.png)
Episode:
57
What Nuclear Energy Actually Offers (The Not-So-Silver Bullet)
Play Episode
Or listen on :
25:00
Kia ora kaitiaki and welcome to the final episode in my nuclear energy mini-series. Over the last three episodes, I’ve taken you through the science, the messy history, and the chaos of radioactive disasters - but today? Today I’m answering the question I’ve been dancing around since the start:
Do we actually need nuclear energy to hit our climate goals - or can we just stick with solar, wind, and good old hydropower?
As always, the answer isn’t as straightforward as we’d like (and yes, I find that annoying too). But after wading through data, opinions, politics, and a few mild threats on LinkedIn, I’ve come to a conclusion that might help you cut through.
Kia ora, kaitiaki, and welcome to Now That's What I Call Green. I'm your host, Brianne West—an environmentalist and entrepreneur trying to get you as excited about our planet as I am. I'm all about creating a scientific approach to making the world a better place, without the judgement, and making it fun.
And of course, we will be chatting about some of the most amazing creatures we share our planet with. So if you're looking to navigate through everything green—or not so green—you've come to the right place.
We are currently in the middle of one of the worst coral bleaching events ever. It’s affecting about 85% of all reefs around the world. And already, as it stands today, we are set to lose 90% of our coral reefs within the next two decades because of climate change.
I don’t know about you, but that’s genuinely heartbreaking. I’m a scuba diver and I love everything about our oceans, and I can’t even imagine what they’ll look like without reefs. Which is, of course, not even considering the fact that about 25% of the ocean’s biodiversity lives within coral reefs—and most of the rest is dependent on that life.
So losing them would not only be really sad—it would also be slightly problematic.
But that is just one of the many horrendous statistics you get if you start looking into climate change, which is of course continuing largely unchecked because there are so few real efforts to actually slow it down.
It’s definitely not too late—but the window to do something about it is closing, as we just keep whittering on about things that really don’t matter.
We need action now.
And one of the things that keeps coming up is nuclear energy.
A Quick Recap
So kia ora, welcome back. I’m Brianne West, and for the last three episodes you’ve heard me telling you what nuclear energy is.
Episode 1 was all about particle physics. I know—I find this stuff super interesting, but if you don’t care so much about atoms and ions and isotopes, I do apologise.
Hopefully, you jumped straight into Episode 2, which was all about the history of radioactivity. That was, ehh… equal parts chaos and really stupid decisions.
We had this expectation, right? That radiation glows, that it’s green and gooey, there are barrels of eck everywhere, and you know something’s radioactive because it lets off this ominous hum.
That’s just… not how it works.
And of course, the scientists who studied and worked with radioactivity in those early days found that out pretty horrifically.
Then of course, there was Chernobyl. Fukushima. And all of that has contributed to the pretty bad reputation that nuclear energy has.
Episode 3 was what’s going on now and what is potentially going on in the future—with, of course, a touch of fusion sprinkled in.
Is fusion still 30 years away? Maybe not. Fascinating stuff.
So, Do We Actually Need It?
But today is finally the culmination.
It’s the reason I spent so long writing these four episodes—because I wanted to know:
Do we actually need nuclear energy?
Can we get to where we need to go with just renewables?
Because it seems to me that everybody has an opinion, and very few people actually seem to have the facts. And unfortunately, I found that was absolutely the case—even with experts—when I was writing this.
But I promise, I do get to a conclusion at the end that will hopefully give you some clarity.
Right now, nuclear power generates about 10% of global energy.
Now, if we were to replace that with, say, coal—which is the most common right now—that would add about 2 billion tons of CO₂ emissions every single year.
So nuclear is definitely saving us some carbon.
That’s equivalent to taking about 400 million cars off the road.
But the growth of nuclear has kind of stalled. It’s not really increasing, despite the fact that there are a number of new reactors being built, as I mentioned in the last episode.
But building new reactors is really slow and very expensive, and people don’t really like them. (Reasons: episode 2.)
Meanwhile, you’ve got things like solar and wind that are booming.
Costs are dropping. Everyone’s very excited about them.
But—they’re not perfect, and they don’t suit everywhere.
However, last year alone, global solar power capacity jumped by 20%—in one year.
Currently, renewables account for about 29 to 30% of global energy production.
Countries like China and India are setting new records for renewable installations every year.
