Everyone talks Nuclear Energy – Is there still a debate?

Disclosure: I am not a nuclear engineer nor an expert in the field. I am a retired engineer, lucky enough to have worked on technically challenging projects, a proponent for sure of nuclear energy, and with probably a bit more time to educate myself and do deep dives than the average reader. The purpose of this post is to provide the reader with some background information and references for their own education and hopefully dispel with some misconceptions about safety of nuclear energy. This is a longer post than usual, courtesy perhaps of my passion for nuclear energy, but I hope you take the time to read till the end and found it useful and informative.

Every now and then Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and the more recent accident at Fukushima come up, often as evidence that nuclear energy is not safe (enough) for use as clean energy source. But and this may surprise some, close to 20% of US electricity comes from nuclear power, with no incidents since Three Mile Island. And in France almost 70% of their electricity is provided by nuclear energy and both countries have been doing that safely since the 70’s, without any significant radiation escaping to the atmosphere or from leaking long-term storage of nuclear waste. Reasons the US stopped building nuclear plants in late 70’s are many, primarily economic (cost overruns, stagnant demand, high interest rates, competition from other energy sources like cheap shale gas) and safety and public perception (Three Mile Island scare, increased regulatory and often costly requirements imposed by the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission).

The Fukushima Accident - a Look Back happened a little over 10 years ago, and readers may still have some of the images in their mind of explosions they saw on tv and in media posts. The accident happened following a magnitude 9.0 earthquake and a massive tsunami off the coast of Japan. Stories circulated about radiation damage, the Japanese governments ordered massive and often chaotic evacuations and to this day there are protests about the release of contaminated water from the plant into the sea.

The political aftermath was significant. The global policy on nuclear energy went through a cycle of immediate shutdowns in several countries, notably those in the EU, followed by a recent “nuclear renaissance” driven perhaps more by energy security than by concerns of increased global warning. As a longtime proponent of nuclear energy, I am encouraged by the rapid way in which many governments have now reversed their opposition to nuclear energy or have even enthusiastically embraced this renaissance.

Without a doubt the fossil fuel energy security issues caused by wars (the Russia invasion of the Ukraine causing massive disruption in natural gas supply primarily in Europe, now the challenges with the Strait of Hormuz closure) have played and may continue to play a role in governments accepting that nuclear energy must play a role in supply of clean energy. In addition, even without energy disruptions caused by these wars, the rapid expansion of data centers and AI have caused electricity demand to rapidly increase beyond expectations a few years ago.

What else changed? In the West private investors with deep pockets and public companies in the data (cloud) business began to fund the development cycle as recently as some 5 years ago. The term SMR (Small Modular Reactor) became in vogue, as opposed to the large (Gigawatt size) reactors people were used to, and as always after accidents, newer “fail safe” designs continued to be developed (hence the terminology Gen II, Gen II and Gen IV reactors, with some intermediates like Gen III+). The government of China has been well ahead of other countries in recognizing of the need for energy security. So they have been building out their nuclear fleet rapidly, besides relying on coal and natural gas. In some ways they are well ahead with their modular approach to design and build and are even commercializing types of reactors that were developed in the US in the 70’s, but decommissioned not because of safety issues but because other less expensive energy sources became available. And, surprisingly perhaps, the Russia state owned company Rosatom is the stealth provider and builds almost half of all new reactors worldwide (see The (nuclear) export expert)

Political (Energy Security) Necessity or Genuine Belief

Let’s start with an admittedly somewhat subjective view of recent announcements by governors and other politicians in some of our States in in other countries. This column in the Washington Post is illustrative:

New Jersey chips away at irrational anti-nuclear policies

The by-line is that “Mikie Sherrill is the second governor this year to reverse a nuclear power moratorium”. The announcement follows the announcement in a several other states to lift moratoriums on nuclear energy (new or extending the life of existing plants). It is in my view a welcome change from earlier (and successful) efforts to shut down the Indian Point nuclear reactor near New York City (with the result that NYC and surrounding areas have experienced more use of natural gas and higher emissions since the shut-down.

And similar things are happening in many other countries, with a somewhat surprising recent announcement by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen who admitted in March 2026 that reducing Europe’s reliance on nuclear energy was a “strategic mistake”. Speaking at a nuclear energy summit, she described the move away from this “reliable, affordable source of low-emissions power” as a mistake, highlighting the need for a shift back toward nuclear alongside renewables. So now, even in Germany, they are reconsidering whether some of the shut-down reactors can be restarted, an effort that may be too late to be practical unfortunately.

