Next Article in Journal
Characterising Non-Intentional Supraharmonic Emissions from Inverters in Power Grids: Review and Challenges
Previous Article in Journal
An Assistive System for Thermal Power Plant Management
Previous Article in Special Issue
An Investigative Study on Mixed Waste Feedstock-Derived Biochar as Active Electrode Material for Supercapacitor Applications
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Energies
Volume 18
Issue 11
10.3390/en18112978
energies-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Long-Term Use of Nuclear Energy from the Aspect of Economy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

by
Dinka Lale
1,* and
Dubravko Pevec
2
1
Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Applied Computing, University of Dubrovnik, 20000 Dubrovnik, Croatia
2
Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computing, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2025, 18(11), 2978; https://doi.org/10.3390/en18112978
Submission received: 25 April 2025 / Revised: 21 May 2025 / Accepted: 31 May 2025 / Published: 5 June 2025
(This article belongs to the Collection Feature Papers in Energy, Environment and Well-Being)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Conventional sources of electricity are limited and they pollute the Earth, so it is necessary to think about an additional source of electricity in the future. Nuclear power is one of the options. Two scenarios using different shares of nuclear power in the future are described in this paper. Scenario 1 describes a moderate increase in nuclear energy use in the future, but with a tendency for a larger increase over 2050. Scenario 2 describes a significant increase in nuclear energy until 2100. Both scenarios are divided into three sub-scenarios (total six) in which the use of different nuclear technologies is analyzed (conventional liquid water reactors, fast breeder reactors and molten salt reactors using thorium as nuclear fuel). In all scenarios, the phase-out of fossil fuel power plants is assumed. One part of the power system is covered by nuclear power plants, and the remaining part is covered by renewable energy power plants. After 2050, an increasing share of the electricity system will be taken over by RES power plants. Nuclear fuel stocks are also analyzed. It is calculated that currently known nuclear fuel stocks are sufficient to meet the needs in all six scenarios. The carbon dioxide emissions saved due to nuclear energy use instead of conventional energy power plants are calculated. The CO2eq emission savings for Scenario 1 is 87.4% of the recommended emission savings under the IPCC. The CO2eq emission savings for Scenario 2 is more than sufficient. A calculation of the economic profitability of nuclear energy use is made in relation to fossil power plants and renewable energy power plants. According to calculations, nuclear energy is profitable compared to other energy sources. Nuclear energy use is positive from all the mentioned aspects.

1. Introduction

Global warming is one of the basic problems which humanity must solve. A solution is needed as soon as possible. In order to reach a solution, it is necessary to act both locally and globally. Development and growth of humanity and economic and technological progress cause a constant increase in energy consumption. The main cause of global warming and climate change is the release of greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere. The production and use of primary and electrical energy are responsible for the majority of GHG emissions. Humanity is constantly searching for new sources of energy that will meet energy needs in the future [1,2].
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an international panel that points to the problems of climate change and recommends (and demands) immediate action. The previous IPCC asked for a limit to the increase in the average temperature of the Earth of 2 °C in relation to the average temperature of Earth in the pre-industrial era. In 2018, the IPCC recommended (and requested) a limitation of the average temperature to an amount of 1.5 °C compared to the average temperature from the beginning of the 19th century [3].
The thirteenth edition of the Emissions Gap Report is testimony to inadequate action on the global climate crisis [4]. It is necessary to react immediately. If the current policy is continued, without additional action, it will lead to global warming of 2.8 °C until the end of this century [4].
Transport and energy production are the largest emitters of CO2eq into the atmosphere [5].
The electricity production in power plants using nuclear fuel causes reduced GHG emissions compared to other types of power plants. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the construction of new nuclear power plants, which would increase the share of electricity produced from nuclear sources [1,4].
In addition to the fact that conventional sources of electricity are non-renewable and limited, at the same time, they have a negative impact on our planet due to the large emission of GHG into the Earth’s atmosphere. The only solution is the use of renewable energy sources (photovoltaic systems and wind farms) in combination with nuclear energy use. Nuclear energy would be responsible for covering the base load of the power system since it has the lowest GHG emissions compared to other conventional sources of electricity.
The advantages of nuclear energy are often underestimated in order to overemphasize its disadvantages, such as the production of radioactive waste and plutonium, which can then be used for military purposes. We live in unstable times, that is for sure, but that is not a reason to abandon nuclear energy altogether.
It is necessary to think about what the future holds for us and at the same time take into account that we are the ones who leave the planet to future generations.
When we talk about nuclear energy and nuclear power plants, this refers to conventional Pressurized Water Reactors (PWRs), but also Fast Breeder Reactors (FBRs) and reactors that use thorium as a nuclear fuel, Molten Salt Thorium Reactors (MSTRs).

1.1. Motivation

The aim of this paper was to determine nuclear fuel sufficiency, CO2 emissions from nuclear power plants for different scenarios of nuclear energy use by the end of this century, and the financial profitability of investing in additional sources of nuclear energy in the future.
There are several different hypotheses about the long-term consequences of climate change. However, there is consensus among scientists that human influence is the primary cause of global warming [1].
Uranium and thorium reserves have been estimated by the categories in the Red Book 2018 [6]. Changes in uranium reserves were analyzed and found to be increased in almost all categories with exploitative prices every year [1,2]. Comparing the data from Red Book 2018 and Red Book 2022 [6,7], there was a negligibly small decrease in total uranium reserves of less than 1%. Therefore, the data calculated for the uranium reserves discussed in the Red Book 2018 can be taken as relevant. The sufficiency of uranium and thorium stocks from the Red Book 2018 for the described scenarios will be analyzed.
As already mentioned, the electricity generation sector is responsible for almost two-thirds of the total GHG emissions into the Earth’s atmosphere. The demand for electricity is increasing every year. At the same time, GHG emissions associated with electricity production are also increasing. The global CO2 emissions related to energy were 33.1 Gt CO2 in 2018 [8].
Coal and other fossil fuel power plants are increasingly including Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) systems in their projects. They have become a mandatory part of the construction project and the construction of the power plant. Despite significant investments in CCS technologies, CCS systems have not reached the level of capacity and cost-effectiveness required to be seriously counted in the near future [9].
Coal-fired electricity generation accounted for 30% of global CO2 emissions [7].

