEEE Spectrum|author1=Ross Koningstein|author2=David Fork|date=18 November 2014|access-date=13 January 2019|archive-date=24 November 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161124081052/https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/what-it-would-really-take-to-reverse-climate-change|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |author=Johnson |first=Nathanael |date=2018 |title=Agree to Agree Fights over renewable standards and nuclear power can be vicious. Here's a list of things that climate hawks agree on. |url=https://grist.org/article/most-paths-to-a-clean-energy-future-start-the-same-way/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190116100151/https://grist.org/article/most-paths-to-a-clean-energy-future-start-the-same-way/ |archive-date=2019-01-16 |access-date=2019-01-16 |work=[[Grist (magazine)|Grist]]}}</ref> with intense academic debate.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.utilitydive.com/news/whats-missing-from-the-100-renewable-energy-debate/447658/ |title=What's missing from the 100% renewable energy debate |work=Utility Dive |access-date=2019-01-05 |archive-date=2019-01-06 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190106010934/https://www.utilitydive.com/news/whats-missing-from-the-100-renewable-energy-debate/447658/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="GTM-NewFront">{{cite web |last1=Deign |first1=Jason |title=Renewables or Nuclear? A New Front in the Academic War Over Decarbonization |url=https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/the-war-over-renewables-versus-nuclear |website=gtm |publisher=Greentech Media |date=March 30, 2018 |access-date=December 13, 2018 |archive-date=December 15, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181215224058/https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/the-war-over-renewables-versus-nuclear |url-status=live }}</ref> Sometimes the IEA says that countries without nuclear should develop it as well as their renewable power.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.dailysabah.com/energy/2019/07/06/turkey-may-benefit-from-nuclear-power-in-its-bid-for-clean-energy|title=Turkey may benefit from nuclear power in its bid for clean energy|website=DailySabah|date=6 July 2019|access-date=2019-07-14|archive-date=2019-07-14|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190714182533/https://www.dailysabah.com/energy/2019/07/06/turkey-may-benefit-from-nuclear-power-in-its-bid-for-clean-energy|url-status=live}}</ref>
{{Pie chart
| thumb = right
| caption = World total primary energy supply of 162,494 [[Kilowatt hour#Watt-hour multiples|TWh]] (or 13,792 [[tonne of oil equivalent|Mtoe]]) by fuels in 2017 (IEA, 2019)<ref name="IEA-Report-keyworld-2019">{{cite web |title = 2019 Key World Energy Statistics |date = 2019 |publisher = IEA |url = https://webstore.iea.org/download/direct/2831?fileName=Key_World_Energy_Statistics_2019.pdf }}{{Dead link|date=August 2023 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref>{{rp|6,8}}
| other =
| label1 = Oil
| value1 = 32
| color1 = #7C6250
| label2 = Coal/Peat/Shale
| value2 = 27.1
| color2 = #313c42
| label3 = Natural Gas
| value3 = 22.2
| color3 = #ef8e39
| label4 = Biofuels and waste
| value4 = 9.5
| color4 = #ABFF57
| label5 = Nuclear
| value5 = 4.9
| color5 = #de2821
| label6 = Hydro
| value6 = 2.5
| color6 = #005CE6
| label7 = Others ([[Renewable energy|Renewables]])
| value7 = 1.8
| color7 = #00CC4B
}}

Several studies suggest that it might be theoretically possible to cover a majority of world energy generation with new renewable sources. The [[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]] (IPCC) has said that if governments were supportive, renewable energy supply could account for close to 80% of the world's energy use by 2050.<ref name="ipccccc">{{cite news |author=Harvey |first=Fiona |author-link=Fiona Harvey |date=2011-05-09 |title=Renewable energy can power the world, says landmark IPCC study |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/may/09/ipcc-renewable-energy-power-world |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190327090312/https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/may/09/ipcc-renewable-energy-power-world |archive-date=2019-03-27 |access-date=2016-12-12 |newspaper=The Guardian |location=London, England}}</ref> While in developed nations the economically feasible geography for new hydropower is lacking, with every geographically suitable area largely already exploited,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://water.usgs.gov/edu/wuhy.html|publisher=[[USGS]]|title=Hydroelectric power water use|access-date=2018-12-13|archive-date=2018-11-09|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181109085438/https://water.usgs.gov/edu/wuhy.html|url-status=live}}</ref> some proponents of wind and solar energy claim these resources alone could eliminate the need for nuclear power.