For some, nuclear power may conjure images of mushroom clouds or bring back memories of disturbing nuclear disasters like Chernobyle and Fukushima. But despite public fear around nuclear power, the technology has proved to be an emission-free, reliable way to produce large amounts of electricity on a small footprint. As a result, sentiments about the technology are beginning to change.
Both the U.S. government and private companies including X Energy, NuScale and, Bill Gates-backed, TerraPower are pouring money into developing, what they say will be smaller, safer nuclear reactors. CNBC visited Idaho National Laboratory to see the Marvel microreactor firsthand and learn what such developments could mean for the future of nuclear power.
After humankind discovered nuclear fission, the first applied use was the atomic bomb. The study of fission for electricity production came later.
In December 1953, President Dwight D. Eisenhower gave his fateful Atoms for Peace speech, an impassioned plea to reconstitute the power of the atomic bombs dropped in World War II for a more noble cause.
“Against the dark background of the atomic bomb, the United States does not wish merely to present strength, but also the desire and the hope for peace,” Eisenhower told the United Nations.
Almost 70 years later, the tension between those end uses still underlies the space today.
From the 1950s through the 1970s, the United States dramatically increased its nuclear energy generation.
But the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 and Chornobyl meltdown in 1986 changed the landscape, spurring fear that nuclear energy could not be controlled safely.
Since the 1980s, nuclear energy capacity and generation in the U.S. has largely stayed flat. Today, the country’s fleet of nuclear power reactors produces only 19% of the country’s electricity, according to the government’s Energy Information Administration.
In more recent times, the Fukushima Daiichi accident in Japan in 2011 — and earlier this year the capture of nuclear power plants in Ukraine by invading Russian forces — have added to public concerns.
But despite its fraught origin story and the psychological effect of high-profile accidents, nuclear energy is getting a second look.
That’s largely because nuclear energy is clean energy, releasing no greenhouse gasses. Meanwhile, the world is seeing more of the effects of climate change, including rising global temperatures, increased pollution, wildfires, and more intense and deadly storms.
“We need to change course — now — and end our senseless and suicidal war against nature,” Antonio Guterres, the secretary-general of the United Nations, said in Stockholm on Thursday.
“There is one thing that threatens all our progress. The climate crisis. Unless we act now, we will not have a livable planet,” Guterres said. “Scientists recently reported that there is a 50-50 chance that we could temporarily breach the Paris Agreement limit of 1.5 degrees Celsius in the next five years.”
Watch this video for a dive into nuclear energy’s potential renaissance as a response to the growing crisis of climate change.
» Subscribe to CNBC: https://cnb.cx/SubscribeCNBC
» Subscribe to CNBC TV: https://cnb.cx/SubscribeCNBCtelevision
About CNBC: From ‘Wall Street’ to ‘Main Street’ to award winning original documentaries and Reality TV series, CNBC has you covered. Experience special sneak peeks of your favorite shows, exclusive video and more.
Connect with CNBC News Online
Get the latest news: https://www.cnbc.com/
Follow CNBC on LinkedIn: https://cnb.cx/LinkedInCNBC
Follow CNBC News on Facebook: https://cnb.cx/LikeCNBC
Follow CNBC News on Twitter: https://cnb.cx/FollowCNBC
Follow CNBC News on Instagram: https://cnb.cx/InstagramCNBC
#CNBC
Why Nuclear Energy Is On The Verge Of A Renaissance
source
The terroists hope so.
Ah, nuclear power in the hand of private sector.
What can go wrong?
Camp fire in Paradise, grid collapse in Texas, all caused by private, greedy companies not willing to invest or upkeep basic structures jeopardizing everyone's safety.
It is too expensive, and de-values hundreds of square miles around the plant. Solar and Wind are both cheaper, decentralized, and safer. Nuclear is obsolete.
Which NBC sponsor has enough influence in State Department circles to create this kind of economic effort?
The use of commercial sponsors money directing content has a long history in US TV Coverage of important events.
The ability to extort another buck of profits from influencing public opinion, seems to be all Media provides today?