1.2. A Literature Review

More significant use of nuclear power plants in the future is one option to reduce carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. Some scientists claim that renewable energy plants are sufficient to meet future electricity needs while emitting significantly less carbon dioxide. Nuclear energy can be an important part of the power system that covers the base loads of the power system. The best option would be to use nuclear energy in combination with power plants that use renewable energy sources (wind turbines and photovoltaic systems) [10,11]. One of the examples of countries returning to nuclear energy is China [12].
The advantages of using a higher percentage of nuclear energy than today are described in the paper [13]. It was emphasized that it is necessary to give additional attention to the use of nuclear energy in the future along with the use of renewable energy sources.
In some countries, it is predicted that the share of renewable energy sources will grow by 2050. Nuclear power is not an option. This primarily refers to some island countries whose electrical energy system infrastructure is specifically due to geographical features, such as the Galapagos Islands, where 100% renewable energy sources in the power system are predicted in 2050 [14]. The Canary Islands also have no nuclear power plants, and it is predicted that by 2050 the share of renewable energy sources will be 100% with a constant reduction in the use of fossil fuel power plants and an increase in the use of PV modules and wind farms [15].
The development of Mexico’s energy system is based on a combined cycle [16]. Ecuador has incentives for the construction of additional hydropower plants, photovoltaic systems and wind turbines [17]. Spain plans to close all seven of its nuclear power plants by 2035 and turn completely to renewable energy sources [18]. Japan is striving to decarbonize its energy system, with and without nuclear energy [19]. After the Fukushima accident, Japan turned to hydrogen production [20]. The European Union is divided into five clusters. Only cluster 2 (Romania, Latvia, Slovakia and France) relies on nuclear energy [20]. The Caribbean currently has a very small share of renewable energy sources, but they are planning and already have large investments in their implementation [21]. Latin America is also turning to renewable energy sources and does not include nuclear power plants in its future plans [16,22]. Currently, they have a very small share of RESs, only 1.7% [22]. This is the same as South Africa, which only has a 2% share of RESs and 3% of nuclear. They have turned to wind energy, PV systems and BESSs (Battery Energy Storage Systems) [23].
Despite the fact that some countries do not include nuclear energy in the planning of energy systems in the future, we believe that it is necessary to consider nuclear energy as one of the options because it is a safe and reliable source of electrical energy. Renewable energy sources will be the leading source of energy, and nuclear energy can be integrated in energy systems in the long term. In addition, nuclear energy is also economically competitive compared to other sources of electricity. The initial investments in nuclear power plants are large. However, in the long term, nuclear power plants are more profitable than fossil fuel power plants.
The choice of ways to reduce GHG emissions should take into account the economic component. For this reason, it is necessary to determine the profitability of building a large number of new power plants that use nuclear fuel.

