Editing Energy development (section)

== Nuclear ==
=== Fission ===

{{multiple image
|direction = vertical
|align = right
|width = 225
|image1=
|image2=USS Enterprise (CVAN-65), USS Long Beach (CGN-9) and USS Bainbridge (DLGN-25) underway in the Mediterranean Sea during Operation Sea Orbit, in 1964.jpg
|image3=NSF picture of Yamal.jpg
|caption1=The [[Susquehanna Steam Electric Station]], a [[boiling water reactor]]. The reactors are located inside the rectangular [[containment building]]s towards the front of the [[cooling tower]]s. The power station produces 63 million [[kilowatt hour]]s per day.
|caption2=American nuclear powered ships,(top to bottom) cruisers [[USS Bainbridge (CGN-25)|USS ''Bainbridge'']], the [[USS Long Beach (CGN-9)|USS ''Long Beach'']] and the ''[[USS Enterprise (CVN-65)|USS Enterprise]]'', the [[List of longest naval ships|longest ever naval vessel]], and the first nuclear-powered [[aircraft carrier]]. Picture taken in 1964 during a record setting voyage of 26,540 nmi (49,190&nbsp;km) around the world in 65 days without refueling. Crew members are spelling out [[Albert Einstein|Einstein]]'s [[mass-energy equivalence]] formula ''E&nbsp;=&nbsp;mc<sup>2</sup>'' on the flight deck.
|caption3=The Russian [[nuclear-powered icebreaker]] [[Yamal (icebreaker)|NS Yamal]] on a joint scientific expedition with the [[National Science Foundation|NSF]] in 1994
}}

[[Nuclear power]] is the use of [[nuclear fission]]  to generate useful [[heat]] and [[electricity]]. Fission of uranium produces nearly all economically significant nuclear power. [[Radioisotope thermoelectric generator]]s form a very small component of energy generation, mostly in specialized applications such as deep space vehicles.

[[Nuclear power plant]]s, excluding [[Nuclear marine propulsion|naval reactors]], provided about 5.7% of the world's energy and 13% of the world's electricity in 2012.<ref>
{{Cite web
 |url         = https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/kwes.pdf
 |title       = Key World Energy Statistics 2012
 |access-date  = 2012-12-17
 |publisher   = [[International Energy Agency]]
 |year        = 2012
 |archive-url  = https://web.archive.org/web/20121118210551/http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/kwes.pdf
 |archive-date = 2012-11-18
}}
</ref>

