Introduction
Nuclear energy has long been presented as a clean and efficient alternative to fossil fuels, yet the catastrophic accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima have exposed the devastating consequences of nuclear failure. Beyond the risk of meltdowns, the unresolved problem of radioactive waste disposal and the link between civilian nuclear programmes and nuclear weapons proliferation cast a long shadow over the industry's claims of safety and sustainability. This essay argues that the world would indeed be better off without nuclear energy, as its risks and costs outweigh its benefits, particularly in an era when viable renewable alternatives are rapidly maturing.
Nuclear accidents have catastrophic and long-lasting consequences that make nuclear energy an unacceptable risk
Explain
While nuclear energy operates safely most of the time, the consequences of failure are so severe, so geographically widespread, and so long-lasting that they constitute an unacceptable risk. A single nuclear accident can render vast areas uninhabitable for decades, displace hundreds of thousands of people, and cause long-term health effects including cancer and genetic damage. No other energy source carries this magnitude of downside risk.
Example
The 1986 Chernobyl disaster released 400 times more radiation than the Hiroshima bomb, contaminated large swathes of Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia, and forced the permanent evacuation of a 30-kilometre exclusion zone that remains largely uninhabitable nearly four decades later. The 2011 Fukushima Daiichi disaster in Japan, triggered by an earthquake and tsunami, led to the evacuation of over 150,000 people and caused an estimated 200 billion US dollars in damages. In Southeast Asia, Singapore has explicitly rejected nuclear energy as an option for its energy mix, with the government citing the unacceptable risk that a nuclear accident on the densely populated island-state would pose, given that there would be no possibility of creating an adequate exclusion zone.
Link
The catastrophic and irreversible consequences of nuclear accidents, combined with the impossibility of eliminating all risk, provide a compelling argument that the world would be safer and better off without nuclear energy, whose potential for harm far exceeds that of any alternative energy source.
The problem of nuclear waste disposal remains unsolved and imposes an unconscionable burden on future generations
Explain
Nuclear power plants produce radioactive waste that remains hazardous for tens of thousands of years, yet no country has successfully implemented a permanent solution for its disposal. The continued accumulation of nuclear waste represents an intergenerational injustice, as present generations enjoy the benefits of nuclear electricity while bequeathing a toxic legacy that future generations must manage, at enormous cost and risk, for millennia.
Example
As of 2023, over 250,000 tonnes of high-level radioactive waste are stored in temporary facilities around the world, with only Finland's Onkalo repository on track to become the world's first permanent deep geological storage site, decades behind schedule. In the United States, the Yucca Mountain repository, designated in 1987 as the nation's permanent nuclear waste storage site, has been mired in political and legal disputes for over three decades and remains unopened. The International Atomic Energy Agency has acknowledged that no fully satisfactory solution to nuclear waste disposal currently exists, a fact that Singapore's energy planners have cited as a key reason for excluding nuclear power from the nation's energy strategy.
Link
The absence of a viable permanent solution for nuclear waste disposal means that every year of nuclear power operation deepens an environmental and ethical debt that future generations will inherit, strongly supporting the argument that the world would be better off without nuclear energy.
Renewable energy alternatives have become cost-competitive with nuclear power, making nuclear energy unnecessary
Explain
The cost of renewable energy technologies, particularly solar and wind, has fallen dramatically over the past two decades, to the point where they are now cheaper than nuclear power in most markets. Combined with advances in energy storage and grid management, renewables can increasingly provide the reliable, large-scale electricity that was once nuclear energy's unique selling proposition, eliminating the need for a technology that carries such significant risks.
Example
The International Renewable Energy Agency reported that the global average cost of solar photovoltaic electricity fell by 89 per cent between 2010 and 2022, making it the cheapest source of new electricity in most of the world. By contrast, new nuclear power plants have consistently exceeded their budgets and timelines, with the Hinkley Point C project in the United Kingdom now expected to cost over 33 billion pounds, more than double its original estimate. Singapore's SolarNova programme, which has installed solar panels on over 10,000 public housing blocks, demonstrates that even a small, land-scarce nation can scale renewable energy deployment without resorting to nuclear power.
Link
The dramatic improvement in the cost and reliability of renewable energy technologies has eliminated the primary justification for nuclear power, making it an unnecessarily risky and expensive option and supporting the view that the world would be better off without it.
Counter-Argument
Proponents of nuclear energy argue that it is indispensable for combating climate change, as the IPCC includes nuclear power in the majority of its modelled pathways for limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. France, which generates approximately 70 per cent of its electricity from nuclear power, has among the lowest per-capita carbon emissions from electricity generation in the industrialised world, while Germany's nuclear phase-out initially increased its carbon emissions.
Rebuttal
However, the dramatic fall in renewable energy costs has undermined nuclear power's claim to being essential for decarbonisation. The International Renewable Energy Agency reported that solar photovoltaic costs fell by 89 per cent between 2010 and 2022, making it the cheapest source of new electricity in most markets, while new nuclear plants like Hinkley Point C have ballooned to over 33 billion pounds. Singapore's SolarNova programme demonstrates that even land-scarce nations can scale renewables without nuclear risk, rendering the climate argument for nuclear energy increasingly outdated.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while nuclear energy offers the appeal of low-carbon baseload power, its catastrophic risks, unresolved waste problem, and prohibitive costs make it a liability rather than an asset in the global energy mix. The world would be better off without nuclear energy, investing instead in the renewable technologies that offer a safer, cleaner, and increasingly cheaper path to a sustainable future.
