Authors: Joshua Kossenjans, Mareike Schaumburg, March, 2025
1 Description and History
Nuclear power is a form of energy derived from processes involving the nucleus, the dense core of atoms. The energy that binds the protons and neutrons within the nucleus is extremely powerful and can be harnessed through nuclear reactions. Specifically, nuclear power plants utilize the process of nuclear fission, in which the nucleus of a heavy atom such as uranium-235 splits into two smaller nuclei, releasing a substantial amount of energy in the form of heat. This heat is then used to produce steam that drives turbines to generate electricity 1,2.
Nuclear reactors primarily use uranium, a heavy metal with high energy density. Uranium is an abundant natural resource and has been a core fuel in commercial nuclear power plants for more than 60 years 2. The global share of nuclear energy in electricity peaked around 17,5 percent in 1996 and currently contributes approximately 9 percent to the global supply 3,4.
The history of nuclear power is deeply intertwined with scientific discoveries in physics and chemistry during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In 1895, Wilhelm Röntgen discovered ionizing radiation through his experiments with X-rays. The following year, Henri Becquerel observed that uranium-containing ores such as pitchblende could darken photographic plates, an effect he linked to the emission of alpha and beta radiation 5.
The foundational breakthrough came in 1938 when Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann demonstrated that bombarding uranium atoms with neutrons resulted in the production of lighter elements like barium. This marked the first observed case of nuclear fission—a process later explained theoretically by Lise Meitner and Otto Frisch 6. Soon after, physicists including Enrico Fermi and Leo Szilard conceptualized the idea of a self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction. This led to the construction of the Chicago Pile-1, the first nuclear reactor to achieve a self-sustaining chain reaction, in 1942 5,6.
Initially, the development of nuclear technology was closely linked to military objectives during World War II, particularly through the Manhattan Project. However, post-war initiatives sought to promote peaceful applications of nuclear technology. In 1951, the Experimental Breeder Reactor I (EBR-I) in Idaho, USA, became the first reactor to generate a small amount of electricity from nuclear power 5,6. The geopolitical climate of the Cold War also contributed to the civilian application of nuclear technology. U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” speech in 1953 aimed to shift public and international focus toward peaceful nuclear development 7. This later culminated in the formation of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in 1957, designed to promote safe and peaceful uses of nuclear technology worldwide 8. The USSR was the first to establish a nuclear power plant that supplied electricity to a public grid in 1954, and the United Kingdom followed with the first commercial nuclear power station in 1956 5,7.
However, the expansion of nuclear energy also brought significant challenges and controversies. The Three Mile Island accident in the United States in 1979, although not resulting in fatalities, sparked major public concern about reactor safety. The Chernobyl disaster in 1986 had more severe consequences, including deaths and widespread radioactive contamination, which significantly impacted global public perception of nuclear energy 6. In 2011 the Fukushima accident in Japan, triggered by a massive earthquake and tsunami, led to core meltdowns and the release of radioactive materials, further reinforcing global concerns about the safety of nuclear reactors in extreme conditions.9,10
The majority of global nuclear power plants utilize water-cooled reactor designs, particularly Pressurized Water Reactors (PWRs) and Boiling Water Reactors (BWRs), which together account for approximately 96% of operational reactors worldwide.11 PWRs use highly pressurized water to prevent it from boiling inside the reactor core, while BWRs allow water to boil directly within the reactor vessel to produce steam. These designs use regular water for both cooling and moderation and are therefore classified as Light Water Reactors. In contrast, the Canada Deuterium Uranium (CANDU) reactor uses heavy water, which enables it to run on natural uranium without the need for fuel enrichment. Reactors using this design are categorized as Heavy Water Reactors.3,11–13
These types fall into broader categories known as nuclear generations, which reflect the technological development and safety features of each design. Generation I reactors were developed in the 1950s and 60s, including the world’s first commercial nuclear power plant, Calder Hall in the United Kingdom, which began operation in 1956. In addition, these early designs primarily used natural uranium and graphite for moderation, and the last of them was shut down at the end of 2015. Most currently operating reactors, such as standard PWRs, BWRs, and CANDUs, are considered Generation II.5,6,14,15
Generation III reactors are direct upgrades of Generation II designs, incorporating state-of-the-art improvements in fuel technology, thermal efficiency, safety systems, and modular construction. A key development in Generation III designs is the greater use of passive safety systems that function without active mechanical or human intervention, enhancing reliability and safety. These reactors are also designed for longer operational lifespans and greater efficiency 11,14,15, with several already in use in countries such as China, Russia, and the United Arab Emirates 3,15.
Looking ahead, Generation IV reactors are still under development and represent a more fundamental shift in nuclear technology. These future designs aim to operate at higher temperatures and introduce innovative cooling systems using gases, liquid metals, or molten salt, rather than water. A major goal of Generation IV technology is to implement closed fuel cycles, which would allow reactors to reuse spent fuel and drastically reduce the amount and longevity of radioactive waste. Instead of generating long-lived waste materials, these systems would break them down into shorter-lived byproducts, making nuclear energy more sustainable over the long term 3,4,11,15,16.