In 2013, the [[International Atomic Energy Agency|IAEA]] report that there are 437&nbsp;operational nuclear power reactors,<ref name="iaea.org">{{cite web |url=http://www.iaea.org/pris/ |title=PRIS - Home |publisher=Iaea.org |access-date=2013-06-14 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130602010449/http://www.iaea.org/pris/ |archive-date=2013-06-02 }}</ref> in [[nuclear power by country|31&nbsp;countries]],<ref name="UIC">{{cite web  | url= http://www.uic.com.au/reactors.htm  | title= World Nuclear Power Reactors 2007-08 and Uranium Requirements | publisher= World Nuclear Association | date= 2008-06-09  | access-date=2008-06-21 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080303234143/http://www.uic.com.au/reactors.htm |archive-date = March 3, 2008}}</ref>  although not every reactor is producing electricity.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2012/06/17/2003535527 |title=Japan approves two reactor restarts |newspaper=Taipei Times |date=2013-06-07 |access-date=2013-06-14 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130927182338/http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2012/06/17/2003535527 |archive-date=2013-09-27 }}</ref> In addition, there are approximately 140 naval vessels using [[nuclear propulsion]] in operation, powered by some 180 reactors.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.engineersgarage.com/articles/nuclear-power-plants?page=2 |title=What is Nuclear Power Plant - How Nuclear Power Plants work &#124; What is Nuclear Power Reactor - Types of Nuclear Power Reactors |publisher=EngineersGarage |access-date=2013-06-14 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131004215527/http://www.engineersgarage.com/articles/nuclear-power-plants?page=2 |archive-date=2013-10-04 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Non-Power-Nuclear-Applications/Transport/Nuclear-Powered-Ships/#.UV5yQsrpyJM |title=Nuclear-Powered Ships &#124; Nuclear Submarines |publisher=World-nuclear.org |access-date=2013-06-14 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130612204746/http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Non-Power-Nuclear-Applications/Transport/Nuclear-Powered-Ships/#.UV5yQsrpyJM |archive-date=2013-06-12 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ewp.rpi.edu/hartford/~ernesto/F2010/EP2/Materials4Students/Misiaszek/NuclearMarinePropulsion.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=2015-06-04 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150226055625/http://www.ewp.rpi.edu/hartford/~ernesto/F2010/EP2/Materials4Students/Misiaszek/NuclearMarinePropulsion.pdf |archive-date=2015-02-26 }} Naval Nuclear Propulsion, Magdi Ragheb.
''As of 2001, about 235 naval reactors had been built''</ref> As of 2013, attaining a [[Joint European Torus|net energy gain]] from sustained nuclear fusion reactions, excluding natural fusion power sources such as the [[Sun]], remains an ongoing area of international [[International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor|physics]] and [[International Fusion Materials Irradiation Facility|engineering research]]. More than 60 years after the first attempts, commercial fusion power production remains unlikely before 2050.<ref name="ITERorg">{{cite web |work=The ITER Project |title=Beyond ITER |publisher=Information Services, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory |url=http://www.iter.org/Future-beyond.htm |access-date=5 February 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061107220145/http://www.iter.org/Future-beyond.htm |archive-date=7 November 2006 }} - Projected fusion power timeline</ref>

<!-- Debate -->
There is an ongoing [[Nuclear power debate|debate about nuclear power]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/mar/27/nuclear-controversy/ |title=The nuclear controversy |author=Union-Tribune Editorial Board |date=March 27, 2011 |work=Union-Tribune |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111119222347/http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/mar/27/nuclear-controversy/ |archive-date=November 19, 2011 }}</ref><ref name="jstor.org">James J. MacKenzie. [https://www.jstor.org/pss/2823429 Review of The Nuclear Power Controversy] by [[Arthur W. Murphy]] ''The Quarterly Review of Biology'', Vol. 52, No. 4 (Dec., 1977), pp. 467-468.</ref><ref name="A Reasonable Bet on Nuclear Power">In February 2010 the nuclear power debate played out on the pages of ''[[The New York Times]]'', see [https://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/18/opinion/18thur2.html?scp=1&sq=a%20reasonable%20bet%20on%20nuclear%20power&st=cse A Reasonable Bet on Nuclear Power] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170201063241/http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/18/opinion/18thur2.html?scp=1&sq=a%20reasonable%20bet%20on%20nuclear%20power&st=cse |date=2017-02-01 }} and [https://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/20/opinion/l20nuclear.html Revisiting Nuclear Power: A Debate] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170409003059/http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/20/opinion/l20nuclear.html |date=2017-04-09 }} and [http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/a-comeback-for-nuclear-power/ A Comeback for Nuclear Power?] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100226150025/http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/a-comeback-for-nuclear-power/ |date=2010-02-26 }}</ref>  Proponents, such as the [[World Nuclear Association]], the [[International Atomic Energy Agency|IAEA]] and [[Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy]] contend that nuclear power is a safe, [[sustainable energy]] source that reduces [[carbon emissions]].<ref name="bloomberg.com">[https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aXb5iuqdZoD4&refer=us U.S. Energy Legislation May Be 'Renaissance' for Nuclear Power] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090626182130/http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103 |date=2009-06-26 }}.</ref> [[Anti-nuclear movement|Opponents]] contend that nuclear power poses many threats to [[Environmental radioactivity|people and the environment]].<ref>{{cite book|author=[[Spencer R. Weart]]|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=9KBD-YrGOVkC|title=The Rise of Nuclear Fear|date=2012|publisher=Harvard University Press|isbn = 9780674065062}}</ref><ref name="Sturgis">{{cite web |last=Sturgis |first=Sue |url=http://www.southernstudies.org/2009/04/post-4.html |title=Investigation: Revelations about Three Mile Island disaster raise doubts over nuclear plant safety |publisher=[[Institute for Southern Studies]]|access-date=2010-08-24 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100418063024/http://www.southernstudies.org/2009/04/post-4.html |archive-date=2010-04-18 }}</ref>

