In a world where electricity is the backbone of our society, there are a lot of ways to generate it. Some more controversial than others, but nothing stands out to how controversial nuclear energy has become over the last few years. Because of this, many countries have been pursuing renewable energy sources as a primary form of energy. However, this heavy reliance on renewables creates a whole lot of problems such as not offering a base load. You know how it is, the sun is not always shining, it’s not always windy outside, and the water in the rivers doesn’t always flow at a steady rate. And given that with these technologies you require heavy battery infrastructure to be able to store all of that excess energy, you’ve got one complex problem to solve, or do you?
While it’s true that batteries are often made out of lithium-ion, which obviously require mining to be able to be produced, there’s a much simpler alternative that can negate all of this. Just like there’s spanning overhead wires for railway tracks over using battery trains. Of course I’m not saying that they shouln’t be used, but it all comes down to strategy and long term viability.
Introducing Nuclear Energy
One of the only low-carbon ways to generate electricity that actually offers a baseload and requires less space to provide the same amount of energy compared to most renewable sources such as wind and solar. And like many other old-fashioned forms of generating electricity such as with fossil fules, it’s one of the primary ways of generating electricity, compared to renewable sources which are in my opinion seen as secondary. In fact, 1kg of uranium is equal to about 1 MILLION kilograms of coal, meaning the energy source is quite efficient. But of course, nothing is perfect.
But while a lot of people like me think nuclear power is awesome, there’s unfortunately still a lot of fear mongering going around, primarily about past events such as Chernobyl and Fukushima. But nuclear power safety standards have improved so much over the years that the fear that it will happen again has gotten completely irrational by most of these people including me. Because in the case of Chernobyl, the reactor design was almost entirely flawed and wasn’t properly maintained due to the staff not being trained properly, as well as maintenance being severely underfunded. And that was all the way back during the Soviet days! And then there’s Fukushima, where in 2011 a magnitude 9.0 earthquake rocked the east coast. And although the damage wasn’t as severe compared to Chernobyl, the guilt still might fear some of the previous construction workers and planners. Before the construction of the Fukushima plant, there have been multiple reports made that the location of the plant wasn’t viable to do the afformentioned tsunami risk. But TEPCO decided to proceed with the plan anyway, despite the warnings from experts. And then there’s Three Mile island, which ultimately wasn’t too dangerous.
On the flipside, nuclear energy causes WAY FEWER deaths per terawatt hour compared to all fossil fuel methods and even biomass and wind. Source
Why aren’t we using it more?
Fear mongering. People have also cited reasons like it being more expensive and time consuming to build compared to renewable energy sources, and although the time argument can be seen as valid, there are things like SMRs (small modular reactors) that have become very popular as of recently and can be built in about a year if done properly. Even countries like Japan can build a full-scale nuclear reactor in about 4 to 5 years. Advances in technology and alternate fuel sources like Throium have also gained a lot of momentum in the last few years, and China has even built their first Thorium reactor in October 2023, named TMSR-LF1. But even then, China is still heavily reliant on coal. Source
Even according to a YouGov survey in April 2026, the data shows that men are far mor likely to support nuclear energy compared to women, and a clip from Asmongold clearly shows how some women are so risk avoidant by reacting to nuclear power like that. Source
Another thing that seems awfully hypocritical is the low support amongst green parties, especially in Europe where I live. That’s of course not to say that all green and/or left-leaning political parties oppose nuclear energy, but the arguments against it are in my opinion often overblown. In fact, I think you cannot call yourself a green party if you’re against nuclear energy. A good example of this is in Germany, where the Green Party bet on renewables over nuclear as a primary source of energy. And now, Germany has become more reliant on coal and natural gas due to the phase-out of nuclear energy in the country. Even their own energy minster called the phase out a “huge mistake”, given the oppurtunities it could have had to further industrialize and improve Germany’s economy. This fear is no longer practical, but ideological at best.
What can we do?
This article is not meant as a call to action to start supporting nuclear energy. But with the sources I provided, I have given you plenty of resources to start doing research on your own. Instead of looking at problems from an emotional perspective, we should be more pragmatic and look at every option from all angles. And I’m not saying that we shouldn’t build renewables, as those can be a great way to supply the energy mix in times of need and for better energy security. Some things just require a lot of energy, and renewables can certainly help with that.
Most scientists agree that nuclear energy can be a primary asset to the energy mix, and it clearly shows that countries like Japan, France and Sweden can do so. Even in my country The Netherlands, nuclear energy is getting more and more accepted.
If you really want to make a difference, share this article with your friends and family, and hopefully one day we will get one step closer to combatting climate change and making this world a better place for everyone.