In the dialogue on sustainable energy solutions, the comparison between nuclear and solar power stands out as pivotal. The world must meet its energy needs while reducing environmental harm. The importance of choosing between solar and atomic power grows. Each energy source has pros and cons. These affect the future of global energy policies. Understanding the nuanced contrasts is key. These include the cost and environmental impacts of solar power vs nuclear power. They are essential for stakeholders making informed decisions about energy investments.
What is Nuclear Energy?
Nuclear energy is the energy released from atomic reactions, primarily through fission, where atomic nuclei split, or fusion, where nuclei combine, producing substantial energy. It offers high energy output and low greenhouse gas emissions but poses challenges such as radioactive waste and the potential for accidents.
This article will cover key aspects. They include the build time, deployment, economics, sustainability and resources for nuclear vs solar energy. It will also cover the technologies and innovations for each. By examining these key dimensions, readers will gain insight into the debate of solar power vs nuclear power. They will learn which energy source might best align with future sustainable energy goals. Solar panels harness power from sunlight, not nuclear energy sources directly. Contrasting atomic power vs renewables broadens this study. It guides informed talk and decision-making. This is in the pursuit of optimal energy solutions.
Construction Time and Deployment For Nuclear & Solar Power
One of the most noticeable differences between solar and nuclear power is the time it takes to build each generating facility. Long story short nuclear power is the one that takes much longer to bring online.
Timeframes for Implementation
To further clarify, the recent history of nuclear power construction in the United States offers a valuable point of reference. In the last 30 years, they have only completed one nuclear power plant. It is the two-unit Watts Bar Nuclear plant in Tennessee. It took 23 years for one reactor to start and 33 for the other. Also, the Nuclear Regulatory Committee (NRC) approved the two most recent nuclear projects in 2012. But, they are both over budget and far from done. The projects are the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant and the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station.
Meanwhile, in the six years since the approval of the Vogtle plant and V.C. Summer station, the Solar Energy Industries Association has listed 57 large solar projects. Each is at least 100 megawatts (MW). Also to that, 14 more 100+ MW projects are currently under construction.
Related post: Do solar panels get hot in summer?
Comparative Timelines
Lazard is a leading financial advisory and asset management firm. Moreover, it forecasts the time needed to build the facilities. The firm has discovered that utility-scale solar takes nine months to complete while nuclear may take 69 months to build. Considering the recent experience of building nuclear power in the U.S., 69 months or approximately six years, is not so bad. The new dates for Vogtle’s two units are 2021 and 2022. This is a full decade after the NRC approved the plant.
Utility-scale solar is the unquestionable option. 14 solar farms could be built back-to-back. This would take the same ten years it takes to build one nuclear power station. New 250 MW solar farms can be made every nine months. These 14 solar projects would create 3,500 MW of solar power. This would be a 46% increase in carbon-free power every ten years. Also, while waiting for the single nuclear facility to finish solar projects provide solar power for nine more years. This is in contrast to nuclear plants that come online all at once.
Regulatory Hurdles
The building of new nuclear facilities in the United States has stopped. This is despite a growing focus on carbon-free power. There have been scattered attempts to simplify regulations and address safety concerns.
The key questions that this research aims to address are:
1. How did nuclear power change from a regulatory and licensing perspective after the Three Mile Island accident in 1979?
This article investigates the first hypothesis. It says that a confusing and changeable set of rules came from a strict licensing process. The process was set up after the Three Mile Island when safety was the main public policy issue.
The results verify that the regulatory load is not the only cause of industry divergence. But, it is a big cause of divergence from worldwide peers. Other factors contributed to the decline in new construction. This included the lack of clear national direction. There were no standard designs. Local communities supported the effort in varying degrees. Construction operators lost experience.
But, there are also big obstacles to nuclear power. These include more participation from outside parties. Also, bad supply chains and experience and not following legal requirements.