<ref name="GTM-NewFront" /><ref>{{cite web |author=Stover |first=Dawn |date=January 30, 2014 |title=Nuclear vs. renewables: Divided they fall |url=https://thebulletin.org/2014/01/nuclear-vs-renewables-divided-they-fall/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190327040903/https://thebulletin.org/2014/01/nuclear-vs-renewables-divided-they-fall/ |archive-date=March 27, 2019 |access-date=January 30, 2019 |work=Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists}}</ref>

Nuclear power is comparable to, and in some cases lower, than many renewable energy sources in terms of lives lost in the past per unit of electricity delivered.<ref name="MarkandyaWilkinson2007" /><ref name="without the hot air" /><ref name="Starfelt">{{cite web |last1=Starfelt |first1=Nils |last2=Wikdahl |first2=Carl-Erik |title=Economic Analysis of Various Options of Electricity Generation – Taking into Account Health and Environmental Effects |url=http://manhaz.cyf.gov.pl/manhaz/strona_konferencja_EAE-2001/15%20-%20Polenp~1.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927230434/http://manhaz.cyf.gov.pl/manhaz/strona_konferencja_EAE-2001/15%20-%20Polenp~1.pdf |archive-date=2007-09-27 |access-date=2012-09-08}}</ref> Depending on recycling of renewable energy technologies, nuclear reactors may produce a much smaller volume of waste, although much more toxic, expensive to manage and longer-lived.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Biello |first=David |date=2009-01-28 |title=Spent Nuclear Fuel: A Trash Heap Deadly for 250,000 Years or a Renewable Energy Source? |url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=nuclear-waste-lethal-trash-or-renewable-energy-source |url-status=live |journal=Scientific American |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170903121314/https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=nuclear-waste-lethal-trash-or-renewable-energy-source |archive-date=2017-09-03 |access-date=2014-01-24}}</ref><ref name="worldnuclearwastereport"/> A nuclear plant also needs to be disassembled and removed and much of the disassembled nuclear plant needs to be stored as low-level nuclear waste for a few decades.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.unep.org/yearbook/2012/pdfs/UYB_2012_CH_3.pdf|title=Closing and Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants|date=2012-03-07|website=United Nations Environment Programme|archive-url=http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20160518164428/http://www.unep.org/yearbook/2012/pdfs/UYB_2012_CH_3.pdf|archive-date=2016-05-18|access-date=2013-01-04|url-status=dead}}</ref> The disposal and management of the wide variety<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Ewing |first1=Rodney C. |last2=Whittleston |first2=Robert A. |last3=Yardley |first3=Bruce W. D. |date=1 August 2016 |title=Geological Disposal of Nuclear Waste: a Primer |url=http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/104498/3/YardleyGeological%20Disposal%20of%20Nuclear%20Waste.pdf |url-status=live |journal=Elements |volume=12 |issue=4 |pages=233–237 |bibcode=2016Eleme..12..233E |doi=10.2113/gselements.12.4.233 |issn=1811-5209 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211216110251/https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/104498/3/YardleyGeological%20Disposal%20of%20Nuclear%20Waste.pdf |archive-date=16 December 2021 |access-date=1 December 2021}}</ref> of radioactive waste, of which there are over one quarter of a million tons as of 2018, can cause future damage and costs across the world [[radioactive waste#Fuel composition and long term radioactivity|for over or during hundreds of thousands of years]]<ref>{{cite web |last1=Stothard |first1=Michael |title=Nuclear waste: keep out for 100,000 years |url=https://www.ft.com/content/db87c16c-4947-11e6-b387-64ab0a67014c |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221210/https://www.ft.com/content/db87c16c-4947-11e6-b387-64ab0a67014c |archive-date=2022-12-10 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live |website=Financial Times |access-date=28 November 2021 |date=14 July 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=High-Level Waste |url=https://www.nrc.gov/waste/high-level-waste.html |website=NRC Web |access-date=28 November 2021 |archive-date=27 November 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211127082101/https://www.nrc.gov/waste/high-level-waste.