Nuclear Energy: Who's Using It, What's True, and What's Next?

It’s part 3 of our mini-series on nuclear power, and we’re talking about what’s going on in the reactor world and what the future of nuclear looks like.

That might seem dull, but we’ll be discussing questions we need to know like: will we all have mini reactors to run our houses? Or nuclear batteries to power our phones?

Transcript

Kia ora, kaitiaki, and welcome to Now That's What I Call Green. I'm your host, Brianne West—an environmentalist and entrepreneur trying to get you as excited about our planet as I am. I'm all about creating a scientific approach to making the world a better place, without the judgement, and making it fun.

And of course, we’ll be chatting about some of the most amazing creatures we share our planet with. So if you're looking to navigate through everything green—or not so green—you've come to the right place.

Our obsession with coal pumps out about 15 billion tons of carbon dioxide every single year, which is about 40% of global emissions. And yet, when you bring up nuclear energy, people run away screaming, talking about things like nuclear waste and skin melting off.

Okay, that might be a slight dramatization.

Kia ora and welcome back. I'm Brianne West, and I am weirdly fascinated with nuclear energy—which is why we’re in the middle of a mini-series on it.

In episodes 1 and 2, I chatted about what radiation actually is—and I apologize, it got a little bit technical in episode one. Episode two was all about the history of nuclear energy and why people are so freaked out by it.

I guess when you think about the fact that one guy’s jaw quite literally fell off because he drank radioactive water, that’s probably a fair enough reaction.

But today, in episode three, it’s all about what’s going on in the reactor world and what the future might look like. Which doesn’t necessarily sound that exciting—but I reckon there’s some stuff in here that you’re gonna want to know about.

Like:

Will we all have mini reactors to run our house?

Will we have nuclear batteries so that these things will stop running out of charge after like eight hours?

And the final episode, which comes out in a couple of days, is all about:
Well, that’s all great—but do we actually need nuclear energy to prevent further climate change?

The State of Nuclear Today
Right now, about 10% of the world’s energy comes from nuclear power.

France is one of the biggest users by kilowatt—about two-thirds of their electricity comes from nuclear. Because of this, France’s carbon footprint per person is about 4.5 tons—way lower than the USA, for example, where it’s more like 14 tons.

Germany, however, strangely took a very different path and shut down all their reactors, with the last closing in 2022. As a result, they now burn 8% more coal.

China is going full speed ahead into the nuclear world. They currently operate about 55 different reactors, are building another 20, and want to have 150 by 2035. And actually, that’s already paying off because the particle count—the air pollution level—in places like Beijing has lowered by 60% since 2013.

The USA is a massive nuclear player. They have about 94 reactors currently, supplying about 20% of the country’s electricity. But—as you’d probably expect—any attempts to build new plants are met with huge delays, political debates, and just a whole lot of drama. There’s not a lot of enthusiasm there for nuclear as it stands.

Australia sort of fits in that bucket too. Despite having about a third of the world’s uranium deposits—and being the fourth-largest producer—it continues to reject nuclear energy. In their federal election that’s literally just gone, nuclear energy came up again as a contested issue. One side proposed building seven nuclear reactors by 2050—two of which would be operational by the 2030s, which is ambitious going by typical timelines. But public sentiment in Australia is very much anti-nuclear. About 60% of Australians actually support the ban.

To be perfectly honest, it feels like a bit of a straw man argument to move the conversation away from renewables. But let’s talk about that another time.

Asia & the Middle East
In Japan, after the Fukushima disaster (which we talked about in the last episode), they’ve very carefully restarted 14 of their reactors. They’re aiming to get back up to about 20–22% of their electricity from nuclear.

South Korea is actively returning to nuclear, hoping to get back to about 30% of its energy share.

India—facing massive problems: huge energy demands, water shortages, severe air pollution—they’re investing heavily in nuclear. They’ve got about 23 operational reactors and are building another nine.

Even the Middle East, where you’d think they’d just go for solar, is getting in on the action. One plant already supplies about 25% of the UAE’s electricity—which is bonkers.

Meanwhile, here in Aotearoa, we’re not even up for the discussion.

Talk about nuclear in the comments and there are lots of very valid points that come up. But people are so unwilling to have any kind of debate in good faith—and that’s kind of what this mini-series is about, right? Is people’s distrust of nuclear energy actually fair?

I don’t think it is. But I’m not necessarily advocating for nuclear in Aotearoa either. I think we have too many earthquakes, we don’t have enough money to build it, and to be honest—we can supply it in better ways.