Nothing stops applicants from applying under 10 CFR Part 50. But, the new plants have chosen to file their permits under 10 CFR Part 52. The COL should have made it easy to get licenses, build and get approval. That’s what the interviews we did said. But, in reality, it tends to lock applicants into a certain model. If something changes while construction is underway getting NRC approval to adjust will be very hard. Such changes are unlikely. As a result, the utility has to lengthen the time it takes to receive public feedback or approval for changes.
Vogtle is the only project currently under construction in the United States. The COL permission for Units 3 and 4 was given on February 10, 2012. But, they have not yet approved it for operation. The site preparation work started in 2009, and in 2013, upon receipt of their COL, construction got underway. Units 3 and 4 costing $14 billion faced delayed completion timelines.
As mentioned before, the time and cost of licensing for new US nuclear power plants have grown since the Three Mile Island (TMI) catastrophe in 1979. Right after TMI, the licensing, construction, and certification timeline increased. This was due to new regulations to address safety concerns and lower risk. However, over the years continual new regulations have burdened new construction. This has made new builds too risky.
Another main driver of the longer new build timeline is the change of regulations to include more 3rd party reviews and public participation. After the Three Mile Island accident, there has been an overarching concern for nuclear safety. The process is longer because advocacy groups can participate. They do so through public comment periods and meetings.
This analysis shows that new construction faces obstacles beyond the safety-driven rise in regulations for nuclear facilities. Few nuclear power facilities have been built in the last 30 years. So, the industry lacks planning and building skills. There’s a lack of human capital across the supply chain. It extends from the lack of expertise in planning to the absence of informed concrete suppliers.
Also, the most recent new builds had problems. They did not follow the new rules correctly. Then, it would allow all other plants to use the same approval for their applications. In the 2000s, utilities were encouraged to apply for permits due to economic incentives and other energy factors. Hence, they did not wait for the first plant to be fully approved. Each time the initial permit application changed it meant that the permits changed. This created much extra work and delays.
A 2021 UNECE policy brief cautioned that “time is running out to quickly change the global energy system.” It said time is crucial. “The consequences of inaction exponentially increase as time marches on,” The Hill explains. We need cooperation from all levels of government. We must ensure that nuclear power stays a key part of our carbon-free energy mix. Without it, we have no chance of undoing the effects of the climate disaster.”
Conventional nuclear energy facilities have ten-year construction timelines. It seems we can’t build enough of these reactors to meet the 2030 emissions targets. In the medium term, nuclear energy is not a practical alternative. This is true if these timetables can’t be met. But even if you accept the veracity of these timelines, nuclear remains our best hope for fully decarbonizing the energy sector by 2050.
Novel nuclear power technologies have the potential to revolutionize the field. The International Energy Agency declares nuclear technology is swiftly advancing. Small modular reactors (SMRs) can be sited in diverse locations worldwide.
They would have reduced building and approval delays. Building a small modular reactor (SMR) takes five years. China, Russia and Korea have demonstrated that they can build faster. China is developing a nuclear power plant in Jiangsu Province and plans to complete it in just two years. Thus, we can still construct nuclear reactors to help us meet the 2030 carbon reduction targets.
World Nuclear News explains that by 2030, some reactors that begin construction before 2025 could be completed.” Microreactors can generate 1 to 20 microwatts of power. You can install them almost anywhere. This includes big factories and homes. It also has electric vehicle charging stations, data centers, desalination plants and commercial shipping.
Also read: (SOLAR SYSTEM DIAGRAM)
Economic Viability Nuclear & Solar Energy
Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE)
Lazard is a top investment and asset manager. It uses Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) to estimate the average cost of forms of energy. Lazard found that utility-scale solar and wind is around $40 per megawatt-hour while nuclear plants average around $175. Because LCOE is often used to argue for renewables and against nuclear it requires closer examination.