I would love to give full credit to some of the great organizations, one of which I am a member of, for tirelessly advocating for the benefits of nuclear power, the safety improvements in nuclear plants over the past several decades and finally winning over the decision makers, but of course with politicians there are always other things at play.

Energy security, increased electricity demand and high prices in many energy markets are drivers for politicians, who may not have had an ah-ha moment like “now I finally understand how safe nuclear energy is, if I had only been made aware of this over the past decades”. Safety of nuclear power has always been in clear plain sight, if one is prepared to take a critical view of some of the nuclear radiation release stories by some media and film makers (Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima). Of these three, Chernobyl was by far the more serious nuclear accident, but even in that case deaths, cancer cases, and genetic abnormalities in offspring have been wildly exaggerated. And ironically with exception of may be one case, none of the deaths attributed to Fukushima were caused by radiation.

One only needs to browse through the many comments that were posted to the Washington Post article I linked to, to see that the divide between proponents and opponents of nuclear energy still exists. The debate persists but may subside.

One may thus wonder whether Governor Sherill of New Jersey was convinced by technically sound arguments or political reality (high electricity prices) when she signed legislation allowing the Garden State to approve other nuclear waste storage systems. “It’s a textbook example of the kind of inefficient government I ran to change,” Sherrill said, noting that most other states have implemented storage strategies with “a 100% safety record.”

I am not picking on Governor Sherrill here, who may well have been a proponent of nuclear energy all along. In Texas, no matter what one may think of various political measures promoted by Governor Abbott and the Texas legislature, we can call ourselves fortunate that the Governor has been a firm promotor of nuclear energy in the state for the past 3+ years, even though Texas is benefiting from a relative abundance of renewable (solar mostly) and fossil fuel energy sources. His push has led Texas to be at the forefront on nuclear energy development in the US.

Ultimately, regardless of motives, advancing nuclear energy as a reliable and safe clean power source remains important. Costs and timelines to design, get approvals and build remain concerns and time will tell whether the resurgence of nuclear is there to stay or will have another sunset. Of note is that there are now 38 countries that have endorsed Declaration to Triple Nuclear Energy by 2050, including the US.

One final source of very good information on safety and health of various energy sources can be found on the website Our World in Data - Safest and Cleanest Sources of Energy and Health. Pictures can replace a thousand words and there is a key bar chart that shows how safe (and of course emission free) nuclear energy is compared in particular to fossil fuels.

Information Sources on Nuclear Energy

For those of my readers who want to dig a little bit deeper, but don’t have the time for the real deep dive, and for parents who have children who are looking for opportunities in the technical trades or academic pursuit, but may not quite know where to look, I have a brief list of publication sites, podcasts, and organizations offering essential information and opportunities to join volunteer groups. I have given several presentations at high schools and our local community college on clean energy transition, and I find increasingly that questions about nuclear energy come up. We have a shortage of nuclear engineers, technicians and tradecraft workers (e.g. welders) that may be as much of a stumbling block in this renaissance as the anticipated high costs and long timelines to build new plants, whether small or large. One of my personal goals is to talk about nuclear energy at High Schools and Community Colleges to help increase enthusiasm for this field.

Of the many volunteer organizations, I’ll list just three you can either just browse for on their websites or even join. I am a member of the first one Generation Atomic, and they do great work in educating as well as advocating on the state as well as national level.

Generation Atomic: from their website: Our mission is to inspire and empower advocates for a clean future powered by atomic energy. Our team is working to change the culture and build a movement to support nuclear energy.

Mothers for Nuclear: (and not only mothers!) from their website: Mothers for Nuclear was started on Earth Day in 2016 by two moms who want to protect their children’s future on this planet. Now they support nuclear as our largest and most hopeful source of clean energy, vital to addressing some of our world’s biggest challenges: climate change, air pollution, and energy poverty.

Nuclear Matters: from their website: Nuclear Matters is a national coalition that works to inform the public and policymakers about the clear benefits of nuclear energy and support policy solutions that properly value nuclear energy as a reliable, affordable, safe and carbon-free energy source.

Another website that is a bit more irreverent, perhaps more Gen Z type is by the former Brazilian model and influencer Isabelle Boemeke who goes by the moniker isodope. She published a fun, irreverent but very informative book “Rad Future – the untold story of nuclear electricity and how it will save the world” and has played a big role in in the successful campaign to keep the Diablo Canyon Power Plant in San Luis Obispo, California from being shuttered. And in April 2026 the Diablo Canyon plants were granted an additional 20-year license to operate by federal regulators, with the hope that state regulators will follow with their license.

