Nuclear Power: Are We About to Make a Big Mistake?

As COP29 unfolds, we find ourselves at a crucial crossroads. Last year, COP28, with support from some United Nations leaders, gave nuclear energy a green light as a climate solution. It’s often described as “clean” and “green,” promising low-carbon power. But is it really the best path forward? Nuclear energy comes with serious risks—risks that don’t just disappear. Are we ready to gamble on this when safer, renewable options already exist?

This isn’t just about powering our homes or industries. The decisions we make now will shape the lives, health, and environment of generations to come. So let’s unpack this carefully.

Giants Leading the Way to Nuclear Normalization?

In line with COP28's move, Google , Microsoft and Amazon —companies often seen as leaders in renewable energy—are now signing deals to power their data centers with nuclear energy. On one hand, they are investing heavily in renewables, with Google aiming to be carbon-free by 2030, and Microsoft and Amazon setting ambitious net-zero targets using solar, wind, and other sustainable sources.

But here’s the contradiction: while they publicly campaign for a clean, low-risk future, they’re also backing nuclear energy—a power source with major environmental and safety risks. Are they really committed to a sustainable future, or is nuclear just a convenient shortcut? If these tech giants are investing billions into renewables, why normalize nuclear? It raises a big question about priorities.

1️⃣ The Warning Signs: Lessons from Chernobyl and Fukushima

Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011 weren’t just minor setbacks; they were disasters that scarred lands, left towns abandoned, and impacted countless lives. Radiation from Chernobyl spread across Europe, and parts of the site are still off-limits more than three decades later. In Fukushima, a tsunami triggered a meltdown, releasing radiation into the air, soil, and sea. Hundreds of thousands of people were displaced, and the Pacific is still being monitored for radiation today. The cleanup? Expected to take decades.

And it’s not just people who suffer; the environment pays a price too. In Chernobyl, some animals still carry mutations, and the surrounding forests remain dangerously radioactive. In Fukushima, radioactive particles spread through the Pacific, impacting marine life. These aren’t isolated events; they’re crises that last for generations. Are we prepared to take that kind of risk again?

2️⃣ The Waste Problem: It Doesn’t Just Go Away

Nuclear power doesn’t just produce energy; it creates radioactive waste that remains dangerous for thousands of years. This isn’t a guess—it’s backed by solid research. The U.S. Department of Energy notes that high-level radioactive waste can remain hazardous for 10,000 years or more. Often, this waste is stored near reactors, which were originally designed for short-term use.

Take the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico. Built to store waste for 10,000 years, it had a containment breach in 2014, exposing workers to radiation and shutting down for nearly three years. In France, the Cigéo Project aims to store waste for 100,000 years, but local resistance and safety concerns persist. And in Finland, the Onkalo repository is designed to last for 100,000 years, yet scientists worry about risks like water contamination.

This waste doesn’t just disappear—it’s in our soil, our water, our air. Are we okay with passing this legacy onto future generations?

3️⃣ Nature Can’t Be Controlled

When nature strikes, things go from safe to catastrophic in moments. The tsunami in Fukushima turned a nuclear plant into a disaster zone. With climate change increasing the likelihood of extreme weather, do we really want to rely on a source of energy that can so easily turn dangerous?

4️⃣ The Cost to People and Nature

Radiation isn’t selective. It impacts everyone and everything. People suffer severe health issues, from cancer to genetic mutations, while animals and plants are left damaged or even wiped out. In Chernobyl, animals still carry genetic damage, a painful reminder of what nuclear accidents leave behind. Should we risk the health of entire ecosystems when we already have safer options?

5️⃣ Why Rush When There’s Another Way?

Companies like Google, Microsoft, and Amazon are still investing heavily in renewable energy options. Why rush to label nuclear as “green” when safer, proven alternatives are working and scaling up? This is a question we should be asking, not just accepting.

6️⃣ Are We Losing Sight of a Better Future?

The funds needed to build and manage nuclear plants could make a huge difference elsewhere. Imagine if this money went toward fighting poverty or uplifting communities. We could tackle the root causes of climate change and bring real improvements to people’s lives. Are we letting big interests shape decisions that serve only a few, while the rest of the world pays the price?

🌍 A Call to COP29: It’s Not Too Late to Reconsider

To the leaders at COP29: It’s time to rethink nuclear energy. Is it really worth the risk? Safer, renewable options exist that protect both people and the planet. Let’s make choices that secure a thriving, sustainable future for everyone.

Is this the future we want to leave behind? Share your thoughts below.

#COP29 #NoNuclear #CleanEnergy #SaveOurPlanet #FutureGenerations #SustainableChoices #ClimateAction