2. Methodology

Two different scenarios of increased nuclear energy growth by the end of the century in the world are described. Scenario 1 describes a moderate increase in nuclear energy use in the future, but with a tendency for a larger increase over 2050. Scenario 2 describes a significant increase in nuclear energy until 2100. Both scenarios are divided into three sub-scenarios in which the use of different nuclear technologies is analyzed (conventional liquid water reactors, fast breeder reactors and molten salt reactors using thorium as nuclear fuel).
We assume an increase in the nuclear energy use in the future, especially after 2040 or 2050 in the world, because it is a safe and reliable source of electricity that can cover an important part of the power system, basic needs. The development of the individual power system of each country depends on many factors, such as the geographical location, economic development and technological development, as well as the natural resources that a country has. Most countries in the world are introducing various measures to decarbonize their electrical system. Large additional investments in renewable energy systems are mostly planned. But we emphasize that some countries have large reserves of uranium and thorium. It would be very profitable for these countries to invest in additional nuclear capacities. Looking at the global power system as a whole, we assume that fossil fuel power plants are gradually shutting down, the use of power plants using renewable energy sources is increasing (including hydropower plants) and the base part of the electrical system is covered by nuclear power plants.
As can be seen in Figure 1, the three different scenarios depend on the type of nuclear fuel used by the power plants.
Scenario 1 assumes a constant phase-out of fossil fuel power plants and at the same time, a moderate increase in nuclear capacity. Fossil fuel power plant use decreases by 2% until 2030, by 5% per year until 2040, and by 10% in the next 25 years annually, so that in 2066, only 2.08% of the necessary electricity in the world is produced in fossil fuel power plants. By 2070, the use of fossil fuel power plants is completely abolished. The remaining part of the necessary electricity that is assumed to be needed in the future of the world according to Scenario 1 is compensated from renewable energy sources, hydropower and nuclear energy, as shown in Figure 1. The use of nuclear energy is constantly increasing. Installed nuclear capacities grow linearly at a rate of 2% per year until 2030, after which their linear increase accelerates to 2060 at a rate of 6.36% per year. Nuclear capacities installed after 2060 grow linearly at a rate of 1.2% increase compared to the previous year until the end of the century [1].
Scenario 1a only uses PWR power plants and the uranium fuel cycle without reprocessing (Figure 1). Scenario 1b uses only PWR power plants until 2050. After 2050, in addition to PWR power plants, FBR power plants will also be introduced (Figure 1). Their share is increasing, while the share of PWR power plants will decrease by the end of the century. Scenario 1c uses PWR power plants until 2050, when MSTR power plants with a thorium fuel cycle are gradually introduced (Figure 1). The nuclear power plant capacity factor is shown in Figure 2. The nuclear power plant capacity factor is 0.88 by 2030. After that, it grows linearly for 30 years so that in 2060, it is 0.90. We assume that this amount remains until 2100. It is the same for all three sub-scenarios (Scenario 1a, Scenario 1b and Scenario 1c) [1].
Scenario 2, just like Scenario 1, is divided into three sub-scenarios depending on the type of nuclear power plants they use, which is shown in Figure 1.
Use of nuclear energy is continuously growing. The linear increase in nuclear power is at an expected capacity of 3.91% per year until 2030. The greatest linear increase is expected between 2030 and 2060 with a rate of 6.62% per year. After 2060, just as in Scenario 1, linear increase with a rate of 1.2% annual growth is expected. Scenario 2 assumes the use of fossil fuel power plants decreases by 5% per year until 2034 and 10% per year for the next 16 years. By 2051, only 6% of the necessary electricity in the world would be produced in fossil fuel power plants, and by 2056, fossil fuel power plant use would be completely abolished. The remaining part of the necessary electricity that is assumed to be needed in the future of the world according to Scenario 2 will be compensated from renewable energy sources, which includes hydropower.
For Scenario 2a, it is assumed that by the end of the century, only PWR power plants will be used (uranium fuel cycle without reprocessing) (Figure 1). Scenario 2b assumes PWR power plants until 2050, while FBR power plants are introduced using the uranium cycle with reprocessing, as shown in Figure 1. Scenario 2c assumes only PWR power plants until 2050. In 2050, MSTR power plants with a thorium fuel cycle are gradually introduced (Figure 1). The nuclear power plant capacity factor is 0.88 by 2030. After that, it grows linearly for 30 years so that in 2060, it is 0.90. We assume that this amount will remain until 2100, as shown in Figure 2. It is the same for all three sub-scenarios (Scenario 2a, Scenario 2b and Scenario 2c) [1,2].
It is necessary to determine whether known nuclear fuel reserves are sufficient for the described scenarios.

Nuclear Fuel Sufficiency for Scenarios

The scenarios described in this paper consider a moderate as well as a significant increase in global nuclear energy use by 2100.
An overview of all nuclear fuel, uranium and thorium reserves is given in [1]. In addition, uranium and thorium reserves are estimated by the categories in the Red Book 2018; changes in uranium reserves were analyzed and found to be increased in almost all categories with exploitative prices every year. Therefore, it can be concluded that uranium reserves will be higher than those listed in the Red Book of 2018 in the future [6]. Data from Red Book 2022 confirm this claim [7]. Furthermore, as uranium demand grows, the exploitation cost of USD 260 per kilogram of uranium will become acceptable. The current marginal cost of uranium exploitation is USD 180 per kilogram of uranium. The identified uranium reserves are 6,142,200 tons of uranium, conventional uranium reserves are 12,284,200 tons of uranium and the total uranium reserves are 50 Mt of uranium.
Thorium’s stocks are significant. The consumption of thorium in the thorium fuel cycle is lower than the consumption of uranium in the uranium fuel cycle. The International Thorium Energy Organization lists low and high thorium reserves estimations. The low is 6,711,800 tons of thorium and the high is 7,571,800 tons of thorium [1,6,7,24].
A computer model created by Wolfram Mathematica version 11.0 was used to calculate the adequacy of nuclear fuel reserves for the described scenarios (Figure 3 and Figure 4). During the development of the model, assumptions were made about the future requirements of electricity: the use of different fuel cycles in the production of electricity from nuclear sources, the consumption of natural uranium or thorium per TWh of produced electricity and the consumption of plutonium in fast fertilization reactors per TWh of produced electricity. The utilization factor of nuclear power plants by the end of the century was assumed (Figure 2). The computer model flowchart for Scenario 1 is shown in Figure 3, and for Scenario 2 in Figure 4.
First, it was calculated whether known uranium reserves are sufficient to meet the nuclear fuel needs for the previously described scenarios. It is shown that all the described scenarios would have enough uranium for their needs until the year 2107.
In Scenario 1a and Scenario 2a, the total uranium reserves of 50 Mt uranium are taken into account [6,24]. Scenario 2a shows that the total uranium reserves would be consumed by 2101, and Scenario 1a would consume the reserves by 2115. In other scenarios (Scenario 1b, Scenario 1c, Scenario 2b, Scenario 2c), lower uranium reserves are sufficient due to the use of other types of power plants that use the uranium fuel cycle with reprocessing or the thorium fuel cycle from 2050 on. The plutonium required for FBR start-up (scenarios 1b and 2b), in addition to the plutonium supplies from other sources (power plants from the past, military industry), is continuously produced by PWR power plants which operate in the scope of Scenarios 1b and 2b. It has been established by calculation that the total amount of plutonium (produced plutonium and other supplies plutonium) is sufficient to start FBR power plants under Scenario 1b as well as Scenario 2b. Thorium sufficiency was analyzed for Scenarios 1c and 2c, since those two scenarios assume the introduction of MSTR after 2050. The calculation shows that there was more than enough thorium to meet the requirements of Scenario 1c and Scenario 2c. Nuclear fuel reserves (uranium and thorium) are sufficient to generate electricity in nuclear power plants, according to the assumption of all scenarios described in this paper.