Introduction
The proposition that the world would be better off without nuclear energy is a seductive but ultimately dangerous simplification of a complex energy challenge. At a time when climate change demands an urgent transition away from fossil fuels, nuclear power remains one of the few proven technologies capable of providing reliable, large-scale, low-carbon electricity. This essay argues that the world would not be better off without nuclear energy, and that abandoning it would make the fight against climate change significantly harder while increasing dependence on fossil fuels.
Nuclear energy is one of the most effective tools for combating climate change due to its low carbon emissions and high energy density
Explain
Nuclear power plants produce virtually no greenhouse gas emissions during operation and have one of the smallest carbon footprints of any energy source when measured on a lifecycle basis. At a time when the world must urgently decarbonise its energy systems to avert catastrophic climate change, nuclear energy offers a proven, scalable source of low-carbon baseload electricity that renewables alone cannot yet fully replace.
Example
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has included nuclear energy in the majority of its modelled pathways for limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, recognising it as a critical component of the low-carbon energy mix. France, which generates approximately 70 per cent of its electricity from nuclear power, has one of the lowest per-capita carbon emissions from electricity generation among industrialised nations. When Germany decided to phase out nuclear power following the Fukushima disaster, its carbon emissions from electricity generation initially increased as coal-fired plants filled the gap, illustrating the climate costs of abandoning nuclear energy prematurely.
Link
Given the existential threat posed by climate change, the elimination of one of the most effective low-carbon energy sources would be deeply counterproductive, demonstrating that the world would not be better off without nuclear energy but worse off in its fight against global warming.
Nuclear energy provides reliable baseload power that intermittent renewables cannot yet consistently deliver
Explain
Unlike solar and wind power, which are dependent on weather conditions and time of day, nuclear power plants operate continuously and can provide stable baseload electricity regardless of external conditions. This reliability is essential for maintaining grid stability, powering energy-intensive industries, and ensuring that hospitals, communication networks, and other critical infrastructure have an uninterrupted electricity supply.
Example
Nuclear power plants typically operate at capacity factors above 90 per cent, meaning they generate electricity more than 90 per cent of the time, compared to approximately 25 per cent for solar and 35 per cent for wind. During the European energy crisis of 2022, triggered by Russia's invasion of Ukraine, countries with significant nuclear capacity such as France and Sweden were better insulated from energy shortages than those heavily dependent on imported gas. Singapore, which relies on natural gas for approximately 95 per cent of its electricity, has commissioned studies through the Energy Market Authority on the feasibility of advanced nuclear technologies, including small modular reactors, as a potential future option for ensuring energy security in a carbon-constrained world.
Link
The unmatched reliability and energy density of nuclear power make it an indispensable complement to intermittent renewables, and its removal from the energy mix would compromise grid stability and energy security, demonstrating that the world would not be better off without it.
Modern nuclear technology has become significantly safer, and the risk of catastrophic accidents is extremely low
Explain
The nuclear accidents that dominate public perception, particularly Chernobyl and Fukushima, occurred in reactors designed decades ago with technology that has since been fundamentally superseded. Modern reactor designs incorporate passive safety systems that rely on the laws of physics rather than human intervention to prevent meltdowns, making the risk of a catastrophic accident vanishingly small. Judging nuclear energy by its worst historical incidents is akin to judging aviation by the safety standards of the 1950s.
Example
Generation III and III+ reactor designs, such as the Westinghouse AP1000 and the European Pressurised Reactor, incorporate passive cooling systems that automatically shut down the reactor in the event of a malfunction without requiring operator action or external power. Emerging Generation IV designs, including molten salt reactors and small modular reactors, promise even greater safety margins and the ability to consume existing nuclear waste as fuel. Singapore's Nuclear Safety Research Initiative, conducted through the Singapore Nuclear Research and Safety Initiative at NUS, has been assessing the safety profiles of advanced reactor designs as part of the nation's long-term energy planning, reflecting a recognition that modern nuclear technology is qualitatively different from the technology that produced past disasters.
Link
The dramatic improvements in nuclear safety technology mean that the risks associated with nuclear energy have been substantially reduced, undermining the primary argument against it and demonstrating that abandoning nuclear energy based on outdated perceptions of risk would be a serious strategic error.
Counter-Argument
Critics of nuclear energy argue that catastrophic accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima demonstrate an unacceptable risk, with Chernobyl contaminating vast regions for decades and Fukushima causing over 200 billion US dollars in damages. Singapore explicitly rejected nuclear power because its dense population would make even a small-scale accident catastrophic, with no possibility of establishing an adequate exclusion zone.
Rebuttal
Yet these accidents occurred in reactors designed decades ago with now-obsolete technology. Modern Generation III+ reactors incorporate passive safety systems that physically cannot melt down without operator intervention, and emerging small modular reactor designs promise even greater safety margins. Singapore's Nuclear Safety Research Initiative at NUS is actively assessing these advanced designs, recognising that the risk profile of modern nuclear technology is qualitatively different from the disasters that dominate public perception.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the claim that the world would be better off without nuclear energy is a dangerous counsel of perfection in the face of the existential threat posed by climate change. Nuclear energy is not without risks, but its capacity to deliver vast quantities of reliable, low-carbon electricity makes it an indispensable tool in the fight against global warming. Abandoning nuclear energy would leave the world more dependent on fossil fuels and make the achievement of net-zero emissions significantly more difficult, if not impossible.