Background Information: The Nuclear Power Debate

Stalking Chernobyl

Photo courtesy of Vlad Vozniuk/URBEX.


The Chernobyl explosion remains one of the worst nuclear disasters in history and is often used as a warning about the potential dangers of nuclear power. However, in recent years, the debate about nuclear power has taken on new life as some advocates hold it up as a form of energy that can help in the battle against global climate change. These advocates consider nuclear power a low-carbon energy source, because it uses uranium instead of burning fossil fuels. Since nuclear plants are not running on coal or oil, they argue, they should be considered climate-friendly. Critics counter that once you take into account things like the mining of uranium and the disposal of the waste, nuclear actually has a much bigger carbon footprint than many people realize.

Below, you will find a few of the most common arguments for and against nuclear power that are shaping the current debate about its use.



    • PRO: Nuclear plants offer low-carbon energy. The argument for nuclear power, articulated by Vox journalist and prominent climate writer David Roberts, says that nuclear is an important energy source because it is a low-carbon alternative to coal. Even if you don’t support building new nuclear plants, he writes, you should oppose shutting down existing plants, which are often replaced with natural gas and coal:

      “You do not have to like nuclear power, or ever want to build another nuclear power plant, to believe that existing sources of carbon-free power should be kept running as long as practicably possible. You only have to like carbon-free power or dislike climate change.

      “When an operating nuclear plant shuts down, a big chunk of carbon-free energy is lost. A big chunk. There’s just no way to spin that as a good thing. The five nuclear plants shut down between 2013 and 2016 alone produced as much electricity as all US solar put together. Carbon-wise, that means the next doubling of US solar will mostly be spent trying to make up for nuclear losses.”

      Source: Vox


    • CON: “Nuclear energy has no place in a safe, clean, sustainable future.” According to Greenpeace, nuclear power is “inadequate, unnecessary, as well as dangerous.” While nuclear is a lower-carbon alternative to coal, it is also a “hugely expensive distraction from work to limit the impacts of climate change.” Greenpeace also argues against the idea that nuclear should be one of a handful of energy sources:

      “The problem with including nuclear power as part of a diversified energy system is that it could undermine the solutions that can deliver energy and emissions cuts quicker and cheaper.

      “New nuclear will lock us into the same old inflexible, inefficient, and outdated energy system we’ve had for years. Such a system, with nuclear at its heart, has almost no room for effective, cutting edge and flexible technologies like wind power and CHP.”

      Additionally, nuclear power creates waste “at every stage of the nuclear fuel cycle, from uranium mining and enrichment, to reactor operation and the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. Much of this nuclear waste will remain hazardous for hundreds of thousands of years.” Activities at other stages of the cycle put the lie to the idea that nuclear power is actually “carbon-free,” and in fact show that its carbon footprint may be substantial.

      Sources: Greenpeace UK and Greenpeace USA


    • Nuclear power needs to be safer. The Union of Concerned Scientists takes a middle-ground position. While acknowledging the complexities of the debate, it has focused on advocating for greater safety regulations and promoting energy efficiency.

      “Swiftly decarbonizing the electric sector, one of the largest sources of US carbon emissions, is among the most cost-effective steps for limiting heat-trapping gas emissions. Renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency measures can help dramatically cut the sector’s emissions, and are safe, cost-effective, and commercially available today.

      “Yet limiting the worst effects of climate change may also require other low- or no-carbon energy solutions, including nuclear power.

      “Nuclear power produces very few lifecycle carbon emissions. It also faces substantial economic challenges, and carries significant human health and environmental risks. UCS strongly supports policies and measures to strengthen the safety and security of nuclear power.”

      In terms of promoting public safety, UCS argues:

      “The Fukushima disaster of 2011 showed what can happen when a nuclear power plant’s safety systems fail. The US nuclear industry responded with familiar reassurances that it can’t happen here.

      “We know better. Nuclear accidents can happen here—but they don’t have to.