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Grambow |first1=Bernd |title=Mobile fission and activation products in nuclear waste disposal |journal=Journal of Contaminant Hydrology |date=12 December 2008 |volume=102 |issue=3 |pages=180–186 |doi=10.1016/j.jconhyd.2008.10.006 |pmid=19008015 |bibcode=2008JCHyd.102..180G |language=en |issn=0169-7722}}</ref> – possibly over a million years,<ref name="spektr">{{cite web |title=Kernkraft: 6 Fakten über unseren Atommüll und dessen Entsorgung |url=https://www.spektrum.de/wissen/6-fakten-ueber-unseren-atommuell-und-dessen-entsorgung/1342930 |website=www.spektrum.de |access-date=28 November 2021 |language=de |archive-date=28 November 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211128121629/https://www.spektrum.de/wissen/6-fakten-ueber-unseren-atommuell-und-dessen-entsorgung/1342930 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Rosborg |first1=B. |last2=Werme |first2=L. |title=The Swedish nuclear waste program and the long-term corrosion behaviour of copper |journal=Journal of Nuclear Materials |date=30 September 2008 |volume=379 |issue=1 |pages=142–153 |doi=10.1016/j.jnucmat.2008.06.025 |bibcode=2008JNuM..379..142R |language=en |issn=0022-3115}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Shrader-Frechette |first1=Kristin |title=Mortgaging the future: Dumping ethics with nuclear waste |journal=Science and Engineering Ethics |date=1 December 2005 |volume=11 |issue=4 |pages=518–520 |doi=10.1007/s11948-005-0023-2 |pmid=16279752 |s2cid=43721467 |language=en |issn=1471-5546}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Shrader-Frechette |first1=Kristin |title=Ethical Dilemmas and Radioactive Waste: A Survey of the Issues |journal=Environmental Ethics |date=1 November 1991 |volume=13 |issue=4 |pages=327–343 |doi=10.5840/enviroethics199113438 |language=en}}</ref> due to issues such as leakage,<ref>{{cite web |title=Radioactive waste leaking at German storage site: report {{!}} DW {{!}} 16.04.2018 |url=https://www.dw.com/en/radioactive-waste-leaking-at-german-storage-site-report/a-43399896 |website=DW.COM |publisher=Deutsche Welle (www.dw.com) |access-date=24 November 2021 |archive-date=24 November 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211124190921/https://www.dw.com/en/radioactive-waste-leaking-at-german-storage-site-report/a-43399896 |url-status=live }}</ref> malign retrieval, vulnerability to attacks (including of reprocessing<ref name="civlib"/><ref name="repr"/> and [[Vulnerability of nuclear plants to attack|power plants]]), groundwater contamination, radiation and leakage to above ground, brine leakage or bacterial corrosion.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Libert |first1=Marie |last2=Schütz |first2=Marta Kerber |last3=Esnault |first3=Loïc |last4=Féron |first4=Damien |last5=Bildstein |first5=Olivier |title=Impact of microbial activity on the radioactive waste disposal: long term prediction of biocorrosion processes |journal=Bioelectrochemistry |date=June 2014 |volume=97 |pages=162–168 |doi=10.1016/j.bioelechem.2013.10.001 |pmid=24177136 |issn=1878-562X}}</ref><ref name="spektr"/><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Butler |first1=Declan |title=Nuclear-waste facility on high alert over risk of new explosions |journal=Nature |date=27 May 2014 |doi=10.1038/nature.2014.15290 |s2cid=130354940 |language=en |issn=1476-4687}}</ref><ref name="statusreport">{{cite web |title=World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2021 |url=https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/IMG/pdf/wnisr2021-lr.pdf |access-date=24 November 2021 |archive-date=7 December 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231207093553/https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/IMG/pdf/wnisr2021-lr.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> The European Commission Joint Research Centre found that as of 2021 the necessary technologies for geological disposal of nuclear waste are now available and can be deployed.