Current perspectives on nuclear energy as a global climate change mitigation option

  • Diana Silva Siqueira
  • Josué de Almeida Meystre
  • Maicon Queiroz Hilário
  • Danilo Henrique Donato Rocha
  • Genésio José Menon
  • Rogério José da Silva
Original Article


The primary source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are fossil fuels with about 66% share of global electricity generation. Despite the challenges it faces today, nuclear energy is considered an effective technology that can be used in mitigating climate change with specific characteristics that underpin the commitment of some countries to maintain it as a future option. Several studies show the effects of investment minimization policies and the replacement of nuclear power plants with renewables. This implies economic impacts on the price of electricity, which increases the use of fossil fuels resulting in health problems related to air pollution and increasing costs to reduce the carbon emitted in the world. This paper addresses a systematic review of the prospects for nuclear energy investments adopted by countries as a strategic option to mitigate climate change and quantifies a range of carbon dioxide (CO2) emission values that can be avoided using as reference the emission factor of power plants at coal.


Nuclear energy CO2 Mitigation Energy Policy Climate changes Emission factor 



The authors acknowledge the financial support institutions of CAPES and ELETRONUCLEAR.

Responsibility notice

The authors are the only ones responsible for the printed material included in this paper.


  1. Akbar S (2016) BANGLADESH. Accessed 05 may 2018
  2. Banet C, Wettestad J (2017) Why is ‘nuclear France’ going renewable? The development of political, organizational and European fields organizational and European fields. Paper presented at the Paper for the ECPR Conference in Oslo, September 6–9Google Scholar
  3. Bauer N, Brecha RJ, Luderer G (2012) Economics of nuclear power and climate change mitigation policies. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109:16805–16810. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beswick AJ, Gibb FGF, Travis KP (2014) Deep borehole disposal of nuclear waste: engineering challenges. Energy 167:47–66. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boccard N (2009) Capacity factor of wind power realized values vs. estimates. Energy Policy 37:2679–2688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brasil (2007) Plano Nacional de Energia 2030. BrasíliaGoogle Scholar
  7. Breeze P (2010) UAE seeks broader fuel mix. PennWell Corporation. Accessed 29 July 2018
  8. Brodie C (2017) Switzerland votes to phase out nuclear energy and switch to renewables. World Economic Forum Accessed 04 april 2018
  9. Byman K (2017) Future electricity production in Sweden. Royal Swedish Academy Of Engineering Sciences (IVA), StockholmGoogle Scholar
  10. Caruso S, Meleshyn A, Noseck U (2017) Estimation and comparison of the radionuclide inventories in vitrified high-level wastes from reprocessing plant. Prog Nucl Energy 94:216–221. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cho M (2018) As nuclear waste piles up, South Korea faces storage crisis. Scientific American. Accessed 03 August 2018
  12. Chu S, Majumdar A (2012) Opportunities and challenges for a sustainable energy future. Nature 488:294. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cornot-Gandolphe S (2018) South Korea’s new electricity plan cosmetic changes or a breakthrough for the climate?, Énergie:1–8Google Scholar
  14. Deloitte Conseil (2015) European energy market reform country profile: France. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, ZurichGoogle Scholar
  15. Deutch J et al. (2003) The future of nuclear power. Massachusetts Institute of Technology:21Google Scholar
  16. DW (2016) Vietnam ditches nuclear power plans. Accessed 02 may 2017
  17. EDF Energy (2016) Hinkley Point C: building Britain’s low-carbon future July 2016. NNB Generation Company LimitedGoogle Scholar
  18. EIA (2014) Monthly generator capacity factor data now available by fuel and technology. U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Accessed 19 july 2018
