The Rise and Fall of Nuclear Power

2025-07-21 14891

The Curious Formation of a New Kind of Nation.

Nuclear power is a proven technology that has been providing clean and reliable energy for decades.”

“Nuclear power is the only technology that can quickly replace fossil fuels and significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

(Deshapriya Nanayakkara)

Nuclear energy emerged as one of the transformative innovations of the 20th century. It began with the discovery of the atom’s structure, revealing immense energy within, and quickly advanced as scientists uncovered nuclear fission in the 1930s – a process that releases vast energy by splitting atomic nuclei. While this breakthrough initially fuelled the development of nuclear weapons during the second world war, it also revealed peaceful applications.

This sparked a shift in focus after the war, catalysed by United States President Dwight Eisenhower’s 1953 “Atoms for Peace” speech, which promoted nuclear energy for civilian uses.

The ability to harness atomic energy introduced a new, massive-scale way to generate power. Unlike fossil fuels, which rely on chemical reactions, nuclear fission releases millions of times more energy from a small amount of fuel – offering an abundant, reliable energy source. In the post-war period, nuclear power was hailed as an innovation capable of meeting global energy demand, with governments supporting it as a path to national prestige, energy independence and economic growth.

The United Kingdom led the way, opening the first full-scale nuclear power station at Windscale in 1956, inspiring other nations to launch ambitious nuclear programmes. Global nuclear capacity grew rapidly, rising from less than 1 gigawatt (GW) in 1960 to 100 GW by the late 1970s.

The 1973 oil crisis further accelerated nuclear investment, particularly in oil-dependent nations such as France and Japan, which sought to reduce reliance on volatile imports.

France undertook an extensive programme, building 25 nuclear plants in just 15 years, while the US significantly expanded its nuclear programme, commissioning dozens of reactors throughout the 1960s and 1970s.

Many expected this growth to continue, positioning nuclear energy as a ubiquitous power source that would shape the future of global energy production. But history did not turn out that way.

Concerns around nuclear safety have existed since nuclear power stations first came online. In the 1960s and 70s, a significant anti-nuclear sentiment began to take shape, driven by growing public concerns over safety, radioactive-waste disposal and the potential for catastrophic accidents.

Environmental activists, influenced by the rise of the environmental movement, highlighted the risks associated with radiation exposure and the long-term management of nuclear waste, which could remain hazardous for thousands of years. Additionally, the potential for nuclear materials to be diverted toward weapons and military uses amplified these fears, particularly in the context of the Cold War.

Public awareness and scepticism surged in 1979, when the film
“The China Syndrome” was released, depicting a fictional near meltdown at a nuclear plant. The film’s narrative resonated with existing fears and significantly influenced public perception, particularly when the real-life incident at Three Mile Island in the US occurred just days after its premiere.
( The China Syndrome is a 1979 American thriller film directed by James Bridges and written by Bridges, Mike Gray, and T. S. Cook. The film stars Jane Fonda, Jack Lemmon, and Michael Douglas (who also produced).)

This event marked an important moment in the anti-nuclear movement, fuelling protests and leading to increased scrutiny over the safety and regulation of nuclear energy. The US, the world’s largest producer of nuclear power, did not commit to a new reactor for nearly three decades after this.

Just one year later, Sweden decided in a referendum to gradually phase out nuclear energy.

Anti-nuclear sentiment reached a peak after the Chernobyl nuclear-power-station disaster in 1986. Its impact on the commitment to nuclear energy was considerable.

Italy halted its nuclear-energy programme in 1987 following a public referendum spurred by Chernobyl, and other countries including Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and Austria took steps to reduce their nuclear ambitions.

In the decades following Chernobyl, nuclear power experienced a complex period of both caution and resilience. Despite the shadow of Chernobyl, technological advancements and improved safety protocols aimed to rehabilitate the image of nuclear energy.

The increasing awareness of the link between greenhouse-gas emissions from energy and climate change also sparked an increasing interest in nuclear power, and the notion of a “nuclear renaissance” gained popularity.

The 1990s and early 2000s saw nations such as France and the US modernise older reactors and invest in safer Generation (Gen) III reactor designs.

( Gen III reactors are so-called advanced light-water reactors (LWRs). Gen III+ reactors are labeled as "evolutionary designs". Though the distinction between Gen II and III reactors is arbitrary, few Gen III reactors have reached the commercial stage as of 2022.)

Countries in Asia saw nuclear energy as essential to their growing power demands and environmental objectives.

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in 2011 reignited global concerns over nuclear safety. Triggered by a 9.0-magnitude earthquake and a tsunami, the power plant suffered from cooling-system failures, reactor meltdowns and significant radioactive releases. This shook public trust yet again, highlighting even the most advanced systems’ susceptibility to unforeseen events. In response, Japan gradually closed all of the country’s 54 nuclear reactors
and increased fossil-fuel imports instead.

Elsewhere, countries such as Germany and Belgium hastened their nuclear phase-out, while others, such as Switzerland and Spain, decided not to build new nuclear plants.

Thailand indefinitely postponed plans to build its first nuclear-energy reactors. Of course, public perception has not been the only driver of nuclear power’s decline.

The potential of harnessing cheap gas diverted investment into gas-fired generation in many countries in the 1980s and 90s; furthermore, liberalisation of energy markets made capital-intensive projects like nuclear harder to finance.

Additionally, the rise of renewable-energy technologies such as wind, solar and hydroelectric power offered governments an attractive clean alternative to nuclear power.
But the cost of nuclear is closely tied to the regulatory regime in which the technology operates and the amount of litigation the project is subject to.

Over the years, countries have gradually introduced increasingly stringent safety and environmental regulations in response to public concern, with focus shifting away from innovation and improvement toward risk avoidance. Furthermore, the heightened concern led to a rise in litigation, as local communities and environmental groups frequently challenged the development of new nuclear facilities.

These legal battles often delayed projects for years or even resulted in their cancellation. This, combined with a lack of clear commitment to pipelines of reactors, has inflated the cost of nuclear reactors over time, further creating a negative spiral for the technology.

“Nuclear power is one of the safest, most reliable, and most environmentally friendly forms of energy we have.”
– *01.Heather Wilson.

*01 ."WILSON, Heather | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives".

*01. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heather_Wilson

Science and technology multiply around us. To an increasing extent they dictate the languages in which we speak and think. Either we use those languages, or we remain mute.