Society faces an important challenge, namely managing climate change while accommodating the world’s growing population and demand for renewable energy. To address this challenge, and move toward a low-footprint, low-emission future, nuclear power has become a viable solution. Currently, nuclear power provides about ten percent of global electricity, rising to nearly twenty percent for the industrialized economies (Limin et al., 2023), and supplies almost a third of the world’s low-carbon electricity (Khaleel et al., 2024). Scientists and politicians speak of the possibility of a “nuclear renaissance,” with nuclear power playing an even larger role in global power generation (Nuttall, 2022). While it has been one of the biggest providers of global, low carbon electricity, placing an even greater reliance on nuclear power can significantly affect the climate crisis, as well as society as a whole (Mathew, 2022). Through considering its impact on the emission of greenhouse gases, energy security, human resources, and environmental hazard, the ways in which a nuclear renaissance will shape the future can be better understood.

The use of nuclear power is capable of stalling climate change through carbon emission reductions (Peters, 2022). Fossil fuels, when used as a source of energy, release carbon dioxide as a byproduct. Unlike fossil fuels, nuclear power works by a different mechanism where no carbon dioxide is emitted. (Mostafaeipour, 2022). The use of nuclear power has already prevented more than 60 gigatons of carbon dioxide from being produced and released (Limin et al., 2023). Were nuclear to grow significantly, it would be able to supplement, or even replace, renewables by offering continuous power and a steady supply when solar and wind output are intermittent. From a climate perspective, a nuclear renaissance presents a strong “weapon of decarbonization” (Sovacool, 2023).

In addition to emissions reductions, nuclear power can also boost international energy security and stability. Because the majority of the world relies heavily on fossil fuels, which need to be imported, they are vulnerable to price swings and geopolitical instability (Sovacool, 2023). Nuclear energy, however, is less vulnerable to short-run supply shocks that plague oil and gas markets (Fattouh, 2024). Uranium-238, primarily utilized for nuclear energy, has many applications leading to its wide geographic distribution (Pescatore, 2025). Advances in reactor design, particularly through small modular reactors (SMRs), demonstrate greater flexibility and wider suitability, most notably in countries with small grids or limited infrastructure (Borowski, 2024). This can benefit both developed and emerging nations to allow for greater variety, more reliable sources of energy. More investment in nuclear power would therefore reduce the leverage of fossil fuel producers and help nations become more energy self-sufficient, with a more stable energy system worldwide.

Although the low-carbon contribution is appealing, nuclear power facilities are one of the most costly sources of electricity to construct, with high upfront build costs and common project delays that render it difficult to compete with less-expensive renewables (Stewart et al., 2022). New nuclear power plants have among the most expensive up-front investments of any energy technology, reinforced by complex safety regulations, long construction times, and ongoing cost overruns (Krumins et al., 2023). For instance, U.S. and EU large-scale projects have cost billions of dollars more than originally anticipated, raising concerns regarding cost viability compared to rapidly declining solar and wind costs (Osman et al., 2023). These economic challenges make nuclear non-competitive in today’s energy markets in the absence of large government subsidies or policy action.

In addition to economic challenges, nuclear power also carries built-in risks of accidents and radioactive releases. According to the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), the 1986 Chernobyl accident remains a significant case, having caused widespread contamination and ongoing health and environmental effects (Samoylov, 2021). Moreover, the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi accident again showed how natural disasters can lead to nuclear crises even in technologically advanced nations (Igarashi et al., 2024). They reaffirm the dangers of nuclear technology and still exert an influence on public opinion and political opposition to expanding nuclear programs (Bisconti, 2021).

The issue of nuclear waste also weighs on society. Spent fuel remains radioactive for thousands of years, requiring safe storage solutions that are cost-effective, and environmentally sound (Alinejad et al., 2025). Deep repositories are technically feasible, but are not frequently implemented on a large scale due to opposition from the social and political domains(Cotton, 2024). A nuclear renaissance would require a resolution to the waste problem to guarantee long-term sustainability and public acceptance. Additionally, more nuclear infrastructure causes higher risks because the proliferation of nuclear technology can unintentionally increase weapons development threat, adding to all social and geopolitical challenges (Zheng et al., 2025).