  19. EIA (2015) Electric generator capacity factors vary widely across the world. U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Accessed 21 july 2018
  20. EIA (2016) International Energy Outlook 2016. Independent Statistics & Analysis, U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)Google Scholar
  21. EIA (2018a) Cost and performance characteristics of new generating technologies, annual energy outlook 2018. Independent Statistics & Analysis, U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  22. EIA (2018b) Levelized cost and levelized avoided cost of new generation resources in the annual energy outlook 2018. U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  23. EIA (2018c) Nuclear power outlook: issues in focus from the annual energy outlook 2018. Independent Statistics & Analysis, Energy Information Administration EIA,Google Scholar
  24. EPA (2015) Sources of greenhouse gas emissions. Accessed 03 January 2016
  25. European Commission (2016) Nuclear Illustrative Programme presented under Article 40 of the Euratom Treaty for the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee. European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  26. European Commission (2017) Nuclear Illustrative Programme presented under Article 40 of the Euratom Treaty - Final (after opinion of EESC). European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  27. Finkenrath M, Smith J, Volk D (2012) CCS Retrofit: analysis of the global installed power plant fleet International Energy Agency: information paper 46Google Scholar
  28. Gustavsson M, Särnholm E, Stigson P, Zetterberg L (2011) Energy scenario for Sweden 2050 based on renewable energy technologies and sources. IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute Ltd, Göteborg and StockholmGoogle Scholar
  29. Hippel Fv, Ewing R, Garwin R, Macfarlane A (2012) Time to bury plutonium Nature 485:167 doi: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. IAEA (2015) Climate change and nuclear power 2015. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), ViennaGoogle Scholar
  31. IAEA (2016a) Nuclear power reactors in the world. Reference Data Series, vol 2. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), ViennaGoogle Scholar
  32. IAEA (2016b) Nuclear power and the Paris Agreement. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), ViennaGoogle Scholar
  33. IAEA (2016c) Terminology used in nuclear safety and radiation protection. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), ViennaGoogle Scholar
  34. IAEA (2016d) Energy, electricity and nuclear power estimates for the period up to 2050. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), reference data series, ViannaGoogle Scholar
  35. IAEA (2017a) Energy, electricity and nuclear power estimates for the period up to 2050. Reference data series, vol 1. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), ViennaGoogle Scholar
  36. IAEA (2017b) Managing the financial risk associated with the financing of new nuclear power plant projects. IAEA Nuclear Energy Series, vol NG-T-4.6. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), ViennaGoogle Scholar
  37. IAEA (2018) Nuclear power reactors in the world. Reference Data Series, vol 2. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), ViennaGoogle Scholar
  38. IAEA/PRIS (2018) Trend in electricity supplied: sum of electricity supplied from reactors connected to the grid. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Power Reactor Information System (PRIS) database.
  39. IEA (2014) Energy Supply Security: emergency response of IEA countries 2014. International energy agency (IEA), Vienna. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. IEA (2016) Key World Energy Statistics 2016. International Energy Agency statistics. International Energy Agency (IEA), Vienna. doi:
  41. IEA (2017a) Key world energy statistics 2017. International Energy Agency StatisticsGoogle Scholar
  42. IEA (2017b) Electricity information 2017. doi:
  43. IEA (2017c) Energy policies of IEA countries: Czech Republic 2016. doi:
  44. IEA (2018) Electricity information 2018. International Energy Agency Statistics International Energy Agency (IEA) doi:
  45. IPCC (2015) Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change, vol 3. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom and New YorkGoogle Scholar