<!-- Accidents, safety and greenhouse gases emissions -->
[[Nuclear and radiation accidents|Nuclear power plant accidents]] include the [[Chernobyl disaster]] (1986), [[Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster]] (2011), and the [[Three Mile Island accident]] (1979).<ref name=timenuke/> There have also been some nuclear submarine accidents.<ref name=timenuke>{{cite magazine  |url=http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1887705,00.html |title=The Worst Nuclear Disasters |magazine=[[Time (magazine)|Time]] |date=2009-03-25 |access-date=2013-06-22 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130826132324/http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1887705,00.html |archive-date=2013-08-26 }}</ref><ref name=rad>[http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull413/article1.pdf Strengthening the Safety of Radiation Sources]  {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090326181428/http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull413/article1.pdf |date=2009-03-26 }} p. 14.</ref><ref name=johnston2007>{{cite web |url=http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/radevents1.html |title=Deadliest radiation accidents and other events causing radiation casualties |author=Johnston, Robert |date=September 23, 2007 |publisher=Database of Radiological Incidents and Related Events |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071023104305/http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/radevents1.html |archive-date=October 23, 2007 }}</ref> In terms of lives lost per unit of energy generated, analysis has determined that nuclear power has caused less fatalities per unit of energy generated than the other major sources of energy generation. Energy production from [[coal]], [[petroleum]], [[natural gas]] and [[hydropower]] has caused a greater number of fatalities per unit of energy generated due to [[air pollution]] and [[Energy accidents|energy accident]] effects.<ref name="autogenerated2007">{{Cite journal 
| doi = 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61253-7 
| last1 = Markandya | first1 = A. 
| last2 = Wilkinson | first2 = P. 
| title = Electricity generation and health 
| journal = Lancet 
| volume = 370 
| issue = 9591 
| pages = 979–990 
| year = 2007 
| pmid = 17876910
| s2cid = 25504602 }}</ref><ref name="without the hot air">{{cite web |url= http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c24/page_168.shtml |title= Dr. MacKay ''Sustainable Energy without the hot air'' |page= 168 |work= Data from studies by the [[Paul Scherrer Institute]] including non EU data |access-date= 15 September 2012 |url-status= live |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20120902001529/http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c24/page_168.shtml |archive-date= 2 September 2012 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/ |title=How Deadly is Your Kilowatt? We Rank the Killer Energy Sources |website=[[Forbes]] |access-date=2017-05-13 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120610182708/http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/ |archive-date=2012-06-10 }} with Chernobyl's total predicted [[linear no-threshold]] cancer deaths included, nuclear power is safer when compared to many alternative energy sources' immediate, death rate.</ref><ref name="theage2006">{{cite news|url=http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/nuclear-power-cheaper-safer-than-coal-and-gas/2006/06/04/1149359609052.html|title=Nuclear power 'cheaper, safer' than coal and gas|author=Brendan Nicholson|date=2006-06-05|newspaper=[[The Age]]|access-date=2008-01-18|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080208123433/http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/nuclear-power-cheaper-safer-than-coal-and-gas/2006/06/04/1149359609052.html|archive-date=2008-02-08}}</ref><ref name="tandfonline1">{{cite journal | doi = 10.1080/10807030802387556 | url = http://gabe.web.psi.ch/pdfs/_2012_LEA_Audit/TA01.pdf | volume=14 | issue = 5 | title=A Comparative Analysis of Accident Risks in Fossil, Hydro, and Nuclear Energy Chains | journal=Human and Ecological Risk Assessment | pages=947–973, 962–5 | author=Burgherr Peter| year = 2008 | bibcode = 2008HERA...14..947B | s2cid = 110522982 }} Comparing Nuclear's ''latent'' cancer deaths, such as cancer with other energy sources ''immediate'' deaths per unit of energy generated(GWeyr). This study does not include fossil fuel related cancer and other indirect deaths created by the use of fossil fuel consumption in its "severe accident", an accident with more than 5 fatalities, classification.</ref> However, the economic costs of nuclear power accidents is high, and meltdowns can take decades to clean up. The human costs of evacuations of affected populations and lost livelihoods is also significant.<ref name="Richard Schiffman">{{cite web |url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/12/fukushima-nuclear-accident-lessons-for-us |title=Two years on, America hasn't learned lessons of Fukushima nuclear disaster |author=Richard Schiffman |date=12 March 2013 |work=The Guardian |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170202143654/https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/12/fukushima-nuclear-accident-lessons-for-us |archive-date=2 February 2017 }}</ref><ref name="Martin Fackler">{{cite web |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/02/world/asia/02japan.html?_r=1&ref=world |title=Report Finds Japan Underestimated Tsunami Danger |author=Martin Fackler |date=June 1, 2011 |work=The New York Times |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170205043423/http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/02/world/asia/02japan.html?_r=1&ref=world |archive-date=February 5, 2017 }}</ref>

