Nuclear power is the best way to reduce CO2 emissions and keep the lights on
But is it too late to switch tracks?
Regular readers know that I have no desire to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Alongside oxygen, it is one of the two most important gasses on the planet. We need oxygen to breathe and plants need carbon dioxide to support photosynthesis. Humans and animals, eat the plants and breathe out carbon dioxide. A virtuous circle.
However, there are those who do think there is too much carbon dioxide. This is not surprising, when climate alarmists supported by the main stream media tell us we are all going to die in the next 10 years. If you are not a fan of carbon dioxide you might be interested in my article on the history of the climate change movement.
Moving on to today’s topic, I have been a proponent of nuclear power since studying physics at university. In my early career I worked on a project with BNFL (British Nuclear Fuels Limited - now Sellafield Ltd). My wife is a chemical engineer and has extensive experience in the nuclear sector. So I came to realise quite early on that many of the claims for the dangers of nuclear power were exaggerated.
What I hadn’t appreciated was just how those early safety concerns had grown, leading to excessive regulation. As a result, both the cost and construction times have ballooned. The most recent example in the UK is Sizewell C in Suffolk. The estimated cost is £38 billion - nearly double the initial estimate of £20 billion. Many believe that it could more than double again by the time it is commissioned.
Why is this happening?
Well, look no further than this excellent video by Phil Andrews:
As he explains in the description:
In 1969, the U.S. was flipping the switch on three new nuclear reactors a year—fast, efficient, and powering millions of homes. Then, almost overnight, the industry collapsed, not because of accidents like Three Mile Island, but because of a single rule that changed everything. This video uncovers the little-known story of how fear, regulation, and economics killed America’s nuclear momentum. And why small modular reactors might finally bring it back.
Andrews explains that many people are sceptical about nuclear power. There is a pervasive fear surrounding it that often overshadows the compelling evidence of its safety. It is crucial to re-evaluate common misconceptions, especially when considering its potential as a reliable and clean energy source.
One major concern is radiation. However, radiation is an inescapable part of our daily lives, hitting us constantly from above and below. Our bodies have, in fact, evolved ways to live with it because it's impossible to avoid.
For example, if you were to climb Mount Everest, you would be exposed to three years' worth of normal sea-level radiation. However, mountaineers and Sherpas do not show a higher risk of cancer or shorter lifespans.
Similarly, people living in Denver, a mile above sea level, experience double the radiation exposure but have some of the lowest cancer rates in the US. Many now question the linear no threshold model, which suggests any amount of radiation, no matter how small, increases cancer risk. Even the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission admitted in 2021 that they are "not sure" it makes sense.
When examining historical nuclear accidents, the actual impact on human health is far less severe than commonly portrayed:
• Three Mile Island (1979). This incident resulted in exactly zero fatalities and no health impact at all. It was, in fact, benign.
• Chernobyl (1986). Still today, only 54 deaths have been recorded from Chernobyl, with two-thirds of those being firefighters or operators directly exposed near the reactor core. While there was a significant increase in thyroid cancer, it is an easily treatable cancer that usually carries no symptoms and has not led to a significant loss of life years.
• Fukushima (2011). Despite the meltdown, there has been no widely reported rise in cancer, death, or sickness from the radiation leak. Study after study has shown no adverse health effects.
Andrews present data on deaths from energy sources between 1969 and 2000. As the chart below shows, coal, oil, hydro dams, and natural gas have led to significant fatalities, but nuclear power has accounted for a remarkably low number of deaths.
Advocates for renewables will be cheered to see wind and solar at the bottom of the league. However, if we were to normalise these figures with respect to “unit hours produced” (e.g. deaths per TWh), a different ordering would emerge with a smaller range of values.
The primary driver behind the halt in nuclear plant construction in the US was not the actual disasters, but rather a pervasive "messaging of fear" that took root. This dramatically increased build times and costs by tenfold between 1973 and 1978, even before Three Mile Island.
New rules and standards, often based on the extreme As Low A Reasonably Achievable (ALARP) principle. This is a risk management concept used primarily in health, safety, and environmental contexts to minimize risks to an acceptable level. It originates from UK health and safety legislation, particularly the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, and is widely applied in industries like engineering, nuclear, oil and gas, and healthcare. Applying ALARP over cautiously, made construction of new nuclear projects financially unviable.
