EMA Resources

How to Solve the Climate Problem with Nuclear Fission

How to Solve the Climate Problem with Nuclear Fission

By   01.28.2025 

The costs of nuclear power could theoretically be reduced through measures like building standardized reactors (design one, build many), automating site construction, relying heavily on factory-made subassemblies (modularity) and developing a new transportation system that moves large subassemblies from factories to sites.

The traditional form of nuclear power is not popular in many nations due to the meltdown risk. In theory, this can be resolved with advanced reactors that do not melt down when not cooled. For instance, the nuclear fuel in China’s HTR-PM reactor includes an additive that reduces output power when cooling is lost, preventing the fuel from melting. This additional safety increases costs by about 20%. However, additional cost reduction could make this more tolerable.

Nuclear waste can also be reduced by spending more money. For example, one can significantly reduce waste volume and longevity by allocating 10% of the wholesale cost of electricity to waste processing.

China and South Korea have built many reactors over the past several decades and therefore know how to build them at low cost. In contrast, the U.S. and Europe have been less active and therefore lack the expertise to build reactors efficiently. These deficiencies would not be an issue if nuclear power was used to solve the climate problem. This is because cost reduction and standardization would naturally occur first in regions with nuclear expertise, and this knowledge would eventually spread to nations with less experience.

If 50% of global energy were decarbonized over 30 years using nuclear fission, approximately $300 billion would be spent annually on nuclear reactor construction worldwide. In theory, this cost could be reduced with additional R&D. This article assumes $10 billion is spent each year for this purpose, for a handful of years, and we will ask top nuclear engineers how they might spend this money, if tasked with saving the planet from climate change via nuclear power.

 

By Glenn Weinreb