A lot of enthusiasm has surrounded nuclear power within the last debate. It seemed that the taboo on nuclear power was lifted as construction began for new reactors in the U.S. and worldwide. Enthusiasts dubbed this as the “nuclear renaissance.” More companies and governments began to invest in nuclear projects. However, this enthusiasm fizzled as quickly as it picked up in the U.S., according to an article by the Christian Science Monitor titled “Nuclear power: why US nuclear ‘renaissance’ fizzled and plants are closing”.

Public opinion and market forces have merged to minimize interest in nuclear power. For example, safety concerns were heightened after the devastating accident at Fukushima, prompting many citizens to reject local plans to build new reactors or update existing ones.

More importantly, market forces have favored a lessened emphasis on nuclear power for energy needs. The shale gas boom has dramatically decreased the price of natural gas, making it a more attractive energy option. Even in the realm of alternative energy sources, consumers have tended to prefer deriving energy from wind and solar power due to the cheapening costs and increasing supply of them. For many, these alternatives mean they don’t have to even take the risk of building new nuclear plants or dealing with the potential of an accident. For governments, it makes sense to invest in cheaper solutions such as natural gas and solar power.

Despite low support in the U.S., countries like China and Indonesia have plans to support nuclear power production. There is even hope for yet another revival; small scale modular reactors may become widely available and are cheaper, safer alternatives to providing nuclear power.  According to some, the increasing emphasis on climate change and alternative energy technologies will mean funding for research and development into new technologies that will make nuclear power a competitive option.

Share on Facebook

Tweet