Comparing Nuclear's ''latent'' cancer deaths, such as cancer with other energy sources ''immediate'' deaths per unit of energy generated(GWeyr). This study does not include fossil fuel related cancer and other indirect deaths created by the use of fossil fuel consumption in its "severe accident" classification, which would be an accident with more than 5 fatalities.

<!-- Future of the industry --> 
As of 2012, according to the [[IAEA]], worldwide there were 68 civil nuclear power reactors under construction in 15 countries,<ref name="iaea.org"/> approximately 28 of which in the [[People's Republic of China]] (PRC), with the most recent nuclear power reactor, as of May 2013, to be connected to the [[electrical grid]], occurring on February 17, 2013, in [[Hongyanhe Nuclear Power Plant]] in the PRC.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.worldnuclearreport.org/Worldwide-First-Reactor-to-Start.html |title=Worldwide First Reactor to Start Up in 2013, in China - World Nuclear Industry Status Report |date=18 February 2013 |publisher=Worldnuclearreport.org |access-date=2013-06-14 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130602081151/http://www.worldnuclearreport.org/Worldwide-First-Reactor-to-Start.html |archive-date=2013-06-02 }}</ref> In the United States, two new [[Generation III reactor]]s are under construction at [[Vogtle]]. U.S. nuclear industry officials expect five new reactors to enter service by 2020, all at existing plants.<ref name=us12>{{cite web |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nuclear-nrc-idUSTRE8182J720120209 |title=U.S. approves first new nuclear plant in a generation |author=Ayesha Rascoe |date=February 9, 2012 |work=Reuters |url-status=live |archive-url=http://archive.wikiwix.com/cache/20170701145249/https://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/09/us-usa-nuclear-nrc-idUSTRE8182J720120209 |archive-date=July 1, 2017 }}</ref> In 2013, four aging, uncompetitive, reactors were permanently closed.<ref name="Mark Cooper">{{cite web |url=http://www.thebulletin.org/nuclear-aging-not-so-graceful |title=Nuclear aging: Not so graceful |author=Mark Cooper |date=18 June 2013 |work=Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130705145151/http://www.thebulletin.org/nuclear-aging-not-so-graceful |archive-date=5 July 2013 }}</ref><ref name=mw11111>{{cite web |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/15/business/energy-environment/aging-nuclear-plants-are-closing-but-for-economic-reasons.html?ref=matthewlwald |title=Nuclear Plants, Old and Uncompetitive, Are Closing Earlier Than Expected |author=Matthew Wald |date=June 14, 2013 |work=The New York Times |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170126093314/http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/15/business/energy-environment/aging-nuclear-plants-are-closing-but-for-economic-reasons.html?ref=matthewlwald |archive-date=January 26, 2017 }}</ref>