The residual effect of these places is eternal. We have a decommissioned nuclear plant in our state that has been closed down for 30 years, yet their former customers are still paying for security and maintenance of the site and will be forever since the waste will be a dangerous terrorist target for centuries.
I would definitely support Tesla/private business partnerships with states building nuclear plants in California and Nevada to support water desalination. I think reactors the size of the ones that are on nuclear aircraft carriers would offset the cost of large scale desalination.
Radioactive waste is the boogie man no one wants living anywhere near them.
This is why every country should be building Thorium fueled, Liquid Salt, Nuclear Reactors (aka LFTR) as they do not create radioactive waste, CO2 or micro particulates.
Because they use liquid salt as a cooling medium, they don't need to be located near water meaning they can be built anywhere, even in a desert.
can we use old gas pipelines to pipe desalinated water? to give the network a future to work for? maybe straight to industry maybe even to pipe brine to extract rare Metals from the left over Brian straight to industrys for processing. just a thought
the reactor type matters. so far reactors are maximising plutonium generation for nuclear weapons, but there are reactors that are much better, less garbage, less risk. How about changing the question…."Do you support a NEW type of reactor that mittigates most of the problems of todays reactors?" Building more water preasure reactors for sure is NOT a good idea, but it does not imply that nuclear is generally bad. Black-white thinking must stop
If we send radioactive waste back to where they were mined, maybe radioactive material can be priced correctly for enrichment to be viable.
Romania has 2 nuclear power plants, both produce in total 20% of Romania's electricity and they are working on building a mini nuclear power plant (idk how that works and why is mini I just heard it at the news a few times) and I think that building just a few more even tho everyone is afraid of them could not only save our electricity problem but help people get jobs and maybe bring back people that left the country for money, I will always say that nuclear energy is our salvation, and not only for Romania, but for all the countries out there
LOL UK ANDD CHEEP KNOCK OFF PLANT WHAT COULKD GO WRONG EVERY THING UK DOSE IS CHEEP STEN GUN LA85
Very informative
विकसित देशों से अपील कार्बन उत्सर्जन कम करें?🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
Why we need this machines?
When we have geothermal energy under our feet?
The United States, once the leader of everything….now a country full of overly self-conscientious penny pinchers.
I cannot stand lefties! 40 years of smearing the cleanest and cheapest form of energy ever known to man. You people are dirt!
If you’re from Hudson valley NY, RIP INDIAN POINT
A working nuclear plant is wonderful until it looses cooling or comes under enemy hands.
No, over 20% enriched nuclear materials are not weapons grade. Weapons grade starts at 86% enriched. Jeez.
The fact that humans are stupid enough to build nuclear power plants on fault lines and War zones proves humans are too stupid to play with nuclear power. Case in point. Zaporizhzhia
Thorium?
With Microwave technology and 3 d sound system and electrodynamic driver plus gasoline additive they had all the ingredients for nuclear explosion on any scale any addressable space or location
Nuclear is the way to go if we want to save our planet. Even if it sounds crazy it's true. I hope Australia will develop nuclear technology, we have abundance of uranium, it's only natural.
Just a thought, get a two for one, get California to use nuclear power to creat power and do steam catching to get fresh water for farming / drinking water
Finally
Fusion reactor is the future not traditional nuclear reactors! Nobody here in Germany wants this atomic waste in the backyard. Just think about it…
The only renewable that can replace fossil fuels for grid power. The accidents with commercial nuclear power have been because of the bean counters like the geniuses at Boeing. The military uses nuclear power without these disasters.
Everybody research Thorium Energy. You will not be disappointed.
Hang on that woman only formed her opinion about nuclear reactors safety after working at a nuclear power station for a few years. So that means before she started working at a nuclear power station she didn't study physics or any thing related to understanding nuclear reactions.
I would suggest that her employer recruits people who have a good understanding of nuclear physics before they start working at the nuclear power station. Most university will have courses on physics.
Why are we diminishing our nuclear power plants, and not building more! Makes no sense that we are even decommissioning plants around the US.
In Québec, Gentilly II was shut down a decade ago. In our case, we can supply ourselves fully with clean energy without that reactor. The cost of refurbishing that reactor were just so high that it did not make sense.
Far more coal/petroleum related accidents than Nuclear.