Many of the most advanced Generation III and IV designs are being developed in the form of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). These compact nuclear units offer flexible deployment, enhanced safety features, and economic scalability. With over 90 SMR designs currently in various stages of development, they are expected to play a vital role in the future of nuclear energy, particularly in industrial, remote, or developing regions 3,11,16–19.
Finally, when discussing technological diffusion and advancements, nuclear fusion represents the current frontier of nuclear research. It aims to replicate the process that powers stars by fusing light atomic nuclei to release energy. Unlike fission, fusion produces no long-lived radioactive waste and carries no risk of meltdown. ITER, the world’s largest experimental fusion project, is expected to build its first prototype reactor by 2040, though commercial deployment is likely still several decades away 3,11,20,21.
2 Economic Performance
The economics of nuclear power have become increasingly complex over time, particularly as cost trends diverged significantly from early expectations. Construction costs for nuclear power plants have consistently increased since the deployment of the first reactors, often exceeding initial forecasts and taking two to three times longer to complete than originally planned 3,22. This trend has been especially visible in countries like France, where nuclear plants completed after 1990 were 3.5 times more expensive than those built in the 1970s, even with considerable government subsidies 22.
These rising costs have impacted the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE), a standard measure for comparing the lifetime costs of various energy sources. Nuclear energy’s LCOE currently averages around 160 US dollars per megawatt hour ($/MWh), roughly three times higher than that of renewables like wind and solar, which range between $50–$60/MWh 22. Moreover, lifetime extensions for aging reactors cost approximately $40–$55/MWh, which approaches renewable LCOEs but without offering similar flexibility or scalability 19. Although renewables are cheaper in many scenarios, Lee and Jung (2024) argue that nuclear avoids significant environmental and integration costs, potentially justifying its higher upfront expenses. In their cost-benefit analysis using the Social Cost of Carbon they find that nuclear power avoided environmental impact can outweigh its LCOE disadvantages 23. Additionally, Brouwer and Bergkamp (2021) conducted a scenario analysis comparing wind, solar and nuclear energy especially regarding their costs and land requirements. Even in their best-case scenario for renewable power generation with wind and solar they find evidence that the costs for nuclear energy generation are still cheaper by a small margin. In their worst-case assumption for solar and wind they suggest that nuclear energy becomes an alternative that is close to four times cheaper. During their calculation the results show that in certain national contexts like the Netherlands, nuclear power would save an average Dutch household an estimated 165 euros annually 24. Furthermore, the authors state that grid integration costs are also a big cost factor, which according to them many fellow researchers have been miscalculating. While wind and solar integration costs may escalate at higher penetration rates, nuclear power lowers system costs, potentially saving countries like the Netherlands up to ten billion euros per year 24.
One of the most critical economic challenges of nuclear energy lies in its capital intensity. Construction costs represent roughly 70 percent of the total lifetime cost of a new nuclear power project, making it particularly vulnerable to delays and financing issues 25. Looking further into construction costs an analysis by Sovacool et al. (2014) revealed that 97 percent of the 180 observed nuclear power plant constructions had significant cost overruns. Moreover, they found that in general the average construction costs of these plants had been increased by 117 percent 26.
Two main financial drivers, capital costs and the cost of capital (i.e., financing interest rates), determine the feasibility and profitability of nuclear projects 25,27,28. As a result, nuclear power projects often require a mix of public and private investment mechanisms. According to the IAEA (2024), achieving global climate goals by 2050 would necessitate annual nuclear investments of 125 billion US dollars, demanding innovative financing models. Instruments like green bonds are becoming more relevant, attracting environmentally conscious investors who seek environmental, social, and governance aligned projects. Similarly, collaborative financing models, such as the Finnish Mankala model, allow shared ownership and cost distribution among stakeholders, promoting price stability and reducing investment risk 25. In addition, Lovering et al. (2016), find that there is a general misconception especially among policy makers, that nuclear power construction costs will decrease when their country builds more nuclear power plants throughout time. Lovering et al. (2016) however state that this is not completely true and suggest that the learning-by-doing approach has a positive influence on cost reduction but many other factors like current construction policies, regulatory frameworks and even historical events play a significant role alongside it 28.
The financing conditions vary globally. Developing economies often face high financing costs due to low credit ratings and a lack of long-term investment vehicles. In these contexts, blended financing and multilateral support, including assistance from development banks, could play a pivotal role in enabling nuclear investment. On the other hand, countries with ongoing nuclear construction experience, such as China and Russia, benefit from streamlined processes, efficient supply chains, and favourable regulatory environments, allowing them to keep costs significantly lower than western economies. There is also growing interest in modularization and standardization, particularly through the before mentioned SMRs 25.