  46. Ji Y, Beridze G, Li Y, Kowalski PM (2017) Large scale simulation of nuclear waste materials. Energy Procedia 127:416–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kaushik CP (2014) Indian program for vitrification of high level radioactive liquid waste. Procedia Materials Science 7:16–22. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kharecha PA, Hansen JE (2013) Prevented mortality and greenhouse gas emissions from historical and projected nuclear power. Environ Sci Technol 47:4889–4895. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Körmendi G (2017) HUNGARY. International Atomic Energy Agency, Country Nuclear Power Profiles. Accessed 30 may 2017
  50. Kröge W (2001) Measuring the sustainability of energy systems. Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) News 19(1):21–24Google Scholar
  51. Lee S, Kim M, Lee JJ (2017) Analyzing the impact of nuclear power on CO2 emissions. J Sustain For 9:1428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lehtveer M, Hedenus F (2015) How much can nuclear power reduce climate mitigation cost?–critical parameters and sensitivity. Energy Strategy Reviews 6:12–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lowry HH (1947) Chemistry of coal utilization vol 1. John Wiley & Sons Inc, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  54. MND (2012) National energy strategy 2030. Ministry of National Development (MND), HugarianGoogle Scholar
  55. Morris C, Pehnt M (2012) Energy transition: the German Energiewende. Heinrich Böll Stiftung, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  56. NAO (2016) Nuclear power in the UK. The Department of Energy & Climate Change, National Audit Office (NAO), LondonGoogle Scholar
  57. NEA/IEA (2015) Technology roadmap: nuclear energy 2015 Edition. Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), International Energy Agency (IEA),Google Scholar
  58. NEA/OCDE (2017) Données sur l'énergie nucléaire 2016. Nuclear energy agency (NEA), organisation for economic co-operation and development (OCDE), Boulogne-Billancourt. doi:
  59. NEB (2016) Canada’s Energy Future 2016: energy supply and demand projections to 2040. National Energy Board (NEB), CanadaGoogle Scholar
  60. NEI Magazine (2017) Ukraine’s power game. Nuclear Engineering International (NEI) , Global Trade Media. Accessed 05 may 2017
  61. Nippon (2018) Japan’s nuclear power plants. Accessed 04 August 2018
  62. OECD/IEA (2016) Energy policies of IEA countries: Japan 2016. Organisation For Economic Co-Operation And Development (OECD) Publishing, International Energy Agency (IEA),Google Scholar
  63. ONS (2015) PLANO DA OPERAÇÃO ENERGÉTICA 2015/2019 PEN 2015. Operador Nacional do Sistema Elétrico, Rio de JaneiroGoogle Scholar
  64. Percebois J, Mandil C (2012) Rapport Energies 2050, Rapport du 13 février 2012. ParisGoogle Scholar
  65. Power Technology (2018) Egypt’s combined-cycle power plant megaproject successfully completed. PowerTechnology, Verdict Media Limited. Accessed 10 August 2017
  66. Prăvălie R, Bandoc G (2018) Nuclear energy: between global electricity demand, worldwide decarbonisation imperativeness, and planetary environmental implications. J Environ Manag 209:81–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Romania Insider (2016) New energy strategy in Romania: nuclear energy’s share will double by 2030. Accessed 28 may 2018 2018
  68. României G (2016) Strategia Energetică a României 2016-2030, cu perspectiva anului 2050Google Scholar
  69. Roth MB, Jaramillo P (2017) Going nuclear for climate mitigation: an analysis of the cost effectiveness of preserving existing US nuclear power plants as a carbon avoidance strategy. J Energy 131:67–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Runte G (2013) Probabilistic assessment of global nuclear power plant construction through 2030. Worthington Sawtelle LLC, WorthingtonGoogle Scholar
  71. Sartori E (2013) Nuclear data for radioactive waste management. Ann Nucl Energy 62:579–589. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Schneider M (2015) The global outlook of nuclear power and the French case. 19 March 2015Google Scholar
  73. Schneider M et al. (2017) The world nuclear industry status report 2017. ParisGoogle Scholar