Mark Nelson is an environmentalist and the managing director of Radiant Energy Fund. He explains that LCOE was made to describe “the cost of energy for power plants of a given type.” However, this tool fails when it tries to compare the different energy sources needed to provide reliable, 24/7 electricity. “The cost and performance of an electricity grid is dominated by the ‘extremes’ and the worst case,” Nelson says. “And what are the extremes? Extreme shortages of supply. It is very hard to select the right generators. You must do it at the right time and the right user load.”
Another factor that cost analyses, like the levelized cost of energy, miss is the energy density of each form of electricity. This affects the environmental impact of the facilities. A wind facility would need over 140,000 acres. That’s 170 times the land needed for a nuclear reactor. It would need that much land “to make the same electricity as a 1,000-megawatt reactor,” according to the Nuclear Energy Institute. The institute notes that nuclear requires 103 acres per million megawatt-hours. Solar needs 3,200 acres, and wind uses 17,800 acres.
People overlook the low cost of the current generation. This happens when they evaluate the LCOE of future sources. This is from a 2019 Institute for Energy Research analysis. The average LCOEs for existing coal, gas, nuclear, and hydro are less than half the cost of new wind or new PV solar with imposed costs included.
The costs are coal ($41/MWh), gas ($36/MWh), nuclear ($33/MWh), and hydro ($38/MWh). Wind is $90/MWh and PV solar is $88.7/MWh. This is according to the paper. One example is the need for baseload energy sources like coal or natural gas. They are kept in reserve in case wind or solar power cannot meet demand. This is a cost that supporters of wind and solar power often overlook.
Subsidies and Incentives for Nuclear & Solar
Renewable energy has gotten many direct market subsidies. But, these are being cut because the costs to consumers are rising fast. Both some more contentious, direct subsidies and indirect subsidies are given to fossil fuels for the disposal of their waste.
The competition is barely skewed in nuclear’s favor. Solar and wind get about five times more subsidies than nuclear. They get over fifty times more subsidies per unit of energy.
From about 2014 numerous subsidy schemes for renewables have started to be cut back. The UK, Spain, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, and Australia have taken steps to reduce various subsidies as costs to consumers since their introduction have increased considerably.
Recent cutbacks aside, the IEA’s World Energy Outlook 2016 estimates that subsidies to renewable energy will peak at just above $210 billion in 2030. They will then fall to about $170 billion by 2040. In the New Policies Scenario from 2016 to 2040 subsidies to renewables total $4.7 trillion. This is 0.2% of the global gross domestic product over the same period.
A feed-in tariff (FIT) obliges energy retailers to buy electricity from specified sources (e.g. renewable) at a fixed price. They must do this for a fixed period (e.g. 20 years in Germany). FITs have been a key economic instrument used by governments to bring forward the deployment of renewables.
Market Trends of Solar & Nuclear Systems
Federal investments are flowing into clean energy. Demand for decarbonization is pulling from public and private entities. The push and pull have never been stronger. In 2024, these forces could help renewables beat hurdles. The hurdles are caused by the big shifts needed to meet the country’s climate targets.
In the first 10 months of 2023, 30 companies joined RE100. It’s a global corporate initiative to buy electricity only from renewables. The new additions grew the membership to 421. Around a quarter of the members are headquartered in the United States and a bulk of their upcoming commitments have a 2025 target date. Some are also driving decarbonization throughout their supply chains. Following a record-breaking year, more corporate customers bought renewable power. The number rose by 31% between the first halves of 2022 and 2023.
Big tech companies accounted for most of the bought capacity. This trend will likely grow in 2024. The companies meet and help others meet 24/7 and carbon-matching targets with generative AI. Using generative AI could increase their data center demand. They’d need five to seven times more clean power. More corporations are expected to support renewables. They will do this by joining the new tax-credit transfer market in 2024.
Global investment in the energy transition hit $1.8 trillion in 2023, up 17% on the previous year and a new record.