Despite its economic hurdles, nuclear energy remains a significant player in the global energy market. The nuclear industry also correlates strongly with research output: countries with larger nuclear fleets tend to lead in nuclear science, technology, and safety research 29. Compared to fossil fuels, nuclear power offers long-term economic advantages due to minimal fuel price volatility and long operational lifespans 11,18,19,24,27.
Still, significant economic barriers remain. These also include aging infrastructure, the high costs of waste management, and the need for costly upgrades to ensure reactor safety 30 alongside the mentioned construction and overhead costs. Some scholars argue that investments in new nuclear plants delay climate action due to long construction timelines and escalating costs, making them less favourable compared to renewables 31. Others critique nuclear development as prestige-driven rather than safety- or cost-oriented, particularly in its early phases 32.
Nevertheless, nuclear offers reliable baseload electricity, a feature that is increasingly valued in energy systems facing intermittent renewable generation 33. Although solar capacity growth has surpassed that of nuclear globally, nuclear still delivers more electricity per unit of installed capacity 34.
3 Ecological Performance
Nuclear power is frequently presented as a low-carbon energy source, particularly in comparison to fossil fuels. One of its most cited ecological advantages is its low life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. According to Mathew (2022) across the entire lifecycle – from uranium mining and fuel processing to construction, operation, and decommissioning – nuclear power emits an estimated 10–15 grams of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt hour (gCO₂-eq/kWh). This is comparable to wind energy (15–25 gCO₂-eq/kWh) and considerably lower than fossil-based sources like coal (820 gCO₂-eq/kWh) or natural gas (490 gCO₂-eq/kWh) 11.
At the national level, the contribution of nuclear energy to GHG mitigation is substantial. In China alone, replacing fossil fuels with nuclear power could lead to 349–390 teragram CO₂ savings annually today, and up to 831–957 teragram CO₂ by 2030. Globally, nuclear energy prevents approximately 2.1 billion tons of CO₂ emissions annually, equivalent to removing 250 million cars from circulation 35. According to Lee and Jung (2024), nuclear plants in Upstate New York alone avoided 736 million US dollars in social costs annually through lower emissions of carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitric oxide, and particulate matter 23. Furthermore, a study by Kharecha and Hansen (2013) also shows that from 1971 to 2009, nuclear power prevented 1.84 million premature deaths related to air pollution and 64 gigatonnes of CO₂-eq emissions. Projected into the future, an expanded global nuclear rollout from 2010 to 2050 could avoid between 80–240 gigatonnes CO₂, preventing an additional 420,000 to 7.04 million premature deaths depending on which energy sources it replaces 36.
Despite its low operational emissions, nuclear power is burdened by the issue of long-lived radioactive waste. A typical 1000 MW electric nuclear reactor generates approximately 30 tons of high-level radioactive waste annually, compared to the 300,000 tons of ash produced by a coal plant of similar capacity 37. While smaller in volume, nuclear waste remains toxic for tens of thousands of years, posing a unique intergenerational challenge 31.
Efforts to mitigate this issue include advanced reactor technologies that aim to reduce both the volume and longevity of waste. For example, next-generation systems claim to cut waste by over 99 percent, reducing its lifespan significantly 16. However, these systems remain largely at the development or pilot phase, and no country has yet implemented a permanent, geologically secure waste repository for high-level nuclear waste 31.
This has led to criticism from scholars like Pieńkowski (2024), who argue that current nuclear practices remain incompatible with the principles of sustainability, particularly because of unsolved waste disposal, decommissioning complexities, and a lack of long-term accountability 38. Finally the need for above-ground interim storage and concerns about leaks or accidents during storage further exacerbate public distrust 39,40.
Brouwer and Bergkamp (2021) show in their scenario analysis that contrast to wind and solar, nuclear energy is much more land efficient. To produce enough energy for the Netherlands in 2050 by nuclear energy only 120 square kilometer would be required. Compared to solar this would mean more than 148 times as much land would be required. Offshore wind would need 266 times more land than the nuclear alternative and onshore would even double that land demand to 534 times as much 24. This compact footprint is advantageous in countries with limited land availability or dense populations.
However, land use cannot be assessed solely by surface area. Uranium mining, often conducted in remote or ecologically sensitive areas, has led to soil degradation, water pollution, and ecosystem disruption 41. Historically, nuclear sites were selected for their remoteness, frequently neglecting local populations and ecosystems, particularly indigenous communities 42. Liu et al. (2023) conducted a review of nuclear power plant carbon emissions and found that especially the mining, milling and enrichment of fuel are significant contributors to the carbon footprint of nuclear power. They find that further mitigation strategies in the nuclear fuel cycle, or front end emissions, could severely decrease the overall CO₂ emissions of power plants. Moreover, they state that when it comes to calculating the emissions on construction and operation, that a severe lack of data hinders sophisticated research 35.