More on that in the next episode.

[The rest of the episode covering nuclear waste, recycling, thorium, fusion, breeder and micro-reactors, and RTGs continues in the next message.]

Here’s the final part of Episode 3 of Now That’s What I Call Green, continuing from the nuclear waste section and wrapping up the episode. Everything has been carefully proofread while keeping your voice and flow intact.

Let’s Talk About Nuclear Waste
I’d be remiss if I didn’t talk about nuclear waste before going any further—because nothing seems to freak people out more than that.

We’re all picturing (I do exactly the same thing) barrels that are rusty, full of holes, and dripping glowing green goo. I blame The Simpsons—but pretty much any pop culture reference to nuclear energy gives you that image.

But the truth is… actually kind of boring.

Nuclear waste looks like ceramic bricks. And there’s a lot less of it than you think.

Nuclear fuel is super dense. There’s a lot of energy per gram of material. So the total volume of waste is surprisingly small.

An average large reactor will produce about 20 to 30 tonnes of spent fuel every year—but that powers 750,000 homes.

Put in perspective per person:
A lifetime of electricity use via nuclear would produce enough waste to fill a soda can.
Just 330 mL of nuclear waste.

Not too shabby.

And even though, yes—that’s probably way less than you thought it was (it’s less than I thought it was)—it’s still very highly radioactive and dangerous. Managing it is a challenge.

Fuel rods last about four to six years in a reactor, depending on various factors.

They’re then picked up—not by human hands—and dropped in cooling pools for about five years, because it takes that long to chill out and lower some of that radioactivity.

Afterwards, they’re moved into dry storage—big steel and concrete containers—where they sit for, well… eternity, really.

There are currently about 88,000 tonnes of nuclear waste in various U.S. locations. And while those containers are sturdy, the materials inside will outlast the containers.

So yes—people’s concerns about nuclear waste are absolutely valid.

Progress on Waste Storage
There is some progress here, though.

The U.S. spent decades and billions of dollars on the Yucca Mountain Storage Facility in Nevada—a plan to safely store all nuclear waste underground. But that was abandoned due to concerns about geological safety (because, of course, storing it in temporary above-ground containers is the better plan?).

Finland has stepped in.

They built the Onkalo facility—a giant deep borehole to store nuclear waste. It’s the world’s first permanent nuclear waste storage site.

I have no idea why it took us so long to make one, but it’s designed to safely isolate that waste for 100,000 years.

Sweden and France are also building their own versions.
Because again—it just makes sense.
Put it in a cave.

Please, God, can we not shoot it into space. Especially now that we’ve handed that responsibility to Elon Musk—whose rockets, frankly, don’t seem super reliable at the moment. Devastating for him, obviously.

Did You Know? You Can Recycle Nuclear Waste
Another fun fact: nuclear waste is actually recyclable.

About 96% of it can be repurposed.

France and Japan already do this. They reuse spent fuel and extract elements for other uses.

It’s complex. It’s expensive. And yes—it does raise concerns about weapons production. So it’s not perfect.

But what is?

The U.S. currently doesn’t recycle fuel—it just stores it—because that’s safer for now.

The Weird Future of Nuclear Waste
What happens in a couple thousand years, when people come across this stuff again?

It’s entirely conceivable that we’ll lose modern languages. English, Spanish, even numerals as we know them could be gone.

And I know that sounds hard to fathom—but it’s happened many, many times in history. It’ll happen again.

So how do you design a symbol or message to say, “Don’t open this glowing box of death?”

There’ve been some really creepy suggestions—like building huge, menacing statues.

But honestly, if I found a giant statue trying to look evil and forbidding, I would want to go towards it—not away.

The Future: Better Reactors, Less Waste
Emerging tech may help reduce the problem further.

High-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU): squeezes more energy from less fuel = less waste.

Thorium-based reactors: produce less waste. China just had a world first refueling one.

Molten salt reactors: run at lower pressures, recycle their own fuel, and are safer overall.

So yeah—light at the end of the tunnel. Hopefully not a glowing green one.

Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)
You’ve heard of modular homes. Well, now we have modular reactors.

They’re called Small Modular Reactors, or SMRs.

Instead of giant custom-built reactors that take decades and billions to build, these are made in factories, shipped out, and assembled like IKEA.

Sounds terrifying. But safety is everything in nuclear. They’ll figure it out.

And they could take electricity to places that don’t have it. That’s life-changing.

