CURRENT STATE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY POWER GENERATION

FROM A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE

Ariel Jake F. Icban*, Jhemalyn P. Asas, Romar Angelo D. Matias,

Jenny May M. Santos, Jessel Tom R. Esaga, Jahaziel L. Borja, Dan William C. Martinez
Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering and Architecture, Bataan
Peninsula State University – Main Campus, Capitol Compound, City of Balanga, Bataan
2100, Philippines
*ajficban@[Link]

ABSTRACT

Nuclear energy power generation is regarded as one of the most reliable sources to
meet rising electricity demand as it contributes to about 10 percent of the world's energy mix.
It is a low-carbon technology that contributes to decarbonizing the environment and has
economic advantages in obtaining energy security and sustainable development. However,
nuclear power produces radioactive waste, which remains a prominent concern today. This
review paper presented the proper radioactive waste disposal, the current status of nuclear
energy power generation worldwide, the prospects of how countries will emerge with nuclear
power plants, and the impact of public perception on the development of nuclear power
plants in different countries. The primary findings of this paper are categorized into operation,
under construction, shutdown, and decommissioning. Nuclear power generation has been
relatively stable over the past years. Despite the benefits of nuclear power plants,
their expansion is still uncertain due to the positive perception and public trust in renewable
energy.

KEYWORDS: nuclear energy, status, radioactive waste, reactor, public perception

INTRODUCTION

Nuclear energy is one of the available options for electricity generation worldwide. A
Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) is a facility used to generate electricity through the nuclear fission
process, in which atoms are divided into two smaller atoms, and massive quantities of energy
are produced [1] [2]. A nuclear reactor is a component of a nuclear power plant typically
fueled by uranium-235 or plutonium-239, where nuclear fission occurs, and heat is released
[3] [4]. The heat released by nuclear fission is used to create steam, which rotates a steam
turbine connected to a generator to generate electricity [4].
As of June 2022, around 10 percent of the total global energy mix consists of nuclear
energy [5]. It is equivalent to 394,298 MWe of the total net installed capacity of nuclear power
generating plants worldwide [6]. From the 1960s through the 1990s, the global trajectory of
nuclear energy power generation in Figure 1 reveals a significant increase. However, safety

1
concerns following the 2011 Fukushima Daichi accident led to a significant decline in
electricity generation. Despite this, nuclear energy output has steadily expanded to meet
electricity demand recently, with 2,735.52 TWh generated as of 2021 [7].

3000
Generated Electricity (TWh)

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
1977
1965
1967
1969
1971
1973
1975

1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
2019
2021
Year

Figure 1 Trend of Global Nuclear Energy Power Generation from 1965-2021

(Source: B.P. Statistical Review of World Energy & Ember, 2021)

Nuclear energy power generation is considered a reliable source of electricity. It

provides a stable grid connection and maintains a high-capacity factor, making it a potential
energy security component [8]. Nuclear power facilities have relatively low operational costs
but are costly to build due to their high capital requirements. The capital cost associated with
nuclear power generation significantly affects the total cost [9] [10]. The uranium fuel for
nuclear power reactors is around 14% of their operational costs and hence has a negligible
impact on the price of energy generated [11]. Investing in nuclear power has a more
substantial multiplier effect on the Gross Domestic Product than investing in other green
technology programs. However, the cost of initial investments at stake varies greatly
depending on the expansion length, location, and reactor type [10] [12].
The most considerable economic multiplier impact of any sustainable energy source
comes from nuclear power, which employs around 25% more people per unit of electricity
than the wind sector [13]. In addition, approximately 200,000 job-years of employment are
produced for every 1,000 MWe of nuclear power produced [10] [12]. Clean energy investments
in nuclear, solar, and wind energy have a two to seven times more substantial impact on GDP
than spending on fossil fuel energy sources [13]. Furthermore, nuclear power offers a larger
gross domestic multiplier than other clean energy technologies. For instance, to recover from
the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic, governments worldwide are assessing economic
recovery plans which include nuclear energy power generation [12].
Nuclear power generation has been recognized as a low-carbon technology that has
avoided CO2 emissions of 70 to 78 Gt for the past 50 years [8] [12]. It is one of the options for
decarbonizing global economies alongside renewable energy to achieve the Paris Agreement's
goal of keeping the increase in global average temperature below 1.5 °C by 2030 [8] [10] [12]
2
[14]. Furthermore, nuclear power generation contributes to achieving Sustainable
Development Goals, particularly SDGs 7, 8, and 13. It serves as catalysts for innovation, job
opportunities, building capacity in energy planning, and access to large quantities of clean,
reliable, and affordable energy while providing mitigation measures for combating climate
change [15].
Figure 2 presents the life-cycle emissions of various energy generation sources, with a
median value of 12 grams of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt-hour generated electricity
for nuclear energy. The majority of nuclear power's CO2 emissions result from the production
of cement and steel, as well as the assembly of components during construction. The CO2
emissions of nuclear power are comparable to wind and lower than those of solar power and
other renewable sources. Hence, nuclear power generation offers a crucial position in
decarbonizing the global energy sector, attaining carbon neutrality by 2050 [16].

Coal 820
Biomass - Co-Firing 740
Natural gas 490
Biomass 230
Solar PV - Utility 48
Solar PV - Roof 41
Geothermal 38
Solar PV - Concentrated 27
Hydropower 24
Nuclear 12
Wind Offshore 12
Wind Onshore 11
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

gCO2, equivalent per kWh

Figure 2 Life-Cycle Emissions of Electricity Options

(Source: IPCC, 2014)

Despite the significant benefits of nuclear power generation, there are undeniable
drawbacks. Nuclear power produces nuclear waste that is highly radioactive and poses a
challenge for appropriate disposal. In addition, nuclear reactor accidents might emit
substantial radiation into the environment, resulting in extensive pollution that could last for
thousands of years in contaminated areas. Fortunately, the International Atomic Energy
Association and other international organizations impose policies regulating nuclear waste
by reviewing waste storage and disposal management strategies [8].
This paper reviews the current technologies used by nuclear power plants, including
the evolution of nuclear reactor generation and radioactive waste disposal strategies.
Furthermore, it highlights the current global status of nuclear energy power generation by
reviewing the operational, construction, shutdown, and decommissioning of nuclear reactors.
The prospects of nuclear energy power generation are discussed, as well as the public's
perceptions and acceptability. Thus, this paper aims to establish insights into the current
nuclear energy power generation and future technologies.
3
SYSTEMS OF NUCLEAR ENERGY POWER GENERATION

Evolution of Nuclear Power Plant Generation

Figure 3 Nuclear Power Plant Generations

(Source: Nuclear Energy Association, 2014)

Nuclear power systems were first developed in the late 1940s for naval use and were
initially commercialized for civil purposes in the 1950s [17] [18]. The emergence of nuclear
technologies has continuously improved and been categorized into generations, as shown in
figure 3. The cost-effectiveness, safety, security and nonproliferation, grid compatibility, the
commercialization road map, and the fuel cycle are six major reactor characteristics that
significantly differentiate nuclear reactor technology generations [18].
The first generation was launched from the 1950s to the 1960s as an early nuclear
reactor prototype without any active or passive safety features for civil or military purposes
[19]. Generation II reactors are designed to be economically and technologically reliable, with
a 40-years operational lifetime [18] [20] that was initially introduced in the 1960s. Compared
to Generation I, Generation II has the features of active safety measures and was exclusively
for civilian purposes [19]. The limited availability of nuclear reactor technologies under the
first and second generation in domestic markets leads to the development of the third and
fourth phases [21].
Generation III reactors are essentially Generation II reactors with improvements in fuel
technology, thermal efficiency, standardized designs, safety features, and operational life,
typically 60 years. The notable improvement in this generation is the absence of safety-
operator intervention and reliance on gravity or natural convection, mitigating the impact of
plant incidents [18] [19]. The Generation III+ reactor was simply the Generation III system
with slightly modified plant designs [19]. This generation's evolution intends to minimize the
construction period and costs of a reactor unit [20]. The Generation III+ systems are regarded
as the foundation of advancements in Generation IV reactors [18].
Generation IV reactor systems seek to improve plant performance, new nuclear energy
applications, and more sustainable nuclear material management. This generation
significantly reduces the generated waste and uranium fuel requirements and is expected to
be commercially available by 2030 [21] [22]. Generations II and III of nuclear power systems
are currently operating worldwide [17].

