The debate over nuclear power’s role in addressing the energy crisis pits climate goals against economic, political and public trust concerns. While some countries like France embrace it, others like Germany and Switzerland remain cautious due to cost, safety and waste issues. As renewables advance, nuclear’s future remains uncertain.
Is nuclear power a rational solution to the energy crisis? Or is it an expensive, slow-moving relic of the past, even one that defies economic interests?
While France and the United Kingdom have never abandoned nuclear power, others that once rejected it, such as Germany and Switzerland, are now reconsidering. Japan needs to stabilize its energy production for an ever-growing economy.
The resurgence of nuclear energy in political discourse comes at a time when climate targets are urgent — if not past due — yet economic pressures often dictate policy more than safety or public interest. This debate is not just about science or technology — it’s about politics, economics and public trust. While some governments argue that nuclear power is essential for meeting climate goals, the reality is that investment, regulatory hurdles and energy security concerns are often the real drivers of policy decisions.
Complex realities and divided narratives
A far more complex reality lies beyond carbon dioxide emissions alone. Water scarcity and its safety are already instigating regional conflicts, while biodiversity loss and soil degradation are preparing serious food security issues.
With this context, let us talk about the feasibility of nuclear expansion. Can we bear the financial cost of diverting resources from other endeavors? The timelines that may be too long? The unresolved waste issue? Not to mention the decommissioning that has never been done?
Proponents argue that nuclear power is a necessary low-carbon energy source. They will tell us that France has cleaner air than other countries because it invested in nuclear power plants when it was time. But critics highlight its prohibitive cost and inherent risks, reminding everyone of the infamous accidents of Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011. The public remains caught between narratives of climate urgency and energy independence, often without full transparency on the trade-offs being made in their name.
What is the renewed push for nuclear energy across Europe and Japan telling us? We must question whether its revival is truly about climate strategy, or whether economic forces are steering the conversation in ways most people don’t yet realize.
National relationships with nuclear energy
Nuclear power plants are considered the safest and cleanest energy sources, releasing less carbon dioxide than coal or gas. Scientists use carbon dioxide as a measurable proxy to better understand complex environmental processes. However, this may be difficult for the public to grasp and is often overlooked in policymaking. As a result, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change have prioritized eliminating carbon emissions, which has led to the complex and often problematic rise of carbon credits. This system is prone to manipulation and corruption, a bit like money laundering in some respects.
The great nuclear disasters of Chernobyl and Fukushima prompted a Swiss referendum that terminated nuclear power plants. People are rightly questioning their safety. The Fukushima incident sparked the development of the Energy Strategy 2050, which legally prohibits the construction of new nuclear power plants. It received approval by nearly 58% of voters on May 21, 2017. Hence, building new nuclear plants is banned. This leaves uncertainty about how to replace electricity production, especially during winter months.
Even as the two disasters affected the public, French authorities and influential groups remained committed to nuclear energy. France had rigorous safety standards, and nuclear power’s economic advantages and role in ensuring energy independence couldn’t be ignored. The country operates 56 nuclear reactors today, making it the second-largest producer of nuclear energy in the world after the United States. The French state owns the country’s nuclear plants as well as eight plants in the UK through the state-owned EDF Energy. Currently, more than two-thirds of France’s electricity is generated from nuclear power, with only about 21% coming from renewable sources.
Conversely, only a few weeks ago, Reporterre, an investigative journalism organization in France, discovered that the construction materials for a new plant are not compliant with industry standards. Astonishingly, the relevant state department was informed by the journalists, not by the contractors. So nuclear power plants can only be as safe as humans make them.
The UK public is aware that its nuclear power plants are owned and run by the French state-owned company Électricité de France (EDF). And post-Brexit, this ownership structure presents complications related to energy security, regulatory alignment and investment strategies. But are they informed about this material’s noncompliance?
The Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents heavily affected the German public. Germany shut down its last reactors in 2023. Yet already Friedrich Merz, who is expected to succeed Olaf Scholz as chancellor, supports a renewal of nuclear power production. Rafael Grossi, the chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, believes that it should be obvious for Germany to recover its nuclear energy production plans. Let’s consider that restarting even only one reactor would cost Germany greatly in reactivation, maintenance, retraining and everything that’s necessary.
In Japan, economic stability matters and drives political decision-making. Japan is set to revise its climate targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 66% from 2013 levels by fiscal year 2035, with a broader strategy to adjust the country’s energy mix by 2040. This plan seeks to provide businesses with a predictable framework for future investments and ensure compliance with international environmental standards set by the Paris Agreement.
Economic and environmental consideration
Nuclear power is often seen as a solution to energy instability. The real issue isn’t the technology itself, but the economic implications of unpredictable energy production in a world where constant growth is still considered the only acceptable option. While some argue nuclear is key to meeting climate goals, the rising cost of nuclear energy, alongside falling costs for renewables like wind and solar, makes the question of investment ever more urgent. Nuclear plants are slow to build and require massive investment, which conflicts with the “free market” mindset that prioritizes short-term returns.
Countries like Germany face the reality that nuclear plants are becoming increasingly expensive to maintain. The unresolved issues of waste management and decommissioning only add to the growing concern. Sites where nuclear power plants have been active may remain radioactive for millennia.
The nuclear debate is about more than just science or technology — it’s a matter of politics, economics and public trust. Governments are driven by energy security concerns, regulatory barriers and economic interests, not just environmental imperatives. With renewables advancing at a faster pace, the true question is whether nuclear power is the right investment for a future of sustainable energy.