Recent experiments in extraction of uranium use polymer ropes that are coated with a substance that selectively absorbs uranium from seawater. This process could make the considerable volume of uranium dissolved in seawater exploitable for energy production.  Since ongoing geologic processes carry uranium to the sea in amounts comparable to the amount that would be extracted by this process, in a sense the sea-borne uranium becomes a sustainable resource.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-seawater-extraction-makes-nuclear-power-completely-renewable/#34e87e246e2a|title=Uranium Seawater Extraction Makes Nuclear Power Completely Renewable|first=James|last=Conca|website=forbes.com|access-date=4 May 2018|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180424213313/https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-seawater-extraction-makes-nuclear-power-completely-renewable/#34e87e246e2a|archive-date=24 April 2018}}</ref><ref>[http://pubs.acs.org/toc/iecred/55/15#UraniuminSeawater April 20, 2016 Volume 55, Issue 15 Pages 4101-4362 In this issue:Uranium in Seawater] Page 962 to 965</ref>{{Relevance inline|date=October 2020}}

Nuclear power is a [[low carbon power generation]] method of producing electricity, with an analysis of the literature on its [[Life cycle assessment|total life cycle]] [[emission intensity]] finding that it is similar to renewable sources in a comparison of [[greenhouse gas]] (GHG) emissions per unit of energy generated.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/sustain_lca_nuclear.html |title=Collectively, life cycle assessment literature shows that nuclear power is similar to other renewable and much lower than fossil fuel in total life cycle GHG emissions. |publisher=Nrel.gov |date=2013-01-24 |access-date=2013-06-22 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130702205635/http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/sustain_lca_nuclear.html |archive-date=2013-07-02 }}</ref><ref name="Wagner2021">{{cite journal|last1=Wagner|first1=Friedrich|title=CO2 emissions of nuclear power and renewable energies: a statistical analysis of European and global data|journal=The European Physical Journal Plus|volume=136|issue=5|year=2021|page=562 |issn=2190-5444|doi=10.1140/epjp/s13360-021-01508-7|bibcode=2021EPJP..136..562W |doi-access=free}}</ref> Since the 1970s, nuclear fuel has displaced about 64 [[gigaton]]nes of [[carbon dioxide equivalent]] (GtCO2-eq) [[greenhouse gases]], that would have otherwise resulted from the burning of oil, coal or natural gas in [[fossil-fuel power station]]s.<ref>{{cite journal |title=Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power - global nuclear power has prevented an average of 1.84 million air pollution-related deaths and 64 gigatonnes of CO2-equivalent (GtCO2-eq) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that would have resulted from fossil fuel burning |doi=10.1021/es3051197 |pmid=23495839 |volume=47 |issue=9 |journal=Environmental Science |pages=4889–4895 |author=Kharecha Pushker A|bibcode=2013EnST...47.4889K |year=2013 |doi-access=free |hdl=2060/20140017100 |hdl-access=free }}</ref>

==== Nuclear power phase-out and pull-backs ====
{{Further|Nuclear power phase-out}}
Japan's 2011 [[Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident]], which occurred in a reactor design from the [[Generation II reactor|1960]]s, prompted a rethink of [[nuclear safety]] and [[nuclear energy policy]] in many countries.<ref name=sciamer2011/> Germany decided to close all its reactors by 2022, and Italy has banned nuclear power.<ref name=sciamer2011>{{cite web |url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=iaea-head-sees-wide-support |title=IAEA Head Sees Wide Support for Stricter Nuclear Plant Safety |author1=Sylvia Westall |author2=Fredrik Dahl |date=June 24, 2011 |work=Scientific American |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.today/20110625042535/http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=iaea-head-sees-wide-support |archive-date=June 25, 2011 }}</ref> Following Fukushima, in 2011 the [[International Energy Agency]] halved its estimate of additional nuclear generating capacity to be built by 2035.<ref name="economist-20110428">{{cite news |url=http://www.economist.com/node/18621367?story_id=18621367 |title=Gauging the pressure |date=28 April 2011 |newspaper=The Economist |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120831040950/http://www.economist.com/node/18621367?story_id=18621367 |archive-date=31 August 2012 }}</ref><ref name=late>{{cite web |url=http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/late-lessons-2 |title=Late lessons from early warnings: science, precaution, innovation: Full Report |author=European Environment Agency |date=January 23, 2013 |page=476 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130517104807/http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/late-lessons-2 |archive-date=May 17, 2013 }}</ref>