4
Nuclear Reactor Technologies

Nuclear reactor technology is considered one of the key elements in nuclear power
generation. These reactors exist in various types, with the vast majority large enough to
provide enough electricity to power whole cities. As shown in Table 1, most nuclear power
plants use thermal reactors, which need moderators like light water, heavy water, or graphite
to slow the neutrons emitted from the nuclear fuel rods during fission. The most distinct
differentiation of current operable nuclear reactors can be identified through their
corresponding coolant and moderators [23].

Table 1 Nuclear Reactor Types

(Source: World Nuclear Association, 2022)

Reactor Type Fuel Coolant Moderator

Pressurized Water
Enriched UO2 Water Water
Reactor (PWR)
Boiling Water Reactor
Enriched UO2 Water Water
(BWR)
Pressurized Heavy
Water Reactor Natural UO2 Heavy Water Heavy Water
(PHWR)
Gas-cooled Reactor Natural U (metal),
CO2 Graphite
(GCR) Enriched UO2
Light Water Graphite
Enriched UO2 Water Graphite
Reactor (LWGR)
Fast Neutron Reactor
PuO2 and UO2 Liquid Sodium None
(FBR)
High-Temperature
Gas-cooled Reactor Enriched UO2 Helium Graphite
(HTGR)

Pressurized water reactors (PWRs) are the most frequently utilized nuclear reactors,
which account for 70% of the world’s reactor fleet [23]. PWRs typically have a 1000 MW
producing capacity and an efficiency of 33% [24]. PWRs are light-water reactors that use
regular water as coolant and moderator and employ enriched uranium oxide as fuel. They
have about 150-250 fuel assemblies that hold up to 80-100 tons of uranium. PWRs are designed
with a primary and secondary cooling circuit, which reduces the risk of possible radioactive
leakages. The primary cooling system runs through the reactor’s core, where the water reaches
about 325°C. The water is kept from boiling by applying around 150 times that of atmospheric
pressure [2] [23] [25]. The fission process would slow down if any of the water that serves as
a moderator in the primary cooling circuit turned into steam, which gives PWRs its passive
safety feature [2] [25]. A heat exchanger transfers heat from the primary cooling circuit to the
water in the secondary circuit, where lesser pressure is applied. Therefore, the water boils,
producing steam that drives a turbine to generate electricity [2] [23] [24] [25].

5
 Boiling water reactors (BWRs) take up to 15% of the world's reactor fleet, which makes
them the second most prevalent reactor type globally [23]. BWRs can produce up to 1400 MW
and have an efficiency of about 33% [24]. Like PWRs, BWRs are water-cooled and water-
moderated reactors that burn enriched uranium oxide as fuel. Up to 750 BWR fuel assemblies
in their reactor core carry up to 140 tons of uranium [2]. The design of BWR is characterized
by a single circuit where water boils at 285 °C under 75 atmospheric pressure in the core. The
reactor's steam is supplied directly into the turbine [2] [23] [25]. The turbines have some
radioactive contamination since the steam is in contact with the core, but this contamination
is temporary, and the turbines may often be examined shortly after closure [24]. BWRs are
more easily capable of operating in load-following mode than PWRs [2].
Pressurized Heavy Water Reactors (PWHR) represent 11% of the world’s reactor fleet
[23]. PWHRs employ heavy water as their coolant and moderator, making it feasible to use
natural uranium as fuel [2] [23] [24]. Heavy water has the benefit of capturing lesser neutrons
than ordinary water, though it is substantially costly. As a result, the ability of uranium fuel
to sustain a nuclear reaction does not require enrichment [24]. The Canadian deuterium
uranium (CANDU) reactor is the predominant type of PHWR, which was developed in
Canada in 1950 [2] [24]. Compared to other designs, the PHWR generates more energy per
kilogram of extracted uranium but uses much more fuel per output unit [2]. The coolant in
the CANDU reactor typically reaches 290°C without boiling by pressuring the system for
about 100 atmospheric pressures. Like PWR, the secondary circuit powers a steam turbine by
transferring heat from the primary circuit to the secondary circuit using a heat exchanger [2]
[24].
There are also gas-cooled reactors that use carbon dioxide as their primary coolant.
These are yet another form of a nuclear power reactor [2]. GCRs and AGRs are graphite-
moderated reactors that use enriched uranium oxide pellets in stainless steel tubes. Similar to
heavy water, a graphite moderator enables using natural uranium (in GCRs) or extremely
low-enriched uranium (in AGRs) as fuel. While still contained within the concrete and steel
pressure vessel, carbon dioxide is heated to about 650 °C inside the core before being pumped
out through steam generator tubes. As a result of the high temperature, its thermal efficiency
is relatively high, at around 41% [2] [26].
The Soviet-designed light water graphite reactor (LWGR) has a graphite moderator
and uses water as a coolant with separate fuel paths. It is commercially known as RBMK
(Reaktor Bolshoy Moshchnosty Kanalny), and similar to a boiling water reactor (BWR), steam
is segregated above the fuel channels where water boils at around 290°C and 6.9 MPa [2].
LWGR pressure tubes contain low-enriched uranium oxide. Boiling over the ideal
temperature reduces cooling and neutron absorption without inhibiting the fission process.
The merging of a graphite moderator and water as a coolant makes this 1964–1966 design
stand apart from any other power reactors worldwide [2] [27].
High-temperature gas-cooled reactors (HTGRs) have a different design than the usual
ones. The coolant employed by these reactors is helium, and the moderator used is graphite.
HTGRs use ceramic-coated fuel that can work at temperatures above 1600°C and are most
efficient when running at 700-950 °C. Helium can either directly power a gas turbine or be
used to make steam [28]. It is possible to prevent chemical interactions between the fuel,
moderator, and coolant. In water-cooled reactors, the major concern is the same chemical

6
interactions. The primary characteristics of HTGRs, include increased safety, high thermal
efficiency, economic competitiveness, and resistance to rapid increase, making this technology
a viable choice for nuclear power plant implementation [29].
A Fast neutron reactor (FNR) has a neutron spectrum in its core zone with 5 MeV
neutrons. Plutonium is the commonly used fuel because it can fission with fast-moving
neutrons. The generated neutrons in the fission of plutonium-239 are 25% more than that of
uranium. Required coolant contains liquid metal, usually sodium, to minimize neutron
moderation and ensure effective heat transmission. For FNR, there is no need for a moderator,
and it has smaller cores than regular reactors. This design makes it possible to use the reactor
in small places, like submarines and is the main benefit of the FNR [30]. Also, the FBR fuel
cycle is predicated on reprocessing wasted fuel, particularly the blanket assemblies. In France,
25 tons of Phenix fuel were reprocessed, and some plutonium was recycled three times. Fast
reactors extract 60 times more energy from uranium than typical reactors, but they are
expensive to construct [2] [31].
Small Modular Reactor (SMR) is a prospected nuclear reactor technology that would
fulfill the limitation of large nuclear power plants in providing electricity to smaller grid areas
[12] [23] [32]. SMRs are nuclear reactors with generated electricity ranging from 10-megawatt
electric (MWe) and 300 MWe, making them applicable for flexible power generation [32] [33].
Compared to large nuclear reactors, SMRs are smaller, have quicker construction periods, and
lower capital costs [12] [32] [33]. Many SMR designs have built-in safety and waste
management benefits, making licensing more manageable and increasing societal
acceptability [10]. At least 25 of the 72 SMR concepts with targeted demonstration dates by
2030 presently exist in various technical readiness levels, projecting an additional 1.6 GWe
contribution from SMRs once the worldwide deployment is ultimately enabled. Nevertheless,
deployment challenges for SMR technology still need to be resolved for it to become
commercially viable in the market. Conditions such as demonstration of the first-of-a-kind
(FOAK) reactors’ operating performance and safety, their cost-competitiveness with
alternatives, their reliable supply chains, their access to large-scale fuel cycles, and their
viability as financing options are needed to be met. Despite the normal SMRs’ potentiality,
there are still markets where they are not applicable, which led to the proposition of Micro
modular reactors (MMRs) [12]. MMRs are transportable nuclear reactors capable of semi-
autonomous operation with fewer than 10 MWe capacity, suitable for power generation in
remote and off-grid areas [10] [12] [33].