3. GHG Emissions from Nuclear Power Plants

The use of nuclear energy has environmental advantages over the use of other technologies for the production of electricity. The specific average GHG emissions in gCO2eq per kWh of electricity produced are given in refs. [5,25,26] for different energy sources. They amount to 12 gCO2eq/kWh, 4 gCO2eq/kWh, 11 gCO2eq/kWh, 41 gCO2eq/kWh, 610 gCO2eq/kWh, 840 gCO2eq/kWh, 1214.5 gCO2eq/kWh and 230 gCO2eq/kWh for nuclear power plants, hydropower plants, wind power plants, solar power plants, natural gas power plants, oil power plants, coal power plants and biomass power plants, respectively. We calculated the mean values of specific emissions according to the assumptions of how many of various energy sources will be used in the future.
In WEO 2018, the estimated amounts of emitted carbon dioxide are listed in 2025 for the three different described scenarios. The New Policies Scenario foresees a release of 33.9 GtCO2eq in 2025; the Current Policies Scenario predicts a greater amount of 35.5 GtCO2eq, while the Sustainable Development Scenario foresees a lower emission amount of 29.5 GtCO2eq in 2025. Comparing the mentioned amounts with emissions in 2000, which amounted to 23.1 GtCO2eq, the predicted increase in carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere is significant [27].
Using the amount of specific emissions of greenhouse gases in electricity generation which is given in ref. [5] for Scenario 1, the amount of emission savings up to the end of the century in the world is 1202 GtCO2eq. In terms of year-to-year savings, for Scenario 1, in 2060, the saving will be 17.47 GtCO2eq. The IPCC request is for 20 GtCO2eq/year to be saved in 2060 [3]. The CO2eq emission savings for Scenario 1 are 87.4% of the recommended emission savings under the IPCC.
In Scenario 2, the amount of carbon dioxide emission savings is even greater, as Scenario 2 predicts a significant increase in nuclear energy use in the future. The amount of reduced emissions in Scenario 2 by the end of the century is 1625 GtCO2eq. The carbon dioxide equivalent emission savings in 2060 are just as high, 25.79 GtCO2eq. This means that the CO2eq emission savings for Scenario 2 in 2060 exceed the recommended savings of 20 GtCO2eq per year according to the IPCC. The data for the reduction in CO2eq show that a more significant use of nuclear energy globally in the future will contribute to solving the problem of over-emissions of GHGs.
Specific GHG emissions are defined for PWR nuclear power plants. Therefore, the savings calculations for Scenario 1 refer to Scenario 1a, and the calculation for Scenario 2 refers to Scenario 2a.
In addition, reference [28] states that the assumed emission of equivalent carbon dioxide per kWh of electricity produced is even lower in MSTR power plants compared to all other types of nuclear power plants. This gives priority to Scenario 1c over Scenario 1a and Scenario 1b, respectively. Scenario 2c has advantages over Scenario 2a and Scenario 2b according to CO2eq emissions.
Also, reference [26] indicates that the specific GHG emission for FBR is lower than for PWR reactors, 4.3 gCO2eq/kWh. Therefore, Scenario 1b is preferred over Scenario 1a, as well as Scenario 2b being preferred over Scenario 2a.

Scenarios Total CO2eq Emissions

The calculated values are valid for today’s conditions, for specific emissions of individual types of power plants that are valid in today’s times. It can be assumed that the situation will be changed in the future. We assume that specific emissions of CO2eq will be lower in the future, with greater investments in technology.
Total energy-related CO2 emissions increased by 0.8% in 2024, hitting an all-time high of 37.8 Gt CO2 [29]. Carbon dioxide emissions have been the main topic when talking about climate change for a number of years. During the construction and operation of power plants, the characteristic emissions of CO2eq into the atmosphere are important. Methods that estimate emissions in the future are being developed [30,31].
It can be assumed that in the future, specific emissions will be different for certain types of power plants. Carbon capture and storage systems (CCSs) are already installed in some fossil fuel power plants. This increases their price but reduces greenhouse gas emissions [32]. Therefore, we will assume that the specific emissions from FFPPs will decrease in the future by 1% every 3 years until the end of their lifetime; also, more and more CCS systems will be installed.
For nuclear power plants (NPPs), we will assume that the specific emissions will not change until 2050, and then they will decrease by 1% every 5 years because new types of reactors will be introduced.
The specific CO2eq emissions of RES power plants depend on the production of such systems, especially photovoltaic systems. We believe that with the development of technology, emissions during production will be decreased. The specific emission rate from renewable energy power plants will be assumed to decrease by 1% every 5 years until 2100.
Taking into account all the assumptions, we calculated the total CO2eq emissions from various energy sources by the end of the century for the case where specific emissions would remain at current values, as well as for the case where specific emissions would be corrected. The calculated total emissions are shown in Figure 5 for Scenario 1 and in Figure 6 for Scenario 2.