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/business_economy_euro/banking_and_finance/documents/210329-jrc-report-nuclear-energy-assessment_en.pdf|title=Technical assessment of nuclear energy with respect to the 'do no significant harm' criteria of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 ('Taxonomy Regulation')|date=2021|access-date=2021-11-27|publisher=European Commission Joint Research Centre|page=8|archive-date=2021-04-26|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210426095255/https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/business_economy_euro/banking_and_finance/documents/210329-jrc-report-nuclear-energy-assessment_en.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> Corrosion experts noted in 2020 that putting the problem of storage off any longer "isn't good for anyone".<ref>{{cite web |title=As nuclear waste piles up, scientists seek the best long-term storage solutions |url=https://cen.acs.org/environment/pollution/nuclear-waste-pilesscientists-seek-best/98/i12 |website=cen.acs.org |access-date=28 November 2021 |archive-date=28 November 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211128121633/https://cen.acs.org/environment/pollution/nuclear-waste-pilesscientists-seek-best/98/i12 |url-status=live }}</ref> Separated [[plutonium]] and [[enriched uranium]] could be used for [[nuclear weapon]]s, which&nbsp;– even with the current centralized control (e.g. state-level) and level of prevalence – are considered to be a difficult and [[Global catastrophic risk#Warfare and mass destruction|substantial global risk]] for substantial future impacts on human health, lives, civilization and the environment.<ref name="repr">{{cite web|title=Nuclear Reprocessing: Dangerous, Dirty, and Expensive|url=https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/nuclear-reprocessing-dangerous-dirty-and-expensive|publisher=Union of Concerned Scientists|access-date=26 January 2020|archive-date=15 January 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210115202035/https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/nuclear-reprocessing-dangerous-dirty-and-expensive|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="wi1">{{cite web|title=Is nuclear power the answer to climate change?|url=https://wiseinternational.org/nuclear-energy/nuclear-power-answer-climate-change|publisher=World Information Service on Energy|access-date=1 February 2020|archive-date=22 April 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200422202713/https://wiseinternational.org/nuclear-energy/nuclear-power-answer-climate-change|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="worldnuclearwastereport">{{cite web |title=World Nuclear Waste Report |url=https://worldnuclearwastereport.org/ |access-date=25 October 2021 |archive-date=15 June 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230615183744/https://worldnuclearwastereport.org/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="risks">{{cite web |last1=Smith |first1=Brice |title=Insurmountable Risks: The Dangers of Using Nuclear Power to Combat Global Climate Change – Institute for Energy and Environmental Research |url=https://ieer.org/resource/books/insurmountable-risks-dangers-nuclear/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230530034945/https://ieer.org/resource/books/insurmountable-risks-dangers-nuclear/ |archive-date=30 May 2023 |access-date=24 November 2021 |language=en}}</ref><ref name="plane1">{{cite journal |last1=Prăvălie |first1=Remus |last2=Bandoc |first2=Georgeta |title=Nuclear energy: Between global electricity demand, worldwide decarbonisation imperativeness, and planetary environmental implications |journal=Journal of Environmental Management |date=1 March 2018 |volume=209 |pages=81–92 |doi=10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.12.043 |pmid=29287177 |bibcode=2018JEnvM.209...81P |issn=1095-8630}}</ref>

====Speed of transition and investment needed====