Radioactive Waste Storage and Disposal Management Strategies

Nuclear power generation releases vast amounts of radioactive waste during

operation [34]. The lack of potential locations for managing nuclear waste constitutes adverse
effects as they are currently challenging for disposal and storage [34] [35] [36]. Fortunately,
international governments and agencies, such as the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA), have been established to strictly regulate and develop safety standards for the
appropriate management of nuclear waste. Advancement has been achieved in developing
national policies as well as different kind of approaches for the long duration of supervision
of nuclear waste along with the spent fuel. The International Framework for Nuclear Energy

7
Cooperation (IFNEC) suggested focusing on developing a national repository for radioactive
wastes [37]. The national programs of the IAEA categorized nuclear waste depending mainly
on the level of hazard they produce, specified as low-level waste, intermediate-level waste, or
high-level waste [34] [37] [38] [39].
Low-level radioactive waste includes a wide range of substances generated during the
operation of nuclear reactors, such as equipment, water, and exhaust that has been partially
contaminated. Its generated radioactivity is relatively low and mostly transient. Resins,
sludges, fuel cladding, and other contaminated materials resulting from a reactor's
decommission are typical components of intermediate-level waste. This type of waste is
divided into two groups: short-lived radioactive waste and long-lived intermediate-
level radioactive waste. The intermediate level of short-lived waste consists of half-life
radionuclides below 31 years and becomes negligible after 300 years [40] [41].
On the other hand, intermediate-level long-lived waste has a half-life of over a
thousand years. It contains radionuclides that require high isolation and control during the
handling and disposal procedures [34] [36] [37]. High-level radioactive wastes are extremely
toxic and are waste that is generated as byproducts and transuranic elements from the nuclear
fission in the reactor core [34] [36] [38] [42]. However, proper radioactive waste management
techniques vary depending on location and waste type [37] [39]. Moreover, environmental
conditions at the proposed disposal site must be considered when determining the type of
facility to be constructed and the depth for storage facility and disposal of radioactive waste
[43]. Currently, several storage facilities are in operation worldwide, such as the pool used for
spent fuel and dry cask storage [34].
Spent fuel is stored in the spent fuel pool (SFP) after the cycle of nuclear generation.
Since water is a reliable and natural radiation barrier, spent fuel pools are contained in
thermally regulated water. The used fuel must be kept in the spent fuel pool before being
withdrawn from the nuclear reactor and changed with an unused fuel [34]. Due to expected
produced energy through decomposition of fission product, the spent fuel must be
maintained submerged in water. The amount of heat produced by wasted fuel reduces over
time [34]. Once the radioactive waste has cooled, it will be transported to the dry cask storage
below the surface [34] [44]. Steel is used to construct the casks, which are sealed through
welding. Preferably, the steel cylinder must be sealed tightly preventing, any leakage for
containment of the spent fuel. Extra concrete with steel is provided to surround the storage
for the workers and individuals to be safe from any radiation leaks. Several Casks are able
stored and transferred to different locations [44]. The time it takes for storage varies
depending on the type of radioactive waste generated before subjecting into final disposal
[45]. The most widely implemented and accepted options for the disposal of waste are near-
surface disposal and deep geological disposal [38].
Near-surface disposal involves primarily radionuclides waste which is short-lived and
is disposed of near the land surface [43]. It is classified into two categories, ground-level, and
below-ground levels, which are being implemented globally. Disposal facilities under the
ground level are a few meters below the surface, covered in a protective layer, and equipped
with vaults designed to hold waste containers. This facility is implemented by the United
States, France, Spain, the UK, and other nations. In contrast, the disposal facilities on the near-
surface below-ground level necessitate the mine of holes that can reach depths of over 10

8
meters and are accessible through a drift. Currently, these facilities are utilized in Sweden and
Finland [38].
The concept of deep geological disposal was inspired by the extended time through
which an amount of nuclear waste still radiates actively. The combination of artificial and
common impediments, such as sand and rock, created isolation keeping radionuclides away
from people and the environment. Underneath the surface, a deep geological repository is set
up to store HLW without being affected by human activities. In addition, deep groundwater
typically lacks oxygen, reducing the likelihood that wastes will be chemically mobilized. Most
countries, including South Korea, Russia, Spain, the United States, and other nations, are in
favor of the disposal strategy, which is the deep geological for managing radioactive waste
[34] [38]. The IAEA has approved several plans and concepts regarding radioactive waste
disposal. Currently, there are no proper and stable locations for nuclear waste disposal, and
it is challenging for countries with limited inventories to establish disposal facilities [35] [39].
The Deep borehole is another possible strategy for disposal for geological isolation
holding the nuclear waste for a long period [37]. The approach is to drill a hole up to 5
kilometers deep in basement rock, fill the bottom until it reaches a height of 2 kilometers along
with the storage of carrying the radioactive waste, and seal the above 3 kilometers with either
bentonite, asphalt, or concrete. The borehole contains steel cylinder storage with a height of 5
meters and a diameter of almost 1 meter, which might fit into the zone of the borehole
[38]. Cement would then be put by layer and placed between the waste containers to keep
them apart. For a large amount of radioactive waste, this kind of disposal strategy is
considered non-economical than that of a deep geological strategy in the case of storage below
the ground. Deep boreholes have been devised in some nations, as well as Switzerland,
Finland, Sweden, and United States, but eventually rejected by Sweden, Finland, and the US
due to financial reasons [37] [38].
For spent fuel disposal, the concept of mined repositories has received the most
attention. The mined repository structure comprises tunnels or caverns where packaged waste
is stored. In certain situations, the containers may be enclosed by a block of cement and clay
for the provision of an additional shield. Standard mining and civil engineering techniques
can only be used to excavate a deep underground repository at depths between 250 and 1000
meters where the rock units are relatively stable and there is no significant groundwater flow
[38]. Copper is a reliable canister containing spent fuel in radioactive waste storage since it
can withstand long-term corrosion over time [46]. Finland and Sweden are committed to
implementing mined repositories as a spent fuel disposal strategy. Sweden primarily
developed the KBS-3 disposal concept, and Finland adopted it. The identical spent fuel of
Sweden and Finland, from having similar nuclear reactor technologies, allows the expansion
of the disposal design [45].
Table 2 shows the most suitable options for disposal among each type of radioactive
waste by hazard. Near-surface disposal is utilized for long-term management of LLW and
short-lived radioisotopes. A deep geological disposal strategy is generally accepted way for
wastes categorized as long-lived radioisotopes under intermediate-level and the high-level
radioactive waste. Additionally, numerous disposal options for radioactive waste that are safe
for the environment and socially acceptable have been investigated [36] [45].

9
 Table 2 Corresponding Disposal Options by Radioactive Waste Category
(Source: World Nuclear Association, 2022 & Norten, U.,2019)

Classification of Radioactive Waste by Hazard Suitable Option for Disposal

Low-level Waste (LLW) Near-Surface Disposal

Short-lived radioisotope Near-Surface Disposal

Intermediate-level Waste (ILW)
Long-lived radioisotope Deep Geological Disposal

High-level Waste (HLW) Deep Geological Disposal

CURRENT STATUS OF NUCLEAR POWER GENERATION WORLDWIDE

In Operation

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that 437 nuclear reactors
were operating as of December 2021 [47]. In 2022, an additional five nuclear reactors started
their operations, namely Fuqing-6, Hongyanhe-6, Kanupp-3, Olkiluoto-3, and Shin-Hanul-1.
However, Hunterston B-2 and Palisades nuclear reactors have shut down. As a result, 440
nuclear reactors were operating worldwide as of June 2022 [48]. Among these nuclear reactors,
the Taishan in China has the highest net capacity of 1,660 MWe worldwide [47]. The World
Nuclear Performance Report 2021 highlights that the global nuclear power generation
performance was down from an average of 83.1% capacity factor in 2019 to 80.3% in 2020 [49].
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the nuclear industry has taken precautions to protect
personnel and prevent virus transmission. This pandemic restricts nuclear power plant
operations by implementing preventive measures against COVID-19 that decrease nuclear
power output and affect overall electricity demand [50]. Nevertheless, nuclear power
generation gradually increased in 2021 to meet the electricity demand, producing 2735.52
TWh of generated electricity [7].
The operation of nuclear reactors has dramatically increased from 1954 to 1989, with
420 operable nuclear reactors worldwide, as illustrated in figure 4. For the past 32 years, the
number of operable nuclear reactors has remained relatively stable, with the highest number
recorded in 2018 at 450 nuclear reactors [51].