4. Economic Aspect of Nuclear Energy Compared to the Other Energy Sources

Nuclear power is cost-competitive with other forms of electricity generation, except where there is direct access to low-cost fossil fuels [33].
There is very little information on investments related to types of nuclear power plants other than PWR power plants, particularly in the scientific literature, where information is very scarce and focuses on MSR (molten salt reactor) economics. The information about MSR economics and finance provided by vendor websites and other external sources (i.e., International Atomic Energy Agency) is also fragmented. Based on the literature, MSRs are expected to be cost-competitive with other energy sources. However, further studies are needed [34,35].
For this calculation, we assumed that all nuclear plants are PWR power plants. The reason for this is that data on the construction costs of other types of nuclear power plants are approximately equal. From 2024 to 2100, 1,674,281 TWh of electricity will be produced in PWR-type nuclear power plants in Scenario 1 (according to the scenario described in Section 2, Methodology). To conclude the average investment of different energy sources for the production of the specified electricity amount, we used LCOE. The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) is a well established, unique, transparent and intuitive metric, widely used in policy making, modelling and public discussion [36]. Costs related to renewable energy sources, especially wind power and PV modules, have been declining in recent years. We took into account the predictions from WEO 2022 [37] when we calculated the mean value of LCOE for investments related to renewable energy sources. [37] WEO 2022 provides predictions of the use of different renewable energy sources in the world by the end of the century. The assumption is that solar energy will be used the most of all renewable sources (46%), followed by wind energy (42%) and hydro energy (7%). Biomass use and other renewable energy sources were reduced to 5% of the total production from renewable energy sources. When the mean LCOE for wind farms was calculated, we assumed that onshore and offshore wind farm systems will be used equally in the future. Also, we only considered systems of 10 MW and above. The mean value of LCOE of wind power was 58.5 USD/MWh [38,39]. When we calculated the average value of the investment for solar systems, we only considered systems with a power of 1 MW and higher. The calculated LCOE values for different sources of electricity are given in Table 1 [36,38,39].
If the assumed generated electricity from nuclear sources for Scenario 1 was to be produced in nuclear power plants, the total investment would amount to USD 74,902,448.62. In Table 2, there is a calculation of what the investment would be by the end of the century if the same share of electricity produced from nuclear sources for Scenario 1 was produced in nuclear power plants, in fossil fuel power plants and in renewable energy source power plants.
Table 2 shows that if this electricity was produced in fossil fuel power plants, the investments would be doubled. If it was produced in power plants using renewable energy sources, the investments would be 5 orders of magnitude higher. It is obvious that nuclear power plants are a better option from a financial point of view in the long run for Scenario 1.
We assumed that from 2024 to 2100, 2,267,193.7 TWh of electricity will be produced in PWR-type nuclear power plants in Scenario 2 according to the scenario described in Section 2, Methodology.
If the assumed generated electricity from nuclear sources for Scenario 2 was to be produced in nuclear power plants, the total investment would amount to USD 101,427,633.5. In Table 3, there is a calculation of what the investment would be by the end of the century if the share of electricity produced from nuclear sources for Scenario 2 was produced in nuclear power plants, in fossil fuel power plants and in renewable energy source power plants.
Table 3 shows that the investments would be twice as large if the planned electricity were produced in fossil fuel plants instead of in nuclear power plants. If it was produced in power plants using renewable energy sources, the investments would be 6 orders of magnitude higher. It is obvious that nuclear power plants are a better option from a financial point of view in the long term for Scenario 2.

Scenario Total Investments in Global Power System

The costs of building plants based on renewable energy sources are continuously decreasing. From 2010 to 2023, costs for photovoltaic systems have fallen by about 90%. Also, the cost of battery storage projects has fallen by 89% from 2010 to 2023 [39].
We have already noted that the use of wind power plants will be increased in the future. At the same time, technology is advancing, and an additional reduction in installation costs is expected by the end of the century [39].
There has been a big drop in the prices of renewable energy sources in the last decade. It can be assumed that the cost of building a RES power plant will decrease in the future, but not so drastically. It can be concluded that the reduction will be 1% every two years until 2050. After that, it will be 1% every 5 years. It is also necessary to take into account the general increase in the cost of construction of any buildings.
One of the main disadvantages of nuclear power plants is the possibility of an accident. With nuclear power plants, accidents are somewhat more specific due to the possibility of releasing uncontrolled radiation into the atmosphere. Therefore, it is necessary to invest additional efforts and resources to reduce such a possibility to a minimum. Increasing nuclear power plant safety will certainly increase the cost of building these types of power plants in the future. This paper implies the development of the safety of nuclear power plants to the level of the absence of accidents, i.e., to their strict localization.
Savings can be ensured if two or more reactors are built on the same site. It depends on the decision makers and stakeholders.
The construction of the nuclear power plant building and the human resource utilization are up to 20% of the installation costs [40]. The cost of building nuclear power plants is 3 times higher in North America and Europe than in the rest of the world [41]. But it is to be expected that in the future, the costs will increase in the rest of the world due to the increase in the safety standards of nuclear power plants.
All things considered, we assume that the cost of building nuclear power plants will increase in the future. We assume that growth will be 0.5% every 3 years until the end of the century.
Fossil fuel power plants will be used to a lesser extent according to the scenarios. Technology is developing, and the price of carbon capture and storage systems (CCSs) will decrease. Construction prices will slowly increase, so the total price will remain relatively the same as today.
Taking into account all the assumptions, we calculated the total investments in global power systems from various energy sources by the end of the century for the case where LCOE would remain at current values, as well as for the case where LCOE would be corrected. Figure 7 depicts the calculated investments for Scenario 1, and Figure 8 depicts the calculated investments for Scenario 2.