China—unsurprisingly—is now the world’s largest producer of solar and wind energy.
It has pretty ambitious climate goals. Despite a lot of people claiming they’re not doing anything to fight climate change, I would say China is doing a lot more than most.
India isn’t far behind. They’re aiming to produce 500 gigawatts of solar energy by 2030.
I can’t even really quantify 500 gigawatts for you—it’s that big.
Of course, here in Aotearoa, we’re already a solid leader in renewable energy.
We run on about 85% renewable on average—most of it from hydro.
(I’ll talk about that more soon.)
And obviously, this shift toward renewables isn’t being driven by environmental movements.
It’s being driven by economics.
These technologies are just cheaper than burning coal or natural gas.
Thankfully.
Because if it were up to people doing it because it was the right thing to do, we’d be even further behind.
That’s perhaps a little bit cynical, but… I read the news.
Let’s talk about cost.
So these aren’t just trends. This is the way the world is going.
And people who are still hanging on to coal and saying it’s the only way forward are really just running on outdated economics.
(Unfortunately, there’s an awful lot of people who are still stuck in that old-school style of thinking. Looking at you, Shane Jones.)
If renewables are such a good news story, why are we still talking about nuclear?
Everyone knows how expensive nuclear energy is to build.
Plants are notoriously expensive—and very slow.
There’s a plant in the USA right now that was meant to cost around $14 billion and be finished by 2017. It’s currently 2025. It’s years overdue, and so far it has cost about $30 billion—and it’s still not even running.
That’s not unusual. That is par for the course with nuclear energy projects. They’re notoriously complicated—as I guess you probably expect.
Across the board, nuclear power plants cost about $100 to $130 per megawatt hour.
In contrast:
(Those numbers vary depending on your source—I’ve tried to use a sensible average—but you can see the ratio is pretty significant.)
Coal is a little trickier to price, because many plants are old and fully depreciated. But new coal plants are about $70 to $160 per megawatt hour.
So, nuclear and new coal are relatively similar in cost.
But nuclear doesn’t cause anywhere near the level of harm that coal does.
Just a reminder:
Burning fossil fuels kills 8 million people every year through air pollution.
And it will continue to do so at even greater rates as climate change continues to bite.
Nuclear could get cheaper if we develop something called small modular reactors—which I talked about in the last episode.
These are basically like kit-set reactors. The IKEA of nuclear.
They can be shipped to countries around the world, bolted together, and they become like the fast fashion of nuclear energy. But hopefully better run.
None of these exist commercially yet—they’re being investigated—so we don’t know the true costs. But it could be quite interesting.
Obviously, cost is a big deal. But reliability is arguably just as important.
Especially as electricity demand ramps up—thanks to EVs.
Because yes, without question, in every LCA ever, electric cars are better for the planet.
(Just to be clear—better doesn’t mean perfect. If you want to hear that rant, I’ve already done an episode on electric vehicles.)
Now, nuclear energy is pretty reliable.
They just tick away, running around 90% of the time. That’s called a capacity factor—and 90% is excellent.
Renewables don’t tick that box quite so nicely:
France, with its nuclear-heavy grid, is pretty predictable and stable.
South Australia, on the other hand—lots of renewables—had some capacity issues…
Until they invested in storage.
And now they have massive battery systems.
South Australia’s electricity storage is actually courtesy of Elon Musk.
So there you go—even bad people do good things sometimes.
If we’ve talked about cost and reliability, I think the most interesting stat is this:
How much carbon does each source release per kilowatt hour?
These are life cycle numbers. That means they include everything:
Building the plant, producing the energy, and decommissioning it.
Unless you flood a tropical valley—then rotting vegetation will send methane through the roof. That kind of defeats the purpose.
But either way—pocket change compared to fossil fuels:
Again:
12 grams for nuclear vs 800 grams for coal.
The difference is staggering.
And this is why nuclear is even part of the conversation.
People get caught up on the idea of nuclear waste.
And yes—it’s a problem.
(As I talked about in the previous episode.)
It’s a lot less than you think, but it is still dangerously radioactive for thousands of years.
We don’t have great long-term storage solutions.
Renewables don’t have toxic waste—but they do have a lot of materials.
A typical solar panel lasts 20–30 years. By 2050, we could be looking at 75 million+ tons of metal and silicon from decommissioned panels.
Most of it is recyclable. But—as with most things—it doesn’t always happen, because it’s cheaper to use virgin materials.