10
 500
Number of Operational Nuclear
400

300
Reactors

200

100

0
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
Year

Figure 4 Trend of Number of operational nuclear reactors worldwide from 1954 to 2022
(Source: Statista & IAEA PRIS, 2022)

Nuclear reactors with a conventional structure are typically licensed and have a
service lifetime between 25 and 40 years [52] [53]. However, considering engineering
assessments on structural and safety plant conditions, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) allows the renewal of the reactor’s operating license, expanding its service from 40 to
60 years [52]. The World Nuclear Association emphasizes that there is no significant
relationship between the age of the nuclear reactors and their operational performance. This
relationship indicates that the performance of nuclear reactors was consistent for all nuclear
reactor units, regardless of their ages [49]. The age distribution in figure 5 implies that most
nuclear reactor operates between 30 and 40 years. The age of 37 years has the highest number
of operable reactors with 31 units. Meanwhile, the five oldest nuclear reactors have 53 years
of operation [54]. The Beznau of Switzerland was one of the oldest nuclear reactor units with
a net electrical capacity of 365 MWe and was commercially operated in 1969 [55].

35
31
30
28
Number of Reactors

25
22
21
20
1818
16
14 15
15 13
11 11
9 10 10 10
10 9 9 9 9
7 6
6 6 6 6 6
5 6 5 4 5 5 5 5 4
5 5 5
5 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 4
2 3 2 2 3 3
0
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52

Age

Figure 5 Age Distribution of Operable Nuclear Reactors

(Source: IAEA PRIS, 2022)
11
 The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) identified 32 countries with nuclear
energy power generation worldwide [56]. As shown in Figure 6, Asia has the highest number
of nuclear reactors in operation, with 147 units in total [57]. It operates in eight countries,
including China, India, Iran, Japan, Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates, Armenia, and Korea.
Other countries with operating nuclear reactors are France, Ukraine, Slovakia, Belgium,
Hungary, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, Spain,
Russia, the United States of America, Romania, United Kingdom, Canada, Belarus, Germany,
Argentina, South Africa, Mexico, the Netherlands, and Brazil [56].

165

150 147

135

120 111
105 100

90
73
75

60

45

30

15 7
2
0
Asia North America Western Europe Central and South America Africa
Eastern Europe

Number of Reactors

Figure 6 Operable Nuclear Reactors by Region

(Source: IAEA PRIS, 2022)

IAEA PRIS specifies that seven types of nuclear reactors are in operation worldwide.
These are the Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR), Fast Neutron Reactor (FNR), Pressurized
Heavy Water Reactor (PHWR), Boiling Water Reactor (BWR), Gas-Cooled Reactor (GCR),
High-Temperature Gas-cooled Reactor (HTGR), and Light Water Graphite Reactor (LWGR).
Among these types, PWR has the highest number of nuclear reactors, having 307 reactor units,
as shown in figure 7. It indicates that PWRs are the type of nuclear reactor most widely used
today worldwide [58]. However, the generating capacity of PWR reactors is estimated to
decline up to 50% of its present capacity due mainly to their retirement in 2030.

12
 350
307
300
Number of Reactors

250

200

150

100
61
47
50
10 11 3 1
0
PWR BWR PHWR GCR LWGR FNR HTGR

Type of Reactors

Figure 7 Operable Nuclear Reactors by Type

(Source: IAEA PRIS, 2022)

Under Construction

The average construction period for a nuclear power plant is 80 months, above the
world average of 75 months for low and medium power plants. Evaluations demonstrate that
countries without the technology to develop their nuclear reactors have more extended
building periods. Countries like France, Japan, and Russia that have standardized reactor
designs have been able to speed up the plant construction process [59]. The duration of power
plant construction is heavily dependent on installed capacity, considering the power plant
size. The bigger the project, the more management issues and the longer the construction
phase. Construction time varies by technology type and location. Access to transportation and
technology also affected the length of building projects. For instance, the lack of roads in the
early 20th century made moving supplies and heavy machinery inconvenient compared to
later decades [60].
Based on the latest generated data by the Power Reactor Information System (PRIS),
54 nuclear reactors are under construction worldwide as of June 2022. All these nuclear
reactors are owned by 17 countries, including Argentina, China, India, Russia, Korea, Turkey,
Bangladesh, Japan, Slovakia, United Arab Emirates, United States of America, Belarus, United
Kingdom, Brazil, France, Ukraine, and Iran. Out of these nuclear reactors, the United
Kingdom started building the Hinkley Point in December 2019, with the highest net capacity
of 1,630 MWe among all under-construction nuclear reactors worldwide, which sums up to
55,540 MWe [61]. However, emerging countries like Turkey and Bangladesh are constructing
their initial nuclear power plants. Turkey has three PWR units called Akkuyu (1, 2, and 3)
with 3,342 Mwe total net capacity and has been under construction since December 2011.
Bangladesh has two units of the same type of nuclear reactor called Rooppur (1 and 2) that
have a 2,160 Mwe total net capacity, which is also under construction since November 2017
[61] [62].
13
 The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) listed seven regions with under-
construction nuclear reactors worldwide. The figure shows that countries in Asia have the
highest number of ongoing nuclear construction, including China, Korea, Japan, India,
Bangladesh, Iran, and UAE, with a total of 35 nuclear reactors. This region also has the highest
total net capacity with 35,890 Mwe. China has 17 under-construction nuclear reactors, which
can provide 17,365 MWe net capacity, around 30 % of the total net capacity of all under-
construction nuclear reactors worldwide [63]. Projects are completed more quickly in Asia.
High-security regulations in the US and Europe seem to slow down their construction period.
The Asian political culture may shorten grid connection times. Beyond political beliefs, the
maximum number of Green parties and their presence reveal that anti-nuclear resistance
slows nuclear power developments. We anticipate quicker project completion in direct
proportion to the level of expertise with the technology. The higher the familiarization with
the technology, we expect the projects to be faster completed [64].
East Europe and Russia have ten nuclear reactors under development with a 10,281
MWe net capacity. The countries involved are Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, and Turkey. In
Central and Western Europe, countries particularly, France, Slovakia, and United Kingdom,
are currently building five nuclear reactors with a total net capacity of 5,770 MWe. United
States of America and countries in South America both have two units of under-construction
nuclear reactors. US nuclear reactors have 2,234 Mwe total net capacity, while Argentina and
Brazil only cover 1,365 Mwe net capacity [63].

40 35
36
32
28
24
20
16
12 10
8 5
4 2 2
0
0
Asia Eastern Europe Western and North America South America Africa
and Russia Central Europe

Number of Reactors

Figure 8 Nuclear Reactors Under-Construction by Region

(Source: IAEA PRIS, 2022)

The International Atomic Energy Agency highlighted management issues in

construction delays. It uses reactor types to determine if certain types cause higher retardation
prior to construction time. Typical reactor types, including PWR, show no difference
compared to BWR. The GCR/HTGR, PHWR, and other complex reactor types have notably
longer construction periods [64].
As of December 31, 2021, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that
56 nuclear reactors were under construction, 48 of which are Pressurized Water Reactors
(PWRs) [47]. However, as updated by the Power Reactor Information System (PRIS) in 2022,
14
five PWR units started their operation, and an addition of three new PWR units began their
construction. These new reactor units are all PWRs in China, namely SANMEN-3,
TIANWAN-8, and XUDABU-4. Therefore, 54 under construction reactors units has a
combined net electrical capacity of 55,540 MWe as of June 2022. Among all reactor types, PWR
has the highest number of reactor units under construction, totaling 46 reactor units garnering
49,585 MWe net electrical capacity. The remaining units include 2 BWR units with a net
capacity of 2,653 MWe, 3 PHWR units with a net capacity of 1,890 MWe, and 3 FBR units with
a net capacity of 1,412 MWe [65].

