Nuclear Energy: It’s Back!

Nuclear energy - an all too well-known topic. Despite being one of the safest sources of energy in the modern market, nuclear fission remains divided in the eyes of the public due to a list of catastrophic incidents that have occurred and common worries about its operational safety and health impacts. Two immediate incidents that come to mind are the Fukushima disaster (2011) and the Chernobyl disaster (1986). The Fukushima disaster occurred due to an earthquake-tsunami event in Japan which caused a failure in seawalls and ultimately leading to a cooling system failure, causing a reactor meltdown. Potentially more famously known, the Chernobyl disaster was caused by a series of operator decisions when attempting to evaluate the new reactor’s operating window. Due to these incidents (and other factors), people don’t typically want to live next to nuclear reactors - and the general sentiment is negative. This reinforces the interesting paradox of “dread risk” or “probability neglect”, the tendency for humans to add a dread factor to things that have a very low likelihood of happening but have large consequences (like a nuclear meltdown), rather than things that have a very high likelihood but are common (like a car crash).

Nuclear fission energy actually remains one of the safest sources of energy when compared to traditional counterparts such as natural gas and coal. A study by Markandya et al. (2017) found that coal, oil and even natural gas resulted in higher death rates in humans due to air pollution. Another key worry from the average person about living near or next to a nuclear reactor is radiation - and this too is unfounded - but one could argue has been propagated from all of the cinema surrounding radiation and its consequences. In fact, a given person actually receives more radiation from taking a one-way flight across the United States (cosmic, around 0.03 mSv) than they would from living next to a nuclear reactor for decades (by my calculations, 20 years next to a reactor is around 0.002 mSv - a lot less!).

Truth be told, the world is in not only a climate crisis, but an energy crisis, causing countries to rethink supply chains and their sustainability goals - leading to a push towards cleaner and safe energy. Nuclear energy is on the rise, again, but when was it on the decline? Let’s look at the past and the outlook for this contentious topic.

1960s and 70s: The World Loves Nuclear

During the 1960s and 70s, nuclear fission was hailed as a high-tech, low carbon solution to the rapidly increasing energy needs of the world. It was a novel-ish technology that had leaders all around the world rethinking how they could electrify their nations - so countries standard rapidly developing nuclear programs. By the 80s and 90s, the world had already experienced two high-profile, majorly catastrophic nuclear reactor meltdowns that caused drastic health impacts on surrounding areas (Three-Mile Island, 1979 and Chernobyl, 1986). Public confidence was shaken to say the least. In addition to this, the world discovered more and more abundant natural gas and coal reserves that some nations had decided to capitalize on (many). Nuclear plants were also very expensive to build, on the high end being close to $10M (US) per MW of power, compared to coal plants at $5.5M (US) per MW of power - much more expensive. Policy shifts were also starting to change - in part due to public sentiment but also due to these nautorious disasters that had plagued the news on the topic of nuclear in the first place.

Chernobyl nuclear plant (1986), post explosion, source: LiveScience.com

Germany is a prime example of this movement. Started in the mid 1990s, Germany’s anti-nuclear movement began to gain traction after Chernobyl, as radiation fallout reached parts of Europe and began to cause the average citizen to question its safety. Green parties and civil society groups began to lobby for the phasing out of the technology, which at the time accounted for as much as 27%-30% of the country’s baseload power. So, in the early 2000s, Chancellor Gerhard Schröder’s government negotiated a nuclear phase-out program, eventually becoming reality. Germany shut off its last nuclear power plant in 2023, concluding its two decade long goal of a full phase-out.

Fast-Forward to 2022

So let’s use the Germany example again. In 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine, a major producer of oil and gas to Europe (about 45% of imports from Russia, Ukraine as a transit country pre 2022). Over the twenty years prior when nuclear was incrementally being phased out, Germany began increasing their baseload natural gas, wind, and solar power capacity quite dramatically to offset the loss of nuclear generation. To actually offset the demand required during this phase-out period, the country banked on a stable supply of natural gas as “bridge fuel” (Energiewende) to tide its citizens over until reliable solar and wind generation could replace the nuclear gap. The majority of this fuel was Russian via the Nord-Stream pipeline, a major route from Russia to mainland Europe.

Okay - going back to the war in Ukraine. In 2022, the geopolitical climate essentially changed overnight. Imposition of sanctions by the EU on Russia on energy imports and exports, almost ironically, handicapped the mainland European economy because Russian supply of gas through Nord-Stream was a source of baseload and peaking power for the majority of nations. Germany, alongside other nations, found themselves scrambling to fill the gap of Russian natural gas essential for keeping the lights on. Immediately, the country had to lean on coal-fired plants and natural gas from much more costly sources to simply power its own economy (like Liquefied Natural Gas - LNG).