The environmental risks of accidents and contamination also pose long-lasting ecological threats. The Chernobyl disaster led to the spread of radioactive aerosols as far as Ireland, contaminating forests, rivers, and agricultural land, and leaving some zones uninhabitable for centuries 40. Fukushima’s meltdown caused radiation leaks into the Pacific Ocean, igniting global concerns over food chain contamination 43.
Nuclear power is often described as a dispatchable and climate-resilient energy source, able to provide stable baseload power and complement intermittent renewables like wind and solar 25. The integration of nuclear energy into multi-vector systems, which combine batteries, solar, hydrogen, or other renewables, offers a promising pathway toward a flexible and decarbonized energy grid 44. Countries such as Finland, Norway, and Iceland, which utilize nuclear and hydropower, demonstrate that ecologically sound and secure energy mixes are achievable when nuclear is strategically integrated. Moreover, the low geographic dependency of nuclear power makes it a viable option in regions with limited renewable potential 45.
Nevertheless, climate change itself threatens nuclear power’s ecological performance. During the 2022 European drought, multiple French reactors were shut down due to insufficient river water for cooling 45. These events illustrate the climate vulnerability of thermal power systems, including nuclear. In developing economies, nuclear energy may offer a way to decarbonize rapidly while maintaining energy reliability. According to the IAEA (2024), countries with ongoing nuclear development, such as China and India, benefit from lower capital and environmental costs due to streamlined processes and reduced regulatory burdens 25.
Finally, SMRs are highlighted as promising solutions for reducing ecological and logistical barriers. These systems can be deployed in remote areas, operate at higher efficiencies, and reduce GHG emissions by displacing diesel or coal-fired plants. Their modularity also implies lower environmental impact during construction and decommissioning 11,18,19,25.
From a policy perspective, the inclusion of nuclear projects in green finance frameworks, such as green bonds or sustainability-linked loans, reflects increasing global acknowledgment of the ecological value of nuclear power 25. However, political will and public support remain uneven, especially in the wake of environmental disasters and the influence of post-modern anti-nuclear movements 32,39.
When considering the broader picture of ecological sustainability, nuclear energy shows a mixed performance. On the one hand, it enables significant reductions in air pollution, CO₂ emissions, and land usage, and can stabilize grids dominated by renewables 25,35. On the other hand, issues of waste management, long-term environmental risks, and public health concerns remain unresolved 29,31.
Recent data confirms the ongoing transformation of the energy sector. In 2023, wind and solar added 460 gigawatts of new capacity globally, compared to a net loss of 1 gigawatt for nuclear. The EU produced 721 terawatt hour from wind and solar, exceeding the 588 terawatt hour generated by nuclear energy 3. These figures suggest a declining ecological role for nuclear in favour of renewables, despite its benefits 17.
Nonetheless, many researchers argue that without nuclear, climate goals would be harder and more expensive to reach.11,19,24,46,47 Emblemsvåg (2024) simulated what would have happened if Germany did not strive toward a nuclear phaseout but rather invested further into that technology. The author finds that nuclear investments could have reduced emissions by 73 percent and halved the cost of the Energiewende to 364 billion euros 48.
Ultimately, nuclear energy’s ecological footprint is low, but not neutral. It plays an important role in bridging the carbon gap, but must be paired with innovations in waste management, safer technologies, and inclusive energy policies to fully meet sustainability goals.
4 Social Impact
The social impact of nuclear energy is a complex and often contested field, shaped by shifting perceptions, geopolitical contexts, and the evolving energy landscape. From its earliest days, nuclear power has evoked both support and distrust. Support for a clean, abundant energy and technological progress, and distrust due to its connection to weapons, radiation, and large-scale disasters. The public acceptance of nuclear power has therefore always been volatile, highly dependent on context, trust in institutions, and societal values. Historically, nuclear energy was promoted as a symbol of progress, but its association with catastrophic risks has fundamentally influenced how it is perceived 39,40,42,49–52.
One of the most significant factors limiting nuclear expansion has been public resistance. From the 1970s onward, anti-nuclear movements across Europe, especially in countries like France and West Germany, linked their activism to historical injustices and dystopian fears about the nuclear future 32. Protests at sites like Wyhl in Germany and Superphénix in France effectively delayed or halted reactor construction, demonstrating the powerful role of civil disobedience in shaping energy policy 39. Similar patterns emerged in Eastern Europe. In Poland, public opposition in the 1980s and 1990s led to the cancellation of nuclear projects in Żarnowiec and Klempicz due to safety concerns 38.
While opposition has historically focused on the perceived risks of nuclear accidents, such as Chernobyl (1986) and Fukushima (2011), these events also triggered broader concerns about waste disposal, environmental justice, and institutional trust. The Chernobyl disaster is estimated to have caused between 4,000 and 60,000 premature deaths, and although such events are statistically rare, they have disproportionately shaped public discourse 33. As Duffey and D’Auria (2021) note, the dual legacy of nuclear technology as both peaceful and destructive continues to generate societal distrust, especially when safety culture or transparent governance is lacking 50.
