Just a few decades ago, advocating nuclear power seemed to be the ideal solution: clean, efficient and powerful.
But what happens when this so-called “clean energy” is confronted with extreme situations such as wars or natural disasters?
What happens then is what Nassim Nicholas Taleb called a “Black Swan”: Highly improbable events, but which when they occur have devastating consequences..
Ukraine today is a clear example of how these risks quickly turn into real nightmares.
In 1986, a reactor at Chernobyl turned an entire city into a concrete sarcophagus.
The nuclear accident at the Fukushima plant (2011) another Black Swan that served to teach the Japanese a lesson and, after the accident, led to the shutdown of all nuclear power plants in little more than a year.
Today, Ukraine keeps a panicked eye on Russian missiles near Zaporizhzhia, Europe’s largest nuclear power plant.
What do these events have in common?
They are black swans that expose the Achilles heel of nuclear energy: its vulnerability to the unpredictable.
While some countries, such as Germany, have also opted to close their nuclear reactors, others insist that it is “clean” and “safe”.
But what happens when a war, human error or natural disaster turns these power plants into weapons of mass destruction? How many more times does it have to happen before we learn the lesson and no one thinks of betting on these time bombs?
This goes far beyond the interests of the different political parties, nor does it have as much to do, although it does have a little to do with the so-called climate crisis; the danger is there and the transition must not be delayed any longer.
The truth is that nuclear energy periodically resurfaces in the public debate; back in 2003, when the debate on whether nuclear energy should or should not be used, I had to do a paper on this topic at the academy of officers, and the discourse has not changed much since then.
On the one hand, we have its advocates as a clean, reliable and necessary solution for the transition to a low-carbon future.
However, behind the veneer of modernity and the promises of almost unlimited electricity lie complex and problematic realities that seriously question its suitability as a sustainable energy pillar.
It is imperative to look beyond the slogans and rigorously analyze the hidden costs, inherent risks and enduring legacy that this technology imposes.
Yes, nuclear power plants do not emit carbon dioxide (CO₂) or greenhouse gases.
And yes, they produce energy 24 hours a day, something that renewables cannot do unless they are complemented by adequate battery energy storage systems that allow for storage during times when they cannot perform as expected.
But reducing the debate to “clean vs. polluting” is like judging an airplane by its speed alone, ignoring safety details that could lead to a crash.
To judge whether nuclear power is as interesting as some paint it from a “clean” point of view, the full life cycle of the nuclear fuel and the infrastructure itself cannot be ignored.
The process begins long before the atoms are fissioned in the reactor.
The extraction of uranium, the main fuel, is an intensive mining activity with considerable environmental impact.
It is often carried out in open pit or subway mines, generating large quantities of waste rock (gangue) and using huge volumes of water, which is often contaminated with heavy metals and radioactive ore.
In addition, the uranium crushing, milling and enrichment processes require a significant amount of energy, which does not always come from clean sources, thus contributing to the overall carbon footprint of the nuclear cycle.
Not to mention the subsequent transportation of the ore and processed fuel, adding another layer of emissions and risks.
But the most thorny environmental issue, and the one that most forcefully dismantles the “clean energy” myth, is the management of radioactive waste.
Nuclear fission produces highly dangerous by-products that maintain their radioactivity for hundreds, thousands, and even hundreds of thousands of years.
These wastes, classified as high, medium and low activity, require extreme and permanent isolation from the environment to avoid contamination of soil, water and the biosphere.
To date, no nation has succeeded in implementing a definitive and completely safe solution for the long-term storage of high-level waste, although France is well advanced.
Deep Geological Storage (DGS) proposals face enormous technical, geological and, above all, social challenges.
The search for suitable sites clashes head-on with the NIMBY (“Not In My Back Yard”) syndrome, as no community wants to host a nuclear waste repository for fear of leaks, accidents or the simple stigmatization of the territory.
This unresolved problem represents an environmental and ethical mortgage that we bequeath to countless future generations, an antithesis of the concept of sustainability.
In Spain we are leading the transition to renewable energies: we are advancing faster than other countries - not because we are going particularly fast, but because many are still engaged in debates about their economic profitability.
Even so, there is no shortage of opportunists who, taking advantage of any incident such as the recent blackout, generate controversy about nuclear energy without revealing the whole truth: the economic interests that push them to defend it at all costs.
