Nuclear energy is dumb energy
There is a renewed push for nuclear energy globally as it is low-carbon and so it is included in most planning scenarios for net zero, the argument often being that it can provide a consistent base load in contrast to the variability of renewables like solar and wind. But sustainable development consultant Ran Boydell makes the case that nuclear energy is essentially a dumb technology.
We tend to assume nuclear energy must be rocket science and so, despite being aware of the negatives, give it the benefit of the doubt in terms of the role it could play as part of our decarbonised energy future. But nuclear energy is dumb energy. Here’s how it actually works.
Nuclear power plants comprise two separate parts, commonly referred to as the nuclear island and the conventional island.
The nuclear island is where the nuclear reactor is located – the genuine rocket science part – but this isn’t where the electricity is produced. All that happens in the nuclear island is that the heat given off by the nuclear reaction is captured to boil water and generate steam. Literally, that is the sole desired outcome. As noted by the World Nuclear Association: “nuclear reactors are, fundamentally, large kettles”.
The steam is transferred to the conventional island, where it is used to drive traditional steam turbines, and it is these very conventional beasts that generate the electricity.
Steam turbine technology for electricity was first patented in 1884 when Charles Parsons demonstrated the effect at a shipyard in Newcastle – in that case coal supplying the heat. This technology is used largely unchanged in all modern thermodynamic power stations. The use of steam to create mechanical force, the primary energy transition, can be traced back to ancient Greece, so it’s about as far removed from rocket science as you can get.
The similarity of the process to fossil fuel power stations is explained succinctly by nuclear-power.com, a site that promotes greater public understanding about nuclear energy, when it states that: “since conventional power plants (such as fossil-fuel power plants) use very similar technology to convert thermal energy into electrical energy, this part of the nuclear power plant is called the conventional island.”
In short, nuclear energy uses technology from the mid-20th century, which was ground-breaking at the time but is now old hat. It does nothing more than generate heat, in preference to getting that heat from burning fossil fuels or biomass or tapping into solar or geothermal sources, which in turn is used to power some industrial revolution era technology. Is that really the best we can do to generate electricity in the 21st century?
The fact that we have discovered how to control and manipulate the nuclear reaction is a demonstration of humanity’s incredible capacity for science and technology, but that doesn’t mean it is always an appropriate technology to use.
Nuclear medicine, amazing! Nuclear weapons, dreadful! Nuclear submarines are probably an appropriate use of the technology, given the onerous operational constraints. But nuclear energy, just plain dumb.
Many countries have well-established nuclear energy systems, and there are valid reasons why these should be maintained, perhaps even expanded, but should we even be considering its use elsewhere? Nuclear energy was a headline campaign issue for the conservative Liberal/National Coalition during the Australian federal election in May 2025, and whilst they lost the election decisively, they are still holding onto it as a core part of their net zero policy. Yes, it’s low carbon, but is it appropriate?
1. Nuclear energy is a high-tech answer to a low-tech need
Managing a nuclear reaction is an incredibly complex science at the molecular level, with the power to amaze us by its use in medicine to save lives or by its massive explosive force in warfare.
Using a nuclear reaction to heat water and make steam is like driving a Maserati for the school run: an exercise in constraining the power that is desperately wanting to be released. By comparison, generating electricity using steam turbines is low grade technology, very low grade.
As noted before, it was first demonstrated by Charles Parsons in 1884, which in turn was based on Michael Faraday’s electric dynamo of 1831, whilst the core principles can be traced to Benjamin Franklin’s observations of 1751. Turn a wheel with magnets inside a wire coil, and electricity is produced, simple.
Wind turbines are a much better match to that demand: wind blows, blades turn, electricity is generated. Same for hydro electricity. Solar power is the real rocket science of the 21st century, where energy from sunlight is directly absorbed by the semiconductor material in the panels to create an electron flow, with no moving parts, no waste, no fuel supply logistics, no additional steps in the energy conversion process.
2. Nuclear energy is no more energy efficient than other comparable sources
The efficiency of converting heat, the primary energy, into electricity is roughly the same for nuclear as it is for fossil fuel plants, around 33 per cent; that is, only one third of the energy is captured, whilst two thirds is wasted. This is unsurprising as they all rely on essentially the same steam turbine systems. By comparison, wind turbines can get up to 60 per cent efficiency, and hydro is 90 per cent in converting mechanical energy into electricity.
3. Nuclear energy is very inflexible
Nuclear reactors run at constant high output 24/7, meaning a lot of off-peak generation is wasted. Whilst the industry is promoting how the design of plants can allow for more flexibility in the future, such as with smaller modular units, there are substantial technical limitations on how operational output can be controlled, especially in response to unscheduled peaks and troughs in demand. This is the opposite of what is needed to balance the variable output from renewables, and the answer for both is that better storage solutions are what we really need to capture excess generation.
4. Nuclear energy is a security risk
Energy infrastructure is always a potential target of attack, just look at the devastation being caused in Ukraine, but nuclear energy facilities can be turned from a target into a weapon. If breached, whether by direct hit or by sabotage of their operating systems, they present the risk of radioactive contamination across vast swathes of a country’s land and population. As the world seems to be becoming increasingly unstable politically, this risk cannot be ignored.
5. Nuclear energy leaves a prolonged, highly toxic inheritance
We all know how toxic the nuclear process is through all stages of its lifecycle, from the processing and transportation of the uranium fuel through the operational life of the plant and then the storage of the radioactive waste. But do we clock how long that inheritance lasts? Thousands of years, perhaps millions of years. Even just the decommissioning of a plant can take more than 20 years; that’s a whole human generation. And that’s just the standard operational process, let alone things going wrong, as demonstrated by the catastrophic events at Fukushima and Chernobyl.
6. Nuclear energy is expensive
It is an established fact that wind and solar are now by far the cheapest form of energy generation to build globally. Nuclear is three or four times the cost, and gas peaking plants are similar. Coal and standard gas plants are somewhere in the middle. In most countries where nuclear is being built today it relies on government subsidies or consumer price guarantees to make them financially viable. Nuclear is definitely not the answer to energy’s role in the cost of living crisis.
Cover photo: By The Fifth State