===== Fukushima =====
Following the 2011 [[Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster]] – the second worst [[nuclear incident]], that displaced 50,000 households after [[radioactivity|radioactive material]] leaked into the air, soil and sea,<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-26/fukushima-retiree-to-lead-anti-nuclear-motion.html |title=Fukushima Retiree Leads Anti-Nuclear Shareholders at Tepco Annual Meeting |author1=Tomoko Yamazaki |author2=Shunichi Ozasa |date=27 June 2011 |work=Bloomberg |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110630151243/http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-26/fukushima-retiree-to-lead-anti-nuclear-motion.html |archive-date=30 June 2011 }}</ref> and with subsequent radiation checks leading to bans on some shipments of vegetables and fish<ref>{{cite news  |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-nuclear-idUSTRE74610J20110507  |title=Japan anti-nuclear protesters rally after PM call to close plant  |author=Mari Saito  |date=7 May 2011  |work=Reuters  |url-status=live  |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110507220053/http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/07/us-japan-nuclear-idUSTRE74610J20110507  |archive-date=7 May 2011  }}</ref> – a global public support survey by [[Ipsos]] (2011) for energy sources was published and nuclear fission was found to be the least popular<ref name="Ipsos-Fukushima">{{citation
 |author      = Ipsos
 |title       = Global Citizen Reaction to the Fukushima Nuclear Plant Disaster (theme: environment / climate) Ipsos Global @dvisor
 |date        = 23 June 2011
 |url         = http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/ipsos-global-advisor-nuclear-power-june-2011.pdf
 |url-status     = dead
 |archive-url  = https://web.archive.org/web/20141224033030/https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/ipsos-global-advisor-nuclear-power-june-2011.pdf
 |archive-date = 24 December 2014
}}. Survey website: [http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/2817/Strong-global-opposition-towards-nuclear-power.aspx Ipsos MORI: Poll: Strong global opposition towards nuclear power] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160403234041/https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/2817/strong-global-opposition-towards-nuclear-power.aspx |date=2016-04-03 }}.</ref>

==== Fission economics ====
{{Main|Economics of nuclear power plants}}
[[File:Global public support for energy sources (Ipsos 2011).png|thumb|Low global public support for nuclear fission in the aftermath of Fukushima ([[Ipsos]]-survey, 2011)<ref name="Ipsos-Fukushima" />]]

The economics of new nuclear power plants is a controversial subject, since there are diverging views on this topic, and multibillion-dollar investments ride on the choice of an energy source. [[Nuclear power plant]]s typically have high capital costs for building the plant, but low direct fuel costs. In recent years there has been a slowdown of electricity demand growth and financing has become more difficult, which affects large projects such as nuclear reactors, with very large upfront costs and long project cycles which carry a large variety of risks.<ref name=kidd2011/> In Eastern Europe, a number of long-established projects are struggling to find finance, notably Belene in Bulgaria and the additional reactors at Cernavoda in Romania, and some potential backers have pulled out.<ref name=kidd2011>{{cite web|url=http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectioncode=147&storyCode=2058653 |title=New reactors—more or less? |author=Kidd, Steve |date=January 21, 2011 |work=Nuclear Engineering International |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111212195417/http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectioncode=147&storyCode=2058653 |archive-date=2011-12-12 }}</ref> Where cheap gas is available and its future supply relatively secure, this also poses a major problem for nuclear projects.<ref name=kidd2011/>