Sustainability and Resource Availability
Sustainability and long-term resource availability are critical. They have huge implications for our planet and future generations. The availability of natural resources, like fossil fuels, minerals, and water, is a big issue. These resources become scarce or harder to extract. This affects many industries, economies, and overall quality of life.
Long-Term Resource Availability
One of the world’s most plentiful and sustainable energy sources is nuclear fuel. Soil has about 6 parts per million (ppm) of thorium. But, the amounts of uranium and thorium in saltwater vary from 1.80 to 4.1 and 0.14 to 0.88 microg/L, respectively. Thorium-232 has a half-life of about 14 billion years. This is much longer than the sun’s projected 7 to 8 billion years.
Every continent has uranium, which is the main component used to produce nuclear energy. The Americas are Canada, Brazil, and the United States. Europe is Ukraine and Russia. Asia is Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, China, and Mongolia. Oceania is Australia. Africa is Niger, Namibia, and South Africa. They are the regions with the highest concentrations. Although uranium is abundant, it is not inexhaustible, as it is not reconstituted in the mines, making it a stock energy source.
Renewability of Resources
Solar, wind, and hydropower are renewable energy sources. They can be replenished or regenerated over time. The development and utilization of these renewable resources are crucial for reducing reliance on non-renewable and potentially depleting resources, thereby enhancing the long-term sustainability of our societies.
While nuclear power is not a renewable energy source it is still recyclable. Thanks to Orono’s technologies, unique on an industrial scale, 96% of spent nuclear fuel in reactors is recyclable. MOX is made from recycled spent fuel. It has already supplied 44 reactors worldwide. In France, one in ten light bulbs works thanks to recycled nuclear fuel.
Global Impact on Nuclear & Solar power system
The distribution and use of resources can affect trade, international relations, and power balance. Resource availability and use affect the whole world. Additionally, the world may be greatly affected by the environmental effects of resource extraction and use. These effects include pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and habitat destruction.
Energy policies include carbon pricing, clean power standards, and renewables incentives. They are driving the global shift to decarbonize energy systems to meet climate targets. To achieve the net-zero emissions target outlined in the Paris Agreement by 2050, the transition rate is well short of what is required.
Renewables can be built faster than nuclear plants. But, they have not replaced fossil fuels. And, they are unlikely to do so soon. New nuclear power technologies, like small modular reactors (SMRs) and micro reactors, may be game-changer. They have shorter construction and approval times. They can be made quickly and put almost anywhere.
Technological Advancements and Innovations
Recent Breakthroughs
Nuclear fusion has produced more energy than ever before in an experiment at the UK-based JET lab. This brings the world a step closer to the dream of limitless clean power. The lab set a new world record during its final experiment. It came after over 40 years of fusion research. The experiments produced 69 megajoules of energy over five seconds. This result is triple what was achieved in similar tests back in 1997.
Prof Ambrogio Fasoli, program manager at EURO fusion, said: “Our successful demonstration… instills greater confidence in the development of fusion energy. Beyond setting a new record, we achieved things we’ve never done before and deepened our understanding of fusion physics.”
Future Prospects
This is critical. Unlike wind and solar energy nuclear fusion would not depend on the weather. It could provide infinite clean energy without emitting carbon if it were scaled up to commercial levels. The UK government’s goal is to build the first fusion power plant in history. It will be in Nottinghamshire and start operations in the 2040s. The Spherical Tokamak for Energy Production (STEP) project is being delivered by UK Industrial Fusion Solutions. They are a new nuclear organization.
New developments in solar energy are lowering barriers and enabling solar photovoltaics (PV) to reach its enormous potential. They use new materials like perovskites. And, they have multi-layer layouts. These higher-efficiency solar cells go beyond old limits. To increase application, solutions that support PV glass windows, solar roads, and vehicle integration. Battery storage capacities keep rising. Costs drop due to Lithium-ion improvements and other chemistries. Power electronics and grid management systems further optimize solar grid integration.