Public scepticism is not always grounded in technical knowledge but is often shaped by associations with nuclear weapons, secrecy, and elite control. According to Carpintero-Santamarsia (2023), opposition is often based on misconceptions, which are nevertheless sustained by a lack of communication, transparency, and social inclusion in decision-making processes 53. In this sense, nuclear power’s struggle is not merely technological but social, as it lacks informal societal acceptance needed to operate with legitimacy 54. As a result, public perception remains a barrier to expansion, especially in democratic societies where civil resistance can influence policy 33.
Despite these challenges, nuclear power has delivered positive social impacts, especially in terms of public health and job creation. Its capacity to reduce air pollution compared to fossil fuels has helped avoid millions of premature deaths globally. For example, nuclear power has helped prevent over 1.84 million deaths related to air pollution between 1971 and 2009, while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions significantly 36. In Upstate New York alone, continued operation of nuclear plants avoided 16 million tons of CO₂ emissions per year and hundreds of millions of dollars in health-related social costs 23.
Moreover, nuclear projects provide significant employment opportunities. According to the IAEA (2024), large nuclear construction sites can employ up to 10,000 people during peak phases, with additional long-term employment in operation, maintenance, and regulatory oversight 25. These jobs are often high-skilled and well-paid, contributing to regional economic development. SMRs further enhance nuclear’s social role by addressing energy access in remote and underserved areas, offering the possibility to reduce social inequality and support industrialization in emerging markets. Access to reliable, low-carbon electricity supports not only education and healthcare systems but also economic resilience 25.
The social benefits of nuclear energy are also closely tied to public financing and governance structures. Public-private partnerships have proven effective in spreading financial risk while enhancing public trust, especially when governments are visibly involved in ensuring safety and accountability 3,25. Participatory decision-making and stakeholder engagement are essential, particularly in emerging economies where safety culture is still developing 55.
A recent empirical study by Alsagr et al. (2024) supports the idea that human capital is a critical enabler of nuclear energy investment. They found evidence indicating that social development and nuclear advancement go hand in hand 30. This reinforces the view that education, expertise, and public trust are key to the social legitimacy of nuclear power. Furthermore, as de Groot et al. (2020) show, higher benefit perceptions are more important than risk perceptions in shaping public attitudes If citizens believe nuclear energy provides clear benefits, such as clean air, stable power, or local jobs, they are more likely to support it, particularly when trust in institutions is strong 56.
Nevertheless, not all social impacts are positive. The entire nuclear fuel chain, from uranium mining to waste storage, produces hazardous materials with potential for intergenerational injustice. Höffken and Ramana (2023) highlight that indigenous communities often bear the brunt of uranium mining, suffering from land dispossession, environmental degradation, and health issues 57. These practices perpetuate historical inequalities, challenging the statement that nuclear power enables social sustainability.
Additionally, the global employment effects of nuclear and renewable energy transitions remain contested. While nuclear projects create jobs locally, a study by Almutairi et al. (2024) suggest that a shift toward nuclear and renewables could lead to a net loss of 4.45 million jobs worldwide by 2030, especially in fossil fuel dependent regions Thus, while nuclear energy contributes positively to social welfare in certain regions, it may also disrupt livelihoods elsewhere, underlining the need for just transition frameworks that address displacement and retraining 58.
Social acceptance is thus a multidimensional issue, shaped by historical memory, perceived risks and benefits, governance quality, and community engagement. As Ho & Kristiansen (2018) point out, acceptance depends heavily on trust in authorities, political ideology, and education level 43. Social networks and interpersonal communication also play a role in amplifying perceptions, either positively or negatively 56. Even factors like urban density can indirectly affect ecological and social outcomes, as denser cities tend to use resources more efficiently and reduce environmental pressures 59.
In conclusion, the social impact of nuclear energy is neither uniformly positive nor negative. It offers real benefits: clean air, stable energy, skilled employment, and opportunities for energy equity. Yet it also poses serious challenges: from historical trauma and environmental justice concerns to communication failures and institutional mistrust. If nuclear energy is to play a greater role in the future, especially in addressing climate change and energy poverty, it must secure not only technological and economic viability but also a strong social license grounded in equity, participation, and transparency.
5 Political and Legal Aspects
The political and legal dimensions of nuclear energy are deeply entwined with its technological development, global diffusion, and public perception. From its inception, political motives have significantly shaped the trajectory of nuclear power. As Josephson and Kasperski (2022) emphasize, political influences were central to the spread of nuclear systems, particularly through the wartime and postwar military and foreign policy strategies of dominant global powers 42. This interplay between political agendas and nuclear development has persisted through the decades, from Cold War-era proliferation to contemporary energy strategies.
