Why Europe Must Embrace Nuclear Energy
Two cooling towers releasing steam at a nuclear power plant in Grohnde, Germany. Photo: Julian Stratenschulte/AP
As the world crawls farther into the 21st century, Western Europe has seemingly begun to realize two certainties: that Russian influence will continue to have a destabilizing presence on Europe for decades to come, and that the catastrophic threat posed by climate change must be confronted with unprecedented urgency.
In order to combat and overcome these challenges, Western Europe must make bold decisions to reevaluate many of the long-held assumptions it has carried through the post-Cold War era. In particular– its general, long-held suspicion of nuclear energy.
In 2019, it was reported that nuclear and renewable energy accounted only for 13.1% and 15.5% of the total share of the European Union’s energy consumption; natural gas, petroleum, and solid fossil fuels accounted for the remaining 71.4% of its consumption. That same year, the EU imported 61% of its energy, only producing 39% of its own.
It is easy to understand why many governments in Western Europe are wary of nuclear energy. The threat of nuclear annihilation defined much of the latter half of the 20th century for Europe, which often viewed itself as a pawn caught between the geopolitical games of two global superpowers, each armed with enough nuclear materiel to destroy the world dozens of times over. While atomic energy does not necessarily entail warheads, the association is clear.
Furthermore, many climate activists have decried the use of nuclear energy, not just for its connection to destructive warheads but because, they argue, investments in nuclear energy pull capital away from forms of energy that truly are renewable, like hydro, solar, and wind power. While nuclear power isn’t - by definition - renewable, the amount of energy it produces in relation to its emissions and effect on the environment makes this classification all but moot.
Most pronounced, however, are the perceived dangers of nuclear energy. In 1986, Europe’s fear of nuclear power came full circle as the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant experienced a critical meltdown due to a series of structural flaws in the reactor’s design.
The town of Pripyat, Ukraine was evacuated soon after the Chernobyl Disaster in 1986, sowing doubt in the prospect of safe, efficient nuclear energy. Photo: Tyler Hicks/NYT
In 2011, these fears would be once again validated by the meltdown of yet another major nuclear power plant, this time in Fukushima, Japan. The disaster in Japan all but secured the demise of nuclear power in the 21st century, leading to German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision to announce the gradual closure of every nuclear power plant in Germany by 2022, despite previously announcing an extension of the nation’s use of the energy source.
In reality, most of the apprehension regarding nuclear power is either sensationalist or simply unfounded. For starters, most critics of nuclear energy point to the challenges involved with storing spent reactor fuel, which can remain radioactive for thousands of years. This argument certainly raises valid concerns– namely, where and how we will store radioactive waste. While the debate on how best to store this waste is an ongoing one, it is undeniable that the sheer, physical volume of spent reactor fuel is remarkably small. US President Ronald Reagan acknowledged this reality when he once quipped, “All the waste in a year from a nuclear power plant can be stored under a desk.”
Nuclear power is indeed a potentially dangerous endeavor: an energy source with minimal tolerance for error and potential for large-scale catastrophe. But is this not also true for, say, plane travel? Statistically, we are far more likely to die in a car crash than during air travel. And yet, plane travel is considered a far more dangerous form of transportation, in part due to the media’s sensational reporting whenever a commercial airplane crashes. Nuclear energy is similar in this regard. Yes, there is a capacity for immense tragedy which must not be overlooked. But when viewing the full picture, the risks associated are astronomically low. Conversely, when considering the long-term effects of fossil fuels on air quality, living conditions, and the climate, it is clear to see which form of energy poses a greater threat to human life.
While an ideal world would allow us to fully embrace perfectly renewable energy sources, we are not there yet. Fossil fuels remain a vital part of just about any country’s energy consumption and renewables are often situational and inconsistent. Wind, solar, hydro, and geothermal energies all require specific geographic conditions and their outputs can be severely hindered by unavoidable circumstances such as lack of sunlight or wind and water droughts. Nuclear energy not only produces an enormous amount of energy, but does so consistently and with minimal environmental consequences.
For now, nuclear power remains Western Europe’s only option to fully bridge the gap between fossil fuels and renewable energy, whilst simultaneously creating an energy infrastructure that is independent of Russian exports. So far, France has become one of the few European countries to understand this reality, with President Emmanuel Macron recently announcing a plan to build six new nuclear reactors by 2035.
No other moment so demonstrates this imperative than the current crisis at the border of Ukraine, where Russian President Vladimir Putin has attempted to hold Europe hostage, using military might and a vast supply of oil and natural gas as leverage in his bid to force concessions from the West and draw Kyiv back into Russia’s sphere of influence.
French President Emmanuel Macron announced his plan to spark a “nuclear renaissance” last month. Photo: Jean François-Badias/AFP
While the West has remained strikingly united during this crisis, fault lines have emerged between certain member countries of NATO, most notably regarding the debate on how the alliance should proceed with the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. The pipeline is a conduit - that has yet to pass regulatory hurdles - between Germany and Russia which could potentially double the latter’s total gas exports to Europe. This connection has prompted Germany, which received 34% of its crude oil imports from Russia in 2021, to act more cautiously in deterring Russian aggression than it might otherwise have to be if it weren’t reliant on the country’s energy.
Many countries in Europe, such as Germany - the continent’s largest economy - have shied away from nuclear power due to its fraught history. However, advancements in nuclear technologies have made the energy source both safer and more efficient. Given the challenges faced by leaders in Western Europe, it cannot afford to continue its reliance on natural gas, which both irrevocably harms the environment and perpetuates Russian influence on European energy markets.
In order to take a stronger stand against Russian energy imperialism, Europe must first cut off its addiction to fossil fuels and supplement its investments in renewable energy with nuclear power. This would create a more united, more independent Europe and would strengthen the EU’s efforts to become carbon neutral by 2050.
The gravity of the challenges facing Western Europe - whether it be catastrophic climate change or great power politics - must be met with bold decision-making and sober analysis. If Europe is to overcome these challenges, it must avoid sensationalist populism and embrace nuclear power as an essential tool for the 21st century. The costs may be immeasurable if it does not.