Others simply repeat the speeches of their politicians without bothering to check if what they are told is true.
And what they certainly never tell you is what happens to nuclear graveyards that no one wants near.
Storing them involves millions of dollars in investments, ongoing environmental risks and a heavy responsibility for future generations.
In addition to the cleanliness argument, the economic efficiency argument is often used.
It is argued that, once built, a nuclear power plant can produce large amounts of electricity at a relatively low operating cost.
However, this simplistic view ignores the monumental costs associated with the entire nuclear life cycle.
First, the construction costs of a nuclear power plant are astronomical.
We are talking about projects requiring billions of euros and construction schedules often extending over a decade or more, frequently subject to cost overruns and unforeseen delays.
These huge upfront outlays require complex financing structures and often involve direct or indirect government subsidies, loan guarantees or long-term power purchase agreements that socialize financial risk.
Added to this are operating costs, which include ongoing maintenance, physical security (extremely stringent and costly to prevent accidents or malicious acts), spent fuel management and insurance premiums, which are often insufficient to cover the potential damages of a major accident.
Finally, and often underestimated, are decommissioning costs.
At the end of its useful life (typically 40-60 years), a nuclear power plant cannot simply be abandoned. It must be carefully dismantled, decontaminated and its radioactive components managed as waste; a process that can take decades and cost hundreds or even billions of euros per reactor.
And, of course, there is the perpetual cost, as yet not precisely quantified, of the long-term management of high-level waste.
To give you an idea about radioactive waste: One kilogram of enriched uranium generates waste that lasts 10,000 years.
Finland buries them in Onkalo, a bunker 400 meters deep. Cost: 3.5 billion euros. Who will pay for the maintenance in a millennium?
When comparing levelized energy costs - a metric that considers all costs over the lifetime of a plant divided by the total energy produced - nuclear power is, in most recent independent analyses, significantly more expensive than renewable alternatives such as onshore wind and solar PV, whose costs have fallen dramatically in the last decade and whose deployment times are much shorter.
The idea of “cheap” nuclear energy is, to a large extent, an economic fallacy sustained by the omission of externalized or deferred costs over time.
But as I said at the beginning, and this is what I would like you to keep in mind, or at least this is the real intention of my post is that, beyond economic and environmental considerations, nuclear energy carries inherent risks of a magnitude incomparable to other energy sources.
Although proponents argue that modern power plants are much safer, the collective memory is marked by catastrophic accidents such as Chernobyl and Fukushima.
These events demonstrated that, despite multiple layers of security, the combination of technical failures, human error or extreme natural events can trigger disasters with devastating and long-lasting consequences.
The effects of a major nuclear accident go far beyond the immediate impact.
Radioactive contamination can spread over vast territories, rendering agricultural land unusable, contaminating water sources and forcing the permanent evacuation of entire populations.
The public health consequences persist for decades, with significant increases in the rates of certain cancers (such as thyroid cancer) and other diseases among exposed populations.
Local biodiversity also suffers greatly, as has been documented in the Chernobyl exclusion zone, although nature shows surprising long-term resilience in the absence of direct human activity.
The economic and social cost of decontamination, long-term health care and victim compensation is incalculable.
In recent times, a new dimension of risk has emerged starkly: the vulnerability of nuclear facilities in conflict zones.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine and the fighting around the Zaporiyia nuclear power plant have revealed a terrifying danger.
I suppose I do not need to remind you that wars come and go frequently; even if you do not now perceive that risk as imminent, prudent people must plan for the long term and consider all possibilities, as our German friends have already done in a forceful way. Let us learn from them, even if it means some initial sacrifices.
The plants are designed to withstand earthquakes, not missiles.
In Ukraine, attacks on Zaporizhzhia have left personnel working under military duress.
Surely all those who so insistently ask for the extension of the useful life of nuclear power plants in Spain beyond 2035, not one of them plans to live near one, although this is stupid, because we already know that before a black swan radiation will not stay in the vicinity, and can affect an entire country or continent.
A nuclear power plant, conceived as a reliable source of energy in times of peace, becomes a real time bomb in times of war.
It may come under direct attack, suffer collateral damage, lose the external power supply needed for reactor cooling (even when shut down) or see its operating personnel working under extreme pressure or duress.
What happens if one of your workers, like the German pilot who crashed his plane full of passengers, goes crazy and starts messing up from the inside?