Postcolonial and geopolitical dynamics have also influenced the nuclear landscape. Regions such as Eastern Europe, Kazakhstan, Belarus, and Ukraine were historically dependent on Soviet nuclear technology, exemplifying a form of nuclear colonialism 42. These legacies continue to affect environmental governance and technological autonomy. In contrast, emerging powers like China are actively exporting their nuclear expertise, promoting high-temperature gas reactor technologies in countries like Saudi Arabia, South Africa, the United Arad Emirates, and Indonesia 16, thereby reshaping geopolitical alliances through energy diplomacy.
The international community has sought to coordinate nuclear innovation through collaborative efforts such as the Generation IV International Forum, formed in 2001 by nine countries. This initiative focuses on the development of sustainable, economical, and safe nuclear reactors with enhanced resistance to proliferation 16. Meanwhile, in response to growing climate concerns, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has advocated for a doubling of nuclear power by 2050, contributing to an electricity mix with at least 80 percent from low-carbon sources 11.
Contemporary energy security concerns, especially those amplified by the war in Ukraine and the EU’s efforts to reduce reliance on Russian fossil fuels, have further pushed nuclear energy into the political spotlight 45. As countries struggle with low energy independence, national energy strategies are becoming increasingly individualized, prioritizing reliability and sovereignty over harmonized EU-wide policies. In this context, the European Union’s policy ambitions, such as increasing the share of nuclear power to 40 percent by 2030 53, are both a political and technological response to urgent energy and climate challenges.
Government support is critical in enabling nuclear deployment. According to the IAEA (2024), such support includes direct financial mechanisms like loan guarantees, green bonds, export credits, and risk-sharing tools such as those outlined in the OECD’s Arrangement on Officially Supported Export Credits 25. These mechanisms are essential for attracting private investment, particularly needed in capital-intensive projects such as nuclear energy. National initiatives, such as Canada’s Green Bond Framework, aim to reinforce the position of nuclear energy within sustainable finance markets 29.
Emerging technologies such as SMRs require specific policy frameworks to thrive. The IAEA’s Nuclear Harmonization and Standardization Initiative addresses this by seeking to streamline industrial and regulatory processes, thus fostering investor confidence and commercial feasibility. Governments can further support this process through grants and guarantees, especially in developing countries where regulatory systems may still be underdeveloped 25.
Studies by Luan et al. (2024) and Alsagr et al (2024) identify political stability as a crucial enabler of nuclear development. Stable governments attract foreign direct investment and reduce regulatory uncertainties, facilitating long-term infrastructure projects like nuclear power plants 30,60. Political volatility, in contrast, amplifies investment risk, as seen in Germany’s nuclear phase-out, while stable frameworks like South Korea’s Barakah project illustrate how engineering challenges can be managed under supportive governance structures 48.
Moreover, opposition to nuclear power has historically stemmed from concerns about democracy, safety, and societal acceleration. In the 1970s, anti-nuclear protests framed the technology as a symbol of irreversible, undemocratic industrialization 32. Sengupta (2023) states that even today, public distrust persists, particularly regarding safety, waste disposal, and transparency. Therefore policies aimed at rebuilding trust, such as public consultations and community engagement, are deemed essential by the author 40.
Finally, the inclusion of nuclear energy in green taxonomies, such as the EU Green Deal, remains controversial. While proponents highlight its low-carbon credentials and potential to stabilize energy systems, critics warn of greenwashing and the masking of long-term ecological and security risks 19,38.
In sum, nuclear energy policy sits at the intersection of security, climate, economy, and societal values. The success of its future development depends not only on technological innovation but also on cohesive, transparent, and adaptable policy frameworks that address both national interests and global climate goals.
References
1. Nuclear Industry Association. What is Nuclear Energy? Nuclear Industry Associationhttps://www.niauk.org/industry/what-is-nuclear-energy/.
2. International Atomic Energy Agency. What is Nuclear Energy? The Science of Nuclear Power. https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/what-is-nuclear-energy-the-science-of-nuclear-power (2022).
3. Schneider, M., Froggatt, A. & Hazemann, J. The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2024. https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/The-Annual-Reports (2024).
4. World Nuclear Association. Nuclear Power in the World Today. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/nuclear-power-in-the-world-today (2025).
5. World Nuclear Association. Outline History of Nuclear Energy. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/outline-history-of-nuclear-energy (2024).
6. U.S. Department of Energy. The History of Nuclear Energy. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/history-nuclear-energy.
7. Hewlett, R. G. & Holl, J. M. Atoms for Peace and War: 1953 – 1961; Eisenhower and the Atomic Energy Commission. (Univ. of Calif. Pr, Berkeley, 1989).
8. IAEA. History. https://www.iaea.org/about/overview/history (2016).
9. World Nuclear Association. Fukushima Daiichi Accident. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-daiichi-accident (2024).
10. Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz. Der Unfall von Fukushima. Bundesamt für Strahlenschutzhttps://www.bfs.de/DE/themen/ion/notfallschutz/notfall/fukushima/unfall.html (2024).
11. Mathew, M. D. Nuclear energy: A pathway towards mitigation of global warming. Prog. Nucl. Energy 143, 104080 (2022).
12. Crossland, I. Nuclear Fuel Cycle Science and Engineering. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/light-water-reactors (2012).
13. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Options. https://unece.org/sed/documents/2021/10/reports/life-cycle-assessment-electricity-generation-options (2021).
14. Goldberg & Rosner, R. Nuclear Reactors: Generation to Generation. ResearchGatehttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/267429541_Nuclear_Reactors_Generation_to_Generation (2011).
15. World Nuclear Association. Nuclear Power Reactors. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/nuclear-power-reactors (2025).
16. Rehm, T. E. Advanced nuclear energy: the safest and most renewable clean energy. Curr. Opin. Chem. Eng. 39, 100878 (2023).
17. International Energy Agency. World Energy Outlook 2024 – Analysis. IEA https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2024 (2024).
18. Oka, Y. Nuclear Utilization. in Nuclear Power and Society: Issues on Economy, Safety, Environment and Law (ed. Oka, Y.) 1–71 (Springer Nature, Singapore, 2024). doi:10.1007/978-981-97-8951-1_1.
19. Präger, F. et al. Evaluating nuclear power’s suitability for climate change mitigation: technical risks, economic implications and incompatibility with renewable energy systems. Front. Environ. Econ. 3, (2024).
20. International Atomic Energy Agency. Fusion – Frequently asked questions. https://www.iaea.org/topics/energy/fusion/faqs (2016).
21. ITER. History. ITER – the way to new energy https://www.iter.org/about/history (2023).
22. Haas, R., Thomas, S. & Ajanovic, A. The Historical Development of the Costs of Nuclear Power. in The Technological and Economic Future of Nuclear Power (eds. Haas, R., Mez, L. & Ajanovic, A.) 97–115 (Springer Fachmedien, Wiesbaden, 2019). doi:10.1007/978-3-658-25987-7_5.
23. Lee, S.-T. & Jung, S.-M. Monetizing Environmental Impacts of Nuclear Power: Cost-Benefit Analysis Using Social Cost of Carbon. SAGE Open (2024) doi:10.1177/21582440241301468.
24. Brouwer, K. M. & Bergkamp, L. Road to EU Climate Neutrality by 2050 Spatial Requirements of Wind/Solar and Nuclear Energy and their respective costs.
25. International Atomic Energy Agency. Climate Change and Nuclear Power 2024: Financing Nuclear Energy in Low Carbon Transitions. Climate Change and Nuclear Power 2024: Financing Nuclear Energy in Low Carbon Transitions 1–99 https://www.iaea.org/publications/15754/climate-change-and-nuclear-power-2024-financing-nuclear-energy-in-low-carbon-transitions (2024) doi:10.61092/iaea.sgyh-rjoq.
26. Sovacool, B. K., Gilbert, A. & Nugent, D. An international comparative assessment of construction cost overruns for electricity infrastructure. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 3, 152–160 (2014).
27. Krūmiņš, J. & Kļaviņš, M. Investigating the Potential of Nuclear Energy in Achieving a Carbon-Free Energy Future. Energies 16, 3612 (2023).
28. Lovering, J. R., Yip, A. & Nordhaus, T. Historical construction costs of global nuclear power reactors. Energy Policy 91, 371–382 (2016).
29. Klingelhöfer, D., Braun, M., Oremek, G. M., Brüggmann, D. & Groneberg, D. A. Global research on nuclear energy in the context of health and environmental risks, considering economic interests. WIREs Energy Environ. 13, e497 (2024).
30. Alsagr, N., Ozturk, I. & Usman, A. Digital government, political stability, and nuclear energy investment: The role of the Paris Agreement. Nucl. Eng. Technol. 103350 (2024) doi:10.1016/j.net.2024.103350.
31. Haywood, L., Leroutier, M. & Pietzcker, R. Why investing in new nuclear plants is bad for the climate. Joule 7, 1675–1678 (2023).
32. Tompkins, A. S. Generating post-modernity: nuclear energy opponents and the future in the 1970s. Eur. Rev. Hist. Rev. Eur. Hist. 28, 507–530 (2021).
33. Ritchie, H., Rosado, P. & Roser, M. Nuclear Energy. Our World Data (2024).
34. Vinichenko, V., Jewell, J., Jacobsson, J. & Cherp, A. Historical diffusion of nuclear, wind and solar power in different national contexts: implications for climate mitigation pathways. Environ. Res. Lett. 18, 094066 (2023).
