Cover image Gundala. A fan art by Bung Carol.
Anti-nuclear stance is part of net-zero ideology to push an all-renewable energy. The idea that renewables are clean and thus morally desirable seems to sell pretty nicely among the saviours of the Earth. This little article addresses how the anti-nuclear position cannot be far from the truth. Nuclear is the most energy-dense, safest and cleanest, thus the most morally desirable primary energy among others.
Nuclear: the most energy dense among others
The very first reason why nuclear energy is the most desirable form of energy is that from a technical standpoint, it is the most energy dense. Comparing the land size needed to build a power plant versus the amount of electricity produced, nuclear comes out as the best simply because a nuclear power plant generates the biggest amount of electricity for every square metre needed to build a power plant.
Below is the publicly accessible figure from Our World In Data which compares the type of modern power plants from various forms of primary energy versus the amount of electricity generated by each power plant type.

Figure 1 above shows how energy efficient nuclear energy is. As noted by the World Nuclear Association, “one kilogram of natural uranium will yield about 20,000 times as much energy as the same amount of coal” (Nuclear Power Economics | Nuclear Energy Costs – World Nuclear Association, 2022). The high energy density of nuclear fuels thus translates into higher Watt per square metre electricity in the power plant buildings. Hydropower, followed by concentrating solar are the least preferable option in terms of power density per square metre of power plant. An exception, however, goes to onshore wind whose effectiveness depends on how we interpret the square metre needed for the turbine: onshore wind is only energy competitive when spaces between turbines are effectively used. Unfortunately, the real case varies between geographical contexts.
Pay attention to the first footnote which applies to all renewables on the chart. Two important things deserve our attention, namely, factoring in capacity factor and factoring out land use for energy storage technology. Capacity factor is a percentage which shows how often the designed power plant performs at its maximum capacity as designed. Having 100% capacity factor means there is no difference in electricity generation in practice compared to the maximum capacity as designed. At the moment, only nuclear energy has the closest to 100% capacity factor, precisely at 92.7% on average, followed by geothermal at 71%, a distant second. The last three on the bottom with less than 40% capacity factor are hydropower (37.1%), wind (34.5%), and solar PV (24.6%). Look at the Figure 2 below from the U. S. Energy Information Administration for a better clarity.

Energy storage technologies are not included in either figures since they are not primary energies. Moreover, energy storage mostly refers to renewable technology as it is a technology specifically designed to store electricity with wind and solar power during day time for solar or when there is wind for wind turbines so as to avoid blackouts during duck curves. Here we talk about various types of battery technologies, each with their own advantages and shortcomings following their designs. The choice of storage technology is also dependent on the type of energy mix, a reason for which it is not included in figure 1.
Briefly put, nuclear energy is the best in terms of generated electricity per square metre land used.
Nuclear: safe and clean
Comparing land use per unit of generated electricity is not enough to provide an adequate picture about the desirability of nuclear energy. Common critics from anti-nuclear ecologists often aim at the radiation risk of nuclear reactors should accidents occur as opposed to risk-free renewables on top of their low or even emission free energy generation. On that front, Figure 3 below from Our World in Data counter the anti-nuclear position.

When it comes to safety, anti-nuclear activists (by ‘activists’ I also include intellectuals and scholars who assign the normative connotation such as ‘bad energy’ to nuclear energy) often refer to the Cherynobyl and Fukushima Daiichi nuclear incidents. Little, however, is mentioned about how much the reactor technology has advanced since the Cherynobyl incident such that even during the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear incident in 2011, out of 19,500 life casualties, none died because of radiation. The automatic shutdown features in the eleven reactors at four nuclear power plants in that area shut down automatically as soon as the earthquake started. When the tsunami took place, all four units from Fukushima Daiichi 1 to 4 were already shut down (Fukushima Daiichi Accident – World Nuclear Association, 2023)
As of recently, further investigation has been conducted on the release of treated water around Fukushima. Despite fear from neighbouring countries and reaction from anti-nuclear activists, extensive tests have been conducted and the radiation inside the Fukushima water is even lower than the one contained in a banana. The International Atomic Energy Agency declares that it has passed the international safety standards (IAEA Finds Japan’s Plans to Release Treated Water into the Sea at Fukushima Consistent with International Safety Standards, 2023).
This leads to Figure 3 above. When safety is interpreted as human death, nuclear energy claims the least human lives across all primary energies. Furthermore, as fossil fuels also emit a high amount of carbon dioxide which can cause health risks leading to death, pollution level across all primary energies is also measured. The result shows that for each gigawatt hour, nuclear is among the safest and cleanest primary energy among others, topped only by a minuscule margin by solar.
I am sceptical about the notion of ‘bad energy’ in a normative sense, as if there is a clear-cut distinction between “good” and “bad” energy. But suppose that I buy into this dichotomy – which I am not; a topic for another time – normative evaluation as regards modern technology is attributed to either human lives or the environment. The less a primary energy pollutes, the less it harms human lives, the better it is from a normative perspective.
Now call me crazy if you will, but it seems that nuclear energy fits well into the normative criteria of “good energy”. And that is assuming that a clear-cut “good energy-bad energy” dichotomy is a reliable evaluative criteria.
Example from Germany and France
The effective land use, high safety standard, and low carbon emissions translate to how good a quality of a national energy plan is when nuclear is included into the mix. I present below two neighbouring European countries, Germany and France. Both proclaim their commitments for a sustainable future and acknowledge the importance of energy systems for such a future. However, their energy plan cannot be more different. Ever since the Fukushima Daiichi incident in 2011, Germany’s Energiewende shut down their nuclear reactors one by one and shifted to renewable energy. Meanwhile France keeps, if not adds more nuclear reactors into their mix.
Figure 4 below shows the carbon intensity of electricity generations in both countries since 2011. All credits are due to Mark W. Nelson and Richard Ollington from Radiant Energy Group.

There are three faint vertical lines with three different colours: black, red, and gold. These lines represent the carbon intensity per kilowatt hour (kWH). The gold line represents the emission from the French electricity mix, while the black one represents Germany’s. By 2023, German electricity mix is ten times more polluting than French. The red line, however, represents a ‘what if’ scenario for Germany, namely, the German carbon intensity should they not decide to phase out their nuclear energy, a situation where none of their reactors are dismantled. In this ‘what if’ scenario, Germany could have only emitted 2,5 times more carbon than France.
If the idea of sustainable energy is to be labelled ‘good’, then an overall polluting mix cannot be labelled as such no matter how much the renewable percentage is put into the mix. Sustainable energy system is not a question of the amount of renewable inside the mix, but how does the overall mix perform. The more emission the overall system produces, the less sustainable it is.
On top of that, factoring three criteria mentioned in the first and second section of this writing, it makes sense to say that a good energy system must tick the safety, low-emission, and efficient land use boxes as far as possible. Having nuclear energy in the mix allows that to happen as the real-world example from French versus German electricity mix blatantly shows.
Do not readily jump into the falsity of ‘good renewables, bad nuclear’ propaganda spread by anti-nuclear activists from political parties, non-governmental organisations, or academia. Fear-mongering narratives can only create real-world problems. No values are attributable to an inefficient and/or polluting mix as a result of the anti-nuclear position, promoted by blind activists masquerading as moral warriors from all levels of social institutions.