We don’t charge the real cost of extraction and disposal.
Land use is another impact to consider.
A 1 GW nuclear power plant fits inside a couple of square kilometres.
To match that in:
In Aotearoa terms:
One Huntley-sized nuclear plant vs covering all of Banks Peninsula in solar panels.
That’s quite the visual.
Water is also a consideration.
Big reactors are really thirsty.
Some use “once-through” cooling—pulling in up to 100,000 cubic metres of water per day, then releasing it warmer. (Not radioactive—just warmer.)
That changes river ecosystems.
There are closed-cycle plants with less impact, but still: lots of evaporation.
Solar and wind use virtually no water.
Hydro is built on water, but doesn’t consume it—it just uses its movement.
Still, reservoir evaporation is a thing.
So, nuclear and renewables are similar in carbon output—but they each have other impacts.
And this is all well and good, but we’re not really considering the biggest part of the equation:
People.
By and large, we’re irrational.
While fear of radioactivity isn’t irrational—it’s something to be cautious of—we don’t make decisions based on facts.
We make them based on emotions.
I’ve learned that this week. I’ve been talking about science on LinkedIn, and… let’s just say someone threatened me with Satan. Which was mildly amusing. But anyway.
The point is—we’re bad at handling complex decisions with logic.
We lead with our hearts, not our heads.
Accidents like Chernobyl hardwired fear into us.
We think: “One mistake, and a country is obliterated.”
Even though modern safety standards are second to none.
Then there’s NIMBYism—Not In My Backyard.
You realise maybe physics isn’t the hardest part of the green energy transition.
Politics and people are.
Everyone goes on about Europe being so environmentally friendly.
Well—Germany, not so much.
They pulled the plug on their last nuclear reactors in 2023.
Public opinion never really recovered after Fukushima, and the Greens made pulling out of nuclear a political must-do.
Honestly? I think that was an odd choice.
The catch is: they’ve had to burn more coal.
Their emissions went up.
Yes, the gap is closing again now because they’ve upped renewables—but they still emitted more than they needed to.
France, on the other hand, did the opposite.
They have 56 reactors, get more than two-thirds of their electricity from them, and are building another six.
Their logic?
Win–win.
The US has the most reactors: 92.
They supply about a fifth of US electricity—and half of its cleaner power.
Most plants are being relicensed for another 60–80 years.
Because if they shut them down, their emissions would spike—and frankly, I don’t think their current political environment would care too much about that. We’ll see.
They have plans to build new large reactors, but they’ve been a financial nightmare, so they’re now betting big on small modular reactors.
Bill Gates is even involved—with something called TerraPower.
If those hit their targets, that could be very interesting.
China? Not mucking about.
They’ve got more solar panels than the rest of the world combined.
Gigawatts and gigawatts of wind—onshore and offshore.
And they’re building new reactors at a steady clip—one every 3 to 4 months, apparently.
Right now, nuclear makes up only about 5% of China’s energy—but that won’t last long.
They’re treating it as a cornerstone of their energy future.
And, true to form, they’re building reactors cheaper and faster than Western countries.
Parts of Africa tell a different story.
Nuclear? Just too expensive. Not even on the table in many cases.
Instead, they’re betting big on solar.
Mini-grids in Kenya.
South Africa’s rooftops are dotted with solar panels.
It’s cheaper and faster to deploy.
South Africa has two aging nuclear reactors still running.
Egypt has just started building one—with ties to Russia.
But for most of Africa, nuclear just isn’t feasible—financially or physically.
Smaller island nations, like in the Pacific, can’t consider nuclear either.
Tiny grids, high costs—it doesn’t add up.
Many rely on diesel or coal imports, which is heartbreaking.
But they’re also racing toward solar + batteries.
Some are nearly 100% solar-powered already.
That’s incredible.
Storage costs are still a challenge—because of course, solar only works during the day. But it still beats diesel.
Back home in Aotearoa, we’re already at 85% renewables—with a little bit of coal still burning.
Hydro does more than half of our renewable energy.
Geothermal is about a sixth.
Wind? Only about 5%, which surprised me.
Solar is… dismal.
We need microgrids.
We need more oomph—especially for rooftop solar.
We’ve got flexible hydro. We could build pumped storage, which basically uses water as a battery.
Nuclear doesn’t work for us.