Research and Development Efforts
As solar technology improves more solar products will be on the market. Solar energy production involves parts with separate but connected functions. The parts include solar panels, an inverter, and, depending on the setup, solar batteries, a charge controller, and wiring. Solar energy generation begins with solar panels. The panels contain photovoltaic cells. The cells trap and absorb solar energy from the sun’s rays.
Next-generation advanced nuclear reactors boost safety and performance through inherent safety features, passive cooling, and meltdown-proof designs. Small modular reactors allow flexible placement and phased capacity increases. New manufacturing techniques like 3D printing of reactor parts improve constructability. Technologies for reusing spent fuel could unlock more energy resources.
Such cutting-edge advancements by the brightest minds across R&D institutes, universities, and corporations show that the clean energy revolution is achievable.
Future Potential For Nuclear Power And Solar Power
The future potential for nuclear power and solar power is a topic of much debate and speculation in the energy industry. Both forms of energy have their strengths and weaknesses, and their ability to meet the world’s growing energy demands will depend on a variety of factors.
In the quest for a sustainable energy future, the comparison between nuclear power and renewable energy sources has become a focal point of debate.
The choice between the two will depend on a variety of factors, including location, energy demands, and policy priorities.
Nuclear power has the potential to provide a large amount of clean, reliable energy without producing greenhouse gas emissions. However, concerns about safety, waste disposal, and the high cost of building new nuclear plants have limited its growth in recent years. Advances in technology could make nuclear power safer and more cost-effective in the future, but public opinion and regulatory hurdles may continue to be significant barriers.
People’s questions
What are the three advantages and three disadvantages of nuclear power?
Nuclear power offers many benefits. It is a low-carbon energy source with a small carbon impact. It is also essential for stopping global warming and reaching zero emissions. In addition, it is dependable and safe, delivering steady electricity regardless of the weather. There are many drawbacks. They include the need for strict safety rules. The rules control high radiation. There is also a lack of fuel, high building costs, waste problems, dangers from shut-down reactors, impacts on human life, its non-renewable nature, and security threats.
How does nuclear energy compare unfavorably to solar and wind energy in terms of cost and time?
Nuclear energy is notably more expensive and time-intensive than solar and wind energy. Building nuclear plants costs billions and can take much longer. Often, they take over a decade, unlike renewable energy infrastructure.
What are the primary benefits of nuclear power?
Nuclear power has a key advantage. It is a low-carbon energy source. This is important in the fight against climate change and the pursuit of net zero emissions. In addition, it has a lower carbon footprint than fossil fuels and offers a dependable, secure energy source regardless of the weather.
Which ten drawbacks of nuclear energy are the most significant?
Nuclear energy has ten main drawbacks. These are the need for many safety precautions to handle radioactive fallout from uranium, fuel scarcity, high construction and operation costs, waste handling difficulties, reactor shutdown dangers, potential harm to human life,,and the non-renewable nature of nuclear energy. They also include risks to national security.
Conclusion: The Best Choice For The Future – Nuclear Or Solar?
In conclusion, when considering the best choice for the future between nuclear power and solar power, it is clear that both options have their own set of advantages and disadvantages.
Nuclear power offers a reliable energy source that can produce large amounts of electricity without emitting greenhouse gases. However, the risks associated with nuclear accidents and the long-term storage of radioactive waste are significant concerns that cannot be overlooked.
On the other hand, solar power provides a clean and renewable source of energy that is becoming increasingly more affordable and efficient. It also has minimal environmental impact compared to nuclear power.
Ultimately, the best choice for the future may lie in a combination of both nuclear and solar power. By diversifying our energy sources, we can ensure a more stable and sustainable energy supply while minimizing environmental impact.
It is important to continue investing in research and development for both nuclear and solar technologies to improve efficiency, safety, and affordability. By working towards a balance between these two sources of energy, we can create a more sustainable future for generations to come.