The benefits of nuclear power
Nuclear power offers significant benefits:
Low Land Footprint. A single nuclear site with four reactors can power entire major cities like Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Queens. To generate the same amount of electricity, solar would require at least 25 times and wind 300 times the land area.
Clean Emissions. Nuclear power is as clean as solar and wind, with only water vapour released from the stacks.
Reliability. Unlike intermittent solar and wind, nuclear provides consistent, stable electricity, independent of weather conditions.
Waste Management. Spent nuclear fuel is now stored in heavy concrete blocks, which are difficult to steal and would require complex, high-level processing to become potent, a feat even Iran's military has struggled with for decades.
Larger EROEI. In practical terms, Energy Return on Energy Invested indicates how energy-efficient each technology is at producing usable energy compared to the energy it consumes. Nuclear has a system level EROEI of up to 75:1, compared to wind of up to 10:1 and solar PV of up to 7:1 (see my article Does the Iron Law of Energy” mean that we are doomed?) One way to think about this is that we have to utilise 7.5 times more energy on wind to produce an equivalent amount of energy as nuclear. To paraphrase a famous saying - there is no such thing as free energy.
The Rise of Small Modular Reactors
Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are gaining more and more attention as a promising advancement in nuclear technology. SMRs are essentially a miniaturised version of the nuclear reactors already proven in naval applications, such as those powering nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers.
Unlike bespoke, on-site constructions, SMRs are designed to be manufactured in a factory, with all components built as modules and then shipped to the installation site. This approach aims to standardise production, thereby keeping costs down and improving predictability.
One of the key advantages of SMRs is their significantly smaller physical footprint, being about 5% the size of a normal nuclear plant. This compact design is less visually imposing, potentially helping to overcome the ominous perception of traditional plants. It also offers an inherent safety benefit. Nuclear reactors on submarines and aircraft carriers have operated for over 70 years, travelling millions of miles globally, without a single problem or meltdown.
This established safety record in a challenging, dynamic environment suggests that adapting this technology for land-based use could offer a highly reliable and safe power source. Furthermore, the standardised design means that if an issue arises in one SMR, engineers would know exactly where to look in all others, simplifying maintenance and troubleshooting.
The rising popularity of SMRs is also being driven by a growing demand for power from energy-intensive sectors. Notably, “power hungry data centres, feeding AI” are "clamoring" for SMRs and would prefer to have their own dedicated units. This indicates a recognition of SMRs' potential to provide consistent, reliable, and clean electricity to meet the escalating energy needs of emerging technologies.
Andrews is mainly talking about nuclear in the US. After many years of procrastination the Labour government finally announced funding for SMRs (earmarking over £2.5 billion in funding) with Rolls Royce selected as the preferred bidder. In total therefore, new nuclear capacity looks like this (in 2025 prices):
Hickley Point C, 3.2GW, cost £45 billion, coming online around 2030
Sizewell C, 3.2 GW, cost £38 billion, coming online around 2036)
SMRs, guestimate 3.2GW, costing a minimum of £20bn by 2035
For context, in Britain's Looming Fiscal Storm I quoted the OBR’s average cost of the UK renewables programme to be £30 billion per annum. Therefore, over the 25 year period considered this would amount to £750,000 billion. By comparison, nuclear programmes are currently attracting less than £100 billion.
The problem is this will probably be too little and too late. The speed of rollout of these projects is unlikely to provide enough capacity to guarantee replacing the lost capacity of those nuclear plants which have already ceased production or are coming to end of life:
Already lost: Hinckley Point B, Hunterston B and Dungeness B - about 3GW
Expected losses from Heysham 1 & 2, Hartlepool and Torness - about 4.7 GW
Therefore, we can see an uncertain gain of 10GW (assuming the SMR programme hits the ground running) with an almost certain loss of 7.7GW.
Conclusion
Nuclear power has been neglected for many years by successive governments, driven by excessive costs and legislation driven by exaggerated safety fears. The evidence suggests that nuclear power's perceived dangers are largely a product of fear and misinformation, rather than actual risk.
When factoring in decades of radiation data, low land requirements, and reliable electricity generation, it becomes challenging to find compelling reasons to choose alternatives, such as renewables, over nuclear.
The UK government has only recently restarted a nuclear programme with a possible new capacity of 10GW. In the same period we will lose a total of 7.7GW of existing nuclear.
The question is, have we left it too late to embark on a sensible path to maintain energy security? I strongly suspect that things are going to get very tight over the next 5 to 10 years. It may already be too late to act in time.