We don’t have the right problem for it to solve.
And we are literally known as the Shaky Isles.
I don’t know about you, but earthquakes and nuclear don’t fill me with confidence.
(Just look at Fukushima.)
Plus, the economics don’t stack up.
Billions and billions of dollars for a single plant would take too long to pay off.
Smart money is on getting more out of wind, solar, and hydro.
Across the ditch, Australia is different.
Coal is still 60% of their grid. I was shocked.
It’s dirt cheap and local, and let’s be honest—it’s going to be hard to pry out of certain billionaires’ hands.
The 2025 federal election just last week tried to make nuclear a voting issue.
It backfired spectacularly.
They had one of their worst losses in history.
(Side note: It’d also be really great if the Australian government stopped supporting Israel and supplying weapon parts. Another conversation.)
The coalition’s nuclear plan couldn’t beat simple maths:
Why wait 10–30 years to build reactors for billions of dollars
when rooftop solar is already everywhere
and wind is cheaper?
More than a third of Aussie homes have solar.
Utility-scale solar and wind are queuing up for grid connections across Queensland and Victoria.
Storage is the problem—as always.
But hey—just give Elon Musk a call (unless he’s too busy ruining things elsewhere).
I was surprised at how convoluted the research was.
I figured someone, somewhere, would have a definitive answer.
They don’t.
Every expert has a slightly different take.
They model nuclear avoiding 9.8–13 gigatons of CO₂ by 2050.
Sounds impressive—until you realise:
Their top-ranked solution is cutting food waste.
That avoids 88–100 gigatons.
So nuclear?
Helpful.
But not a silver bullet.
It ranks well below wind, solar, refrigerant fixes, food waste solutions, and more.
Clear as mud, right?
Don’t panic—we’re at the end. And the answer is finally in sight.
Kind of.
Do we need nuclear energy?
It depends.
(Aaaaand I know—that is the most annoying answer to anything ever.)
It depends on:
In theory—yes, we can run the world on 100% renewables.
We have the models.
Overbuild solar and wind.
Add storage.
Use transmission and smart demand.
Top up with hydro and geothermal.
It works.
But in reality, not everywhere fits that bill.
Some places don’t have the land, water, or public support to plaster the landscape with turbines.
People are the problem.
Coal is still the easier choice for many.
In those places, a well-run small reactor could shave decades off their emissions curve.
It’s certainly better than coal.
Could we just fill the desert with solar panels and pipe it back to the cold, dark countries?
Nice in theory—but transmission and storage losses make that wildly inefficient.
The real world doesn’t work that cleanly.
So…
Do we need nuclear?
Theoretically, no.
In reality? Probably yes.
Especially if we shift from fission to fusion (see Episode 3).
If we can:
Then yes—it’s one of the fastest ways to avoid boiling the planet.
But if not?
Let’s just double down on:
Because the absolute worst thing we can do is waste time debating ideology.
The atmosphere doesn’t care.
Let’s just figure it out—and crack on.
To quote Nike: Just do it.
Sometimes I want to bang politicians’ heads together.
That’s another episode.
So, that’s the nuclear series—done and dusted.
Thank God, because honestly? I was getting kind of bored.
The joys of my brain—constant quest for dopamine.
Bottom line:
Nuclear isn’t a universal hero.
It won’t save us all.
It’s not a silver bullet.
But it’s also not a villain.
Some grids will need it. Some won’t.
Wasting time on fear-based nuclear-free ideologies isn’t helping anyone.
The CO₂ is building up. The clock is ticking.
Next week is quite different.
The launch of my drinks startup is about a week and a bit away, so I’m swapping neutrons for nicotinamide.
(Sorry—I really like that alliteration.)
If you don’t know what nicotinamide is, you might know it as:
It’s an ingredient in Incrediballs for a very specific reason.
Is the hype deserved?
No. Of course not. Because: marketing.
But it is interesting. And there’s some proper science to dig into.
I look forward to talking about it with you soon.
See you next week. Mā te wā.
And there you go.
I hope you learned something and realised that being green isn’t about everything in your pantry matching with those silly glass jars or living in a commune.
If that’s your jam—fabulous.
But sustainability, at its heart, is just using what you need.
If you enjoyed this episode, please don’t keep it to yourself—and feel free to drop me a rating and hit the subscribe button.
Kia ora, and I’ll see you next week.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
