Rapid expansion of nuclear power is needed to meet global climate goals with evidence suggesting low-carbon baseload sources of energy like nuclear power can actually facilitate integration of renewable sources and help deliver lower-cost electricity systems. However, a report from the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change concludes that unfounded negative attitudes towards nuclear power and constraining its development, with damaghing consequences.
From the origins of nuclear power in the 1950s, the 1973 oil crisis accelerated nuclear investment, particularly in oil-dependent nations such as France and Japan. These countries and many others sought to reduce reliance on volatile imports using nuclear power. France, for example, undertook an extensive nuclear programme, building 25 plants in just 15 years, while the US significantly expanded its nuclear fleet.
Nuclear energy had emerged as one of the transformative innovations of the 20th century and many expected this growth to continue, positioning nuclear energy as a ubiquitous power source that would shape the future of global energy production. But, despite this early promise, history did not turn out that way.
While concerns around nuclear safety have existed since nuclear power stations first came online. In the 1960s and 1970s, a significant anti-nuclear sentiment began to take shape. Environmental activists, influenced by the rise of the green movement, highlighted the risks associated with radiation exposure and the long-term management of nuclear waste, which could remain hazardous for thousands of years. Additionally, the potential for nuclear materials to be diverted toward weapons and military uses amplified these fears, particularly in the context of the Cold War.
Public awareness and scepticism surged in 1979, when the film “The China Syndrome” was released, depicting a fictional near meltdown at a nuclear plant. The film’s narrative resonated with existing fears and significantly influenced public perception, particularly when the real-life incident at Three Mile Island in the US occurred just days after its premiere.
This event marked an important moment in the anti-nuclear movement, fuelling protests and leading to increased scrutiny over the safety and regulation of nuclear energy. The US, still the world’s largest producer of nuclear power, did not commit to a new reactor for nearly three decades after this.
Just one year later, Sweden decided in a referendum to gradually phase out nuclear energy. Anti-nuclear sentiment reached a peak after the Chornobyl nuclear-power-station disaster in 1986. Italy halted its nuclear-energy programme in 1987 and other countries – including Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and Austria – took steps to reduce their nuclear ambitions too.
Nonetheless, the 1990s and early 2000s saw nations such as France and the US modernise older reactors and invest in safer Generation III reactor designs. Countries in Asia saw nuclear energy as essential to their growing power demands and environmental objectives.
Fukushima – a knock out blow?
The tsunami that precipitated the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in 2011 reignited global concerns over nuclear safety. This shook public trust yet again, highlighting even the most advanced systems’ susceptibility to unforeseen events. In response, Japan gradually closed all of the country’s 54 nuclear reactors and increased fossil-fuel imports instead.
Elsewhere, countries such as Germany and Belgium hastened their nuclear phase-out, while others like Switzerland and Spain, decided not to build any new nuclear plants. In Asia Thailand indefinitely postponed plans to build its first nuclear-energy reactors.
Of course, public perception has not been the only driver behind nuclear power’s long decline. The potential of harnessing cheap gas diverted investment into gas-fired generation in many countries in the 1980s and 1990s while liberalisation of energy markets made capital-intensive projects like nuclear power plants harder to finance. Additionally, the rise of renewable-energy technologies such as wind and solar power offered governments an attractive low-carbon alternative to nuclear power.
The cost of nuclear is also closely tied to the regulatory regime in which the technology operates and the amount of litigation the project is subject to. Over the years, countries have gradually introduced increasingly stringent safety and environmental regulations in response to public concern, with the focus shifting away from technical innovation and improvement toward risk avoidance. Furthermore, heightened concerns led to a rise in litigation, as local communities and environmental groups frequently challenged the development of new nuclear facilities. These legal battles often delayed projects for years or even resulted in their cancellation. This, combined with a lack of clear commitment to pipelines of reactors, has inflated the cost of nuclear reactors over time, further creating a negative spiral for the technology.
The reort argues that public understanding of nuclear power has also been negatively shaped by media headlines and dissemination of information around key accidents like Chornobyl, as well as the claims of the anti-nuclear movement. There’s no denying the events at Chornobyl, Fukushima and Three Mile Island were serious incidents. However, investigation of the actual consequences of these three accidents strongly suggests that public perception of the risks of nuclear energy is not aligned with reality of what actually happened. This has resulted in an inaccurate perception of the technology’s real risks and rewards.
