The nuclear power debate is a long-running controversy about the risks and benefits of using nuclear reactors to generate electricity for civilian purposes. The debate about nuclear power peaked during the 1970s and 1980s, as more and more reactors were built and came online, and "reached an intensity unprecedented in the history of technology controversies" in some countries. In the 2010s, with growing public awareness about climate change and the critical role that carbon dioxide and methane emissions plays in causing the heating of the Earth's atmosphere, there was a resurgence in the intensity of the nuclear power debate. Proponents of nuclear energy argue that nuclear power is the only consistently reliable clean and sustainable energy source which provides large amounts of uninterrupted energy without polluting the atmosphere or emitting the carbon emissions that cause global warming. They argue that use of nuclear power provides well-paying jobs, energy security, reduces a dependence on imported fuels and exposure to price risks associated with resource speculation and foreign policy. Nuclear power produces virtually no air pollution, providing significant environmental benefits compared to the sizeable amount of pollution and carbon emission generated from burning fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas. Some proponents also believe that nuclear power is the only viable course for a country to achieve energy independence while also meeting their nationally determined contributions (NDCs) to reduce carbon emissions in accordance with the Paris Agreement. They emphasize that the risks of storing waste are small and existing stockpiles can be reduced by using this waste to produce fuels for the latest technology in newer reactors. The operational safety record of nuclear power is far better than the other major kinds of power plants and, by preventing pollution, it saves lives. Opponents say that nuclear power poses numerous threats to people and the environment and point to studies that question if it will ever be a sustainable energy source. There are health risks, accidents, and environmental damage associated with uranium mining, processing and transport. They highlight the high cost and delays in the construction and maintenance of nuclear power plants, and the fears associated with nuclear weapons proliferation, nuclear power opponents fear sabotage by terrorists of nuclear plants, diversion and misuse of radioactive fuels or fuel waste, as well as naturally occurring leakage from the unsolved and imperfect long-term storage process of radioactive nuclear waste. They also contend that reactors themselves are enormously complex machines where many things can and do go wrong, and there have been many serious nuclear accidents, although when compared to other sources of power, nuclear power is (along with solar and wind energy) among the safest. Critics do not believe that these risks can be reduced through new technology. They further argue that when all the energy-intensive stages of the nuclear fuel chain are considered, from uranium mining to nuclear decommissioning, nuclear power is not a low-carbon electricity source.
History
At the 1963 ground-breaking for what would become the world's largest nuclear power plant, President John F. Kennedy declared that nuclear power was a "step on the long road to peace," and that by using "science and technology to achieve significant breakthroughs", we could "conserve the resources" to leave the world in better shape. Yet, he also acknowledged that the Atomic Age was a "dreadful age" and "when we broke the atom apart, we changed the history of the world." A decade later in Germany, the construction of a nuclear power plant in Wyhl was prevented by local protestors and anti-nuclear groups. The successful use of civil disobedience to prevent the building of this plant was a key moment in the anti-nuclear power movement as it sparked the creation of other groups, in Germany and around the globe. The increase in anti-nuclear power sentiment was heightened after the Three Mile Island's partial meltdown and the Chernobyl Disaster turned public sentiment even more against nuclear-power. Pro-nuclear power groups, however, have increasingly pointed towards the potential of nuclear energy to reduce carbon emissions, arguing that it is a safer alternative to means of production such as coal and the overall danger is an exaggeration by the media.
Electricity and energy supplied Nuclear power output globally saw slow but steady increase until 2006 when it peaked at 2,791 TWh, and then dropped to historic lows in 2012, mostly as result of Japanese reactors being offline for a full year. The output has since continued to grow from newly connected reactors returning to pre-Fukushima levels in 2019, when IEA described nuclear power as "historically one of the largest contributors of carbon-free electricity" with 452 reactors that in total produced 2'789 TWh electricity. In the same year, United States fleet of nuclear reactors produced 800 TWh low-carbon electricity with an average capacity factor of 92%.
Energy security
… excerpt ends here. Continue reading the full article.


![Nuclear power debate: Stewart Brand at a 2010 debate, "Does the world need nuclear energy?"[31]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e2/Nuclear_Environmentalist.jpg/1280px-Nuclear_Environmentalist.jpg?utm_source=en.wikipedia.org&utm_campaign=parser&utm_content=thumbnail)

![Nuclear power debate: Since 1985, the proportion of electricity generated from low-carbon sources has increased only slightly. Advances in deploying renewables have been mostly offset by declining shares of nuclear power.[52]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Electricity_production_from_fossil_fuels%2C_nuclear%2C_and_renewables%2C_World%2C_OWID_chart.svg/500px-Electricity_production_from_fossil_fuels%2C_nuclear%2C_and_renewables%2C_World%2C_OWID_chart.svg.png?utm_source=en.wikipedia.org&utm_campaign=parser&utm_content=thumbnail)
![Nuclear power debate: EDF has said its third-generation EPR Flamanville 3 project (seen here in 2010) will be delayed until 2018, due to "both structural and economic reasons," and the project's total cost has climbed to EUR 11 billion in 2012.[76] Similarly, the cost of the EPR being built at Olkiluoto, Finland has escalated dramatically, and the project is well behind schedule. The initial low cost forecasts for these megaprojects exhibited "optimism bias".[77]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3c/Flamanville-3_2010-07-15.jpg/500px-Flamanville-3_2010-07-15.jpg?utm_source=en.wikipedia.org&utm_campaign=parser&utm_content=thumbnail)