      “Enforcing fire and earthquake regulations, addressing flood risks, and safer storage for nuclear waste are just a few of the ways we can help prevent nuclear accidents.”

      Source: Union of Concerned Scientists


    • An expanding debate: Traditionally, the discussion about the wisdom, safety, and viability of nuclear power has centered on advanced industrial nations and major regional powers. Just six countries (the United States, France, China, Japan, Russia, and South Korea) have more than two-thirds of the total operational nuclear reactors in the world, with another four countries (India, Canada, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom) accounting for a large portion of the remainder.That said, nuclear power is an issue that touches many parts of the world–and that may soon become a heated topic in still more regions. Some three dozen nations currently either have operational reactors or have power plants under construction. These range from Bangladesh to Argentina to South Africa to Iran to Bulgaria.Advocates of nuclear power are actively promoting this energy source as a way of meeting the needs of the global South. In an article titled “Is Africa Ready for Nuclear Energy?,” the International Atomic Energy Agency states:

      ““For industrializing countries in need of a clean, reliable and cost-effective source of energy, nuclear is an attractive option.

      “‘Africa is hungry for energy, and nuclear power could be part of the answer for an increasing number of countries,’ says Mikhail Chudakov, deputy director general and head of the Department of Nuclear Energy at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), an international organisation that promotes the peaceful use of nuclear technology.

      “A third of the almost 30 countries currently considering nuclear power are in Africa. Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria and Sudan have already engaged with the IAEA to assess their readiness to embark on a nuclear programme. Algeria, Tunisia, Uganda and Zambia are also mulling the possibility of nuclear power.”

      At the same time, critics of nuclear energy argue that expensive nuclear power plants will not benefit Africa’s poorest populations. In an articled titled “Russia pushing ‘unsuitable’ nuclear power in Africa, critics claim,” Guardian correspondent Jason Burke quotes the environmental group Friends of the Earth:

      “‘Access to energy is a basic human right and necessary for a dignified life. The majority of those denied this right live in Africa,’ said Friends of the Earth. ‘However, the expansion of profit-driven nuclear energy in Africa would only exacerbate the problem.’

      “The environmental NGO said the answer to Africa’s energy needs lay in ‘efficient technology that meets the daily needs of people, in the hands of communities and municipalities, and controlled democratically’. Only small-scale and interconnected grids that were democratically managed could deliver energy sovereignty to African people, it added.”

      Given that nuclear power is on the table in so many countries, this debate is only going to expand, and that will increase the possibility that there could be future nuclear incidents. While the Chernobyl explosion is considered the worst nuclear disaster in history, it was far from the world’s first nuclear disaster—or the world’s last. For a list of nuclear disasters, from radioactive contamination in 1957 to a nuclear accident that left five people dead in 2019, click here.

      Sources: International Atomic Energy Agency and The Guardian


Get our latest updates about arts and resistance, as well as info about screenings in your area. Sign up here!


We are very excited that Iranian filmmaker Mohammad Ehsani’s newest documentary, “Water Will Take Us,” is now screening at festivals. Check out the trailer! The film delves into the effectsof climate change in Iran, from water shortages to catastrophicfloods. Three women narrate the story, uncovering the causes andmismanagement that led to flooding in 2019.If you're in Seia, Portugal there will be a screening of “WaterWill Take Us” at the 29th Serra da Estrela InternationalEnvironmental Film Festival, which is running from Oct 5 - 13, 2023.Find out more information about the festival more about the support of our sister organization, the L/GFoundation, ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook
Privacy Settings
We use cookies to enhance your experience while using our website. If you are using our Services via a browser you can restrict, block or remove cookies through your web browser settings. We also use content and scripts from third parties that may use tracking technologies. You can selectively provide your consent below to allow such third party embeds. For complete information about the cookies we use, data we collect and how we process them, please check our Privacy Policy
Consent to display content from Youtube
Consent to display content from Vimeo
Google Maps
Consent to display content from Google