At the broader social level, nuclear renaissance can also reshape the world energy workforce and economy. Large nuclear construction projects necessitate hiring of trained and skilled workers, paving the way for new careers in engineering, construction, and operation. Host communities would gain steady, well-paying work, and governments could use nuclear expansion as an economic stimulus initiative. (Townsend, et al., 2022) Expense, however, is a major obstacle. If not well managed, nuclear investments might crowd out investment in other low-carbon technologies and generate tensions regarding the most cost-optimal decarbonization pathway.

While a nuclear renaissance promises huge potential as a low-carbon, secure energy source capable of boosting the fight against climate change while improving energy security and bringing economic prosperity, it also comes with inherent challenges of safety and waste. Whether or not the promise of nuclear power is greater than its limitations will depend on how these challenges are addressed.

References

Alinejad, Saeed, Zahra Khoshsepehr, and Moslem Alimohammadlou., et al. “Strategic Nuclear Waste Management for Reducing Environmental Impacts: Innovative Decomposed Fuzzy Methods.” Journal of Cleaner Production 513 (2025): 138600.

Cotton, Matthew. “Deep Borehole Disposal of Nuclear Waste: Trust, Cost and Social Acceptability.” Journal of Risk Research 25.5 (2021): 632–647.

Fattouh, Bassam, and Sara Vakhshouri, et al. “Nuclear Energy in the Global Energy Landscape: Advancing Sustainability and Ensuring Energy Security.” Oxford Energy Forum: A Quarterly Journal for Debating Energy Issues and Policies, 139 (2024): 8.

Halkos, George and Argyro Zisiadou. “Energy Crisis Risk Mitigation through Nuclear Power and RES as Alternative Solutions Toward Self-Sufficiency.” Journal of Risk and Financial Management 16 (2023): 1-29.

Igarashi, Junya, et al. “Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident: Understanding Formation Mechanism of Radioactive Particles through Sr and Pu Quantities.” Environmental Science and Technology 58 (2024): 14823-14830 .

Kemp, Luke, et al. “Climate Endgame: Exploring Catastrophic Climate Change Scenarios.” PNAS 119 (2022).

Khaleel et al. “Towards Hydrogen Sector Investments for Achieving Sustainable Electricity Generation.” Journal of Solar Energy and Sustainable Development 13 (2024): 71-96.

Krumins, Janis and Maris Klavins. “Investigating the Potential of Nuclear Energy in Achieving a Carbon-Free Energy Future.” Energies 16 (2023): 1-31.

Liu, Limin, et al. “The Role of Nuclear Energy in the Carbon Neutrality Goal.” Progress in Nuclear Energy 162 (2023): 104772.

Longmuir, Caley, and Vincent O. Agyapong. “Social and Mental Health Impact of Nuclear Disaster in Survivors: A Narrative Review.” Behavioral Sciences 11 (2021): 115.

Mathew, M.D. “Nuclear Energy: A Pathway Towards Mitigation of Global Warming.” Progress in Nuclear Energy 143 (2022): 104080.

Mostafaeipour, Ali, et al. “A New Model for the Use of Renewable Electricity to Reduce Carbon Dioxide Emissions.” Energy 238 (2022): 121602.

Osman, A.I. et al. “Cost, Environmental Impact, and Resilience of Renewable Energy Under a Changing Climate: A Review. Environmental Chemistry Letter 21 (2023): 741–764.

Pescatore, Claudio. “Humanity’s Uranium-238 Inventory: A Significant and Enduring Gamma-Radiation Liability.” Nukleonika, 70 (2025): 31-42.

Peters, Björn. “The Global Renaissance of Nuclear Energy.” ATW – International Journal of Nuclear Power 67 (2022): 16-21.

Samoylov, A.S., et al. “Medical Management: Major Lessons Learned From the Chernobyl Accident.” Journal of Radiological Protection 41 (2021): 51.

Sovacool, Benjamin, et al. “The Next Climate War? Statecraft, Security, and Weaponization in the Geopolitics of a Low-Carbon Future.” Energy Strategy Reviews 45 (2023): 1-10.

Stewart, W.R. and K. Shirvan. “Capital Cost Estimation for Advanced Nuclear Power Plants.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 155 (2022): 111880.

Taylor, Robin, et al. “A Review of Environmental and Economic Implications of Closing the Nuclear Fuel Cycle—Part One: Wastes and Environmental Impacts.” Energies 15 (2022): 1433.

Zheng, ShiYong, et al. “How Does Geopolitical Risk Affect Sustainable Nuclear Energy Development?” Nuclear Energy and Technology 57 (2025): 1433.