Greta Thunberg Has Embraced Nuclear Power: Will The Greens Follow?

The Russian invasion of Ukraine forced a much overdue re-examination of Europe’s energy grand vision. Without the ability to access cheap Russian natural gas, Europe must reevaluate tactics and priorities. The strategy of relying on Russian hydrocarbons for a relatively clean baseload while slowly building up renewable generation capacity has been rendered untenable for the foreseeable future.

With a disrupted long-term plan, the green movement has had to examine its own priorities and assumptions. Chief amongst these is the fanatical opposition from many environmentalists towards nuclear energy. This view is irrational: civilian nuclear energy is safe and cheap and generates zero emissions.

Green icon Greta Thunberg seems to be taking a pro-nuclear stance. The Swedish climate activist once decried nuclear energy as being “extremely dangerous, expensive, and time-consuming.” Her views seem to have changed in tandem with recent trends in public opinion as she recently argued that Germany shutting down its nuclear plants was a “mistake.” Thunberg, alongside other climate activists, emphasized that the alternative to nuclear would be coal, a most polluting energy source.

Before the Russian re-invasion, environmentalists and many on the left were relatively consistent with their disapproval of nuclear energy, arguing that it poses a threat to the health and safety of the communities that host nuclear reactors. Others feared that it is a slippery slope that may eventually lead to the proliferation of nuclear arms.

The location, safety, and potential health hazards to local communities located near nuclear plants are common arguments against nuclear energy. Waste management and the ability of producers to safely store enriched uranium are major concerns. Anti-nuclear sentiments soared after the devastation caused by the Chornobyl, and Fukushima disasters. Even when systems work perfectly and major disasters are avoided, as during the Three Mile Island Nuclear Incident, public impressions of nuclear power still worsened due to poor optics.

The irony of nuclear power debates is that the science behind it is settled, while public debate largely ignores the data. The deaths from nuclear power (deaths per terawatt hour) are far eclipsed by its competitors with only 0.03 deaths per terawatt hour, compared to 32.72 for Brown Coal. Over the past 50 years, nuclear energy reduced CO₂ emissions by 60 gigatons- nearly two years’ worth of global energy emissions.

Concerns about cancer have been disproved, whereas repeated studies have shown that the impact of fossil fuels on the environment results in more fatalities and public health damage than nuclear accidents.

Not long before Thunberg’s statement, Germany made a U-turn deciding to keep two of its nuclear power plants online, after originally promising to scrap them entirely. The decision to keep these nuclear plants running marked the first departure from a Green Party, born out of the anti-nuclear two-decade policy to abandon nuclear energy and a strong proponent of Germany’s nuclear phaseout, announced that it would support a limited extension of the country’s nuclear plants. The economic war mounted by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has forced even the staunchest anti-nuclear elements to recognize nuclear energy’s substance.

American progressives have also begun to warm up to the idea of nuclear as a green energy source. Democratic Socialist Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who initially argued for a transition from nuclear to renewable sources, now seems to adopt a more pragmatic approach. Following a congressional trip to Japan, which included a visit to Fukushima, the Congresswoman echoed the fundamentals of Thunberg’s stance, noting that reducing nuclear power would result in the increased utilization of dirty hydrocarbons.

Her evolving views seem to be in line with those of the progressive electorate: while a slight majority of Democrats still oppose the expansion of nuclear capacity, a downward trend can be observed in the number of those vehemently opposed to nuclear energy.

Across the world, a nuclear renaissance is already underway: uranium production is increasing, as many producers forecast a period of significant growth in nuclear capacities and are optimistic about emerging small modular reactor technology.

Russia currently operates nuclear reactors in 11 foreign countries, with plans for expansion in markets across Central and Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Latin America. China has tentative plans for 30 overseas nuclear reactors as part of its Belt and Road Initiative. The US is contributing to global nuclear renaissance as well, including in allied countries such as South Korea and Romania. However, investments in nuclear energy from Western countries risk falling behind those of Russia or China due to internal opposition and a lack of political will.

Regardless of the increased current or future use of nuclear energy, opposition remains. After the European Union included nuclear energy in the list of green investments, Austria, historically opposed to nuclear energy, challenged that policy. Other European countries, including Luxembourg, Denmark, and Portugal have also joined the “anti-nuclear alliance.” Though a majority of the American public supports developing the nuclear sector, it does so only by a razor-slim margin disconnected from partisan affiliation.

These changing views on nuclear energy are rational. Many realize nuclear energy is a good alternative to fossil fuels and is needed while the West is decoupling from Russian energy without abandoning the transition to clean energy. To facilitate acceptance of nuclear energy policymakers and activists need to address issues related to waste disposal, plant maintenance, and reactor safety and security, particularly of those located in war zones.

No energy industry is perfect, including nuclear power. Nevertheless, it is one of the cleanest and most efficient sources of energy we have. Opposing nuclear power is allowing perfection to become the enemy of the good.