At the Atom's Core: The Birth of Nuclear Energy

As oil and gas prices continue to skyrocket and last summer ranks among the hottest on record, one question becomes more pressing every day: What will tomorrow’s energy look like? Some plans at EU level start to raise a solution: looking back on nuclear energy and rethinking its position in our energy mix. This article's series aims to explore the history, controversies surrounding and future of nuclear energy to help you better understand what position it could take in tomorrow’s climate puzzle.

Figure 1: K-25 Control Board 1945 Oak Ridge in Tennessee, one of the key research laboratories of the Manhattan Project

When thinking about nuclear energy in the European Union, most of us tend to think of it as a relic of the past. With the dismantling of the German nuclear power fleet since the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011 and the prolonged construction of the French EPR reactor in Flamanville, nuclear energy seems like an expensive and obsolete option. The question of waste also remains: what should we do with such a burden for generations to come? How do we ensure that nobody touches or misuses nuclear waste for hundreds, if not thousands, of years? 

These issues led certain states to go back on their nuclear energy commitments. There are a few examples in Europe, with Belgium’s pledge to decommission all its reactors since the 2000s or the end of the German and Italian programs in the 1990s and 2020s. It is therefore interesting to see the nuclear option return to the agenda in Ursula von der Leyen’s most recent State of the Union Address. You may have missed it, as most announcements were flooded by the news of Canada’s new status as an associate member. But the President of the European Commission referred to nuclear energy as a “clean energy” alongside renewables and biomethane. It shows an EU that is now open to more options in developing its energy capacity.

This proposal was discussed in the context of Europe’s industrial competitiveness and energy independence from Russia. More than a “clean” energy source in terms of climate and sustainability, nuclear energy is presented as a tool of independence. Going further, Ms. von der Leyen calls for faster electrification in the EU as a new tool of Europe’s energy independence. Nuclear energy, therefore, seems to have a place in this transition. But how did it come back on the table? Are Europeans willing to accept its renaissance? To begin answering these complicated questions, this first article provides a historical overview of civil nuclear energy to understand the main factors slowing its development.

From bombs to power plants

Understanding the place of nuclear energy in our world requires a brief look back at history. As most of us know, this history has  not been a peaceful one. While radioactivity was discovered at the turn of the 20th century by scientists such as Henri Becquerel and Pierre and Marie Curie, it was only in the 1930s that the possibility of using the atom as a controlled power source came to the fore. In 1939, German scientists Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann managed to split an atom of uranium into two similarly equal pieces with only one tiny neutron. This discovery, on the eve of a new world war, was a huge shock wave across the scientific community.

Indeed, scientists knew that if a fission reaction, like the one discovered in Germany, released an additional neutron, it could trigger a chain reaction by splitting other atoms in two again and again. The fission of one atom already releases a huge amount of energy, so what could happen if thousands or millions of them split? Faced with this possibility, the scientific community urged states to put all necessary means in their hands to research nuclear fission further. With international tensions rising, scientists feared that a state might develop this technology on its own and use it as a weapon of mass destruction. The race was launched with the Manhattan Project in the US, the Uranverein in Nazi Germany and the early stages of research in the Soviet Union. Not for a new type of energy, but for a new type of bomb.

Figure 2: Schematic representation of nuclear fission and a subsequent chain reaction

After the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the world discovered the enormous destructive power of the atom. At the same time, the book The Atomic Age pleaded for a peaceful use of nuclear energy. It was an early widely shared account that sought to explain nuclear energy to the general public. While acknowledging its use as a terrible weapon during the war, it highlighted its potential benefits in the future. Public opinion was less concerned about civilian uses of nuclear energy than about its use as a weapon. To prevent a global public backlash against nuclear energy as a whole, US President Dwight D. Eisenhower launched a public relations campaign under the codename “Project Candor”. The goal of Project Candor was to demonstrate to the public, through short radio and television broadcasts, the need to continue developing atomic weapons to counter the development of the Soviet arsenal. It also showed its applications in the fields of agriculture, medicine and, of course, energy. The government believed that greater transparency and more honesty on their goals would make them gain more public support. 

Figure 3: Atomic Power in a World of Peace Exhibit in 1952. United States National Archives

To bring international attention around the new “Atomic Age”, Eisenhower gave a powerful speech at the United Nations General Assembly in 1953 on the potential of “Atoms for Peace”. In his intervention, he emphasized an American commitment to a peaceful use of atomic energy by making “the inventiveness of man” work for his life and not his death. By shifting international focus towards the peaceful use of atomic energy, his administration laid the basis of the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency in 1957. “Atoms for Peace” launched the US entry into commercial nuclear energy production. But as will be the case in other countries, initial ambitions will quickly be reviewed. After the accident at Three Mile Island, where the core of the reactor partially melted, public controversy in the United States rose. In addition, high costs and governments stopping to grant permits led to a near standstill in the launch of new reactors from the 1990s onwards, with only four entering into operation since 2000.

Europeans joining the race

In Europe, the United Kingdom and France began developing their own atomic weapons in order to gain independence from the United States. The United Kingdom opened the first-ever commercial nuclear power station in Calder Hall in north-west England. After the test of its first atomic bomb in 1952, this plant mainly served to produce weapons-grade plutonium for nuclear tests. Although among the pioneers of civil nuclear energy, Britain never made this energy a main part of its energy mix, accounting for a maximum of 17% of its energy production in 1995. Most of its current reactors will be decommissioned by the end of the decade, although construction plans are on the go.