Analysis of the economics of nuclear power must take into account who bears the risks of future uncertainties. To date all operating nuclear power plants were developed by [[Nationalized|state-owned]] or [[Regulated market|regulated]] [[Electric utility|utility monopolies]]<ref name="ft-20100912">{{cite news |url=http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ad15fcfe-bc71-11df-a42b-00144feab49a.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221210/http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ad15fcfe-bc71-11df-a42b-00144feab49a.html |archive-date=2022-12-10 |url-access=subscription |title=Nuclear: New dawn now seems limited to the east |author=Ed Crooks |newspaper=Financial Times |date=12 September 2010 |access-date=12 September 2010}}</ref><ref name="NERA-20120316">{{cite web|url=http://elliott.gwu.edu/assets/docs/events/kee-0312.pdf |title=Future of Nuclear Energy |author=Edward Kee |publisher=NERA Economic Consulting |date=16 March 2012 |access-date=2 October 2013 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131005000713/http://elliott.gwu.edu/assets/docs/events/kee-0312.pdf |archive-date=5 October 2013 }}</ref> where many of the risks associated with construction costs, operating performance, fuel price, and other factors were borne by consumers rather than suppliers. Many countries have now liberalized the [[electricity market]] where these risks, and the risk of cheaper competitors emerging before capital costs are recovered, are borne by plant suppliers and operators rather than consumers, which leads to a significantly different evaluation of the economics of new nuclear power plants.<ref name="MIT-2003">{{Cite book |url=http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/ |title=The Future of Nuclear Power |publisher=[[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]] |year=2003 |isbn=978-0-615-12420-9 |access-date=2006-11-10 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170518215841/http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/ |archive-date=2017-05-18 }}</ref>

==== Costs ====
Costs are likely to go up for currently operating and new nuclear power plants, due to increased requirements for on-site spent fuel management and elevated design basis threats.<ref name="Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2011 xv">{{cite web |url=http://web.mit.edu/mitei/research/studies/documents/nuclear-fuel-cycle/The_Nuclear_Fuel_Cycle-all.pdf |title=The Future of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle |author=Massachusetts Institute of Technology |year=2011 |page=xv |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110601120150/http://web.mit.edu/mitei/research/studies/documents/nuclear-fuel-cycle/The_Nuclear_Fuel_Cycle-all.pdf |archive-date=2011-06-01 }}</ref> While first of their kind designs, such as the EPRs under construction are behind schedule and over-budget, of the seven South Korean [[APR-1400]]s presently under construction worldwide, two are in S.Korea at the [[Hanul Nuclear Power Plant]] and four are at the largest nuclear station construction project in the world as of 2016, in the [[United Arab Emirates]] at the planned [[Barakah nuclear power plant]]. The first reactor, Barakah-1 is 85% completed and on schedule for grid-connection during 2017.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-UAEs-fourth-power-reactor-under-construction-0209155.html|title=UAE's fourth power reactor under construction|website=www.world-nuclear-news.org|access-date=4 May 2018|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170916153535/http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-UAEs-fourth-power-reactor-under-construction-0209155.html|archive-date=16 September 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.fananews.com/en/uae/307075/|title=The Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation ( ENEC ) provided a project update on the status of the UAE peaceful nuclear energy program|website=www.fananews.com|access-date=4 May 2018|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161006125335/http://www.fananews.com/en/uae/307075/|archive-date=6 October 2016}}</ref> 
Two of the four [[European Pressurized Reactor|EPR]]s under construction (in [[Finland]] and France) are significantly behind schedule and substantially over cost.<ref name="Patel">{{cite news | url= https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-24/china-builds-french-designed-nuclear-reactor-for-40-less-areva-ceo-says.html | title= China Builds Nuclear Reactor for 40% Less Than Cost in France, Areva Says | first= Tara | last= Patel | author2= Francois de Beaupuy | date= 24 November 2010 | publisher= [[Bloomberg L.P.|Bloomberg]] | access-date= 2011-03-08 | url-status= live | archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20101128111033/http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-24/china-builds-french-designed-nuclear-reactor-for-40-less-areva-ceo-says.html | archive-date= 28 November 2010 }}</ref>