Ironically, the safety and public concern that initially led Germany to undergo its transition away from nuclear led to spikes in the price of power for utility providers, and by extension its population starting in 2022. Had the country continued to foster a growing nuclear program with an additional focus on safety, they might now (1) be much more progressed on emissions reduction and (2) have averted the 2022 energy shock.

Fast-Forward (Again) to 2024

So we’ve established that nuclear power is a majority safe source of energy, has virtually no emissions and much less of an impact on human health than traditional generation, and that global economic shifts have now provided the right conditions for a nuclear revival. Key reasons for this resurgence across the globe include climate commitments and decarbonization, energy security, reshoring, and independence, technological advancements, and governmental economic stimulus.

Climate Commitments and Decarbonization

Global temperatures are rising due to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, those which reflect radiation from the sun back onto the Earth. More GHGs = higher global temperatures, a consequence of the industrial revolution. Since the Paris Accords in 2015, more and more pressures have been placed on nations to make responsible growth pledges and lower emissions to avert a rise of 1.5 degrees in global temperatures in reference to pre-industrial ages. Canada, the UK, South Korea and Japan are key players with such net-zero 2050 goals who view nuclear energy as an extremely leverageable technology to attain such goals. Currently, the Canadian province of Ontario is more than 50% (majority of baseload) powered by nuclear energy, truly a force to be reckoned with on the global stage.

Energy Security, Reshoring, and Energy Independence

As mentioned, the 2022 invasion of Ukraine as well as the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 have tested supply chains and geopolitical relations time and time again. As a result, there are key initiatives to bring power generation back into the control of individual or friendly countries amid hostile players. European countries especially have recently revitalized commitments to nuclear energy production for the European Economic Area (EEA). This will ensure that (1) supply of fuel will not impact operations and energy stability, and (2) countries will have direct control over their emissions potential.

Technological Innovations and Advancements

Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are smaller versions of regular plants that have simpler design features and have a maximum output of 300 MWe. With this comes less capital cost, lower operating costs, and enhanced safety features, leading to further potential public support. The idea is to implement such reactors as a flexible, scalable solution for electricity generation, district heating and hydrogen production (electrolysis) to then be used for other green applications.

Economic Stimulus
As part of post-pandemic recovery plans, countries are investing in nuclear projects to generate employment at the same time as reducing emissions and providing controllable baseload power. Public-private partnerships, especially in SMRs, are advancing the potential of the technology.

Case Study: the UK’s Plan to Re-Nuclearize their Baseload Power System

Facing retirement of the entirety of its aging nuclear plant fleet, the United Kingdom’s tory government under Rishi Sunak launched the "Energy Security Strategy” in 2022. Under this plan targets for up to 24 GW of the country’s baseload power capacity would be powered by nuclear by 2050, including both SMRs and large-scale initiatives. A private-public partnership with Rolls Royce is helping to make this happen by providing advanced SMRs to power the country.

Take a look at the UK Energy Dashboard. See how susceptible the country is to price fluctuations in natural gas? They are almost 50% powered by baseload and peaking power natural gas energy. I wonder why energy bills spiked in the past 2-3 years… For reference, the Canadian figure is around 12%.

This data certainly supports the push to re-nuclearize the economy if the UK wants to become more self-sustaining.

Case Study: Asia’s Racing Ahead with Nuclear Power Generation

China continues to rapid expansion of Gen3 reactors aiming for a whopping 70+ GW of capacity by 2030 - phasing out the fact that most of their production still comes from coal. The country is developing, and so is its power.

Japan’s population is starting to warm up to the fact that nuclear may be a necessary part of their power system, with the government announcing new initiatives to restart select reactors with cautious optimism.

South Korea under president Yoon (the martial law guy) has reversed previous government decisions to phase-out nuclear power from the country’s baseload mix and pledging to increase the country’s investment into technology.

Bringing it all Together

The nuclear resurgence in 2024 is not uniform or uncontested. Germany and a few other nations remain opposed, and the global pace of new builds still lags behind what some experts suggest is necessary for meeting ambitious net-zero targets. Nonetheless, the trajectory is shifting: the combination of advanced reactor technologies, mounting climate pressure, energy security imperatives, and evolving public perception has breathed new life into nuclear power’s prospects.

If current trends continue, nuclear’s role in future energy systems could grow significantly, particularly as next-generation reactors and SMRs achieve commercialization. With thoughtful policymaking, transparent communication, and equitable stakeholder engagement, nuclear energy will surely solidify its position as a key pillar of the global clean energy transition.