Reality bites
In their analysis the authors acknowledge that it is important to be honest about the drawbacks associated with nuclear power: it is not a renewable source of energy; it involves the need for management of radioactive waste, which carries additional risks and costs; and it is not possible to preclude the possibility of accidents. It is also highly capital intensive, which increases the risk of cost-overruns and delays. There are trade-offs, just as with any other energy-generation technology. But, unlike other technologies, nuclear energy faces an enhanced, unfounded perception of risk, with far less consideration of the rewards.
The report considers that a comparison with coal-fired generation illustrates this. Coal has a higher death rate, pollutes the air and ultimately contributes significantly to accelerated climate change. In fact, living next to a coal power station also subjects a person to greater doses of radiation than living next to a nuclear power station. Nuclear is therefore on paper less risky than coal, but because the risk looks different, the technology is treated in a completely different way.
Thus, from early promise and enthusiasm in the 1960s and 1970s, nuclear energy began to face considerable opposition from protestors worried about public health and environmental impacts. This was fuelled by understandable concern about accidents at Three Mile Island, Chornobyl and, most recently, Fukushima, driving public opposition and reducing governments’ commitment to nuclear power. The result has been a considerable slowdown of nuclear-power generation. In the 32 years before Chornobyl, 409 reactors were opened. In the three decades since the disaster, only 194 were connected.
The relatively limited risks associated with nuclear energy are manageable, but the benefits are significant. Nuclear power is carbon-free; it generates more energy per square metre of land use than any fossil or renewable energy source, it could help stabilise grids and provide low-cost energy. Analysis by organisations such as the International Energy Agency and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggests that rapid expansion of nuclear power is needed to meet the world’s climate goals. But excessive safety requirements make nuclear power less economical, the report says. For instance, the UK’s Office for Nuclear Regulation applies a principle that any safety measure is justified as long as its costs are less than 10 times its benefits. The practical effect can be seen with construction of reactors at Hinkley Point C. Based on a French reactor design, the ONR required a staggering 7,000 design modifications and Hinkley Point C will now use 25% more concrete and 35% more steel than it would otherwise. the report says.
These types of changes drive up costs, increase the time and resources needed to get approval and build the reactors, and limit the possibility of learning from similar projects. The outcome is that Hinkley Point C is one of the world’s most expensive reactors. Similar principles are applied elsewhere, with similar results. At the Vogtle nuclear-power-plant expansion in Georgia, in the US, a number of changes to the AP1000 design resulted in huge project delays and cost overruns. The total cost increased from an initial estimate of $14bn to around $34-$35bn.
The reality, says the Institute, is that nuclear energy is a safe form of energy, with significant benefits in terms of reducing emissions and creating balanced, low-cost energy systems. Public perception of the risk of nuclear power is not commensurate with the actual risk, the authors conclude. The result is that nuclear energy has never become the ubiquitous power source many had projected, with countries instead turning towards less good alternatives such as coal and gas.
Risk and the climate crisis
The authors further conclude that the world is now paying a price for letting lingering concerns about safety and ideological opposition deter governments from harnessing nuclear. If the ambitious approach to nuclear deployment had continued, the world would have saved 28.9 Gt of carbon dioxide (CO2) since 1991, the report says. This is 3.1% of the energy-related emissions produced in this period, about one year of energy-related emissions, or the equivalent of shutting down hundreds of coal-fired power plants for the entire period.
Last year, global energy-related emissions would have been 6% lower, saving 2.1 Gt of CO2 or the same as removing the combined total 2023 emissions of Canada, South Korea, Australia and Mexico.
These strong projections of emissions savings today based on observed rates of nuclear uptake in the early 1990s could still be an underestimate. In the 1990s and 2000s, countries’ decision-making around energy technologies began to shift from being simply a question of cost to incorporating questions around climate impact. If the perception of nuclear had remained more fact-based, nuclear energy could have become an even more attractive alternative and the result could have been a stronger global move towards nuclear, coupled with renewables.
This shows the significant impact that turning away from nuclear has had on the global ability to tackle climate change. But there are also likely wider implications. The report notes that higher penetration of nuclear energy could help increase energy independence and insulate nations from fossil-fuel shocks. It could help deliver low-cost electricity and improve renewables integration.
These effects can be seen in the countries that shunned nuclear power. Japan – which shut down all its nuclear reactors after Fukushima – has ended up with the dirtiest grid in the G7 and paid $510mn a day for fossil-fuel imports in 2023. If the country had maintained nuclear capacity at the same level as before Fukushima, its energy-related emissions would have been 14% lower in 2023. Since 2011, the country would have saved 143 Mt of emissions – about 14.1% of its energy-related emissions in the period.