5. Conclusions

The advantages of using nuclear energy compared to other energy sources are low GHG emissions in the atmosphere and a safe supply of electricity. Despite the large initial investment (we refer to nuclear power plants that have developed safety to the level of the absence of accidents or their strict localization), nuclear fuel is cheaper compared to other conventional fuels. The advantages of using nuclear energy are often downplayed due to over-emphasizing its disadvantages (production of radioactive waste, military use). The use of thorium in nuclear power plants in the future would result in a reduction in radioactive waste and a decrease in plutonium production.
Two scenarios of nuclear energy use in the future are described in this paper. Scenario 1 describes a moderate increase in nuclear energy use in the future, while Scenario 2 describes a significant increase in nuclear energy use by the end of the century. In addition, both scenarios are divided into three sub-scenarios in which the use of different nuclear technologies is analyzed (PWR, FBR and MSTR). Based on these scenarios, the total amount of electricity is calculated in MWh until the end of the century.
The calculated reduction in CO2 emission is significant and meets the requirements of the IPCC relating to limiting the increase in the average Earth’s surface temperature of 1.5 °C relative to the pre-industrial period. All six scenarios would greatly contribute to the amount of CO2 emission savings in the atmosphere, since the specific emission of CO2eq from nuclear power plants is lower than the specific emission from other power plants (especially in relation to specific emissions from fossil fuel power plants).
The initial investment for nuclear power plants is high, but in the long term, nuclear energy use is more profitable than any other type of power plant. Also, nuclear energy use is more environmentally friendly than conventional energy sources, as well as some types of renewable energy sources. In addition, nuclear fuel stocks are sufficient for the anticipated use of nuclear energy in both scenarios (that is, all six sub-scenarios) described in this paper.
The increase in the use of nuclear power plants is based on the fact that it is a safe and reliable source of electricity. Some countries provide incentives for the use of power plants based on renewable energy sources. In the same way, the construction of nuclear power plants can be encouraged in countries that do not have as many possibilities for using RESs. Each country has its own specificities and features. Here we look at the world as a whole, where we believe there is room for increasing nuclear capacity.
The future power system should pay more attention to nuclear energy, along with renewable energy systems.
Regarding the calculation of specific CO2 emissions, we believe that specific emissions from renewable energy sources will decrease due to the improvement of technology, as well as that specific emissions for MSTRs will be more available, so new figures and conclusions will be reached. Systems that use BESSs (Battery Energy Storage Systems) can be included in the following research, as well as hydrogen, which is increasingly common in electrical system planning. Also, further cost calculations could provide exact LCOE amounts for nuclear power plants using thorium and fast breeder reactors (when data on FBR and MSTR costs become more valuable) for a more detailed calculation of total investment costs.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.L.; methodology, D.L. and D.P.; software, D.L.; validation, D.L. and D.P.; formal analysis, D.L.; investigation, D.L.; resources, D.L. and D.P.; writing—original draft preparation, D.L.; writing—review and editing, D.L.; visualization, D.L.; supervision, D.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are part of the doctoral dissertation (Dinka Lale, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computing, University of Zagreb, Croatia) and research that was created after.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Lale, D. Estimation of Nuclear Fuel Supply Sufficiency in the Case of Significant Nuclear Energy Contribution to the Solution of the GLOBAL warming Problem. Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computing, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  2. Lale, D.; Pevec, D.; Knapp, V.; Matijevic, M. A Comparison of the Radioactive Waste Produced for Different Nuclear Energy Development Scenarios. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference of the Croatian Nuclear Society, Zadar, Croatia, 5–8 June 2022. [Google Scholar]
  3. IPCC Summary for Policymakers. 2018. Available online: https://archive.ipcc.ch/ (accessed on 10 February 2019).
  4. United Nations Environment Programme (2022). Emissions Gap Report 2022: The Closing Window—Climate Crisis Calls for Rapid Transformation of Societies. Nairobi. Available online: https://www.unep.org/emissions-gap-report-2022 (accessed on 20 December 2024).
  5. WNA Report. Comparison of Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Various Electricity Generation Sources. Available online: http://www.world-nuclear.org/uploadedFiles/org/WNA/Publications/Working_Group_Reports/comparison_of_lifecycle.pdf (accessed on 12 October 2020).
  6. Nuclear Energy Agency. Uranium Resources Production and Demand 2018 (Red Book 2018); Nuclear Energy Agency: Paris, France, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  7. Nuclear Energy Agency. Uranium 2022: Resources, Production and Demand (Red Book 2022); Nuclear Energy Agency: Paris, France, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  8. International Energy Agency. Global Energy & CO2 Status Report 2019; IEA: Paris, France, 2019; Available online: https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-co2-status-report-2019 (accessed on 12 February 2019).
  9. Global CCS Institute. Global Status of BECCS Projects 2010 Review of Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) and Possibilities of Introducing a Small-Scale Unit. Biorecro AB. 2011. Available online: https://www.divaportal.org/smash/get/diva2:633335/FULLTEXT01.pdf (accessed on 15 December 2019).