48 46

42
Number of Reactors

36

30

24

18

12

6
3 3
2 0
0 0
0
PWR BWR PHWR GCR LWGR FNR HTGR
Type of Reactors

Figure 9 Nuclear Reactors Under-Construction by Type

(Source: IAEA PRIS, 2022)

Shutdown and Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Plants

According to Statista, 200 nuclear reactors have been shut down as of May 2022 [66].
The United States has 93 reactors that can produce an estimated quantity of 95,522MW, which
is 20% of the yearly produced electricity of the United States U.S. up to the 1980s above. It
holds the highest number of shutdown nuclear reactors with forty-one units, as shown in
figure 10, and another seven reactors are announced that will no longer in operation in 2025,
having a 7,109 MW capacity in total [66] [67]. The United Kingdom follows it with thirty-four
nuclear reactors with a generation capacity of 6,790 MWe [66]. Three Nuclear Plants will be
shut down on December 31, 2022, shifting into renewable energy [68]. In 2020, Six reactors
with a capacity of 5165 MWe were shut down due to policy in French National and the end of
operating license [49].

15
 45
40
40
Number of Nuclear Reactors

34
35
30
30 27

25

20
14
15
10
10 7 6
4 4 4 3 3 3
5 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1
0

Countries

Figure 10 Permanently Shut down Nuclear Reactors Worldwide

(Source: Statista, 2022)

The shutting down of a nuclear reactor occurs due to several reasons. One of the main
reasons is that nuclear reactor is no longer economical or at the end of their operation. Around
70% of nuclear reactors were shut down, which is the most common reason, as shown in figure
11. Since the advancement of technologies, maintenance and operation are growing
progressively. Thus, outdated equipment and facilities require replacement [26] [66]. In
Germany, around 23 nuclear reactors were phased out due to the financial crisis [69]. Several
nuclear reactors were phased out due to human error and accidents, a minor cause of the
nuclear shutting down of nuclear reactors. The case in Pressurized Water Reactor namely,
three-mile Island 2 in the US in the late 1970s, which resulted in cooling malfunction in the
reactor, and the Boling Water Reactor units in the location of Fukushima-Daiichi Japan in 2011,
a large earthquake followed by a tsunami which resulted in core melting are the example [26]
[70]. Lastly, a political decision which has 23.50% in total. In German Society, there is a growth
in the capability of renewable energy which is economically viable that gives rise to energy
transition from nuclear energy sources. The improving knowledge of the hazard and danger
leads to disagreement against nuclear power [69] [71].

16
 6.50%

23.50%
Accident or Serious Incident

Political Reason

End of Operational License

70%

Figure 11 Reason for Nuclear Reactors Shutdown

(Source: World Nuclear Association and IAEA PRIS, 2022)

At the end of the post-operational phase, any nuclear plant that reached the end of its
operational lifespan or that has been permanently shut down must progress to initiations for
the decommissioning stage to reuse the site for other applications [72] [73]. The subsequent
decommissioning necessitates a thorough licensing procedure that incorporates components
of radiation safety along with an assessment regarding its environmental effects [73]. The
licensee may carry out tasks including removing spent fuel and radioactive wastes kept on
the site within its operation as a part of the process of decommissioning preparations. Before
the last plan of decommissioning is authorized for implementation, such actions should
comply with the facility's existing operating license to guarantee that the plant, from operation
to decommissioning phase, is in stable condition [74]. Planning, radiological assessment, field
decontamination, and dismantling are some of the tasks involved in decommissioning. Within
its final shutdown, a comprehensive decommissioning plan is developed regarding how the
facility will be safely deconstructed, how environmental impacts are handled, and how to
manage both radioactive and non-radioactive wastes. According to IAEA, there are a total of
169 nuclear power facilities worldwide, including countries of the United States, Germany,
UK, Japan, France, Canada, Sweden, Bulgaria, Italy, Russia, Slovakia, Spain, Korea, Lithuania,
Switzerland, Armenia, Belgium, Kazakhstan, the Netherlands which already have numbers
of nuclear power facilities under decommissioning phase as shown in Figure 12.

17
 45
40
40
35 33

30 26
25 22
20
15
10
10
5 5 4 4 4
5 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1
0

Number of Nuclear Power Plants

Figure 12 Nuclear Power Plants Under Decommissioning Stage

(Source: IAEA, 2021)

However, decommissioning of nuclear facilities is linked to several radiological risks.

Decommissioning activities generate airborne contamination and secondary radioactive
waste, creating new hazards that need to be considered as well as the risks of radioactivity
associated with a permanently shut down facility. Therefore, potential risks should be
evaluated appropriately and controlled as part of the decommissioning planning process [74].
Three main internationally accepted strategies have been devised regarding on the
decommission process by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), namely Immediate
Dismantling, Deferred Dismantling, and Entombment [72] [75].
The Immediate Dismantling or Early Site Release (‘Decon’) is a strategy used for
decontaminating a facility's radioactively contaminated equipment, structures, and parts to
the point that it may be used without limitation set by the regulatory authority. In this
instance, decommissioning implementation efforts start right after nuclear operations have
permanently stopped. The transportation of all radioactive materials from the plant to another
facility and their processing for either long-term storage or disposal is part of this approach,
which assumes fast completion of the decommissioning operation. Depending on the facility,
final decontamination or dismantling operations might start immediately. The site can be used
again within ten years of being released from the regulatory authority [76]. Deferred
Dismantling or Safe Enclosure (‘Safstor’) is a method in which the facility's final
deconstruction is postponed (for ten years, but some usually range for about 40 to 60 years),
and it is kept in a secure location for a substantial amount of time. This strategy requires
defueled plants initially, making them sufficiently safe for eventual disassembly. The facility
will be regulated after the level of radioactivity is minimized to safer levels to secure radiation
safety [72] [75]. Meanwhile, for the Entombment or 'Entomb' strategy, the remaining
radioactive materials from the nuclear power facilities are put in the condition where it is
being encapsulated in durable construction, such as concrete, to assure that any residual
18
radioactivity no longer has potential risks. This technique is used to contain radioactive
materials for years until their level of radioactive decay is allowed to be released from the
facility or with conditions set by the regulatory authority [72] [76].
On the other hand, options for the decommissioning approach should undergo careful
evaluation and consideration [74]. Immediate dismantling is typically the preferable
decommissioning approach, and it has been gaining in popularity to the extent where a lot of
Safstor's method has been replaced by this kind strategy. Figure 13 illustrates that, of the 169
nuclear sites in the world, 66 nuclear facilities choose immediate dismantling as the preferred
decommissioning option [12] [47] [75] [76]. It demonstrates the fastest path to a greenfield site
with unconstrained usage [36]. However, due to the limited time for radioactive decay, it is
linked to the highest concentrations of radioactive waste [76]. Therefore, the chosen strategy
options, or a mix of approaches, are permitted depending on the national policy [72]. The
license holder is in charge of selecting the most appropriate decommissioning method to
implement for the end state of a nuclear facility. The licensee must affirm that the facility will
adhere to the chosen strategy, that it will be kept in a safe condition, and ensure it will not lay
any potential hazards in the future [75].

70 66
60
47
50
40
28 26
30
20
10 2
0
Immediate Deferred Deferred Entombment Others
Dismantling Dismantling Dismantling - w/
Partial
Dismantling

Number of Nuclear Power Plants

Figure 13 Strategies for Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Plants

(Source: IAEA, 2021)

PROSPECTS FOR NUCLEAR POWER GENERATION

In response to the growing electricity demand, some countries regard nuclear power
generation as part of their energy mix [77]. Out of the approximately 60 countries that have
shown an interest in the concept of nuclear power, over 30 nations are currently planning,
commissioning, or considering nuclear energy programs as an option for electricity
generation. Table 3 depicts the countries classified according to the status of their nuclear
energy programs. Two countries have officially signed contracts for their first nuclear power
reactors, and their legal and regulatory framework is either entirely constructed or under
19
development. Two countries are constructing their legal and regulatory infrastructure and are
committed to nuclear power programs, while six countries have well-developed plans that
are either pending or delayed. Furthermore, nine countries are developing plans and
preparations for implementing nuclear energy programs [78].