Similarly, in Germany, the fall in nuclear power has offset more than 70% of the energy added from renewables. If its nuclear capacity had been maintained at 2002 levels, energy-related emissions would have been 21% lower in 2023, and the country could have saved 1.1 Gt of emissions since 2002 (a bit more than 3% of its total emissions in this period). This would mean that Germany would have reduced its emissions by 55.6% on 1990 levels, putting the country ahead of schedule for delivering its target of a 65% reduction of emissions on 1990s levels by 2030. It would also have resulted in lower energy costs and enhanced grid stability.
Even the United States, which maintained its nuclear fleet but scaled back expansion after the Three Mile Island incident, could have saved significant emissions in this period. Before the 1980s, the US was following a similar path to France in terms of nuclear uptake. Assuming nuclear commitment had remained high, and that nuclear generation reached 40% and was maintained at that level, the US would have saved 5.3 Gt of emissions since 1985, or 2.6% of its total energy-related emissions in this period. In 2023 alone, US energy-related emissions would have been 2.9% lower, saving 135 Mt of emissions.
France, on the other hand, maintained a strong commitment to nuclear, resulting in one of the lowest carbon footprints in Europe. This has enhanced its energy security by reducing dependence on imported fossil fuels and stabilising electricity prices due to predictable generation costs. As the world’s largest net exporter of electricity, France earns more than €3bn annually from exports and enjoys low generation costs. Its advanced nuclear infrastructure has also established the country as a global leader in nuclear technology.
Nuclear drivers signalling change
The report iderntifies several trends are steering the world back towards nuclear. Energy shortages in the wake of the pandemic recovery and the Russian invasion of Ukraine have shifted public and elite opinion towards nuclear as a source of clean, secure energy. Large AI hyperscalers, which depend on reliable low-carbon baseload power, are pouring money into new nuclear projects. And, new innovations in nuclear technology are emerging that encourage wider use for data centres and industrial processes. This all creates considerable global momentum behind nuclear.
This growing momentum can be seen. Currently about 60 reactors are under construction globally, with a further 110 planned and more than 300 proposed. This compares to a current fleet of about 440 operational reactors. Most of the new reactors are in Asia, with China leading the way having added 34 GW of nuclear-power capacity over the past 10 years with an additional 27 reactors under construction and plans to build 150 new reactors between 2020 and 2035. This is a rapid expansion, and while the US still lays claim to having the largest nuclear fleet at 94 reactors, it took the country nearly 40 years to build the same nuclear-power capacity as China added in 10 years.
Other countries are turning to nuclear too. India has a goal of tripling nuclear capacity to 22 GW by 2032, and further growing capacity to 100 GW by 2047, as a part of its “Developed India” strategy. The US recently published a roadmap for tripling its nuclear capacity to respond to load growth. Countries in Europe that rely heavily on coal, such as Poland and the Czech Republic, have been showing increasing commitment to nuclear power too, including designating several sites for new small modular reactors.
Some of the most recent announcements for new nuclear have been highly symbolic. The US is re-opening Three Mile Island Unit 1 – the counterpart of Unit 2, whose partial meltdown fuelled so much nuclear opposition. Japan is also increasingly recommitting to nuclear, re-opening reactors near Fukushima that survived the impact of the 2011 tsunami. The public perception of nuclear energy is also improving rapidly, the report states.
This is a pivotal moment in the fight against climate change. Accelerated action is needed in every country across the world, with more rapid deployment of all types of clean technologies and new solutions to deliver clean power for all. Political leaders aspiring to meet rising energy demands, reduce energy costs and provide security and growth now have a choice to make, the authors conclude. Choosing to build nuclear is entirely within their gift. Many are showing their willingness to move past false alarm and ideology, making judgements that are instead based upon fact-based assessment of risk. To achieve this, the world must learn the lessons from the history of nuclear energy – there have been only two major accidents (those at Chornobyl and Fukushima) and their effects, while serious, have been significantly over-estimated.
A new nuclear era is beginning, but whether it continues will depend entirely on whether governments can better handle the risks and public opinion. Only then will
they harness the power of nuclear quickly and at low cost. Whether it is nuclear or other technologies that will help fight climate change, the world cannot afford to
let unfounded public concern to stand in the way of progress.