35. Liu, B. et al. Critical review of nuclear power plant carbon emissions. Front. Energy Res. 11, (2023).
36. Kharecha, P. A. & Hansen, J. E. Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power. ACS Publications https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es3051197 (2013) doi:10.1021/es3051197.
37. Alwaeli, M. & Mannheim, V. Investigation into the Current State of Nuclear Energy and Nuclear Waste Management—A State-of-the-Art Review. Energies 15, 4275 (2022).
38. Pieńkowski, D. Is nuclear energy really sustainable? A critical analysis on the example of the Polish energy transition plan. Energy Sustain. Dev. 78, 101376 (2024).
39. Rubio-Varas, M., Meyer, J.-H., Lehtonen, M. & Kaijser, A. Engaging the Atom: The History of Nuclear Energy and Society in Europe from the 1950s to the Present. (West Virginia University Press, Morgantown, 2021).
40. Sengupta, L. Understanding the Historical Origins of Public Distrust Surrounding Nuclear Energy. Intersect Stanf. J. Sci. Technol. Soc. 17, (2023).
41. Soto, G. H. & Martinez-Cobas, X. Nuclear energy generation’s impact on the CO2 emissions and ecological footprint among European Union countries. Sci. Total Environ. 945, 173844 (2024).
42. Robert Josephson, P. & Kasperski, T. TOWARD A GLOBAL HISTORY OF THE NUCLEAR AGE. Esboços Hist. Em Context. Globias 31, 330–346 (2024).
43. Ho, S. S. & Kristiansen, S. Environmental Debates over Nuclear Energy: Media, Communication, and the Public. Environ. Commun. 13, 431–439 (2019).
44. Bistline, J. et al. Modeling nuclear energy’s future role in decarbonized energy systems. iScience 26, 105952 (2023).
45. Jonek-Kowalska, I. Assessing the energy security of European countries in the resource and economic context. Oeconomia Copernic. 13, 301–334 (2022).
46. International Energy Agency. Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System – Analysis. IEAhttps://www.iea.org/reports/nuclear-power-in-a-clean-energy-system (2019).
47. Rehm, T. E. Advanced nuclear energy: the safest and most renewable clean energy. Curr. Opin. Chem. Eng. 39, 100878 (2023).
48. Emblemsvåg, J. What if Germany had invested in nuclear power? A comparison between the German energy policy the last 20 years and an alternative policy of investing in nuclear power. Int. J. Sustain. Energy 43, 2355642 (2024).
49. Alsagr, N., Ozturk, I. & Usman, A. Digital government, political stability, and nuclear energy investment: The role of the Paris Agreement. Nucl. Eng. Technol. 103350 (2024) doi:10.1016/j.net.2024.103350.
50. Duffey, R. B. & D’Auria, F. Nuclear Energy and Its History: Past Consequences, Present Inadequacies and a Perspective for Success. Energy Power Eng. 12, 193–236 (2020).
51. Ho, S. S. & Kristiansen, S. Environmental Debates over Nuclear Energy: Media, Communication, and the Public. Environ. Commun. 13, 431–439 (2019).
52. Kim, Y., Kim, W. & Kim, M. An international comparative analysis of public acceptance of nuclear energy. Energy Policy 66, 475–483 (2014).
53. Carpintero-Santamarsia, N. Nuclear Energy and Social Impact. in Nuclear Power and Energy Security (eds. Apikyan, S. A. & Diamond, D. J.) 69–77 (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2010). doi:10.1007/978-90-481-3504-2_10.
54. Hoedl, S. Social Acceptance is as Important as Low Costs and Net Energy Production for Climate and Energy Poverty Impact. J. Fusion Energy 42, 22 (2023).
55. Wu, Y. et al. Nuclear safety in the unexpected second nuclear era. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 116, 17673 (2019).
56. de Groot, J. I. M., Schweiger, E. & Schubert, I. Social Influence, Risk and Benefit Perceptions, and the Acceptability of Risky Energy Technologies: An Explanatory Model of Nuclear Power Versus Shale Gas. Risk Anal.40, 1226–1243 (2020).
57. Höffken, J. & Ramana, M. V. Nuclear power and environmental injustice. WIREs Energy Environ. 13, e498 (2024).
58. Almutairi, K., Thoma, G. & Durand-Morat, A. Ex-Ante Analysis of Economic, Social and Environmental Impacts of Large-Scale Renewable and Nuclear Energy Targets for Global Electricity Generation by 2030. Sustainability 10, 2884 (2018).
59. Sadiq, M., Wen, F. & Dagestani, A. A. Environmental footprint impacts of nuclear energy consumption: The role of environmental technology and globalization in ten largest ecological footprint countries. Nucl. Eng. Technol. 54, 3672–3681 (2022).
60. Luan, D., Yang, F. & Hafeez, M. Natural resources and nuclear energy development: Does political stability matter? Nucl. Eng. Technol. 103328 (2024) doi:10.1016/j.net.2024.11.030.