Analysis in 2015 by professor [[Barry Brook (scientist)|Barry W. Brook]] and colleagues found that nuclear energy could displace or remove fossil fuels from the electric grid completely within 10 years. This finding was based on the historically modest and proven rate at which nuclear energy was added in France and Sweden during their building programs in the 1980s.<ref name="journals.plos.org">{{cite journal|title=Potential for Worldwide Displacement of Fossil-Fuel Electricity by Nuclear Energy in Three Decades Based on Extrapolation of Regional Deployment Data|first1=Staffan A.|last1=Qvist|first2=Barry W.|last2=Brook|date=13 May 2015|journal=PLOS ONE|volume=10|issue=5|pages=e0124074|doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0124074|pmid=25970621|pmc=4429979|bibcode=2015PLoSO..1024074Q|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.discovery.com/dscovrd/tech/report-world-can-rid-itself-of-fossil-fuel-dependence-in-as-little-as-10-years/ |title=Report: World can Rid Itself of Fossil Fuel Dependence in as little as 10 years |work=Discovery |access-date=2019-01-31 |archive-date=2019-02-01 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190201120207/http://www.discovery.com/dscovrd/tech/report-world-can-rid-itself-of-fossil-fuel-dependence-in-as-little-as-10-years/ |url-status=live }}</ref> In a similar analysis, Brook had earlier determined that 50% of all [[world energy consumption|global energy]], including transportation [[synthetic fuels]] etc., could be generated within approximately 30 years if the global nuclear fission build rate was identical to historical proven installation rates calculated in [[Gigawatt|GW]] per year per unit of global [[GDP]] (GW/year/$).<ref name="brook_could_2012">{{cite journal |author=Brook |first=Barry W. |year=2012 |title=Could nuclear fission energy, etc., solve the greenhouse problem? The affirmative case |journal=Energy Policy |volume=42 |pages=4–8 |bibcode=2012EnPol..42....4B |doi=10.1016/j.enpol.2011.11.041}}</ref> This is in contrast to the conceptual studies for [[100% renewable energy]] systems, which would require an order of magnitude more costly global investment per year, which has no historical precedent.<ref name="loftus_critical_2015">{{cite journal |last1=Loftus |first1=Peter J. |last2=Cohen |first2=Armond M. |last3=Long |first3=Jane C. S. |last4=Jenkins |first4=Jesse D. |date=January 2015 |title=A critical review of global decarbonization scenarios: what do they tell us about feasibility? |url=https://www.qualenergia.it/sites/default/files/articolo-doc/wcc324-1.pdf |url-status=dead |journal=WIREs Climate Change |volume=6 |issue=1 |pages=93–112 |bibcode=2015WIRCC...6...93L |doi=10.1002/wcc.324 |s2cid=4835733 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190806203759/https://www.qualenergia.it/sites/default/files/articolo-doc/wcc324-1.pdf |archive-date=2019-08-06 |access-date=2019-12-01}}</ref> These renewable scenarios would also need far greater land devoted to onshore wind and onshore solar projects.<ref name="brook_could_2012" /><ref name="loftus_critical_2015" /> Brook notes that the "principal limitations on nuclear fission are not technical, economic or fuel-related, but are instead linked to complex issues of societal acceptance, fiscal and political inertia, and inadequate critical evaluation of the real-world constraints facing [the other] low-carbon alternatives."<ref name="brook_could_2012" />

Scientific data indicates that&nbsp;– assuming 2021 emissions levels&nbsp;– humanity only has a [[carbon budget]] equivalent to 11 years of emissions left for limiting warming to 1.5{{nbsp}}°C<ref>{{cite news |last1=Neuman |first1=Scott |title=Earth has 11 years to cut emissions to avoid dire climate scenarios, a report says |url=https://www.npr.org/2021/11/04/1052267118/climate-change-carbon-dioxide-emissions-global-carbon-budget |access-date=9 November 2021 |work=NPR |date=4 November 2021 |language=en |archive-date=30 May 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220530100806/https://www.npr.org/2021/11/04/1052267118/climate-change-carbon-dioxide-emissions-global-carbon-budget |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author=Friedlingstein |first1=Pierre |last2=Jones |first2=Matthew W. |display-authors=etal |date=4 November 2021 |title=Global Carbon Budget 2021 |url=http://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/17620/1/essd-2021-386.pdf |url-status=dead |journal=Earth System Science Data Discussions |pages=1–191 |doi=10.5194/essd-2021-386 |s2cid=240490309 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211124190932/http://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/17620/1/essd-2021-386.pdf |archive-date=24 November 2021 |access-date=26 November 2021 |doi-access=free}}</ref> while the construction of new nuclear reactors took a median of 7.2–10.9 years in 2018–2020<!--average time between the start of construction and grid connection was 10 years in the past decade-->,<ref name="statusreport"/> substantially longer than, alongside other measures, scaling up the deployment of wind and solar&nbsp;– especially for novel reactor types&nbsp;– as well as being more risky, often delayed and more dependent on state-support.