  74. Schneider M, Froggatt A, Hazemann J, Katsuta T, Ramana MV, Thomas S (2015) The world nuclear industry status report 2015Google Scholar
  75. Suman S (2018) Hybrid nuclear-renewable energy systems: a review. J Clean Prod 181:166–177. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Tewalt SJ et al. (2010) Chemical analyses in the world coal quality inventory. US Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010–1196Google Scholar
  77. The Economist (2018) Russia leads the world at nuclear-reactor exports. Accessed 20 August 2018
  78. Tollefson J (2011) Battle of Yucca Mountain rages on. Nature 473:266–267. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Tollefson J (2014) US seeks waste-research revival. Nature 507:15–16. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. UK (2013) The UK’s nuclear future. In: HM government. Crown Copyright, LondonGoogle Scholar
  81. Van Sluisveld MA, Harmsen MJ, van Vuuren DP, Bosetti V, Wilson C, Van Der Zwaan BJ (2018) Comparing future patterns of energy system change in 2° C scenarios to expert projections. J Global Environmental Change 50:201–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. WNA (2016) World nuclear performance report 2016. World Nuclear Association (WNA), England and WalesGoogle Scholar
  83. WNA (2017) Nuclear power economics and project structuring 2017 edition vol 2018. England and WalesGoogle Scholar
  84. WNA (2018a) Nuclear power in France. World Nuclear Association (WNA). Accessed 03 august 2018 2018
  85. WNA (2018b) Nuclear power in Russia. World Nuclear Association (WNA). Accessed 08 august 2018 2018
  86. WNA (2018c) Nuclear power in the world today. World Nuclear Association (WNA). Accessed 20 august 2018 2018
  87. WNA (2018d) Economics of nuclear power. World Nuclear Association (WNA). Accessed 12 august 2018 2018
  88. WNA (2018e) Radioactive waste management. World Nuclear Association (WNA) http://wwwworld-nuclearorg/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-waste-managementaspx Accessed April 2018 2018
  89. WNA (2018f) What are nuclear wastes and how are they managed? World Nuclear Association (WNA), http://wwwworld-nuclearorg/nuclear-basics/what-are-nuclear-wastesaspx Accessed 03 August 2018 2018
  90. WNA (2018g) Fast neutron reactors. World Nuclear Association (WNA) http://wwwworld-nuclearorg/information-library/current-and-future-generation/fast-neutron-reactorsaspx Accessed August 2018 2018
  91. WNA (2018h) Nuclear power in Armenia. World Nuclear Association (WNA). Accessed 04 may 2018 2018
  92. WNA (2018i) Nuclear power in Mexico. World Nuclear Association (WNA). Accessed 12 may 2018 2018
  93. WNA (2018j) Nuclear power in Belgium. World Nuclear Association (WNA). Accessed 12 may 2018 2018
  94. WNA (2018k) Nuclear power in Belarus. World Nuclear Association (WNA). Accessed 09 april 2018 2018
  95. WNA (2018l) Nuclear power in India. World Nuclear Association (WNA). Accessed 12 may 2018 2018
  96. WNA (2018m) Nuclear power in China. World nuclear Association (WNA). Accessed 03 july 2018
  97. WNN (2016) Belgium needs nuclear and renewables, report finds. Accessed 03 may 2018
  98. Xu Z, Okada T, Yonezawa S (2018) Cesium extraction from simulated high-level vitrified wastes. J Progress Nucl Energy 108:34–42. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Yamaguchi M (2018) Japan approves new nuclear energy goals. Accessed 11 august 2018
  100. Yano KH, Mao KS, Wharry JP, Porterfield DM (2018) Investing in a permanent and sustainable nuclear waste disposal solution. Prog Nucl Energy 108:474–479. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Young A (2015) COP21 climate change summit reaches deal to keep temperature rise below 2C by 2050. International Business Times, World Paris Climate Talks. Accessed 22 may 2018
  102. Zummo P (2015) America’s electricity generation capacity 2015 update. American Public Power Assocition,Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Diana Silva Siqueira
    • 1
  • Josué de Almeida Meystre
    • 1
  • Maicon Queiroz Hilário
    • 1
  • Danilo Henrique Donato Rocha
    • 1
  • Genésio José Menon
    • 1
  • Rogério José da Silva
    • 1
  1. 1.Federal University of ItajubáItajubáBrazil

Personalised recommendations