If you are more into reading very informative Substack posts or listening to Podcasts, I highly recommend Decouple by Chris Keefer. Here are Decouple Posts by Chris Keefer and his Decouple Podcasts . He doesn’t always talk nuclear (his last few ones were on challenges with LNG due to the Iran War), has terrific guests and does deep dives without getting overly technical.

Several states have taken a very active role in promoting nuclear energy, not only with legislation that (re) allows nuclear energy and storage in their state but also with grants. With my home state being Texas, I certainly can brag about Texas putting their money where their mouth is, like the Texas Advanced Nuclear Development Fund. And we can see the results of those efforts, for example with state specific trade organizations like the Texas Nuclear Alliance, started just in 2022 with a few founding members, but now with over 70 members and still growing, with an ever expanding weekly newsletter and impressive conferences throughout the year.

In Closing

This post barely scratches the surface of all that is going on in the nuclear “revival”, not the first revival, but this time hopefully an enduring one. I find myself in the proverbial position of feeling like I am drinking from a firehose: so much information out there to digest, so much that I don’t know but want to learn and know. And the many conferences on nuclear energy show that the field is thriving, not struggling.

It is essential that we adopt a comprehensive strategy to address our energy demand in the short and medium term, utilizing clean energy solutions to the greatest extent feasible and economically viable. As an aside I strongly prefer the term “clean energy” over “renewable energy”. It avoids arguing about whether some form of energy is renewable and may take some of the political fire out of arguments. Who cannot be against clean affordable energy, regardless of whether it is truly renewable within our lifetime and that of several generations to come?

I also hope that the energy industry and media promoting certain types of energy by just talking about Megawatts get more transparent about what is called “capacity factor”: the ratio of a power plant’s actual energy output over a given period (usually a year) to its potential output if it operated at full nameplate capacity continuously. It measures efficiency and reliability, with existing nuclear and fossil fuels generally having higher factors than variable energy sources like wind and solar that need back-up from battery storage or other energy sources to provide more steady supply over time. And nuclear plants can last for 60+ years which we cannot quite say yet about a solar or wind farm especially an offshore one in a harsh environment. It is misleading to read about 1 GW solar energy capacity being so much cheaper than 1 GW nuclear facility without acknowledgement of the associated capacity factor and a discussion of life cycle cost.

Today energy security has taken the front row seat in many nations, in some cases with the drive for increasing renewable or green energy to take a bit of back-seat. It doesn’t need to be that way. There is no one-size-fits-all to solving our energy needs. Countries in Africa may go all-in on solar with perhaps back-up battery power if there is a need for always on electricity. Fossil fuels will remain a key component of our energy mix for quite some time, as certain critical manufacturing processes require fossil-based products, and some high-temperature operations cannot currently be managed cost-effectively using renewable electricity. Other countries are lucky enough that they can rely on hydropower or geothermal energy for much of their energy needs. Let’s be flexible and recognize location and application specific needs for our energy sources.

My hope specifically for the nuclear industry is that our private enterprises that are funding a lot of the development, our government leaders and legislators have patience. Constructing a new large or advanced small nuclear plant is costly and time-consuming. Replication benefits require following China’s approach: build many plants with a standardized design, not just a few. But to replicate say an AP-1000 reactor has the advantage that the design and construction is well established, so the utility or other company that funds the build is practically guaranteed a high-capacity factor and a long life over which to amortize they very high upfront cost. In addition, there are now several nuclear facility designs and actual plants that can provided the very high heat output that is necessary for some industrial processes and can thus replace some of the fossil fuel processes typically used.

New designs, the so-called SMR’s or Small Modular Reactors (I’d prefer Modular without the S for small – today a 300 MW reactor is called an SMR, a 10 MW reactor is also called an SMR) will not magically be up and running reliably at 90% up time. They may just start out at 50%. That is to be expected but should not be discouraging. It is important that the success and challenges of nuclear energy remain independent of election cycles. Encouragingly, improvements in regulation and permitting reform have received broad bipartisan support.

And, of course, regardless of fail-safe designs that eliminate or minimize any radiation from an incident, an incident that occurs will grab immediate headlines, whether or not it is a serious one. We have only Fukushima to remember and evaluate how breathless the reporting of radiation damage might be, and then later read about the actual radiation levels being so low as to be near imperceptible and well within range of our typical exposure under all kinds of conditions we may not give a second thought (think getting an X-Ray or a CT Scan or even eating a few bananas).

But perception is reality in our present instantaneous and attention seeking media reporting, and corrections to incorrect reports are often an afterthought, well after attention has shifted to other things. Therefore I am all for the continued vigilance by designers, builders, regulators and local authorities, with the hope that some overly burdensome regulations sometimes based on outdated or erroneous scientific data can be improved upon.