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Tromans |first1=Stephen |title=State support for nuclear new build |journal=The Journal of World Energy Law & Business |date=1 March 2019 |volume=12 |issue=1 |pages=36–51 |doi=10.1093/jwelb/jwy035}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Nuclear power is too costly, too slow, so it's zero use to Australia's emissions plan |website=[[TheGuardian.com]] |date=18 October 2021 |url=https://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2021/oct/19/nuclear-power-too-costly-too-slow-so-its-zero-use-to-australias-emissions-plan |access-date=24 November 2021}}</ref><ref name="slowexpensive"/><ref name="gates2"/><ref name="10.5281/zenodo.5573718"/><ref name="worldnuclearreport">{{cite web |title=Renewables vs. Nuclear: 256-0 |url=https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/Renewables-vs-Nuclear-256-0.html |website=World Nuclear Industry Status Report |access-date=24 November 2021 |language=en |date=12 October 2021 |archive-date=24 November 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211124190925/https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/Renewables-vs-Nuclear-256-0.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="10.1016/j.enpol.2016.04.013"/>{{citekill|date=December 2024}} Researchers have cautioned that novel nuclear technologies&nbsp;– which have been in development since decades,<ref>{{cite news |title=UK poised to confirm funding for mini nuclear reactors for carbon-free energy |url=https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/oct/15/uk-poised-to-confirm-funding-for-mini-nuclear-reactors-for-green-energy |access-date=24 November 2021 |work=The Guardian |date=15 October 2021 |language=en|quote=Small modular reactors were first developed in the 1950s for use in nuclear-powered submarines. Since then Rolls-Royce has designed reactors for seven classes of submarine and two separate land-based prototype reactors.}}</ref><ref name="10.5281/zenodo.5573718"/><ref name="10.1016/j.erss.2014.04.015"/> are less tested, have higher [[Radioactive waste#Proliferation concerns|proliferation risks]], have more new safety problems, are often far from commercialization and are more expensive<ref name="10.1016/j.erss.2014.04.015"/><ref name="10.5281/zenodo.5573718"/><ref name="10.1016/j.enpol.2016.03.012"/><ref name="adva1">{{cite web |title="Advanced" Isn't Always Better {{!}} Union of Concerned Scientists |url=https://ucsusa.org/resources/advanced-isnt-always-better |website=ucsusa.org |access-date=25 November 2021 |language=en |archive-date=25 November 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211125145228/https://ucsusa.org/resources/advanced-isnt-always-better |url-status=live }}</ref> – are not available in time.<ref name="sol1">{{cite journal |last1=Muellner |first1=Nikolaus |last2=Arnold |first2=Nikolaus |last3=Gufler |first3=Klaus |last4=Kromp |first4=Wolfgang |last5=Renneberg |first5=Wolfgang |last6=Liebert |first6=Wolfgang |title=Nuclear energy - The solution to climate change? |journal=Energy Policy |date=1 August 2021 |volume=155 |page=112363 |doi=10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112363 |s2cid=236254316 |language=en |issn=0301-4215|doi-access=free |bibcode=2021EnPol.15512363M }}</ref><ref name="mil1"/><ref>{{cite web |title=Small Modular Reactors – Was ist von den neuen Reaktorkonzepten zu erwarten? |url=https://www.base.bund.de/DE/themen/kt/kta-deutschland/neue_reaktoren/neue-reaktoren_node.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220606000505/https://www.base.bund.de/DE/themen/kt/kta-deutschland/neue_reaktoren/neue-reaktoren_node.html |archive-date=6 June 2022 |access-date=24 November 2021 |website=BASE |language=de}}</ref><ref name="gates2"/><ref name="10.1080/00963402.2021.1941600">{{cite journal |last1=Makhijani |first1=Arjun |last2=Ramana |first2=M. V. |title=Can small modular reactors help mitigate climate change? |journal=Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists |date=4 July 2021 |volume=77 |issue=4 |pages=207–214 |doi=10.1080/00963402.2021.1941600 |bibcode=2021BuAtS..77d.207M |s2cid=236163222 |issn=0096-3402}}</ref><ref name="natgeo">{{cite news |title=The controversial future of nuclear power in the U.S. |url=https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/nuclear-plants-are-closing-in-the-us-should-we-build-more |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210504162222/https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/nuclear-plants-are-closing-in-the-us-should-we-build-more |url-status=dead |archive-date=May 4, 2021 |access-date=25 November 2021 |date=4 May 2021 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Can Sodium Save Nuclear Power? |url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-sodium-save-nuclear-power/ |access-date=24 November 2021 |work=Scientific American |language=en |archive-date=29 July 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210729090905/https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-sodium-save-nuclear-power/ |url-status=live }}</ref>{{citekill|date=December 2024}} Critics of nuclear energy often only oppose nuclear fission energy but not nuclear fusion; however, fusion energy is unlikely to be commercially widespread before 2050.<ref name="ITERorg"/><ref name="fusion2">{{cite news |title=A lightbulb moment for nuclear fusion? |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/27/nuclear-fusion-research-power-generation-iter-jet-step-carbon-neutral-2050-boris-johnson |access-date=25 November 2021 |work=The Guardian |date=27 October 2019 |language=en}}</ref><ref name="fusiongua">{{cite news |last1=Turrell |first1=Arthur |title=The race to give nuclear fusion a role in the climate emergency |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/28/the-race-to-give-nuclear-fusion-a-role-in-the-climate-emergency |access-date=26 November 2021 |work=The Guardian |date=28 August 2021 |language=en}}</ref><ref name="fusion3">{{cite journal |last1=Entler |first1=Slavomir |last2=Horacek |first2=Jan |last3=Dlouhy |first3=Tomas |last4=Dostal |first4=Vaclav |title=Approximation of the economy of fusion energy |journal=Energy |date=1 June 2018 |volume=152 |pages=489–497 |doi=10.1016/j.energy.2018.03.130 |s2cid=115968344 |language=en |issn=0360-5442|doi-access=free |bibcode=2018Ene...152..489E }}</ref><ref name="fusion4">{{cite journal |last1=Nam |first1=Hoseok |last2=Nam |first2=Hyungseok |last3=Konishi |first3=Satoshi |title=Techno-economic analysis of hydrogen production from the nuclear fusion-biomass hybrid system |journal=International Journal of Energy Research |date=2021 |volume=45 |issue=8 |pages=11992–12012 |doi=10.1002/er.5994 |s2cid=228937388 |language=en |issn=1099-114X|doi-access=free |bibcode=2021IJER...4511992N }}</ref>

====Land use====
The median land area used by US nuclear power stations per 1{{nbsp}}GW installed capacity is {{convert|1.3|sqmi|km2|lk=on}}.<ref name=NEI_news_2015>{{cite web |title=Land Needs for Wind, Solar Dwarf Nuclear Plant's Footprint |url=https://www.nei.org/news/2015/land-needs-for-wind-solar-dwarf-nuclear-plants |website=nei.org |publisher=NEI |date=July 9, 2015 |access-date=January 6, 2019 |archive-date=January 7, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190107072153/https://www.nei.org/news/2015/land-needs-for-wind-solar-dwarf-nuclear-plants |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name=Energy_gov_Fast_Facts >{{cite web | url=https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/01/f58/Ultimate%20Fast%20Facts%20Guide-PRINT.pdf | title=THE ULTIMATE FAST FACTS GUIDE TO NUCLEAR ENERGY | last= | first= | work=[[United States Department of Energy]] | date=2019-01-01 | access-date=2022-06-07 | archive-date=2022-06-07 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220607221430/https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/01/f58/Ultimate%20Fast%20Facts%20Guide-PRINT.pdf | url-status=live }}</ref> To generate the same amount of electricity annually (taking into account [[capacity factor]]s) from [[solar PV]] would require about {{convert|60|sqmi|km2}}, and from a wind farm about {{convert|310|sqmi|km2}}.{{ r | NEI_news_2015 | Energy_gov_Fast_Facts }} Not included in this, is land required for the associated transmission lines, water supply, rail lines, mining and processing of nuclear fuel, and for waste disposal.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/03/f34/qtr-2015-chapter10.pdf|title=Quadrennial technology review concepts in integrated analysis|date=September 2015|page=388|access-date=2019-01-12|archive-date=2020-03-07|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200307173725/https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/03/f34/qtr-2015-chapter10.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>