Table 3 Classification of Countries by Nuclear Power Program or Plan Progress

(Source: World Nuclear Association, 2022)

Status Country

1st NPP contract signed, legal and regulatory

Poland, Egypt
framework well-developed or developing

Committed plans, legal and regulatory

Uzbekistan, Jordan
framework developing

Pending well-developed plans Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Saudi Arabia, Thailand

Deferred well-developed plans Lithuania, Vietnam

Nigeria, Algeria, Ghana, Laos, Morocco,

Developing plans and programs
Ethiopia, Philippines, Rwanda, Kenya

Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bolivia,

Cambodia, Chile, Croatia, Cuba, Estonia &
Latvia, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Syria, Kuwait, Libya,
Considering programs and policy options Malaysia, Mongolia, Myanmar, Namibia, New
Zealand, Norway, Peru, Portugal, Qatar,
Singapore, Rwanda, Serbia, Paraguay, Sri Lanka,
Sudan, Tunisia, Tanzania, Venezuela, Zambia

Regardless of many emerging countries, the World Nuclear Association noted that
nuclear power generation is not expected to increase nuclear capacity [78]. Nuclear power will
only maintain its global electricity share of 8% to 10%, while most global electricity share will
be from renewable energy by 2050 [12]. Nevertheless, nuclear power provides economic
benefits, and some countries have taken the initiative to promote nuclear power generation as
an economic development opportunity [8].
The Energy Information Administration projected that the global energy consumption
trend will increase by more than 50% in 2050 [79]. This growth comes mainly from Asia, where
fossil fuels are extensively used in electricity generation, thereby increasing carbon emissions
[79] [80]. Concerns about energy security are the driving forces behind the expansion of
nuclear energy, which entails the need to boost energy independence, supply diversification,
and climate change mitigation strategy [8] [81]. Asian countries like China, Turkey, Pakistan,
India, and Bangladesh consider low carbon technology, such as nuclear power generation, to
replace fossil fuel plants. The African region has also considered the concept of nuclear energy
20
programs. However, some challenges must be overcome, including human resource and
technological capabilities, legal and regulatory infrastructure capacity, international support,
and political commitment [82].
Nuclear power expansion can be utilized if the available reactor units are accessible
and suited to the capability of the country implementing the program. The competitiveness
of Small Modular Reactors (SMR) attracts many developing countries given their lower
overnight and capital costs per unit, advanced safety features, enhanced electrical grid
transitions, and shorter construction time. Since emerging countries have diverse economic
and technological development, independent regulatory agencies must be established to
address their safety cultures and vital components of nuclear power generation [83].
Developing countries cooperate intently with advanced nuclear nations, reactor suppliers,
and authorities, such as International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), to guarantee secure
commissioning, operation, reliability, and energy security [82].

PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS AND ACCEPTABILITY

Nuclear power generation still has varying levels of social acceptance worldwide. The
publics’ attitude towards NPPs can be based on their logical or humane beliefs about nuclear
energy and its technology and their assessment of their benefits and drawbacks [84]. The
public cares about the government's energy policies since they affect their daily living before
supply and demand [85]. Factors such as perceived system reliability, awareness, costs, health
risk, waste management, and environmental knowledge, with two moderating factors
(benefits and risks), can be classified as significant catalysts that might impact public
willingness to NPPs [84]. For instance, Russia's people support nuclear energy expansion
because of the country's advanced nuclear energy infrastructure. Government officials in the
Russian Federation are now funding many enormous projects for constructing nuclear power
facilities around the country. However, a lack of public awareness is the crucial cause of
opposition to nuclear power. The general public's unfamiliarity with nuclear power plants
and their core safety measures is relevant [86]. According to research, perceived risks and
public views are negatively correlated. Perceived risks of NPPs are the risk the public
perceives from consuming NPP output [84]. The general public views nuclear power as an
unsafe technology. There is a stigma attached to any affiliation with nuclear power plants.
Naturally, the public is more concerned with the possible repercussions and probability of
accidents than with the effects of regular operation [87].
Since the Fukushima accident started, there has been less public support for nuclear
power generation in Japan and other countries worldwide [87]. The International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) classified the Fukushima NPP tragedy as the highest level of
emergency (Level-8) on the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale. The accident
claimed several lives and caused millions in property damage, negatively impacting public
perception of nuclear power [84]. There was a more significant public discussion of waste
management and decommissioning due to this incident, and it also affected future nuclear
plant building plans and national energy policy. Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Belgium, China,
and the United States were among the countries that swiftly responded to the tragedy by
phasing out and shutting down several of their nuclear reactors [88].
21
 Some associations like World Health Organization, International Atomic Energy
Agency, and UNSCEAR confirmed that it became clear soon that the main effects of nuclear
accidents are not radiological but social, economic, and psychological after the Chernobyl
accident. This is because people have wrong ideas about how radiation affects health. After
the Fukushima Daiichi accident, there was a situation that was very similar to this one [89].
Given that Thailand has never suffered a major nuclear-related disaster, locals in the area
around the proposed research reactor are more optimistic about the technology than those
further away [90]. Public acceptance is influenced not just by the perceived risk but also by
the perceived benefit. People tend to weigh risk and benefit until deciding whether or not to
accept something. Perceived benefit is favorably connected to public acceptability, which is
positively influenced by public awareness of nuclear energy. Results like this imply that
public acceptance of nuclear power is enhanced by initiatives to educate the public about
nuclear power generation [91].
Several countries reviewed their national energy and electrical policies after the
Fukushima disaster [84]. Also, how people feel about nuclear energy and the use of nuclear
fuel is related to how they feel about alternative energy sources [85]. Since renewable energy
alternatives have the same advantages, a widespread nuclear revival is doubtful. This points
to broad support for the present regime's energy strategy of decreasing reliance on nuclear
power facilities while increasing access to renewable energy sources [87]. Despite the nuclear
industry's best efforts, public opposition to nuclear power strongly persists because people do
not trust the sector. Therefore, organizations and businesses with a vested interest in the
success of nuclear power plants should do everything they can to enhance the advantages and
dependability of NPPs via operations, management, research, and development. These steps
would help people have a favorable view of NPPs, which is one of the most important things
determining their intention [84] [87].

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE OUTLOOK

Nuclear energy power generation possesses economic and environmental benefits. It

is acknowledged as a reliable energy source and a low-carbon technology for mitigating
climate change and sustaining the increasing energy demand. However, it is accompanied by
notable downsides that require attention. This paper found that the status of nuclear energy
power generation has been relatively stable over the past years. Nuclear reactors under
Generation II are widely used in nuclear power plants today.
Despite the low-carbon emission of the Nuclear Plant, there is waste generated
classified into three types, the LLW, ILW, and the HLW. It is stored in a spent fuel pool for a
short period until it cools and then transferred into dry cask storage and will be subjected to
the final disposal. The currently accepted worldwide for final and long-term disposal is the
near-surface disposal for short-lived radioactive waste and deep geological disposal for long-
lived radioactive waste.
In the current status of nuclear reactors worldwide, 440 units are operating in 32
countries, with the highest number in Asia. These nuclear reactors are classified into seven
types, the Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR), Fast Neutron Reactor (FNR), Pressurized Heavy
Water Reactor (PHWR), Boiling Water Reactor (BWR), Gas-Cooled Reactor (GCR), High-
22
Temperature Gas-cooled Reactor (HTGR), and Light Water Graphite Reactor (LWGR), it has
an average lifespan of 25 to 40 years and an extension of license operation of 40 to 60 years
with a consideration of an engineering assessment. Among them, Pressurized Water Reactor
(PWR) is the most operated type of reactor with an innovative design of primary and
secondary loop circuits with active and passive safety features. In addition, 17 countries have
54 nuclear reactors under construction worldwide, with an average duration of 80 months.
These reactors generate a combined net electrical capacity of 55,540 MWe. As of May 2022, up
to 200 nuclear reactors have been permanently shut down. The United States has the highest
number of shutdown nuclear with 40 units, followed by the United Kingdom with 34 units.
This shutdown occurs for several reasons, the end of its operation, political reasons, and
accidents or serious incidents. Among these three, the end of their operating license is the
most common with a value of 70%, followed by the political reason with 23.5%, and the least
due to accident with a value of 6.5%. After the shutdown of nuclear reactors, initiations for
the decommissioning stage will be in progress. This process has three main internationally
accepted strategies, namely intermediate dismantling, deferred dismantling, and
entombment. Along with these strategies, 169 nuclear power plants are already under
decommission. Sixty-six nuclear facilities preferred immediate dismantling as it establishes
the quickest way to a greenfield site with unrestricted usage.
Some nations consider nuclear power generation as part of their energy mix as the
demand for electricity rises. Around 60 nations have expressed interest in the idea of nuclear
power, and over 30 more are presently planning nuclear energy projects as a potential source
of electricity. Despite the emerging countries, nuclear power will not be expected to increase
its capacity. It will only be expected a maintained global electricity share of 8% to 10% as
renewable energy will be the primary source of electricity by 2050. As a part of the rapid
expansion of nuclear energy sources, public perception and social acceptability are worth
considering. Since the main concerns of communities are the consequences and possible
accidents due to lack of awareness, educating the public is an important factor for public
acceptance.
The future of nuclear power generation remains a challenge. Revolutionary design,
along the Generation IV, would significantly impact the development of nuclear energy
power generation worldwide. Such improvement in the performance, applications,
sustainable development, and management of radioactive waste would be a minor problem.
One of the future reactors that would go beyond the limits of current nuclear generation
reactors is the Small Modular Reactor (SMR). Advancements such as enhanced safety
measures, electricity grid transition, the lower capital cost per unit, and shorter construction
time are new features for increased social acceptability.
Along with this technology is the Micro Modular Reactor (MMR), a transportable
nuclear reactor capable of semi-autonomous operation and suitable for remote and off-grid
areas. Waste generated from reactors needs proper disposal for safety purposes. However,
there is no current strategy for permanent and stable disposal. The existing and most accepted
strategy for long-term disposal is the deep geological disposal for handling highly radioactive
waste. Despite the benefits of the nuclear power plant, the expansion is still uncertain due to
the same benefits offered by the renewable energy source, including the trust issue and
perceived risk of the public about the nuclear power plant. A favorable step such as proper

23
management, strict implementation of policies, widespread knowledge, and research and
development of nuclear power plants would help people change their views on expanding
nuclear power plants.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authors of this review paper would like to extend their most profound gratitude
to the identified researchers of the journal articles and reports used throughout this project.
The status reports of the World Nuclear Association (WNA), the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA), and Statista provide significant support in finalizing the data needed for this
review paper.

REFERENCES

[1] S. Paul and W. Lama, "Civilian Uses and Challenges of Nuclear Energy," in Affordable
and Clean Energy, Springer, Cham, 2021, p. 135.

[2] World Nuclear Association, "Nuclear Power Reactors," World Nuclear Association,
London, 2022.

[3] B. Afework, E. Boechler, J. Hanania, E. Lloyd, K. Stenhouse, L. V. Suarez, J. Toor and

J. Donev, "Energy Education," University of Calgary, 27 September 2021. [Online].
Available: [Link]
[Accessed 22 June 2022].

[4] Nuclear Power, "Nuclear Fission vs Fusion," GeneratePress, 2022.

[5] World Nuclear Association , "Nuclear Power in the World Today," World Nuclear
Association, London, 2022.

[6] International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), "In-Operation & Long-Term

Shutdown," Power Reactor Information System (PRIS), 2022.

[7] H. Ritchie, M. Roser and P. Rosado, "Nuclear Energy," Our World in Data, 2021.

[8] G. Bandoc and R. Pravalie, "Nuclear energy: Between global electricity demand,
worldwide decarbonization imperativeness, and planetary environmental
implications," Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 209, pp. 83-91, 2018.

[9] World Nuclear Association, "Economics of Nuclear Power," World Nuclear

Association, London, 2021.

24
[10] International Energy Agency, "Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System," IEA
Publications, France, 2019.

[11] World Nuclear Association, "Nuclear Power Economics and Project Structuring - 2017
Edition," World Nuclear Association, London, 2017.

[12] International Atomic Energy Agency, "International Status and Prospects for Nuclear
Power 2021," International Atomic Energy Agency, 2021.

[13] N. Batini, M. Di Serio, M. Fragetta, G. Melina and A. Waldron, "Building Back Better:
How Big Are Green Spending Multipliers?," Ecological Economics, vol. 193, no. 1, pp.
26-36, 2021.

[14] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "Global Warming of 1.5ºC," Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge, 2018.

[15] World Nuclear Association, "Nuclear's contribution to achieving UN Sustainable

Development Goals," World Nuclear Association, 2021.

[16] World Nuclear Association, "Carbon Dioxide Emissions From Electricity," World
Nuclear Organization, 2021.

[17] T. Xenofontos, "Development of a dynamic stochastic neutronic code for the analysis
of conventional and nuclear reactor," pp. 10-13, 2018.

[18] S. M. Goldberg and R. Rosner, "Nuclear Reactors: Generation to Generation," Global

Nuclear Future, pp. 1-11, 2011.

[19] D. Reinberger, A. Ajanovic and R. Haas, "The Technological Development of Different

Generations and Reactor Concepts," in The Technological and Economic Future of Nuclear
Power, Weisbaden, Springer VS, 2019 , pp. 244-257.

[20] V. Nian, "Progress in Nuclear Power technology," in Encyclopedia od Sustainable

Technologies, Singapore, Elsevier Inc., 2017, pp. 90-91.

[21] V. Nian, "Technology perspective from 1950 to 2100 and policy implications for the
global nuclear power industry," Progress of Nuclear Energy, vol. 105, p. 1, 2018.

[22] I. Pioro and R. B. Duffey, "Current and future nuclear power," in Managing Global
Warming, Academic Press, 2019, p. 151.

[23] World Nuclear Association, "Are there different types of nuclear reactor," World
Nuclear Association, 2002.

25
[24] P. Breeze, "Nuclear Power," in Power Generation Technologies, 2019, pp. 399-429.

[25] Nuclear Innovation Alliance, "Advance Nuclear Reactor Technology," Nuclear

Innovation Alliance, 2021.

[26] R. Krivanek, "Factors limiting lifetime of nuclear power plants with pressurized-water
reactors," Nuclear Engineering and Design, vol. 370, p. 3, 2020.

[27] World Nuclear Association, "RBMK Reactors – Appendix to Nuclear Power Reactors,"
World Nuclear Association, London, 2022.

[28] World Nuclear Association, "Nuclear Power Reactor Characteristics," World Nuclear
Association, London, 2017.

[29] International Atomic Energy Agency, High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactor Fuels
and Materials, Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency Publishing Section, 2010.

[30] A. K. Alkaabi and S. A. Alameri, Fundamentals of nuclear reactors, California:

Elsevier, 2020.

[31] World Nuclear Association, "Fast Neutron Reactors," World Nuclear Association,
2021.

[32] International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Advances in Small Modular Reactor,
Austria: International Atomic Energy Agency, 2020.

[33] Nuclear Technology Development and Economics, "Small Modular Reactors :

Challenges and Opportunities," ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-
OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT, 2021.

[34] H. Jeswani and N. Khelurkar, "A review of radioactive waste management," in

International conference on technologies for sustainable development, 2015.

[35] World Nuclear Association, "International Nuclear Waste Disposal Concepts," World
Nuclear Organization, 2020.

[36] U. Norten, "Nuclear Waste Management in Global Level," p. 6, 2019.

[37] International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), "Status And Trends In Spent Fuel And
Radioactive Waste Management," Power Reactor Information System (PRIS), 2022.

[38] Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, Nuclear Waste Services, Sellafield Ltd,

Dounreay , Magnox Ltd, "[Link]," 3 April 2017. [Online]. Available:

26
 [Link] [Accessed
6 July 2022].

[39] R. Ratiko, D. S. Wisnubroto, N. Nasruddin and T. I. Mahlia, "Current and future

strategies for spent nuclear fuel management in Indonesia," Energy Strategy Reviews ,
vol. 32, p. 6, 2020.

[40] A. Ranveer, A. Thakur, M. Jadhav and N. Chavan, "Radioactive Waste Management,"

International Journal of Innovations in Engineering Research and Technology (IJIERT), vol.
2, no. 5, p. 4, 2015.

[41] Andra, "The Short-Lived, Low and Intermediate Level Waste (LILW-SL)," [Link],
April 2018. [Online]. Available: [Link]
facilities/aube-waste-disposal-facility-csa/short-lived-low-and-intermediate-level-
waste-lilw-sl. [Accessed 6 July 2022].