Imagine the 7 nuclear power plants that Spain has in operation today.
Now imagine that the conflict with Russia escalates and Putin again threatens to drop some of his nuclear bombs on any of those countries that try to prevent his tyranny.
Suddenly, your “clean energy” becomes geopolitical blackmail.
That’s what Ukraine is experiencing: every missile near Zaporizhzhia is a reminder that power plants can be strategic targets if a madman happens to be out there.
Although international conventions prohibit attacking nuclear infrastructure, the reality on the battlefield is that the rules of engagement are often not respected or are simply changed when the course of the war becomes complicated.
A major incident at a power plant located in a war zone would not be a mere diplomatic problem; it would represent a humanitarian and environmental disaster with potentially irreversible and transboundary consequences.
“Nuclear power is like driving a Ferrari without airbags: it works until you crash.”
- Dr. Mark Z. Jacobson, Stanford University.
But why do utilities love nuclear power so much?
Here’s a dirty trick: in Europe, electricity is priced by the most expensive source (usually gas).
Nuclear plants, although cheap to operate, sell their energy at the same price as gas, multiplying profits.
The result?
Electricity companies have no incentive or hurry to accelerate the transition to renewables, which is why we are still like this.
Of course they have had time to make the complete change, and if we take Germany as an example again, we have that in the month of May 2025 it already produced 29.1% solar energy, 21.6% wind and 13.3% from other renewables; storing 57GWh in batteries (approximately 40 times more than in 2023), aiming to obtain at least 80% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030 with a storage capacity of about 104GWh, according to the distributor Rabot.energy.
But as I said before, in other countries, certain hidden interests are more important for the majority.
The transition to renewables in Spain could have been carried out gradually and safely if it were not for these same interests that are now hiding behind the supposed “precipitation” of the change.
But how much more time do we need to react, especially when conflicts like the one in Ukraine remind us of the fragility of having nuclear power plants in potentially vulnerable territories?
The question is not so much whether we can do without nuclear energy, but how much longer we will allow myths about its cleanliness and low cost, and the inertia of existing systems, to delay the necessary and urgent acceleration of renewable alternatives.
In addition, Spain is rich in sunshine and has great potential to produce and even export renewable energy to other nations.
But best of all is the energy independence it gives you, which is crucial in turbulent times like these.
In short, nuclear energy is far from being the panacea that some proclaim it to be.
The qualifier**“clean**” fades away when considering the whole cycle, especially the unresolved and multigenerational problem of radioactive waste.
The**“cheap**” label collapses in the face of huge construction, safety, decommissioning and waste management costs, far outweighing renewable alternatives in most scenarios.
Most importantly, the inherent risks of catastrophic accidents and its increasing**“vulnerability**” in a geopolitically unstable world make it an unacceptably dangerous bet.
The most sensible, safe and economically viable path is to massively accelerate the deployment of renewable energies (mainly solar and wind), invest in smart grids and energy storage systems, and strongly promote energy efficiency and savings.
These solutions are not only free of the risks and toxic legacies of nuclear power, but are faster to implement and increasingly cost-competitive.
Continuing to pursue the nuclear mirage could not only be a costly distraction, but a serious strategic mistake in the crucial fight against climate change and for a truly sustainable and secure energy future for all.
Nuclear power is a short-term gamble in a long-term world.
Waste lasts for millennia, wars break out within decades and black swans - such as pandemics or cyber-attacks - are inevitable.
Germany understood: better to suffer an uncomfortable transition than to bequeath to our grandchildren a map of forbidden zones.
How about you? Do you think it is time to accelerate nuclear decommissioning or are we still playing radioactive roulette? Do you live near a nuclear power plant? Do you think politicians prioritize safety or lobbies?
Leave your opinion in comments!
References:
-
IAEA. (2023). Situation at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. Link
-
Jacobson, M.Z. (2019). 100% Clean, Renewable Energy and Storage for Everything. Cambridge University Press.
-
Government of Finland. (2022). Onkalo Project: Nuclear waste storage.
-
Taleb, N.N. (2007). The black swan: The impact of the highly improbable. Random House.
-
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). (2022). “Ukraine: Nuclear Security Under Threat.” Retrieved from https://www.iaea.org
-
Ministry for Ecological Transition and the Demographic Challenge of Spain. Nuclear waste management. Retrieved from https://www.miteco.gob.es