The main developers of civil nuclear energy will happen to be the French. As a strong independentist and sceptical of US support for France, President Charles de Gaulle saw the development of nuclear weapons as key to strategic military independence. With early efforts right after the war and joint development with the military programme, France could commission six reactors in the 1960s as well as multiple joint nuclear research programmes with countries such as Belgium and the United Kingdom.

In the 1970s, the oil crisis, triggered by tensions in the Middle East, brought considerable attention to the issue of energy security. Much like today with the wars in Iran since 2026 and in Ukraine since 2022, governments sought a solution to ensure access to cheap, reliable and abundant energy. Under the leadership of Prime Minister Pierre Messmer, France presented an ambitious plan to raise its nuclear capacity from 8,000 to 13,000 MW. But with the 1973 crisis, the government became more ambitious. It now planned to reach this objective in 1975 instead of 1977. After that, the pace of this development would continue beyond 1975 at the same rate: six to seven reactors a year and 50,000 more MW of nuclear electricity. All backed up by government loans totalling €100 billion at today’s value.

Although the idea of gaining energy sovereignty through nuclear power was shared by other countries, the scale of investment and effort put into electro-nuclear power by other European countries was mostly not following the French strategy. On the other side of the Channel, Margaret Thatcher proposed a new long-term nuclear programme for the UK. The initial aim was to build one reactor a year from 1982 to 1992. But by then, the Secretary of State for Energy changed and reversed course as Britain started to consider privatising its electricity sector. In 1989, the Electricity Act introduced this privatisation and British nuclear capacity started to shrink. A similar situation arose in Italy, for different reasons. After building its first three reactors in the early 1960s, the government approved a plan in 1975 to initially build 46 GW of nuclear capacity which would have required a total of 46 additional reactors at the time. The plan was significantly downsized to such an extent that only one plant was under construction in 1986. The following year, a national referendum was launched over the exit of Italy from nuclear energy production and the results led the country to end its nuclear programme. Italy therefore fully decommissioned all of its nuclear reactors and plants by 1990.

The most striking and best-known example remains the German one. West Germany opened its first plants in 1969 and built 17 reactors in total. In the early 1970s, public controversies rose around the construction of a reactor in Wyhl. These protests were one of the first large-scale anti-nuclear movements in Germany. In the late 1990s, amid constant public opposition to nuclear energy in the previous years, Germany made its first plan to retreat from nuclear power. After Fukushima, the government decided on a full phase-out by 2022.

The Nuclear Paradox 

The history of nuclear energy is a very peculiar one compared to other energy forms. Its dual function, in the military and civilian sectors, made it hard to advertise to a general public that was afraid of its potential misuse. Despite early efforts of international initiatives such as the IAEA and Euratom agreements as well as numerous non-proliferation treaties at the end of the 20th century, nuclear energy remains a touchy issue heavily influenced by public opinion and thus subject to high political costs for politicians. In sum, nuclear energy seems to have three big determinants that may explain its slow improvements and evolution: costs, contestation and complexity. 

Costs have indeed tended to skyrocket, as seen in the United States, and still tend to do so with projects such as the EPR reactor of Flamanville in France whose budget was multiplied by 7 from the initially planned €3.3 billion. Costs tend to be very high during reactor  construction, particularly for new technologies like those used in Flamanville. As a nuclear reactor can function for decades if well maintained, governments and investors logically tend to opt for the most up-to-date technologies. Once operational, nuclear energy has very low operational costs, making capital costs from the construction the main part of the final electricity cost. To secure enough capital, it is therefore nearly unavoidable to have governments partially or totally support the project. 

This brings us to the second issue, as seen in Germany, Italy and to a certain extent in the United States: contestation. Over time, public opinion became increasingly involved in the matter. Contestation movements include environmental activists worried about nuclear waste, as well as peace activists worried about military use. Even broader sections of the population are worried about the costs and the safety of the technology. This, combined with the need for government support, impacted many nuclear projects. Although we have seen support for nuclear energy fluctuate in response to initiatives such as “Atoms for Peace” or an increased perception of need during times of crisis, public opinion tends to remain less favourable to nuclear energy.

Lastly, the complexity of nuclear energy production reinforces both these issues. On the one hand, complexity increases costs as it remains under heavy security scrutiny. Widely publicised incidents like Chernobyl or Fukushima legitimately led to increased controls. On the other hand, it is often harder for the general public to understand the functioning of a reactor and the extent to which nuclear energy is under control compared to other energy forms. As a matter of fact, it is important to emphasise how nuclear energy is one of the most dense energy sources. One uranium pellet, about the size of a finger joint, corresponds to one tonne of coal or 455 litres of crude oil. Nuclear energy is also one of the safest energy forms. When measured in terms of death per TWh (see below), only solar energy is safer. Indeed, major incidents like Three Mile Island or Fukushima, however surprising it may seem, did not cause any direct deaths. This does not mean that nuclear energy cannot cause deaths at all, but rather that its risks are relatively well controlled compared with those of other energy sources. It is also important to note that indirect victims of such disasters are difficult to quantify precisely. Nevertheless, pollution from coal or oil combustion  as well as the risks of dam failure are much more deadly than most nuclear incidents. 

For this reason, our next articles in At the Atom’s Core will focus on these issues. The first will focus on the public contestation of nuclear energy, while the second looks at its costs and technical difficulties. Our third article will outline the potential future developments of the technology through Generation IV reactors or even fusion technology. All of this, to give you the whole picture in order to understand the potential renaissance of this technology.