  10. Zhao, B.; Zhao, Z.; Wang, C.; Zhang, R. Research on an Integrated Energy System with HPR1000 Nuclear Power Unit as Base Load. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Energy, Power and Electrical Technology (ICEPET), Chengdu, China, 17–19 May 2024; pp. 412–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gabbar, H.A.; Abdussami, M.R.; Adham, M.I. Optimal Planning of Nuclear-Renewable Micro-Hybrid Energy System by Particle Swarm Optimization. IEEE. Access 2020, 8, 181049–181073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Yang, X.; Song, Y.; Wang, G.; Wang, W. A Comprehensive Review on the Development of Sustainable Energy Strategy and Implementation in China. IEEE. Trans. Sustain. Energy 2010, 1, 57–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Jóźwik, B.; Topcu, B.A.; Doğan, M. The Impact of Nuclear Energy Consumption, Green Technological Innovation, and Trade Openness on the Sustainable Environment in the USA. Energies 2024, 17, 3810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Icaza, D.; Jurado, F.; Tostado-Veliz, M.; Arevalo, V.P. Decarbonization of the Galapagos Islands. Proposal to transform the energy system into 100% renewable by 2050. Renew. Energy 2022, 189, 199–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Escamilla-Fraile, S.; Ramos-Real, F.J.; Calero-Garcia, F.J.; Gonzalez-Diaz, B. A Review of the Energy Policy and Energy Transition Objectives for 2040 in the Canary Islands (Spain). Energies 2023, 16, 1321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Toledo-Vasquez, D.; Romero, R.J.; Hernandez-Luna, G.; Cerezo, J.; Montiel-Gonzalez, M. Projections for the 2050 Scenario of the Mexican Electrical System. Energies 2024, 17, 4326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Arevalo, P.; Cano, A.; Jurado, F. Large-scale integration of renewable energies by 2050 through demand prediction with ANFIS, Ecuador case study. Energy 2024, 286, 129446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. European Parliament. Roadmap to EU Climate Neutrality—Scrutiny of Member States. Spain’s Climate Action Strategy. 2024. Available online: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2024/767171/EPRS_BRI(2024)767171_EN.pdf (accessed on 10 May 2025).
  19. Kato, S.; Lee, S.; He, Y.; Yoshioka, T.; Morotomi, T.; Chewpreecha, U. Impact of Carbon Neutrality on the Economy and Industry Assuming Japan’s Achievement of 2030 Power Mix Plan: A 2050 Perspective Based on the E3ME Macro-Econometric Model. Energies 2023, 16, 6661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Jaron, A.; Borucka, A. Analysis of Energy System Transformations in the European Union. Energies 2024, 17, 6181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Icaza, D.; Vallejo-Ramirez, D.; Guerrero Granda, C.; Marin, E. Challenges, Roadmaps and Smart Energy Transition towards 100% Renewable Energy Markets in American Islands: A Review. Energies 2024, 17, 1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Icaza, D.; Vallejo-Ramirez, D.; Siguencia, M.; Portocarrero, L. Smart Electrical Planning, Roadmaps and Policies in Latin American Countries Through Electric Propulsion Systems: A Review. Sustainability 2024, 16, 10624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Akom, K.; Shongwe, T.; Joseph, M.K. South Africa’s integrated energy planning framework, 2015-2050. J. Energy S. Afr. 2021, 32, 68–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. OECD NEA & IAEA―Uranium 2014: Resources, Production and Demand―(Red Book 2014), OECD 2014 NEA No. 7209. 2014. Available online: https://www.oecdnea.org/ndd/pubs/2014/7209-uranium2014.pdf (accessed on 19 December 2019).
  25. Olivier, J.G.J.; Schure, K.M.; Peters, J.A.H.W. Trends in global CO2 and Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Report December 2017, Graphics; PBL Beeldredactie: The Hague, The Netherlands, 2017; PBL Publication Number: 2674. [Google Scholar]
  26. Liu, B.; Peng, B.; Lu, F.; Hu, J.; Zheng, L.; Bo, M.; Shang, X.; Liu, W.; Zhang, Y.; Zhou, X.; et al. Critical review of nuclear power plant carbon emissions. Front. Energy Res. 2023, 11, 1147016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. International Energy Agency; IAEA; OECD/IEA. World Energy Outlook 2018. Global Energy Trends; International Energy Agency: Paris, France; IAEA: Vienna, Austria; OECD/IEA: Paris, France, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  28. Pool, L.M. Environmental Impact Assessment of the Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) Compared to the Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) and Offshore Wind Power. Master’s Thesis, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  29. International Energy Agency. Global Energy Review 2025. CO2 Emissions; International Energy Agency: Paris, France, 2025. [Google Scholar]
  30. Li, K.; Fan, H.; Yao, P. Estimating carbon emissions from thermal power plants based on thermal characteristics. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2024, 128, 103768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Yuan, T.; Xue, Y.; Wang, C.; Gao, P.; Zhao, B.; Zhao, L.; Jin, C.; Li, S.; He, B. Calculation of CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants based on OCO-2/3 satellite observations and divergence model. Energy 2025, 315, 134303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hanson, E.; Nwakile, C.; Oluwafolajimi Hammed, V. Carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) technologies: Evaluating the effectiveness of advanced CCUS solutions for reducing CO2 emissions. Results Surf. Interfaces 2025, 18, 100381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. World Nuclear Association—Economics of Nuclear Power. Available online: https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx (accessed on 30 January 2024).
  34. Mignacca, B.; Locatelli, G. Economics and finance of Molten Salt Reactors. Progess. Nucl. Energy. 2020, 129, 203503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). Status of Molten Salt Thorium Reactor; Technical Reports Series no. 489; IAEA: Vienna, Austria, 2023; ISBN 978-92-0-140622-4|978-92-0-140722-1. [Google Scholar]