Yes, solar exists—but it isn’t sunny everywhere all the time.

Canada’s already building one. The UK and USA are on their way—though with the USA, let’s not hold our breath.

Thorium, Fusion, and Breeder Reactors
Thorium reactors replace uranium with a more abundant element. They generate less long-lived waste, run at safer pressures, and recycle fuel.

Molten salt thorium reactors are complicated—but super promising.

So, why didn’t we go down the thorium path to begin with?

Answer: weapons.

Uranium reactors produce plutonium, which is great for bombs. Thorium doesn’t. It’s harder to weaponise. So during the Cold War, thorium got left behind.

But now—it’s having a moment.

Then there are breeder reactors—they produce more fuel than they use. Clever. Not new, but getting better and more viable.

Micro-Reactors
My second favourite: micro-reactors.

Tiny little reactors to power remote communities, military bases, disaster zones.

After our Christchurch earthquake, some of us were without power for weeks. Imagine plugging in a teeny tiny reactor to power the city.

Reliable, carbon-free energy—at the touch of a button.

Oversimplifying, obviously. But this could be incredible for rural and isolated areas.

And yes—I want one.

Do you reckon they’ll let me import one?
(Probably not.)

Nuclear Batteries
Now we get to my favourite: nuclear batteries.

Sounds like a terrible idea, right? We’re used to lithium-ion batteries catching fire—and staying on fire.

(Side note: I would actually love to see a lithium-ion fire. In a safe place. Just to know what it looks like.)

But anyway—RTGs—Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators—are nuclear batteries.

They use the heat from radioactive decay (which we talked about in Episode 1) to generate electricity. They’ve powered NASA’s Voyager, Mars rovers, space probes.

No maintenance. Last forever. Don’t puncture them.

And now, researchers are exploring using them on Earth—for medical equipment in remote areas, space exploration, and more.

Even cooler: China is developing nuclear batteries based on carbon-14, the radioactive isotope of carbon.

Imagine charging your phone once… ever.
Please and thank you.

The Real Future: Fusion
But let’s be honest: when we talk about the future of nuclear energy, we mean fusion.

It’s the holy grail.
Clean, limitless energy.

All the reactors we’ve talked about so far are fission—breaking atoms apart.
Fusion is the opposite—smushing atoms together at extreme heat and pressure. Like our Sun.

Hydrogen into helium. It’s what stars do.

Fusion would mean almost perpetual, carbon-free energy.

The fuel? Hydrogen—from seawater.
One litre of seawater = the fusion energy of 270 litres of petrol.

It’s bonkers.

No greenhouse gases. No meltdowns. Just… better.

Problem is, fusion’s always “30 years away.” That’s the running joke.

We’ve been trying since the 1950s.
Even had a cold fusion scandal. It wasn’t replicable, and the scientists were discredited. Now it lives on Reddit.

But in 2022, the US National Ignition Facility achieved net energy gain—got more energy out than in. That’s huge.

JET in the UK set records for sustained fusion.
ITER in France is the world’s biggest fusion experiment.
China’s artificial Sun held plasma at 120 million °C for 100 seconds.
Private companies like Commonwealth Fusion, Helion, Tokamak Energy—all racing for fusion.

And right here in Aotearoa, we have Open Star Technologies. A fusion startup!
They’re racing to make it viable—and I genuinely hope they do.

So there you have it. The future of nuclear is weird, promising, and maybe not as scary as we thought.

I didn’t even mention skin melting once.

And yes, I’d like my own mini reactor and nuclear battery. I’ve got samples of uranium and radium on my shelf—so might as well go all in.

The final episode in this mini-series is coming in a few days, and it’s the big question:

Do we actually need nuclear energy to solve the climate crisis?

Because—spoiler—fossil fuels aren’t it.

Next week, we’re talking about nicotinamide—the magical ingredient in Incrediballs—because this is my podcast and I can talk about whatever I find interesting.

And it is interesting. We’ll dive into NAD+, why it's trending in supplements, and what the science actually says.

Plus, Incrediballs launches in a few weeks—so it’s time we talk about it again.

See you then. Kia ora, kaitiaki.

And there you go. I hope you learned something and realised that being green isn’t about everything in your pantry matching with those silly glass jars or living in a commune.

If that’s your jam—fabulous.

But sustainability, at its heart, is just using what you need.

If you enjoyed this episode, please don’t keep it to yourself—and feel free to drop me a rating and hit the subscribe button.

Kia ora, and I’ll see you next week.