[42] J. Iqbal, F. M. Howari, A.-M. O. Mohamed and E. K. Paleologos, "Assessment of

radiation pollution," in Pollution Assessment for Sustainable Practices in Applied Sciences
and Engineering, Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved, 2021, pp. 1027-1053.

[43] International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), "Near Surface Disposal Facilities For
Radioactive Waste," Power Reactor Information System (PRIS), 2014.

[44] H. Ng, "Dry Cask Storage," Stanford University, 2014.

[45] World Nuclear Association, "Storage and Disposal of Radioactive Waste," World
Nuclear Organization, 2021.

[46] F. King and F. King, "Nuclear waste canister materials: Corrosion behavior and long-
term performance in geological repository systems," in Geological Repository Systems
for Safe Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuels and Radioactive Waste, Nanaimo, BC, Canada,
Integrity Corrosion Consulting Ltd, 2017, pp. 365-408.

[47] International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), "Nuclear Power Reactors in the World,"
Power Reactor Information System (PRIS), Vienna, 2022.

[48] International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), "The Database on Nuclear Power
Reactors," Power Reactor Information System (PRIS), 2022.

[49] World Nuclear Association, "World Nuclear Performance Report 2021," World
Nuclear Association, United Kingdom, 2021.

27
[50] World Nuclear Association, "Covid-19 Coronavirus and Nuclear Energy," World
Nuclear Association, 2021.

[51] Statista, "Number of operational nuclear reactors worldwide 1954-2021," Statista

Research Department, 2022.

[52] World Nuclear Association, "Plans For New Reactors Worldwide," World Nuclear
Association, 2022.

[53] S. Carrara, "Reactor ageing and phase-out policies: global and regional prospects for
nuclear power generation," Energy Policy, vol. 147, p. 4, 2020.

[54] International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), "Age Distribution," Power Reactor
Information System (PRIS), 2022.

[55] International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), "Country Statistics," Power Reactor
Information System (PRIS), 2022.

[56] International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), "In-Operation & Long-Term Shutdown
by Country," Power Reactor Information System (PRIS), 2022.

[57] International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), "In-Operation and Long-Term

Shutdown Reactors By Region," Power Reactor Information System (PRIS), 2022.

[58] International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), "In-Operation & Long-Term Shutdown
Reactors By Type," Power Reactor Information System (PRIS), 2022.

[59] P. Carajilescov and J. M. L. Moreira, "Construction Time of PWRs," in International

Nuclear Atlantic Conference (INAC), Brazil, 2011.

[60] H. Kabanda, A. Romard, F. Yurtsever, A. Wadhera, J. Andrews and C. Merrett,

"Construction Time Estimation Function for Canadian Utility," Energies, vol. 14, pp.
12-13, 2021.

[61] International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), "Under Construction Reactors By

Country," Power Reactor Information System (PRIS), 2022.

[62] World Nuclear Association, "Emerging Nuclear Energy Countries," World Nuclear
Association, London, 2022.

[63] International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), "Under Construction Reactors By

Region," Power Reactor Information System (PRIS), 2022.

28
[64] P. W. Thurner, L. Mittermeier and H. Küchenhoff, "How long does it take to build a
nuclear power plant? A non-parametric event history approach with P-splines,"
Energy Policy, vol. 70, pp. 168-170, 2014.

[65] International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), "Under Construction Reactors By Type,"
Power Reactor Information System (PRIS), 2022.

[66] Statista, "Number of permanent nuclear reactor shutdowns worldwide as of May

2022, by country," Statista Research Department, 2022.

[67] Congressional Research Service, "U.S. Nuclear Plant Shutdowns, State Interventions,
and Policy Concerns," CRS Report, 2021.

[68] ABC News, "[Link]," 3 January 2022. [Online]. Available:

[Link]
shutdown-story-82051054. [Accessed 10 July 2022].

[69] T. Scherwath, B. Wealer and R. Mendelevitch, "Nuclear decommissioning after the

German Nuclear Phase-Out an integrated view on new regulations and nuclear
logistics," Energy Policy, p. 7, 2019.

[70] World Nuclear Association, "Fukushima Daiichi Accident," World Nuclear

Association, United Kingdom, 2022.

[71] A. Fekete, "Phasing out of nuclear - Phasing out of risk? Spatial assessment of social
vulnerability and exposure to nuclear power plants in Germany," Progress in Disaster
Science, p. 1, 2022.

[72] World Nuclear Association, "Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities," World Nuclear

Association, 2022.

[73] Federal Office for the Safety of Nuclear Waste Management, "[Link]," 1 July
2022. [Online]. Available:
[Link]
[Link]. [Accessed 4 July 2022].

[74] International Atomic Energy Agency, "Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Plants,

Research Reactors and Other Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facilities," International Atomic
Energy Agency, 2018.

[75] N. Belyakov, "Development of Sustainable Nuclear Power Plant Project," in

Sustainable Power Generation, Elsevier Inc., 2020, pp. 327-352.

29
[76] International Atomic Energy Agency, "Policies and Strategies for the
Decommissioning of Nuclear and Radiological Facilities," International Atomic
Energy Agency, 2011.

[77] R. Pravalie and G. Bandoc, "Nuclear energy: Between global electricity demand,
worldwide decarbonization imperativeness, and planetary environmental
implications," Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 209, pp. 81-82, 2018.

[78] World Nuclear Association, "Emerging Nuclear Energy Countries," World Nuclear
Association, London, 2022.

[79] Enegry Information Administration (EIA), "Global primary energy consumption by

region (2010-2050)," Enegry Information Administration (EIA), Washington, 2019.

[80] V. Nian and S. Chou, "The state of nuclear power two years after Fukushima - The
ASEAN perspective," Applied Energy, vol. 136, pp. 840-841, 2014.

[81] J. Jewell, "Ready for nuclear energy?: An assessment of capacities and motivations,"
Energy Policy, vol. 39, no. 3, p. 1045, 2011.

[82] F. Alam, R. Sarkar and H. Chowdhury, "Nuclear power plants in emerging economies
and human resource development: A review," Energy Procedia, vol. 160, p. 6, 2019.

[83] R. J. Budnitz, H.-H. Rogner and A. Shihab-Eldin, "Expansion of nuclear power

technology to new countries – SMRs, safety culture issues, and the need for an
improved international safety regime," Energy Policy, vol. 119, p. 543, 2018.

[84] Y. Jang and E. Park, "Social acceptance of nuclear power plants in Korea: The role of
public perceptions following the Fukushima accident," Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, vol. 128, pp. 1-7, 2020.

[85] S. Roh and D. Kim, "The relationship between public acceptance of nuclear power
generation and spent nuclear fuel reuse: Implications for promotion of spent nuclear
fuel reuse and public engagement," Nuclear Engineering and Technology, vol. 54, no. 6,
pp. 2062-2066, 2022.

[86] A. Karaeva, E. Magaril, V. Torretta, P. Viotti and E. C. Rada, "Public Attitude towards
Nuclear and Renewable Energy as a Factor of Their Development in a Circular
Economy Frame: Two Case Studies," Sustainability, vol. 14, p. 12, 2022.

[87] C. McCombie and M. Jefferson, "Renewable and nuclear electricity: Comparison of

environmental impacts," Energy Policy, vol. 96, pp. 758-769, 2016.

30
[88] G. Runte, "Probabilistic Assessment of Global Nuclear Power Plant Construction
Through 2030," Worthington Sawtelle LLC , 2013.

[89] World Nuclear Association, "What are the effects of nuclear accidents?," World
Nuclear Association, London, 2022.

[90] S. Tantitaechochart, N. Paoprasert and K. Silva, "Analyzing local perceptions toward

the new nuclear research reactor in Thailand," Nuclear Engineering and Technology, vol.
52, no. 12, p. 2980, 2020.

[91] S. Wang, J. Wang, S. Lin and J. Li, "Public perceptions and acceptance of nuclear
energy in China: The role of public knowledge, perceived benefit, perceived risk and
public engagement," Energy Policy, vol. 126, p. 359, 2019.

[92] O. Ozgur, V. Yilanci and M. Kongkuah, "Nuclear energy consumption and CO2
emissions in India: Evidence from Fourier ARDL bounds test approach," Nuclear
Engineering and Technology, vol. 54, no. 5, p. 1, 2021.

31