  36. International Energy Agency; Nuclear Energy Agency; Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development. Projected Costs of Generation Electricity, 2020th ed.; International Energy Agency: Paris, France; Nuclear Energy Agency: Paris, France; Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development: Paris, France, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  37. International Energy Agency. World Energy Outlook 2022; International Energy Agency: Paris, France, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  38. Stehly, T.; Duffy, P.; Mulas Hernando, D. Cost of Wind Energy Review, 2024th ed.; National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Golden, CO, USA, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  39. IRENA (International Renewable Energy Ageny). Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2023; IRENA: Bonn, Germany, 2023; ISBN 978-92-9260-621-3. [Google Scholar]
  40. World Nuclear Association. Available online: https://world-nuclear.org/ (accessed on 17 May 2025).
  41. Larsen, L.M.; Abou-Jaoude, A.; Guaita, N.; Stauff, N. Nuclear Energy Cost Estimates for Net Zero World Initiative; Idaho National Laboratory: Idaho Falls, Idaho; Argonne National Laboratory: Lemont, IL, USA, 2024; INL/RPT-23-74378. [Google Scholar]
Energies 18 02978 g001
Figure 1. An assessment of the world’s electricity needs by the end of the century is the starting point for Scenario 1, which is further divided into Scenario 1a, Scenario 1b and Scenario 1c, and Scenario 2, which is further divided into Scenario 2a, Scenario 2b and Scenario 2c, all depending on the share of nuclear energy as well as the use of different types of nuclear power plants [2].
Figure 1. An assessment of the world’s electricity needs by the end of the century is the starting point for Scenario 1, which is further divided into Scenario 1a, Scenario 1b and Scenario 1c, and Scenario 2, which is further divided into Scenario 2a, Scenario 2b and Scenario 2c, all depending on the share of nuclear energy as well as the use of different types of nuclear power plants [2].
Energies 18 02978 g001
Energies 18 02978 g002
Figure 2. Nuclear power plant capacity factor for all scenarios by the end of the century.
Figure 2. Nuclear power plant capacity factor for all scenarios by the end of the century.
Energies 18 02978 g002
Energies 18 02978 g003
Figure 3. Computer model flow chart for Scenario 1.
Figure 3. Computer model flow chart for Scenario 1.
Energies 18 02978 g003
Energies 18 02978 g004
Figure 4. Computer model flow chart for Scenario 2.
Figure 4. Computer model flow chart for Scenario 2.
Energies 18 02978 g004
Energies 18 02978 g005
Figure 5. Total emissions from various electrical energy sources with and without CO2eq specific emission corrections for Scenario 1.
Figure 5. Total emissions from various electrical energy sources with and without CO2eq specific emission corrections for Scenario 1.
Energies 18 02978 g005
Energies 18 02978 g006
Figure 6. Total emissions from various electrical energy sources with and without CO2eq specific emission corrections for Scenario 2.
Figure 6. Total emissions from various electrical energy sources with and without CO2eq specific emission corrections for Scenario 2.
Energies 18 02978 g006
Energies 18 02978 g007
Figure 7. Total various electrical energy source costs with and without LCOE corrections for Scenario 1.
Figure 7. Total various electrical energy source costs with and without LCOE corrections for Scenario 1.
Energies 18 02978 g007
Energies 18 02978 g008
Figure 8. Total various electrical energy source costs with and without LCOE corrections for Scenario 2.
Figure 8. Total various electrical energy source costs with and without LCOE corrections for Scenario 2.
Energies 18 02978 g008
Table 1. Average LCOE for different types of electrical power plants.
Table 1. Average LCOE for different types of electrical power plants.
Power Plant TypeNuclear Power PlantFossil Fuel Power PlantSolar Power PlantWind Power PlantHydro Power PlantBiomass Power Plant
LCOE [USD/MWh]44.7492.5744.0058.5077.6472.00
Table 2. The investment by the year 2100 if the share of electricity produced from nuclear sources for Scenario 1 is produced in nuclear power plants, in fossil fuel power plants and in power plants that use renewable energy sources.
Table 2. The investment by the year 2100 if the share of electricity produced from nuclear sources for Scenario 1 is produced in nuclear power plants, in fossil fuel power plants and in power plants that use renewable energy sources.
Power Plant TypeNuclear Power PlantFossil Fuel Power PlantRES Power Plant
Total investment [USD]74,902,448.6154,990,4409.01514 × 1013
Table 3. The investment by the year 2100 if the share of electricity produced from nuclear sources for Scenario 2 was produced in nuclear power plants, in fossil fuel power plants and in power plants that use renewable energy sources.
Table 3. The investment by the year 2100 if the share of electricity produced from nuclear sources for Scenario 2 was produced in nuclear power plants, in fossil fuel power plants and in power plants that use renewable energy sources.
Power Plant TypeNuclear Power PlantFossil Fuel Power PlantRES Power Plant
Total investment [USD]101,427,633.5209,877,164.71.22077 × 1014
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lale, D.; Pevec, D. Long-Term Use of Nuclear Energy from the Aspect of Economy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Energies 2025, 18, 2978. https://doi.org/10.3390/en18112978

AMA Style

Lale D, Pevec D. Long-Term Use of Nuclear Energy from the Aspect of Economy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Energies. 2025; 18(11):2978. https://doi.org/10.3390/en18112978

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lale, Dinka, and Dubravko Pevec. 2025. "Long-Term Use of Nuclear Energy from the Aspect of Economy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions" Energies 18, no. 11: 2978. https://doi.org/10.3390/en18112978

APA Style

Lale, D., & Pevec, D. (2025). Long-Term Use of Nuclear Energy from the Aspect of Economy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Energies, 18(11), 2978. https://doi.org/10.3390/en18112978

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop