View source for Nuclear power phase-out

{{Short description|Discontinuation of usage of nuclear power for energy production}}
{{Use British English|date=January 2023}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=December 2024}}
[[File:Atom-Moratorium.svg|thumb|upright=1.8|Eight German nuclear power reactors (sBiblis A and B, Brunsbüttel, Isar 1, Krümmel, Neckarwestheim 1, Philippsburg 1 and Unterweser) were permanently shut down on 6 August 2011, following the Japanese [[Fukushima nuclear disaster]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.iaea.org/programmes/a2/ |title=Power Reactor Information System – Highlights |author=IAEA |year=2011 }} {{subscription required}}</ref>]]

A '''nuclear power phase-out''' is the discontinuation of usage of [[nuclear power]] for energy production. Often initiated because of [[Politics of nuclear power|concerns about nuclear power]], phase-outs usually include shutting down [[nuclear power plants]] and looking towards [[fossil fuels]] and [[renewable energy]]. Three nuclear accidents have influenced the discontinuation of nuclear power: the 1979 [[Three Mile Island accident|Three Mile Island partial nuclear meltdown]] in the United States, the 1986 [[Chernobyl disaster]] in the USSR (now [[Ukraine]]), and the 2011 [[Fukushima nuclear accident]] in Japan.

{{As of|2025}}, only three countries have permanently closed all of their formerly functioning nuclear plants: Italy by 1990, Germany by 2023 and Taiwan by 2025. [[Lithuania]] and [[Kazakhstan]] have shut down their only nuclear plants, but plan to build new ones to replace them, while [[Armenia]] shut down its only nuclear plant but subsequently restarted it. [[Austria]] never used its first nuclear plant that was completely built. [[Cuba]], [[Energy in Libya#Nuclear|Libya]], [[Nuclear power in North Korea|North Korea]] and [[Nuclear power in Poland|Poland]] never completed the construction of their first nuclear plants due to financial, political and technical reasons. Spain and Switzerland plan nuclear phase-outs.<ref name="gl2011">{{cite web |url=http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/47834 |title=Germany: Nuclear power to be phased out by 2022 |author=Duroyan Fertl |date=5 June 2011 |work=Green Left }}</ref><ref>Erika Simpson and [[Ian Fairlie]], [https://lfpress.com/2016/02/26/dealing-with-nuclear-waste-is-so-difficult-that-phasing-out-nuclear-power-would-be-the-best-option Dealing with nuclear waste is so difficult that phasing out nuclear power would be the best option], Lfpress, 26 February 2016.</ref><ref name=econ13>{{cite news |url=https://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2013/11/difference-engine-0 |title=Difference Engine: The nuke that might have been |date=11 November 2013 |newspaper=The Economist }}</ref><ref name="James Kanter">{{cite news |author=Kanter |first=James |date=25 May 2011 |title=Switzerland Decides on Nuclear Phase-Out |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/26/business/global/26nuclear.html |work=The New York Times}}</ref>

Nuclear shut-downs after Fukushima have significantly set back emissions reductions goals in several countries. A 2019 study of the impacts of the German and Japan closures concludes that by continuing to operate their nuclear plants "these two countries could have prevented 28,000 [[air pollution]]-induced deaths and 2400 Mt  {{CO2}} emissions between 2011 and 2017. By sharply reducing nuclear instead of coal and gas after Fukushima, both countries lost the chance to prevent very large amounts of air pollution-induced deaths and {{CO2}} emissions".<ref>{{Cite journal|title=Implications of energy and CO2 emission changes in Japan and Germany after the Fukushima accident|first1=Pushker A.|last1=Kharecha|first2=Makiko|last2=Sato|date=1 September 2019|journal=Energy Policy|volume=132|pages=647–653|doi=10.1016/j.enpol.2019.05.057|s2cid=197781857 |doi-access=free|bibcode=2019EnPol.132..647K }}</ref> 

Several countries formerly opposed to opening nuclear programs or planning phaseouts have reversed course in recent years due to climate concerns and energy independence including [[Belgium]],<ref name="ReferenceA">{{Cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/world/belgian-greens-make-u-turn-consider-nuclear-plants-extension-2022-03-07/|title=Belgian Greens make U-turn to consider nuclear plants extension|first=Marine|last=Strauss|work=Reuters |date=7 March 2022}}</ref> the [[Philippines]],<ref>{{Cite news | url=https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/duterte-approves-inclusion-nuclear-power-philippine-energy-mix-2022-03-03/ | title=Philippines approves revival of nuclear power to help replace coal | work=Reuters | date=3 March 2022 }}</ref> [[Greece]],<ref>{{Cite web |title=Greece, Bulgaria in talks for nuclear power supply deal |url=https://energypress.eu/greece-bulgaria-in-talks-for-long-term-nuclear-power-supply-imports/ |website=energypress.eu}}</ref> Sweden<ref>{{cite news|title=New Swedish government seeks expansion of nuclear energy|language=en|date=17 October 2022|url=https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/New-Swedish-government-seeks-expansion-of-nuclear|access-date=18 October 2022|newspaper=World Nuclear News}}</ref> and [[South Korea]].<ref>{{cite news |url=https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/New-energy-policy-reverses-Korea-s-nuclear-phase-o |title=New energy policy reverses Korea's nuclear phase-out |newspaper=World Nuclear News |date=5 July 2022 |language=en}}</ref>

[[File:Nuclear Energy by Year.svg|thumb|right|upright=2.8|Timeline of commissioned and decommissioned nuclear capacity since the 1950s<ref>{{cite web|title=The Database on Nuclear Power Reactors|url=https://www.iaea.org/PRIS/home.aspx|website=IAEA}}</ref>]]

== Overview ==
[[File:ANTIAKW.jpg|thumb|right|upright=1.2|120,000 people attended an anti-nuclear protest in [[Bonn]], West Germany, on 14 October 1979, following the [[Three Mile Island accident]].<ref name=kits>Herbert P. Kitschelt. [http://www.marcuse.org/harold/hmimages/seabrook/861KitscheltAntiNuclear4Democracies.pdf Political Opportunity and Political Protest: Anti-Nuclear Movements in Four Democracies] ''British Journal of Political Science'', Vol. 16, No. 1, 1986, p. 71.</ref>]]

A [[Anti-nuclear|popular movement against nuclear power]] exists in the Western world, based on concerns about more [[List of nuclear and radiation accidents|nuclear accidents]] and concerns about [[nuclear waste]]. Anti-nuclear critics see nuclear power as a dangerous, expensive way to boil water to generate electricity.<ref>Helen Caldicott (2006).  ''Nuclear Power is Not the Answer to Global Warming or Anything Else'', Melbourne, Australia: Melbourne University Press, {{ISBN|0-522-85251-3}}, p. xvii.</ref> The 1979 [[Three Mile Island accident]] and the 1986 [[Chernobyl disaster]] played a key role in stopping new plant construction in many countries. Major [[List of anti-nuclear power groups|anti-nuclear power groups]] include [[Friends of the Earth]], [[Greenpeace]], [[Institute for Energy and Environmental Research]], [[Nuclear Information and Resource Service]], and [[Sortir du nucléaire (France)]].

Several countries, especially European countries, have abandoned the construction of new nuclear power plants.<ref name="berssele">[http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/551/5290.html Netherlands: Court case on closure date Borssele NPP], article from anti-nuclear organization (WISE), dated 29 June 2001.</ref> [[Austria]] (1978), Sweden (1980) and Italy (1987) voted in referendums to oppose or phase out nuclear power, while opposition in Ireland prevented a nuclear program there. Countries that have no nuclear plants and have restricted new plant constructions comprise Australia, [[Austria]], [[Denmark]], [[Greece]], Italy, Ireland, [[Norway]] and [[Serbia]].<ref name="nuclearoutlook">[http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/1999/birol.htm Nuclear Power in the World Energy Outlook] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121023045858/http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/1999/birol.htm |date=23 October 2012 }}, by the [[Uranium Institute]], 1999.</ref><ref name="nuclearfree">[http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/478/aai.html Anti-nuclear resolution of the Austrian Parliament] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060223141723/http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http%3A%2F%2Fwww10.antenna.nl%2Fwise%2F478%2Faai.html |date=23 February 2006 }}, as summarised by an anti-nuclear organisation (WISE).</ref> [[Poland]] stopped the construction of a plant.<ref name="nuclearoutlook" /><ref name="polandnuclearstop">[http://www.euronuclear.org/e-news/e-news-8/newsfrompoland.htm Nuclear news from Poland] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120716182142/http://www.euronuclear.org/e-news/e-news-8/newsfrompoland.htm |date=16 July 2012 }}, article from the Web site of the [[European Nuclear Society]], April 2005.</ref> [[Belgium]], Germany, Spain, and Sweden decided not to build new plants or intend to phase out nuclear power, although still mostly relying on nuclear energy.<ref name="nuclearoutlook" /><ref name="germanynuclearstop">[http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,1029748,00.html Germany Starts Nuclear Energy Phase-Out], article from [http://www.dw-world.de/ Deutsche Welle], 14 November 2003.</ref>

New reactors under construction in Finland and France, which were meant to lead a nuclear new build, have been substantially delayed and are running over-budget.<ref name=jk>James Kanter. [https://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/business/energy-environment/29nuke.html?ref=global-home In Finland, Nuclear Renaissance Runs Into Trouble] ''The New York Times'', 28 May 2009.</ref><ref name=greeninc>James Kanter. [http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/is-the-nuclear-renaissance-fizzling/ Is the Nuclear Renaissance Fizzling?] ''Green'', 29 May 2009.</ref><ref name=rb>Rob Broomby. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8138869.stm Nuclear dawn delayed in Finland] ''BBC News'', 8 July 2009.</ref> Despite these delays the Olkiluoto reactor is now online and delivering low-emissions power to the grid as of 12 March 2022. "When Olkiluoto 3 reaches full output, around 90% of Finland's electricity generation will come from clean, low-carbon electricity sources, with nuclear generation supplying around half of that."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Finnish-EPR-starts-supplying-electricity|title=Finnish EPR starts supplying electricity : New Nuclear – World Nuclear News|website=world-nuclear-news.org}}</ref> In addition, China has 11 units under construction<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.iea.org/publications/nuclear/|title=Nuclear power in a clean energy system|website=iea.org|access-date=14 August 2019}}</ref> and there are also new reactors being built in Bangladesh, Belarus, Brazil, India, Japan, Pakistan, Russia, Slovakia, South Korea, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom and the United States of America. At least 100 older and smaller reactors will "most probably be closed over the next 10–15 years".<ref name="Dittmar 2010">{{cite web | last=Dittmar | first=Michael | title=Taking stock of nuclear renaissance that never was | website=The Sydney Morning Herald | date=17 August 2010 | url=https://www.smh.com.au/business/taking-stock-of-nuclear-renaissance-that-never-was-20100817-128ky.html | access-date=24 February 2020}}</ref>

Countries that wish to shut down [[nuclear power plant]]s must find alternatives for electricity generation; otherwise, they are forced to become dependent on imports. Therefore, the discussion of a future for nuclear energy is intertwined with discussions about [[fossil fuels]] or an [[energy transition]] to [[renewable energy commercialization|renewable energy]].

== Countries that have decided on a phase-out ==
{{Main|Nuclear energy policy}}
[[File:Nuclear power station.svg|thumb|upright=2.4|Global status of nuclear deployment as of 2017 ''(source: see file description)''
{| style="width: 100%; font-size: 1em;"
|-
| valign=top |
{{legend2|#ef2929|Operating reactors, considering phase-out}}<br />{{legend2|#000000|Civil nuclear power is illegal}}.
|}
]]

===Austria===
{{See also|Nuclear power in Austria|Anti-nuclear movement in Austria}}
'''Status:''' ''Phase-out complete''

[[Zwentendorf Nuclear Power Plant|A nuclear power station]] was built during the 1970s at [[Zwentendorf]], [[Austria]], but its start-up was prevented by [[1978 Austrian nuclear power referendum|a referendum]] in 1978. On 9 July 1997, the [[Parliament of Austria|Austrian Parliament]] voted unanimously to maintain the country's anti-nuclear policy.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/478/aai.html |publisher=WISE News Communique |date=26 September 1997 |title=Coalition of Nuclear-Free Countries |access-date=19 May 2006 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060223141723/http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http%3A%2F%2Fwww10.antenna.nl%2Fwise%2F478%2Faai.html |archive-date=23 February 2006 }}</ref> The built but never used reactor was converted into a museum and has also been used as a movie set and to train people involved in various aspects of nuclear power and safety. It is uniquely suitable for this purpose as it includes every aspect of an actual nuclear power plant ''except'' the radiation.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.zwentendorf.com/|title=AKW Zwentendorf|website=zwentendorf.com}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://de.euronews.com/2022/01/19/zwentendorf-das-atomkraftwerk-das-nie-anlief|title = Zwentendorf: Das Atomkraftwerk, das nie anlief|date = 19 January 2022}}</ref>

=== Germany ===
{{See also|Anti-nuclear movement in Germany|Nuclear power in Germany#Phase-out}}

[[File:Nuclear plant at Grafenrheinfeld.jpg|thumb|right|Nuclear power plant at Grafenrheinfeld, Germany. Chancellor [[Angela Merkel]]'s coalition announced on 30 May 2011, that Germany's 17 nuclear power stations would be shut down by 2022, in a policy reversal following Japan's [[Fukushima nuclear accident]].<ref name="Annika Breidthardt">{{cite news |url=http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-germany-nuclear-idUKTRE74Q2P120110530 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160126065401/http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-germany-nuclear-idUKTRE74Q2P120110530 |url-status=dead |archive-date=26 January 2016 |title=German government wants nuclear exit by 2022 at latest |author=Annika Breidthardt |date=30 May 2011 |work=Reuters }}</ref>]]

[[File:Energiemix Deutschland.svg|thumb|right|upright=2|Germany's power mix over time, tracing the decline of nuclear power.]]
[[File:German nuclear phase-out chart, 2002–2017.png|thumb|upright=2|Nuclear energy generation and added non-hydro renewable generation in Germany (2002–2017)]]

'''Status:''' ''Phase-out complete''

In 2000, the [[First Schröder cabinet]], consisting of the [[SPD]] and [[Alliance '90/The Greens]], officially announced its intention to phase out the use of nuclear energy. The power plants in [[Stade Nuclear Power Plant|Stade]] and [[Obrigheim Nuclear Power Plant|Obrigheim]] were turned off on 14 November 2003, and 11 May 2005, respectively. The plants' dismantling was scheduled to begin in 2007.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.terradaily.com/2003/031114130333.jlvf6wjx.html |title=German nuclear energy phase-out begins with first plant closure |website=terradaily.com |date=14 November 2003 |agency=AFP |access-date=4 June 2011}}</ref>

The [[German Renewable Energy Sources Act|Renewable Energy Sources Act]], passed in 2000, provided for a [[Feed-in tariffs in Germany|feed-in tariff]] in support of renewable energy. The German government, declaring [[Greenhouse effect|climate protection]] as a key policy issue, announced a [[carbon dioxide]] reduction target by the year 2005 compared to 1990 of 25%.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.agores.org/Publications/EnR/GermanyREPolicy2000.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040913211008/http://www.agores.org/Publications/EnR/GermanyREPolicy2000.pdf |url-status=dead |title=PDF|archive-date=13 September 2004}}</ref> In 1998, the use of renewables in Germany reached 284&nbsp;[[Joule|PJ]] of primary energy demand, which corresponded to 5% of the total electricity demand. By 2010, the German government wanted to reach 10%;<ref name="essential programme"/> in fact, 17% were reached (2011: 20%, 2015: 30%).<ref>{{cite web|url=https://strom-report.de/|title=Statistiken & Infografiken: Energie & Umwelt|website=STROM-REPORT}}</ref>

Anti-nuclear activists argued the German government had been supportive of nuclear power by providing financial guarantees for energy providers. Also, there were, as yet, no plans for the final storage of [[nuclear waste]]. By tightening safety regulations and increasing taxation, a faster end to nuclear power could have been forced. A gradual closing of nuclear power plants had come along with concessions in questions of safety for the population with transport of nuclear waste throughout Germany.<ref>http://www.pds-coesfeld.de/anti%20atom.gronau2.htm {{dead link|date=April 2018|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref><ref>[http://www.kww-naumann.ch/konzeption-und-vorgehen Kommunikation Wissenschaft] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140122002350/http://www.kww-naumann.ch/konzeption-und-vorgehen |date=22 January 2014 }}</ref> This latter point was disagreed with by the Minister of Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety.<ref>[http://www.bmu.de/english/nuclear_safety/doc/3420.php 'Nuclear phase-out in Germany and the Challenges for Nuclear Regulation'] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050520081034/http://www.bmu.de/english/nuclear_safety/doc/3420.php |date=20 May 2005 }}. Bmu.de. Retrieved 4 June 2011.</ref>

In 2005, critics of a phase-out in Germany argued that the grid energy contribution from the nuclear power stations may not be adequately compensated in the short term, possibly causing an [[energy crisis]]. They also predicted that only coal-powered plants could compensate for nuclear power in general, and that CO<sub>2</sub> emissions would increase tremendously as a result. A possible mitigating factor would be energy imported from France's lower carbon, (and primarily nuclear), power facilities. Russian natural gas would be an additional, perhaps necessary option.<ref name="news.bbc.co.uk">{{cite news| url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4295389.stm | work=BBC News | title=Germany split over green energy | date=25 February 2005}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=|title=Nord Stream 2: A Fait Accompli? [March 18, 2019]|first1=Paul|last1=Belkin|first2=Michael|last2=Ratner|first3=Cory|last3=Welt|first4=Beryl E.|last4=Taylor|date=18 March 2019|publisher=Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service|via=hsdl.org}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=|title=Russia's Nord Stream 2 Natural Gas Pipeline to Germany Halted [Updated March 10, 2022]|first1=Paul|last1=Belkin|first2=Cory|last2=Welt|first3=Michael|last3=Ratner|date=10 March 2022|publisher=Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service|via=hsdl.org}}</ref> Numerous factors, including progress in [[wind turbine]] technology and [[photovoltaics]], reduced the need for conventional alternatives.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://strom-report.de/renewable-energy/|title=Renewable Energy Germany|website=STROM-REPORT}}</ref>{{failed verification|date=November 2017}}

In 2011, [[Deutsche Bank]] analysts concluded that "the global impact of the Fukushima disaster is a fundamental shift in public perception with regard to how a nation prioritizes and values its population's health, safety, security, and natural environment when determining its current and future energy pathways". There were many [[anti-nuclear]] protests and, on 29 May 2011, Angela Merkel's government announced that it would close all of Germany's nuclear power plants by December 2022.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Jorant |first=Caroline |date=July 2011 |title=The implications of Fukushima: The European perspective |url=http://bos.sagepub.com/content/67/4/14.abstract |url-status=dead |journal=Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists |volume=67 |issue=4 |page=15 |doi=10.1177/0096340211414842 |s2cid=144198768 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200515215854/https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0096340211414842 |archive-date=15 May 2020 |access-date=22 August 2014}}</ref><ref name=dw31511>{{cite news | url = http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,14912184,00.html | title = Merkel shuts down seven nuclear reactors  | last = Knight | first = Ben |date = 15 March 2011 | publisher = [[Deutsche Welle]] | access-date = 15 March 2011}}</ref>

Galvanised by the first anniversary of the Fukushima nuclear accident, anti-nuclear demonstrations were held in Germany in March 2012. Organisers said more than 50,000 people in six regions took part.<ref name="euronews.com">{{cite web |url=http://www.euronews.com/2012/03/11/anti-nuclear-demos-across-europe-on-fukushima-anniversary/ |title=Anti-nuclear demos across Europe on Fukushima anniversary |date=11 March 2012 |work=Euronews |access-date=22 August 2014 |archive-date=15 April 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120415164415/http://www.euronews.com/2012/03/11/anti-nuclear-demos-across-europe-on-fukushima-anniversary |url-status=dead }}</ref>

The German ''[[Energiewende]]'' designates a significant change in [[energy policy]] from 2010. The term encompasses a [[Energy transition|transition]] by Germany to a [[Low-carbon economy|low carbon]], environmentally sound, reliable, and affordable energy supply.<ref name="bmwi-and-bmu-2010">{{
Cite book
 |author1      = Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology (BMWi)
 |author2      = Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU)
 |title        = Energy concept for an environmentally sound, reliable and affordable energy supply
 |date         = 28 September 2010
|publisher    = [[Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology]] (BMWi)
 |place        = Berlin, Germany
 |url          = http://www.bmwi.de/English/Redaktion/Pdf/energy-concept,property=pdf,bereich=bmwi,sprache=en,rwb=true.pdf
 |access-date  = 1 May 2016
|url-status   = dead
 |archive-url  = https://web.archive.org/web/20161006040920/http://www.bmwi.de/English/Redaktion/Pdf/energy-concept%2Cproperty%3Dpdf%2Cbereich%3Dbmwi%2Csprache%3Den%2Crwb%3Dtrue.pdf
 |archive-date = 6 October 2016
|df           = dmy-all
}}</ref>

On 6 June 2011, following the Fukushima accident, the government removed the use of nuclear power as a bridging technology as part of their policy.<ref name="bmu-2011">{{
Cite book
 |title        = The Federal Government's energy concept of 2010 and the transformation of the energy system of 2011
 |publisher    = [[Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, and Nuclear Safety]] (BMU)
 |place        = Bonn, Germany
 |date         = October 2011
 |url          = http://www.germany.info/contentblob/3043402/Daten/3903429/BMUBMWi_Energy_Concept_DD.pdf
 |access-date  = 16 June 2016
|url-status   = dead
 |archive-url  = https://web.archive.org/web/20161006040646/http://www.germany.info/contentblob/3043402/Daten/3903429/BMUBMWi_Energy_Concept_DD.pdf
 |archive-date = 6 October 2016
|df           = dmy-all
}}</ref>

In September 2011, German engineering giant [[Siemens]] announced it would withdraw entirely from the [[nuclear industry]], as a response to the [[Fukushima nuclear accident]] in Japan, and said that it would no longer build nuclear power plants anywhere in the world. The company's chairman, [[Peter Löscher]], said that "Siemens was ending plans to cooperate with [[Rosatom]], the Russian state-controlled nuclear power company, in the construction of dozens of nuclear plants throughout Russia over the coming two decades".<ref>{{cite news |author=Broder |first=John |date=10 October 2011 |title=The Year of Peril and Promise in Energy Production |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/business/energy-environment/the-year-of-peril-and-promise-in-energy-production.html?src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Fbusiness%2Fglobal%2Findex.jsonp |work=The New York Times}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14963575 |title=Siemens to quit nuclear industry |date=18 September 2011 |work=BBC News }}</ref> Also in September 2011, IAEA Director General [[Yukiya Amano]] said the Japanese nuclear disaster "caused deep public anxiety throughout the world and damaged confidence in nuclear power".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2011/09/23/IAEA-sees-slow-nuclear-growth-post-Japan/UPI-87041316777856/ |title=IAEA sees slow nuclear growth post Japan |date=23 September 2011 |work=[[United Press International]] }}</ref>

A 2016 study shows that during the nuclear phaseout, the security of electricity supply in Germany stayed at the same high level compared to other European countries and even improved in 2014. The study was conducted near the halfway point of the phaseout, 9{{nbsp}}plants having been shut and a further 8 still in operation.<ref name="greenpeace-energy-2016-press-release">
{{cite press release |author=<!-- staff writer, no by-line --> |title=Supply security is even more stable despite nuclear phaseout — fossil reserve power is replaceable |date=5 September 2016 |publisher=[[Green Planet Energy]] |location=Hamburg, Germany |url=https://green-planet-energy.de/fileadmin/docs/pressematerial/Hinkley_Point/PR_20160905_Nuclear_Phaseout_Supply_Security_EN.pdf |access-date=8 September 2016}}
</ref><ref name="huneke-etal-2016">
{{cite book |last1=Huneke |first1=Fabian |url=https://green-planet-energy.de/fileadmin/docs/pressematerial/Hinkley_Point/2016-09-01_GPE_Nuclear_Phaseout_Supply_Security_Energy_Brainpool_Aug_2016_EN_JR_FINAL_EBP-Draft.pdf |title=The consequences so far of Germany's nuclear phaseout on the security of energy supply — A brief analysis commissioned by Green Planet Energy eG in Germany |last2=Lizzi |first2=Philipp |last3=Lenck |first3=Thorsten |date=August 2016 |publisher=Energy Brainpool |location=Berlin, Germany |access-date=8 September 2016}} This reference provides a good overview of the phaseout.</ref>

In early October 2016, Swedish electric power company [[Vattenfall]] began litigation against the German government for its 2011 decision to accelerate the phase-out of nuclear power. Hearings took place at the [[World Bank]]'s [[International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes]] (ICSID) in Washington, DC and Vattenfall claimed almost €4.7{{nbsp}}billion in damages. The German government has called the action "inadmissible and unfounded".<ref name="clew-2016a">{{
Cite web
 | title = Showdown in Germany's nuclear phase-out
 | date = 10 October 2016
| work = Clean Energy Wire (CLEW)
 | location = Berlin, Germany
 | url = https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/all-new-cars-emission-free-2030-energiewende-costs/showdown-germanys-nuclear-phase-out
 | access-date = 24 October 2016
}}</ref> These proceedings were ongoing in December 2016, despite Vattenfall commencing civil litigation within Germany.<ref name="clew-2016d">{{
Cite web
 | title = Nuclear plant operators continue lawsuits
 | date = 8 December 2016
| work = Clean Energy Wire (CLEW)
 | location = Berlin, German
 | url = https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/eu-takes-action-emissions-scandal-winter-power-reserve-tapped/nuclear-plant-operators-continue-lawsuits
 | access-date = 8 December 2016
}}</ref>

On 5{{nbsp}}December 2016, the [[Federal Constitutional Court]] (''{{lang|de|Bundesverfassungsgericht}}'') ruled that the nuclear plant operators affected by the accelerated phase-out of nuclear power following the Fukushima accident were eligible for "adequate" compensation. The court found that the nuclear exit was essentially constitutional but that the utilities were entitled to damages for the "good faith" investments they made in 2010. The utility companies were authorised to sue the German government under civil law. E.ON, RWE, and Vattenfall were expected to seek a total of €19{{nbsp}}billion under separate suits.<ref name="clew-2016c">
{{cite web
 | title = German utilities eligible for "adequate" nuclear exit compensation
 | date = 6 December 2016
| work = Clean Energy Wire (CLEW)
 | location = Berlin, Germany
 | url = https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/nuclear-exit-compensation-utilities-energy-spin-offs-enter-mdax/german-utilities-eligible-adequate-nuclear-exit-compensation
 | access-date = 6 December 2016
}}
</ref><ref name="bverfg-2016">
<!--
in respect of cases: 1 BvR 2821/11, 1 BvR 1456/12, 1 BvR 321/12
URL: http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2016/12/rs20161206_1bvr282111.html
-->{{cite press release |author=<!-- staff writer, no by-line --> |title=The thirteenth amendment to the Atomic Energy Act is for the most part compatible with the Basic Law |date=6 December 2016 |publisher=Bundesverfassungsgericht |location=Karlsruhe, Germany |url=http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/EN/2016/bvg16-088.html |access-date=6 December 2016}}
</ref><ref name="dw-2016"><!-- permanent URL: http://dw.com/p/2TjYg -->{{
Cite news
| title = German utilities win compensation for nuclear phaseout
| date = 5 December 2016
| work = Deutsche Welle (DW)
| location = Bonn, Germany
| url = http://www.dw.com/en/german-utilities-win-compensation-for-nuclear-phaseout/a-36639314
| access-date = 6 December 2016
}} Provides a history of the nuclear exit.</ref> Six cases were registered with courts in Germany, {{as of|lc=yes|2016|12|07}}.<ref name="clew-2016d"/><ref name="der-tagesspiegel-2016">{{Cite news |title=Atomausstieg: Konzerne klagen weiter – auf Auskunft |trans-title=Nuclear exit: corporations sue further – for information |url=http://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/atomausstieg-konzerne-klagen-weiter-auf-auskunft/14948310.html |access-date=8 December 2016 |work=Der Tagesspiegel |location=Berlin, Germany |language=de}}</ref>

A scientific paper released in 2019 found that the German nuclear shutdown led to an increase in carbon dioxide emissions around 36.2 megatons per year, and killed 1100 people a year through increased air pollution. As they shut down nuclear power, Germany made heavy investments in renewable energy, but those same investments could have "cut much deeper into fossil fuel energy" if the nuclear generation had still been online.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://grist.org/energy/the-cost-of-germany-going-off-nuclear-power-thousands-of-lives/|title=The cost of Germany turning off nuclear power: Thousands of lives|date=8 January 2020|website=Grist|language=en|access-date=12 January 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Jarvis |first1=Stephen |last2=Deschenes |first2=Olivier |last3=Jha |first3=Akshaya |date=Dec 2019 |title=The Private and External Costs of Germany's Nuclear Phase-Out |url=http://www.nber.org/papers/w26598.pdf |journal=National Bureau of Economic Research |language=en |location=Cambridge, Massachusetts |pages=w26598 |doi=10.3386/w26598 |s2cid=211027218 |doi-access=free}}</ref>

Aligning with the end of the 2021 [[COP26]] climate talks, the operators of Germany's six remaining nuclear power stations, utilities [[E.ON]], [[RWE]], and [[EnBW]], rejected calls to keep the plants in operation beyond their scheduled shutdowns at the end of 2022.<ref name="meza-2021">{{
Cite web
| last1 = Meza | first1 = Edgar
| title = German nuclear power operators reject calls to keep running plants longer
| date = 12 November 2021
| work = Clean Energy Wire (CLEW)
| location = Berlin, Germany
| url = https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/german-nuclear-power-operators-reject-calls-keep-running-plants-longer
| access-date = 12 November 2021
}} {{Open access}}</ref> However, in reaction to the 2022 [[Russian invasion of Ukraine]] the debate about whether to extend the life of the three remaining reactors or whether to restart operation in the three reactors shut down at the end of 2021 (whose dismantling hadn't yet started) once more came to the forefront and operators said that it would be possible to extend the life of those reactors under certain conditions.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.hamburg.de/nachrichten-hamburg/15932632/fdp-spricht-ueber-reaktivierung-stillgelegter-atomkraftwerke/ |title=FDP spricht über Reaktivierung stillgelegter Atomkraftwerke – hamburg.de |access-date=3 March 2022 |archive-date=3 March 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220303130347/https://www.hamburg.de/nachrichten-hamburg/15932632/fdp-spricht-ueber-reaktivierung-stillgelegter-atomkraftwerke/ |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=March 2022 |title=Werden stillgelegte Atomkraftwerke reaktiviert? Energieversorgung wegen Ukraine-Krieg bedroht |url=https://www.infranken.de/ueberregional/deutschland/werden-stillgelegte-atomkraftwerke-reaktiviert-energieversorgung-wegen-ukraine-krieg-bedroht-art-5401813 |language=de}}</ref>

In July 2022, faced with a looming energy crisis, the German parliament voted to reactivate closed coal power plants.<ref>{{cite news |author=Connolly |first=Kate |date=8 July 2022 |title=Germany to reactivate coal power plants as Russia curbs gas flow |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/08/germany-reactivate-coal-power-plants-russia-curbs-gas-flow |journal=[[The Guardian]]}}</ref>
[[File:Kernkraftwerk Isar 01.jpg|thumb|The [[Isar Nuclear Power Plant]] was taken out of service on 15 April 2023]]
In 2022, of the 17 nuclear power plants Germany had at its peak, three remained in operation: Isar 2, Emsland and Neckarwestheim 2, which were operated by German energy firms E.ON (EONGn.DE), RWE (RWEG.DE) and EnBW (EBKG.DE), respectively. According to federal legislation, these operators lost the right to operate their plants on 31 December 2022, the effective end-date for the stations. Germany's network regulator (part of the Economy Ministry), had the ability to decide that they were critical to the security of power supply (both electricity and [[nuclear transmutation]]) and allow them to run for longer.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/could-germany-keep-its-nuclear-plants-running-2022-02-28/|title=Explainer: Could Germany keep its nuclear plants running?|first1=Christoph|last1=Steitz|first2=Markus|last2=Wacket|work=Reuters|date=28 February 2022}}</ref>

The last three nuclear power plants in Germany—[[Emsland Nuclear Power Plant|Emsland]], [[Isar Nuclear Power Plant|Isar II]] and [[Neckarwestheim Nuclear Power Plant|Neckarwestheim II]]—were shut down on 15 April 2023.<ref>{{cite news |title=Germany has shut down its last three nuclear power plants, and some climate scientists are aghast |url=https://www.politico.eu/article/nuclear-reactors-germany-invest-gas-power-plants-energy/ |work=NBC News |date=18 April 2023}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=After scrapping nuclear reactors, Germany to spend billions on new gas power plants |url=https://www.politico.eu/article/nuclear-reactors-germany-invest-gas-power-plants-energy/ |work=Politico |date=5 February 2024}}</ref>

In April 2024, a controversy emerged relating to the decommissioning of Germany's nuclear power plants.<ref>{{cite news |title=German greens accused of lying over nuclear power safety to force plant shutdowns |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/04/26/german-greens-lying-nuclear-power-safety-plant-shutdown/ |work=The Telegraph |date=26 April 2024}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=German Green's minister Robert Habeck under fire over 2022 nuclear shutdown |url=https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/german-greens-minister-robert-habeck-under-fire-over-2022-nuclear-shutdown/ |work=Euractiv |date=26 April 2024}}</ref> German magazine ''[[Cicero (magazine)|Cicero]]'' claimed that German Economy Minister [[Robert Habeck]] had misled the public in 2022 and ignored the advice of experts who said nuclear facilities were still safe to operate.<ref>{{cite news |title=German ministers quizzed over nuclear phase out 'deception |url=https://www.dw.com/en/german-ministers-quizzed-over-nuclear-phase-out-deception/a-68931166 |work=Deutsche Welle |date=26 April 2024}}</ref>

In an opinion poll taken in Germany in March 2025, 55% of those polled were in favour of the country restarting its closed nuclear power plants, with 36% against such a proposal, and 9% unsure.<ref name="dwapril2025"/> However, only 32% were in favour of the construction of new reactors.<ref name="dwapril2025">{{cite news |last=Shelton |first=Jon |title=German poll: Majority for return to nuclear energy  |url=https://www.dw.com/en/german-poll-majority-for-return-to-nuclear-energy/a-72139350 |work=[[Deutsche Welle]] |date=4 April 2025 |agency=AFP, dpa |access-date=6 June 2025}}</ref>

=== Italy ===
{{See also|Nuclear power in Italy}}
'''Status:''' ''Phase-out complete, considering reversal''

Nuclear power phase-out commenced in Italy in 1987, one year after the [[Chernobyl disaster]]. Following a referendum in that year, Italy's [[Nuclear power in Italy#Plants|four nuclear power plants]] were closed, the last in 1990. A moratorium on the construction of new plants, originally in effect from 1987 until 1993, has since been extended indefinitely.<ref>{{cite web |title=Italy – National Energy Policy and Overview |url=http://energytrends.pnl.gov/italy/it004.htm |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050906154331/http://energytrends.pnl.gov/italy/it004.htm |archive-date=6 September 2005 |access-date=17 August 2005 |website=Energy Trends}}</ref>

In recent years, Italy has been an importer of nuclear-generated electricity, and its largest electricity utility [[Enel|Enel S.p.A.]] has been investing in reactors in both France and Slovakia to provide this electricity in the future, and also in the development of the [[EPR (nuclear reactor)|EPR]] technology.

In October 2005, there was a [[seminar]] sponsored by the [[Berlusconi III Cabinet|government]] about the possibility of reviving Italian [[nuclear power]].<ref>{{cite web |title=Prospettive dell'energia nucleare in Italia |url=http://vastxiv.camera.it/attivita/31/192/217/218/scheda_seminario.asp |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304000626/http://vastxiv.camera.it/attivita/31/192/217/218/scheda_seminario.asp |archive-date=4 March 2016 |access-date=5 May 2012 |language=it}}</ref> The [[Berlusconi IV Cabinet|fourth cabinet]] led by [[Silvio Berlusconi]] tried to implement a new nuclear plan but a [[2011 Italian referendums#Nuclear power|referendum held in June 2011]] stopped any project.

In February 2025, the Italian government approved a law to begin the process of overturning the ban on new nuclear power in the country. The law requires confirmation by the [[Italian Parliament]] and further implementing decrees are necessary in order to fully reverse the phase-out.<ref>{{cite news |last=Amante |first=Angelo |date=28 February 2025 |title=Italy's government adopts plan for return to nuclear power |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/italys-government-adopts-plan-return-nuclear-power-2025-02-28/ |work=[[Reuters]] |access-date=3 June 2025 |url-access=subscription}}</ref>

=== Spain ===
{{See also|Nuclear power in Spain|Anti-nuclear movement in Spain}}
'''Status:''' ''Phase-out in progress, considering postponement''

In Spain a [[moratorium (law)|moratorium]] was enacted by the socialist government in 1983<ref>{{cite web| url=http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/353/3502.html| publisher=WISE News Communique| date=24 May 1991| title=Spain halts nuclear power| access-date=19 May 2006}}</ref><ref name="inf85">{{cite web|url=http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf85.htm |title=Nuclear Power in Spain |date=May 2006 |publisher=World Nuclear Association |access-date=19 May 2006 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060222165034/http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf85.htm |archive-date=22 February 2006 }}</ref> and in 2006 plans for a phase-out of seven reactors were being discussed anew.<ref>{{cite web |title=Behauptung 1: Der Atomausstieg ist ein deutscher "Sonderweg" |url=http://www.bmu.de/atomenergie/doc/7019.php |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050218113720/http://www.bmu.de/atomenergie/doc/7019.php |archive-date=18 February 2005 |access-date=19 May 2006 |language=de}}</ref>

In December 2023, the government of Spain confirmed a policy of phasing out nuclear power generation in the country, with the first reactor to shut down in 2027, and the last in 2035.<ref>{{cite news |last=Quinn |first=Jack |date=28 December 2023 |title=Spain Doubles Down On Plan To End Nuclear Power By 2035; PM Sánchez Bets On Renewables |url=https://www.ibtimes.com/spain-doubles-down-plan-end-nuclear-power-2035-pm-sanchez-bets-renewables-3721315 |work=[[International Business Times]] |access-date=3 June 2025}}</ref> However, in April 2025, the government subsequently indicated it would consider proposals from operators of its nuclear power plants to extend the closure dates of their plants, if any such proposals were submitted.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Basteiro |first1=Daniel |last2=Gualtieri |first2=Thomas |date=24 April 2025 |title=Spain Signals Openness to Keeping Nuclear Power Plants Open |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-04-24/spain-signals-openness-to-nuclear-phaseout-talks-with-utilities |work=[[Bloomberg News]] |access-date=3 June 2025 |url-access=subscription}}</ref>

=== Switzerland ===
{{Switzerland nuke plant map|float=right|width=220}}
{{See also|Nuclear power in Switzerland|Anti-nuclear movement in Switzerland}}
'''Status:''' ''Phase-out in progress, considering reversal''

{{As of|2013}}, the five operational [[List of nuclear reactors#Switzerland|Swiss nuclear reactors]] were [[Beznau Nuclear Power Plant|Beznau 1 and 2]], [[Gösgen Nuclear Power Plant|Gösgen]], [[Leibstadt Nuclear Power Plant|Leibstadt]], and [[Mühleberg Nuclear Power Plant|Mühleberg]]—all located in the German speaking part of the country. Nuclear power accounted for 36.4% of the national electricity generation, while 57.9% came from hydroelectricity. The remaining 5.7% was generated by other conventional and non-hydro renewable power stations.<ref>Swiss Federal Office of Energy (SFOE) [http://www.bfe.admin.ch/themen/00526/00541/00542/00630/index.html?lang=en&dossier_id=00765 Electricity statistics 2013 (in French and German)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170729172901/http://www.bfe.admin.ch/themen/00526/00541/00542/00630/index.html?lang=en&dossier_id=00765 |date=29 July 2017 }}, 23 June 2014</ref>

On 25 May 2011, the [[Federal Council (Switzerland)|Federal Council]] decided on a slow phase-out by not extending running times or building new power plants.<ref>[http://www.nzz.ch/nachrichten/politik/schweiz/mutiger_entscheid_bis_kurzschlusshandlung_1.10701867.html «Mutiger Entscheid» bis «Kurzschlusshandlung» (Politik, Schweiz, NZZ Online)]. ''Neue Zürcher Zeitung''. Retrieved 4 June 2011.</ref> The first power plant, [[Mühleberg Nuclear Power Plant|Mühleberg]], was shut down on 20 December 2019, the last will stop running in 2034.<ref>[http://derstandard.at/1304552826299/Ab-2019-Schweiz-plant-Atomausstieg Schweiz plant Atomausstieg – Schweiz – derStandard.at › International]. ''Der Standard''. Retrieved 4 June 2011.</ref>

In 2018, the [[International Energy Agency]] has warned that Switzerland's phased withdrawal from nuclear power presents challenges for maintaining its electricity security. They caution that Switzerland will be increasingly relying on imports from its European neighbours to meet electricity demand, especially during the winter months when low water levels impact production from hydro plants.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/IEA-warns-of-challenges-from-Swiss-nuclear-phase-o|title=IEA warns of challenges from Swiss nuclear phase-out : Nuclear Policies – World Nuclear News|website=world-nuclear-news.org}}</ref>

There have been many Swiss [[referendum]]s on the topic of nuclear energy, beginning in 1979 with a [[Popular initiative|citizens' initiative]] for nuclear safety, which was rejected. In 1984, there was a vote on an initiative "for a future without further nuclear power stations" with the result being a 55% to 45% vote against. On 23 September 1990, Switzerland had two more referendums about nuclear power. The initiative "stop the construction of nuclear power stations", which proposed a ten-year [[moratorium (law)|moratorium]] on the construction of new nuclear power plants, was passed with 54.5% to 45.5%. The initiative for a phase-out was rejected with by 53% to 47.1%. In 2000, there was a vote on a [[Green tax shift|green tax]] for support of [[solar energy]]. It was rejected by 67% to 31%. On 18 May 2003, there were two referendums: "Electricity without Nuclear", asking for a decision on a nuclear power phase-out, and "Moratorium Plus", for an extension of the earlier-decided moratorium on the construction of new nuclear power plants. Both were turned down. The results were: Moratorium Plus: 41.6% Yes, 58.4% No; Electricity without Nuclear: 33.7% Yes, 66.3% No.<ref>[http://www.energie-schweiz.ch/internet/00552/?lang=de Bundesamt für Energie BFE – Startseite] {{dead link|date=June 2011}}. Energie-schweiz.ch. Retrieved 4 June 2011.</ref>

The program of the "Electricity without Nuclear" petition was to shut down all nuclear power stations by 2033, starting with Unit 1 and 2 of Beznau nuclear power stations, Mühleberg in 2005, Gösgen in 2009, and Leibstadt in 2014. "Moratorium Plus" was for an extension of the moratorium for another ten years, and additionally a condition to stop the present reactors after 40 years of operation. To extend the 40 years by ten more years, another referendum would have to be held (at high administrative costs). The rejection of the Moratorium Plus had come as a surprise to many, as opinion polls before the referendum had showed acceptance. Reasons for the rejections in both cases were seen as the worsened economic situation.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cnfc.or.jp/plutonium/pl42/e/cnfc_report.html |title=Swiss Referendum Says No to the Phase-Out of Nuclear Power |website=cnfc.or.jp |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20041213102612/http://www.cnfc.or.jp/plutonium/pl42/e/cnfc_report.html |archive-date=13 December 2004}}</ref>

In August 2024, the Federal Council, led by Energy Minister [[Albert Rösti]], proposed lifting the nuclear power plant construction ban that had been in place since 2017. Citing concerns over energy security and fossil fuel phase-out, the government seeks to amend the Nuclear Energy Act (''Kernenergiegesetz'') to allow the construction of new nuclear plants and extend the operational life of the existing ones.<ref>{{cite news |work=[[Neue Zürcher Zeitung]] |date=28 August 2024 |title=Rösti setzt sich bei seinem Kernthema durch – der Bundesrat will das AKW-Bauverbot aufheben |trans-title=Rösti prevails on his core issue – the Federal Council wants to lift the ban on nuclear power plant construction |url=https://www.nzz.ch/schweiz/roesti-setzt-sich-bei-seinem-kernthema-durch-der-bundesrat-will-das-akw-bauverbot-aufheben-ld.1845881 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20240828165652/https://www.nzz.ch/schweiz/roesti-setzt-sich-bei-seinem-kernthema-durch-der-bundesrat-will-das-akw-bauverbot-aufheben-ld.1845881 |access-date=27 September 2024 |archive-date=28 August 2024 |last1=Schäfer |first1=Fabian |lang=de-ch}}</ref> Such an amendment would require the consent of the [[Federal Assembly (Switzerland)|Federal Assembly]] and possibly confirmation via a referendum.<ref>{{cite news |last=Begum |first=Shabana |title=Switzerland phased out nuclear power in 2017, reconsidering ban now |date=19 October 2024 |url=https://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/switzerland-phased-out-nuclear-power-in-2017-reconsidering-ban-now |work=[[The Straits Times]] |access-date=3 June 2025 |quote=It will then be debated by Parliament and it is possible that there will be a referendum against it...}}</ref>

=== Taiwan ===
{{See also|Nuclear power in Taiwan}}
'''Status:''' ''Phase-out complete, considering reversal''

Taiwan had 3 active nuclear power plants as of 2016.<ref name="asahi-20161023"/> Active seismic faults run across the island, and some environmentalists argue Taiwan is unsuited for nuclear plants.<ref name="nyt-20120112">{{cite news |author=Jacobs |first=Andrew |date=12 January 2012 |title=Vote Holds Fate of Nuclear Power in Taiwan |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/13/world/asia/nuclear-power-emerges-as-election-issue-in-taiwan.html |access-date=13 January 2012 |newspaper=The New York Times}}</ref>

Construction of the [[Lungmen Nuclear Power Plant]] using the [[Advanced boiling water reactor|ABWR]] design encountered public opposition and a host of delays, and in April 2014 the government decided to halt construction.<ref name=reuters-20140428>{{cite news |url=http://uk.reuters.com/article/taiwan-nuclear-idUKL3N0NJ08C20140427 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160112113116/http://uk.reuters.com/article/taiwan-nuclear-idUKL3N0NJ08C20140427 |url-status=dead |archive-date=12 January 2016 |title=Taiwan to halt construction of fourth nuclear power plant |work=Reuters |date=28 April 2014 |access-date=28 April 2014}}</ref> Construction was stopped in July 2015.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2015/02/04/2003610768 |title=AEC approves plan to shutter fourth nuclear facility |author=Lin, Sean |date=4 February 2015 |newspaper=[[Taipei Times]] |access-date=5 March 2015 }}</ref>

The [[2016 Taiwan general election|2016 general election]] was won by a government with stated policies that included phasing out nuclear power generation by 2025. The formal phase-out plan was announced in October 2016.<ref name="asahi-20161023">{{cite news |author=Satoshi |first=Ukai |date=23 October 2016 |title=Taiwan to end nuclear power generation in 2025 |url=http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201610230028.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161101164358/https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201610230028.html |archive-date=1 November 2016 |access-date=6 June 2025 |work=[[The Asahi Shimbun]]}}</ref><ref name=asahi-20161031>{{cite news |url=http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201610310023.html |title=Editorial: Taiwan bows to public opinion in pulling plug on nuclear power |newspaper=The Asahi Shimbun |date=31 October 2016 |access-date=31 October 2016}}</ref> A proposal to complete construction of the Lungmen plant was rejected in a referendum in 2021.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Su |first1=Yung-yao |last2=Shih |first2=Hsia-kuang |last3=Chin |first3=Jonathan |last4=Chung |first4=Jake |date=19 December 2021 |title=Voters say ‘no’ to all four referendum questions |url=https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2021/12/19/2003769834 |work=[[Taipei Times]] |access-date=6 June 2025}}</ref>

The last operating nuclear power station in Taiwan, [[Maanshan Nuclear Power Plant]], was shut down in May 2025.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Tseng |first1=Chih-yi |last2=Wu |first2=Hsin-yun |last3=Kao |first3=Evelyn |title=Taiwan enters 'nuclear-free homeland' era |url=https://focustaiwan.tw/business/202505180013 |access-date=6 June 2025 |work=[[Central News Agency (Taiwan)|Central News Agency]] |date=18 May 2025}}</ref> [[2025 Taiwanese referendum|A referendum]] is due to be held on 23 August 2025 on the issue of restarting the Maanshan plant.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Kuo |first1=Chien-shen |last2=Chang |first2=Hsiung-feng |last3=Lai |first3=Sunny |title=Maanshan nuclear plant restart referendum proposal clears Legislature |url=https://focustaiwan.tw/politics/202505200030 |access-date=4 June 2025 |work=[[Central News Agency (Taiwan)|Central News Agency]] |date=20 May 2025}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Sing |first1=Yee Ong |last2=Wang |first2=Cindy |date=26 May 2025 |title=Taiwan to Hold Referendum on Restarting Closed Nuclear Reactor |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-05-26/taiwan-to-hold-referendum-on-restarting-closed-nuclear-reactor |work=[[Bloomberg News]] |access-date=6 June 2025 |url-access=subscription}}</ref>

== Other significant places ==

=== Americas ===
==== United States ====
{{See also|Anti-nuclear movement in the United States}}

The United States is, as of 2013, was undergoing a practical phase-out independent of stated goals and continued official support. This was not due to concerns about the source or anti-nuclear groups, but due to the rapidly falling prices of natural gas and the reluctance of investors to provide funding for long-term projects when short term profitability of turbine power is available.

Through the 2000s, a number of factors led to greatly increased interest in new nuclear reactors, including rising demand, new lower-cost reactor designs, and concerns about [[global climate change]]. By 2009, about 30 new reactors were planned, and a large number of existing reactors had applied for upgrades to increase their output. In total, 39 reactors had their licences renewed, three Early Site Permits had been applied for, and three consortiums had applied for Combined Construction-Operating Licences under the ''[[Nuclear Power 2010 Program]]''. In addition, the [[Energy Policy Act of 2005]] contains incentives to further expand nuclear power.<ref>{{cite web |title=US Nuclear Power Industry |url=http://www.uic.com.au/nip58.htm |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060522133338/http://www.uic.com.au/nip58.htm |archive-date=22 May 2006 |access-date=29 April 2006 |website=UIC}}</ref>

However, by 2012 the vast majority of these plans were cancelled, and several additional cancellations followed in 2013. Currently only three new reactors are under construction, and one, at Watts Bar, was originally planned in the 1970s and only under construction now. Construction of the new AP1000 design is underway at one location in the United States in [[Vogtle Electric Generating Plant|Georgia]]. Plans for additional reactors in Florida were cancelled in 2013.

Some smaller reactors operating in deregulated markets have become uneconomic to operate and maintain, due to competition from generators using low priced natural gas, and may be retired early.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.platts.com/RSSFeedDetailedNews/RSSFeed/ElectricPower/6007202 |title=Some merchant nuclear plants could face early retirement: UBS |newspaper=Platts |date=9 January 2013 |access-date=10 January 2013}}</ref> The 556 MWe [[Kewaunee Power Station]] is being closed 20 years before licence expiry for these economic reasons.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://dom.mediaroom.com/2012-10-22-Dominion-To-Close-Decommission-Kewaunee-Power-Station |title=Dominion To Close, Decommission Kewaunee Power Station |publisher=Dominion |date=22 October 2012 |access-date=28 February 2013 |archive-date=14 May 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130514114208/http://dom.mediaroom.com/2012-10-22-Dominion-To-Close-Decommission-Kewaunee-Power-Station |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref name="nei-20130101">{{cite news |author=Peachey |first=Caroline |date=1 January 2013 |title=Why are North American plants dying? |url=http://www.neimagazine.com/opinion/opiniona-write-off |access-date=28 February 2013 |work=Nuclear Engineering International Magazine |publisher=Nuclear Engineering International}}</ref> [[Duke Energy]]'s [[Crystal River 3 Nuclear Power Plant]] in Florida closed, as it could not recover the costs needed to fix its containment building.<ref>{{Cite web |title="Crystal River Nuclear Plant to be retired; company evaluating sites for potential new gas-fueled generation". 5 February 2013. |url=http://www.duke-energy.com/news/releases/2013020501.asp |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20131022070113/http://www.duke-energy.com/news/releases/2013020501.asp |archivedate=22 October 2013 |website=Duke Energy}}</ref>

As a result of these changes, after reaching peak production in 2007, US nuclear capacity has been undergoing constant reduction every year.

In 2021, [[Indian Point Energy Center]], the last remaining nuclear power plant in the [[New York City metropolitan area]], was shut down.<ref>{{cite web|title=New York's Indian Point nuclear power plant closes after 59 years of operation – Today in Energy – U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)|url=https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=47776#:~:text=The%20Indian%20Point%20Energy%20Center,3,%20earlier%20than%20originally%20planned.|access-date=30 June 2021|website=eia.gov}}</ref> Environmental groups celebrated the decision to close the plant, while critics pointed to the sites generation being replaced by two gas fired power plants resulting in an increase of fossil fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions.<ref>{{Cite news|last=McGeehan|first=Patrick|date=12 April 2021|title=Indian Point Is Shutting Down. That Means More Fossil Fuel.|language=en-US|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/12/nyregion/indian-point-power-plant-closing.html|access-date=30 June 2021|issn=0362-4331}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Kennedy |first1=Kit |date=28 April 2021 |title=Indian Point Is Closing, but Clean Energy Is Here to Stay |url=https://www.nrdc.org/experts/kit-kennedy/indian-point-closing-clean-energy-here-stay |access-date=30 June 2021 |website=NRDC |language=en}}</ref>

=== Asia ===
[[Renewable energy]], mainly [[hydropower]], is gaining share.<ref>[http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/skoren.html EIA – 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585]. Eia.doe.gov. Retrieved 4 June 2011. {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080301131037/http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/skoren.html |date=1 March 2008 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=1 November 2005 |title=Article Commentary: A Sustained Reaction |url=https://thebulletin.org/2005/11/article-commentary-a-sustained-reaction/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060928025726/http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=jf05kang |archive-date=28 September 2006 |website=The Bulletin}}</ref>

For [[North Korea]], two [[Pressurized water reactor|PWR]]s at Kumho were under construction until that was suspended in November 2003. On 19 September 2005, North Korea pledged to stop building nuclear weapons and agreed to international inspections in return for energy aid, which may include one or more light water reactors – the agreement said "The other parties expressed their respect and agreed to discuss at an appropriate time the subject of the provision of light-water reactor" [sic].<ref>{{cite web |url=https://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050919/ap_on_re_as/koreas_nuclear |title= N. Korea Agrees to Dismantle Nuke Programs |publisher=Yahoo! News |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050920211454/http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050919/ap_on_re_as/koreas_nuclear |archive-date=20 September 2005}}</ref> North Korea has since continued with its nuclear weapons development program.

In July 2000, the Turkish government decided not to build four reactors at the controversial [[Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant]], but later changed its mind. The official launch ceremony took place in April 2015, and the first unit was expected to be completed in 2020.<ref name=wnn-20150415>{{cite news |url=http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Ground-broken-for-Turkeys-first-nuclear-power-plant-1541501.html |title=Ground broken for Turkey's first nuclear power plant |publisher=World Nuclear News |date=15 April 2015 |access-date=19 April 2015}}</ref>

India has 20 reactors operating, 6 reactors under construction, and is planning an additional 24.<ref name="eia.gov">{{cite web|url=https://www.eia.gov/international/?fips=IN|title=International – U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)|website=eia.gov}}</ref>

[[Nuclear energy in Vietnam|Vietnam]] had developed detailed plans for 2 nuclear power plants with 8 reactors, but in November 2016 decided to abandon nuclear power plans as they were "not economically viable because of other cheaper sources of power."<ref name=dw-20161110>{{cite news |url=http://www.dw.com/en/vietnam-ditches-nuclear-power-plans/a-36338419 |title=Vietnam ditches nuclear power plans |publisher=Deutsche Welle |agency=Associated Press |date=10 November 2016 |access-date=11 November 2016}}</ref>

==== Japan ====
{{See also|Anti-nuclear power movement in Japan}}

[[File:Fukushima I by Digital Globe.jpg|thumb|upright=1.2|Three of the reactors at [[Fukushima I nuclear accidents|Fukushima I]] overheated, causing [[nuclear meltdown|meltdowns]] that eventually led to hydrogen explosions, which released large amounts of [[radioactive]] gases into the air.<ref>{{cite news |author=Fackler |first=Martin |date=1 June 2011 |title=Report Finds Japan Underestimated Tsunami Danger |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/02/world/asia/02japan.html?_r=1&ref=world |work=The New York Times}}</ref>]]
[[File:Anti-Nuclear Power Plant Rally on 19 September 2011 at Meiji Shrine Outer Garden 03.JPG|thumb|upright=1.2|Anti-Nuclear Power Plant Rally on 19 September 2011 at [[Meiji Shrine]] complex in Tokyo. Sixty thousand people marched chanting "Sayonara nuclear power" and waving banners, calling on Japan's government to abandon nuclear power, following the Fukushima disaster.<ref name="usatoday.com">{{cite web |url=https://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2011-09-19/japan-anti-nuclear-protest/50461872/1 |title=Thousands march against nuclear power in Tokyo |date = September 2011|work=USA Today }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |author=Slater |first=David H. |date=9 November 2011 |title=Fukushima women against nuclear power: finding a voice from Tohoku |url=http://japanfocus.org/events/view/117# |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140214195812/http://japanfocus.org/events/view/117 |archive-date=14 February 2014 |work=The Asia-Pacific Journal}}</ref>]]

Once a nuclear proponent, Prime Minister [[Naoto Kan]] became increasingly [[anti-nuclear]] following the [[Fukushima nuclear disaster]]. In May 2011, he closed the ageing [[Hamaoka Nuclear Power Plant]] over earthquake and tsunami fears, and said he would freeze plans to build new reactors. In July 2011, Kan said that "Japan should reduce and eventually eliminate its dependence on nuclear energy ... saying that the Fukushima accident had demonstrated the dangers of the technology".<ref name="Hiroko Tabuchi">{{cite news |author=Tabuchi |first=Hiroko |author-link=Hiroko Tabuchi |date=13 July 2011 |title=Japan Premier Wants Shift Away From Nuclear Power |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/14/world/asia/14japan.html?_r=1&hp |work=The New York Times}}</ref> In August 2011, the Japanese government passed a bill to subsidise electricity from [[renewable energy]] sources.<ref name="Chisaki Watanabe">{{cite news |author=Watanabe |first=Chisaki |date=26 August 2011 |title=Japan Spurs Solar, Wind Energy With Subsidies, in Shift From Nuclear Power |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-26/japan-passes-renewable-energy-bill-one-precondition-of-kan-s-resignation.html |publisher=Bloomberg L. P.}}</ref> A 2011 Japanese Cabinet energy white paper says "public confidence in safety of nuclear power was greatly damaged" by the Fukushima disaster, and called for a reduction in the nation's reliance on nuclear power.<ref name="Tsuyoshi Inajima and Yuji Okada">{{cite news |last1=Inajima |first1=Tsuyoshi |last2=Okada |first2=Yuji |name-list-style=amp |date=28 October 2011 |title=Nuclear Promotion Dropped in Japan Energy Policy After Fukushima |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-28/nuclear-promotion-dropped-in-japan-energy-policy-after-fukushima.html |publisher=Bloomberg L. P.}}</ref> {{As of|2011|08}}, the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant was leaking low levels of radioactivity and areas surrounding it could remain uninhabitable for decades.<ref name="reuters.com">{{cite news |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-nuclear-uninhabitable-idUSTRE77Q17U20110827 |title=Areas near Japan nuclear plant may be off limits for decades | date=27 August 2011 |work=Reuters }}</ref>

By March 2012, one year after the disaster, all but two of Japan's nuclear reactors were shut down; some were damaged by the quake and tsunami. The following year, the last two were taken off-line. Authority to restart the others after scheduled maintenance throughout the year was given to local governments, and in all cases local opposition prevented restarting.

Prime Minister [[Shinzō Abe|Shinzo Abe]]'s government, reelected on a platform of restarting nuclear power, plans to have nuclear power account for 20 to 22 per cent of the country's total electricity supply by 2030, compared with roughly 30 per cent before the disaster at the Fukushima complex.

In 2015 two reactors at [[Sendai Nuclear Power Plant]] have been restarted.<ref>{{Cite news|title = Kyushu restarts second reactor at Sendai plant under tighter Fukushima-inspired rules|url = http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/10/15/national/second-reactor-restarted-kyushu-tighter-fukushima-inspired-rules/|newspaper = The Japan Times|date = 15 October 2015|access-date = 19 October 2015|issn = 0447-5763|language = en}}</ref> In 2016 [[Ikata Nuclear Power Plant|Ikata-3]] restarted and in 2017 [[Takahama Nuclear Power Plant|Takahama-4]] restarted. In 2021 [[Mihama Nuclear Power Plant]] unit 3 was restarted.<ref>{{cite web|title=Japan allows 1st restarts of nuclear reactors older than 40 years|url=https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Energy/Japan-allows-1st-restarts-of-nuclear-reactors-older-than-40-years|access-date=4 July 2021|website=Nikkei Asia|language=en-GB}}</ref>

In 2023, Japan's Cabinet approved a policy to allow new nuclear power reactors to be constructed and operation of existing reactors to be extended from 40 to 60 years.<ref>{{Cite news |date=10 February 2023 |title=Cabinet approves change in Japanese nuclear policy |url=https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Cabinet-approves-change-in-Japanese-nuclear-policy |access-date=10 February 2023 |newspaper=World Nuclear News |language=en}}</ref>

==== Philippines ====
{{See also|Anti-nuclear movement in the Philippines}}

In the [[Philippines]], in 2004, President [[Gloria Macapagal Arroyo]] outlined her [[energy policy]]. Regarding nuclear energy, she made public plans to convert the (completed but never commissioned) [[Bataan Nuclear Power Plant]] (BNPP) into a gas-powered facility.<ref>{{cite news | last=Lagniton |first=Francis S.  |date=9 August 2004 |url=http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2004/aug/09/yehey/opinion/20040809opi5.html |title=Why don't we just nuke it? |work=[[The Manila Times]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060223134158/http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2004/aug/09/yehey/opinion/20040809opi5.html |archive-date=23 February 2006}}</ref> These plans did not come to fruition, and by 2024, the government of President [[Bongbong Marcos]] signed an agreement with [[Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power]], for the latter to conduct a feasibility study on refurbishing the BNPP and commissioning it into service in its originally intended configuration of a nuclear power station.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Gascon |first1=Melvin |title=PH, Korea eye revival of Bataan nuke plant |url=https://globalnation.inquirer.net/251606/ph-korea-eye-revival-of-bataan-nuke-plant |access-date=5 June 2025 |work=[[Philippine Daily Inquirer]] |date=8 October 2024 |language=en}}</ref>

==== South Korea ====
In 2017, responding to widespread public concerns after the [[Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster]] in Japan, the high earthquake risk in South Korea, and a [[South Korean nuclear scandal|2013 nuclear scandal involving the use of counterfeit parts]], the new government of President [[Moon Jae-in]] had decided to gradually phase out [[nuclear power in South Korea]]. Such decision, however, was met with widespread criticism regarding its political transparency and various doubts regarding its process. This was especially highlighted when the construction of Shin Gori units 5 and 6 were unilaterally stopped by the government. Being faced with stark criticism, the construction of Shin Gori units 5 and 6 were eventually restarted.

Later into the administrative period, the Moon Jae-in government and its nuclear phase-out policy is facing heavier criticism than before, from both the opposing parties as well as general public due to lack of realistic alternative, consequential increase in electricity price, negative effects on the related industries, public consensus of needs to reduce carbon footprint and the decrease of popularity due to other political and economic failures. Surveys from 2021 show that the support for nuclear phase out has drastically reduced, although the details differ from majority support to majority disapproval depending on the survey.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Jung |first1=Chan |title=[한국리서치] 문재인 정부 '탈원전 정책방향' '찬성56%-반대32%' |url=http://www.polinews.co.kr/mobile/article.html?no=491951 |access-date=18 September 2021 |work=Polinews |date=28 July 2021}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Lee |first1=Jun-ki |title=설득력 잃은 탈원전…국민 70% "원전 찬성" |url=https://news.naver.com/main/read.naver?mode=LSD&mid=sec&sid1=105&oid=029&aid=0002696673&viewType=pc |access-date=18 September 2021 |work=Naver News |agency=Digital News |date=13 September 2021}}</ref> President Moon reversed his government's nuclear phaseout policy just before the election in February 2022.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/2022/03/01/business/economy/nuclear-nuclear-energy-nuclear-power/20220301125927993.html |title=Moon's turnaround on nuclear power leaves many stumped |website=koreajoongangdaily.joins.com |date=1 March 2022}}</ref>

In the 2022 election, candidate Yoon Seok-Yeol promised to cancel the phase out if elected and continue running all plants as long as they safely could be operated, develop new technology and become a global export powerhouse. Yoon went on to win a close election in what was seen as a big win for the nuclear sector.<ref>{{Cite news | url=https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/skoreas-nuclear-power-inflection-point-advocate-wins-presidency-2022-03-11/ | title=South Korea's nuclear power at inflection point as advocate wins presidency | work=Reuters | date=11 March 2022 | last1=Lee | first1=Joyce }}</ref>

=== Europe ===
==== Belgium ====
Belgium's nuclear phase-out legislation was agreed in July 1999 by the [[Liberalism worldwide|Liberals]] ([[Flemish Liberals and Democrats|VLD]] and [[Reformist Movement|MR]]), the [[Socialism|Socialists]] ([[Socialist Party - Different|SP.A]] and [[Socialist Party (francophone Belgium)|PS]]) and the [[Greens party]] ([[Green!|Groen!]] and [[Ecolo]]). The phase-out law called for each of [[List of commercial nuclear reactors#Belgium|Belgium's seven reactors]] to close after 40 years of operation with no new reactors built subsequently. When the law was being passed, it was speculated it would be overturned again as soon as an administration without the Greens was in power.<ref name="essential programme">{{cite web| url=http://www.nuclearliaison.com/pdfs/Nuclear_Task_Force_July_2003.pdf| title=An Essential Programme to Underpin Government Policy on Nuclear Power| date=July 2003| publisher=Nuclear Task Force| first=Philip| last=Ruffles| author2=Michael Burdekin| author3=Charles Curtis| author4=Brian Eyre| author5=Geoff Hewitt| author6=William Wilkinson| access-date=11 September 2012| archive-date=23 September 2020| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200923160739/http://www.nuclearliaison.com/pdfs/Nuclear_Task_Force_July_2003.pdf| url-status=dead}}</ref>

In the [[2003 Belgian federal election|federal election in May 2003]], there was an [[electoral threshold]] of 5% for the first time. Therefore, the Green parties, the [[ECOLO]], got only 3.06% of the votes, so ECOLO obtained no seat in the [[Chamber of Representatives (Belgium)|Chamber of Representatives]]. In July 2003, [[Guy Verhofstadt]] formed [[Verhofstadt II Government|his second government]]. It was a continuation of the [[Verhofstadt I Government]] but without the Green parties. In September 2005, the government partially overturned the previous decision, extending the phase-out period for another 20 years, with possible further extensions.

In July 2005, the [[Federal Planning Bureau]] published a new report, which stated that [[petroleum|oil]] and other [[fossil fuel]]s generated 90% of Belgian energy use, while nuclear power accounted for 9% and [[renewable energy]] for 1%. Electricity amounted to 16% of total energy use, and while nuclear-powered electricity amounted to 9% of use in Belgium, in many parts of Belgium, especially in [[Flanders]], it made up more than 50% of the electricity provided to households and businesses.<ref>{{citation|language=fr|title=Quelle énergie pour un développement durable ?|first=Alain|last=Henry|series=Working Paper 14-05|date=12 July 2005|url=http://www.plan.be/publications/publication_det.php?lang=fr&TM=30&IS=63&KeyPub=198|publisher=[[Federal Planning Bureau]]}}</ref> This was one of the major reasons to extend the earlier phase-out, since it was difficult to provide more than 50% of the electricity by 'alternative' energy-production, and a revert to the classical coal-driven electricity would mean inability to adhere to the [[Kyoto Protocol]].

In August 2005, French company [[Suez (company, 1997–2008)|Suez S.A.]] offered to buy the Belgian [[Electrabel]], which owns both of Belgium's operating nuclear power stations.<ref>{{cite news| url=https://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/10/business/worldbusiness/10suez.html | work=The New York Times | first=James | last=Kanter | title=Big French Utility Offers a Full Buyout in Belgium | date=10 August 2005}}</ref> At the end of 2005, Suez had some 98.5% of all Electrabel shares. Beginning in 2006, Suez announced [[Engie|a merger]] with [[Gaz de France]].

After the [[2007 Belgian federal election|federal election in June 2007]], a [[2007–11 Belgian political crisis|political crisis began]] and lasted until the end of 2011.

In the [[2010–2011 Belgian government formation]] negotiations, the phase-out was emphasised again, with concrete plans to shut off three of the country's seven reactors by 2015.<ref>{{cite news| url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15521865 | work=BBC News | title=Belgium plans to phase out nuclear power | date=31 October 2011}}</ref>

Before the [[Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster|Fukushima nuclear disaster]], the plan of the [[Belgian federal government|government]] was for all nuclear power stations to shut down by 2025.<ref>[http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=48&story_id=21976&name=Addicted+to+nuclear+energy%3F Addicted to nuclear energy? < Belgian news | Expatica Belgium] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060219083707/http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=48&story_id=21976&name=Addicted+to+nuclear+energy%3F |date=19 February 2006 }}. Expatica.com. Retrieved 4 June 2011.</ref> Although intermediate deadlines have been missed or pushed back, on 30 March 2018 the Belgian Council of Ministers confirmed the 2025 phase-out date and stated draft legislation would be brought forward later in the year.<ref name=wnn-20180404>{{cite news |url=http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-Belgium-maintains-nuclear-phase-out-policy-0404184.html |title=Belgium maintains nuclear phase-out policy |publisher=World Nuclear News |date=4 April 2018 |access-date=5 April 2018}}</ref>

In March 2022, the [[Belgian federal government|government]] decided to allow Doel 4 and Tihange 3 to continue operating until 2035 to allow the country to "strengthen its independence of fossil fuels in turbulent geopolitical times".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Extended-operation-of-two-Belgian-reactors-approve|title=Extended operation of two Belgian reactors approved : Nuclear Policies – World Nuclear News|website=world-nuclear-news.org}}</ref> Belgium's two newest nuclear plants are operated by French utility [[Engie]] and account for almost half of the country's electricity production.<ref name="ReferenceA"/> "This extension should allow to strengthen our country's independence from fossil fuels in a chaotic geopolitical context", the government said.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/belgium-to-extend-life-of-nuclear-reactors-for-another-decade-1.1739918 |title=Belgium to Extend Life of Nuclear Reactors for Another Decade |work=BNN Bloomberg  |date=19 March 2022 }}</ref>

Following approval by the [[Belgian Federal Parliament]], an act was [[Promulgation|promulgated]] on 17 May 2025 repealing the 2003 phase-out law and reversing the country's nuclear power phase-out.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/belgium-reverses-phase-out-policy-as-denmark-reconsiders-nuclear |title=Belgium reverses phase-out policy as Denmark reconsiders nuclear |website=World Nuclear News |date=15 May 2025 |access-date=3 June 2025}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Inayatullah |first=Saim Dušan |date=15 May 2025 |title=Belgian parliament scraps nuclear phaseout plan |url=https://www.dw.com/en/belgian-parliament-scraps-nuclear-phaseout-plan/a-72560001 |access-date=6 June 2025 |work=[[Deutsche Welle]] |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/cgi/article.pl?language=fr&sum_date=2025-06-03&pd_search=2025-05-26&numac_search=2025003894&page=1&lg_txt=F&caller=list&2025003894=0&view_numac=&dt=Loi&pdd=2025-05-14&pdf=2025-06-03&choix1=et&choix2=et&fr=f&nl=n&du=d&trier=promulgation |title=17 MAI 2025. - Loi portant diverses dispositions en matière d'énergie nucléaire et visant à garantir la sécurité d'approvisionnement en électricité et la maîtrise des coûts du mix électrique (1) |trans-title=MAY 17, 2025. - Law containing various provisions relating to nuclear energy and aimed at guaranteeing the security of electricity supply and controlling the costs of the electricity mix (1) |website=Belgian Federal Public Service Justice |date=26 May 2025 |access-date=3 June 2025 |lang=fr}}</ref>

Belgium also continues to be active in nuclear research and is building [[MYRRHA]], the world's first large scale demonstration of an [[accelerator-driven subcritical reactor]] that is to be used for [[nuclear transmutation]] of [[high level waste|high level radioactive waste]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.sckcen.be/en/news/myrrha-protons-accelerated-successfully|title=MYRRHA protons accelerated successfully|website=sckcen.be}}</ref>

==== Denmark ====
The [[Folketing]] passed a resolution in 1985 banning the construction of nuclear power plants in the country. However by 2025, Denmark was reported to be considering scrapping this prohibition.<ref>{{cite news |last=Ambrose |first=Jillian |date=14 May 2025 |title=Denmark rethinking 40-year nuclear power ban amid Europe-wide shift |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/14/denmark-rethinking-40-year-nuclear-power-ban-amid-europe-wide-shift |work=[[The Guardian]] |access-date=4 June 2025}}</ref>

==== Greece ====
[[Greece]] operates only a single small nuclear reactor in the Greek National Physics Research Laboratory in [[Demokritus Laboratories]] for research purposes.

==== Ireland ====
In Ireland, a nuclear power plant was first proposed in 1968. It was to be built during the 1970s at [[Carnsore Point]] in County Wexford. The plan called for first one, then ultimately four plants to be built at the site, but it was dropped after strong opposition from environmental groups, and Ireland has remained without nuclear power since.

Despite opposing nuclear power (and nuclear fuel reprocessing at [[Sellafield]]), Ireland imports electricity from the United Kingdom via several [[interconnector]]s, which is, in some part, the product of nuclear power.

==== The Netherlands ====
In the [[Netherlands]], in 1994, the [[States General of the Netherlands|Dutch parliament]] voted to phase out nuclear power generation after a discussion of nuclear waste management. [[Dodewaard nuclear power plant]] was shut down in 1997. In 1997 the government decided to end [[Borssele Nuclear Power Station]]'s operating licence, at the end of 2003. In 2003 the [[Second Balkenende cabinet]] postponed the shutdown to 2013.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.kerncentrale.nl/nieuws/nw030522.htm |title= 2003-05-22 Nucleons week 22 May 2003; Borssele's political lifetime extended to 2013 by new coalition|website=kerncentrale.nl |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050223194844/http://www.kerncentrale.nl/nieuws/nw030522.htm |archive-date=23 February 2005}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ecology.at/nni/country.php?country=Netherlands |title= NNI – No Nukes Inforesource|website=ecology.at |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070612100037/http://www.ecology.at/nni/country.php?country=Netherlands |archive-date=12 June 2007}}</ref>

In 2005 the decision was reversed and research in expanding nuclear power was initiated. The reversal was preceded by the publication of the [[Christian Democratic Appeal]]'s report on sustainable energy.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.world-nuclear.org/news/nl_jul-aug2005.htm |publisher=World Nuclear Association |title=July – August 2005|website=world-nuclear.org |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060923163834/http://www.world-nuclear.org/news/nl_jul-aug2005.htm |archive-date=23 September 2006}}</ref> Other coalition parties then conceded. In 2006 the government decided that Borssele nuclear power station would remain open until 2033, if it could comply with the highest safety standards. The owners, [[Essent]] and [[DELTA (company)|DELTA]] were to invest 500 million euros in sustainable energy, together with the government, money which the government claims otherwise should have been paid to the plants owners as compensation.

In December 2021, the [[Fourth Rutte cabinet]] stated that it wanted to both extend the service life of the Netherlands' sole operational nuclear power reactor at Borssele nuclear power station, and prepare for the construction of two new nuclear power plants, in order to reduce {{CO2}} emissions and meet the European Union goals for responding to climate change.<ref>{{Cite news |title=Nederland wil twee nieuwe kerncentrales bouwen |trans-title=The Netherlands wants to build two new nuclear power plants |url=https://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20211215_94982596 |access-date=24 January 2022|work=[[De Standaard]] |date=15 December 2021 |language=nl-BE}}</ref> Part of this preparation is the launch of a feasibility study, looking at the advantages and disadvantages of the use of nuclear power to respond to climate change.<ref>{{Cite news |title=Dit weten we van de miljardenplannen van het aanstaande kabinet-Rutte IV |trans-title=This is what we know about the billion-dollar plans of the upcoming Rutte IV cabinet |url=https://nos.nl/l/2409399 |access-date=24 January 2022 |work=[[Nederlandse Omroep Stichting|NOS]] |date=13 December 2021 |language=nl}}</ref>

==== Serbia ====
[[Serbia]] currently operates a single nuclear research reactor in the [[Vinča Institute of Nuclear Sciences|Vinča Institute]]. Previously, the Vinča Institute had two active reactors: RA and RB. In a 1958 nuclear incident, six workers received a critical amount of radiation and one of them died. These workers received the [[Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation|first bone marrow transplants]] in Europe. After the [[Chernobyl disaster]] in 1989, a moratorium on the use of nuclear energy was in established. Later, the law prohibited the use of nuclear energy. To this day, the Directorate for Nuclear and Radiation Safety (Srbatom) is strongly opposed to any kind of nuclear energy use in Serbia or neighbouring countries.

==== Slovenia ====
[[Krško Nuclear Power Plant]] in Slovenia (co-owned with [[Croatia]]) was originally scheduled to be closed by 2023. The debate on whether and when to close the Krško plant was somewhat intensified after the [[Russia-Ukraine gas dispute#Cutting off the supply|2005/06 winter energy crisis]]. In May 2006, the Ljubljana-based daily ''Dnevnik'' claimed Slovenian government officials internally proposed adding a new 1000&nbsp;MW block into Krško after the year 2020. In 2023, the service life of the Krško plant was extended to 2043,<ref>{{Cite web |date=17 January 2023 |title=Slovenci izdali suglasnost; nuklearka Krško može raditi do 2043. |trans-title=The Slovenians issued their consent; The Krško nuclear power plant can operate until 2043 |url=https://www.tportal.hr/vijesti/clanak/nuklearka-krsko-moze-raditi-do-2043-20230117 |access-date=6 June 2025 |website=tportal.hr |language=hr}}</ref> and as of 2024, the construction of a second reactor at the plant was being considered.<ref>{{cite news |title=Slovenia's nuclear energy expansion gains further momentum |url=https://sloveniatimes.com/40529/slovenias-nuclear-energy-expansion-gains-further-momentum |work=The Slovenia Times |date=23 May 2024 |access-date=6 June 2025}}</ref>

==== Sweden ====
{{Main|Nuclear power in Sweden}}

A year after the [[Three Mile Island accident]] in 1979, the [[1980 Swedish nuclear power referendum]] was held. It led to the Swedish parliament deciding that no further nuclear power plants should be built, and that a nuclear power phase-out should be completed by 2010. On 5 February 2009, the [[Government of Sweden]] effectively ended the phase-out policy.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/sweden-reverses-nuclear-phase-out/ |date=11 November 2009 |first=Johan |last=Borgenäs |title=Sweden Reverses Nuclear Phase-out Policy |publisher=[[Nuclear Threat Initiative]]}}</ref> In 2010, Parliament approved for new reactors to replace existing ones.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10347187 |title=Sweden to replace existing nuclear plants with new ones |date=18 June 2010 |newspaper=[[BBC News Online]]}}</ref>

The [[nuclear reactor]]s at the [[Barsebäck Nuclear Power Plant]] were shut down between 1999 and 2005. In October 2015, corporations running the nuclear plants decided to phase out two reactors at Oskarshamn<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://okg.se/sv/Press/2015/Beslut-fattat-om-fortida-stangning-av-O1-och-O2/ |title=OKG – Beslut fattat om förtida stängning av O1 och O2 |access-date=22 November 2016 |archive-date=23 November 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161123133139/http://okg.se/sv/Press/2015/Beslut-fattat-om-fortida-stangning-av-O1-och-O2/ |url-status=dead }}</ref> and two at Ringhals,<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://corporate.vattenfall.se/press-och-media/engelska/r1-and-r2-in-operation-until-2020-and-2019/ |title=R1 and R2 in operation until 2020 and 2019 – Vattenfall |access-date=22 November 2016 |archive-date=23 November 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161123054825/https://corporate.vattenfall.se/press-och-media/engelska/r1-and-r2-in-operation-until-2020-and-2019/ |url-status=dead }}</ref> reducing the number of remaining reactors from 12 in 1999 to 6 in 2020.

An opinion poll in April 2016 showed that about half of Swedes want to phase out nuclear power, 30 per cent want its use continued, and 20 per cent are undecided.<ref name="SR2016">{{cite news |url=http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=6419421 |title=30 years after Chernobyl: Half of Swedes oppose nuclear power |newspaper=[[Sveriges Radio]] |date=26 April 2016}}</ref> Prior to the [[Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster]] in 2011, "a clear majority of Swedes" had been in favour of nuclear power.<ref name="SR2016"/> In June 2016, the opposition parties and the [[Löfven I Cabinet|government]] reached an agreement on Swedish nuclear power.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.thelocal.se/20160610/sweden-agrees-to-continue-nuclear-power |title=Sweden strikes deal to continue nuclear power |date=10 June 2016 |newspaper=[[The Local]]}}</ref> The agreement is to phase out the output tax on nuclear power, and allow ten new replacement reactors to be built at current nuclear plants.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/regeringen-overens-om-energiuppgorelse|title=Klart i dag: så blir den svenska energipolitiken|last=Juhlin|first=Johan|newspaper=SVT Nyheter|date=10 June 2016|publisher=[[Sveriges Television]]|language=sv|access-date=13 June 2016}}</ref>

Since then, public support of nuclear energy has grown, with a majority of people in favour of nuclear power in 2019.<ref>{{cite web |date=26 November 2019 |title=Swedish support for nuclear continues to grow, poll shows |url=https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Swedish-support-for-nuclear-continues-to-grow,-pol |access-date=21 August 2020 |website=World Nuclear News |language=en}}</ref> Those in favour of decommissioning nuclear has dropped to a record low of 11 per cent.

In 2023, plans were announced by the Swedish government and [[Vattenfall]] for both extending the service life of the country's existing nuclear power reactors,<ref>{{cite news |title=Vattenfall vill dubbla livslängden på kärnreaktorerna |trans-title=Vattenfall wants to double the lifespan of its nuclear reactors |url=https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/vattenfall-vill-dubbla-livslangden-pa-karnreaktorerna |work=[[Sveriges Television|SVT]] |date=16 June 2023 |access-date=6 June 2025 |lang=sv}}</ref> and the construction of a fleet of new reactors.<ref>{{cite web |title=Sweden plans 'massive' expansion of nuclear energy |url=https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Roadmap-launched-for-expansion-of-nuclear-energy-i |date=17 November 2023 |website=world-nuclear-news.org |access-date=6 June 2025}}</ref>

== Pros and cons of nuclear power==

===The nuclear debate===
{{Main|Nuclear power debate}}

The '''nuclear power debate''' is about the controversy<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/opinion/sunday/sunday-dialogue-nuclear-energy-pro-and-con.html|title=Sunday Dialogue: Nuclear Energy, Pro and Con |date=25 February 2012 |work=The New York Times }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1086/410301 |author=MacKenzie, James J. |title=Review of The Nuclear Power Controversy by Arthur W. Murphy |journal=The Quarterly Review of Biology |volume=52 |issue=4 |pages=467–8 |date=December 1977 |jstor=2823429}}</ref><ref name=eleven>{{cite book |author=Walker, J. Samuel |title=Three Mile Island: A Nuclear Crisis in Historical Perspective |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=tf0AfoynG-EC |date=10 January 2006 |publisher=University of California Press |isbn=9780520246836 |pages=10–11}}</ref><ref>In February 2010 the nuclear power debate played out on the pages of the ''[[New York Times]]'', see [https://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/18/opinion/18thur2.html?scp=1&sq=a%20reasonable%20bet%20on%20nuclear%20power&st=cse A Reasonable Bet on Nuclear Power] and [https://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/20/opinion/l20nuclear.html Revisiting Nuclear Power: A Debate] and [http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/a-comeback-for-nuclear-power/ A Comeback for Nuclear Power?]</ref><ref>In July 2010 the nuclear power debate again played out on the pages of the ''[[New York Times]]'', see [https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/opinion/20herbert.html We’re Not Ready]
 [https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/29/opinion/l29herbert.html Nuclear Energy: The Safety Issues]</ref> which has surrounded the deployment and use of [[nuclear reactor|nuclear fission reactors]] to generate electricity from [[nuclear fuel]] for civilian purposes. The debate about nuclear power peaked during the 1970s and 1980s, when it "reached an intensity unprecedented in the history of technology controversies", in some countries.<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1017/S000712340000380X |author=Kitschelt, Herbert P. |title=Political Opportunity and Political Protest: Anti-Nuclear Movements in Four Democracies |journal=British Journal of Political Science |volume=16 |issue=1 |page=57 |year=1986 |s2cid=154479502 |url=http://www.marcuse.org/harold/hmimages/seabrook/861KitscheltAntiNuclear4Democracies.pdf }}</ref><ref>[[Jim Falk]] (1982). ''Global Fission: The Battle Over Nuclear Power'', Oxford University Press.</ref>

Proponents of nuclear energy argue that nuclear power is a [[sustainable energy]] source which reduces [[carbon emissions]] and can increase [[energy security]] if its use supplants a dependence on imported fuels.<ref>[https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aXb5iuqdZoD4&refer=us U.S. Energy Legislation May Be `Renaissance' for Nuclear Power].</ref> Proponents cite scientific studies affirming the consensus that nuclear power produces virtually no air pollution,<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://energyindustryreview.com/power/unece-nuclear-is-the-lowest-carbon-electricity-source/|title=UNECE: Nuclear is the Lowest Carbon Electricity Source|first=Energy Industry|last=Review|date=23 November 2021}}</ref> in contrast to the chief dispatchable alternative of fossil fuel. Proponents also believe that nuclear power is the only viable course to achieve [[energy independence]] for most Western countries. They emphasise that the risks of storing spent fuel are small and can be further reduced by using the latest technology in newer reactors, [[Nuclear reprocessing|fuel recycling]], and long-lived radioisotope burn-up. For instance, spent nuclear fuel in the United States could extend nuclear power generation by hundreds of years<ref>{{cite web|url=https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-nuclear-power-must-be-part-of-the-energy-solution-environmentalists-climate|title=Why Nuclear Power Must Be Part of the Energy Solution|last=Rhodes|first=Richard|date=19 July 2018|website=Yale Environment 360|language=en-US|access-date=31 January 2020}}</ref> because more than 90% of spent fuel can be reprocessed.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/05/18/18climatewire-is-the-solution-to-the-us-nuclear-waste-prob-12208.html|title=Is the solution to the U.S. nuclear waste problem in France?|last=Ling|first=Katherine|date=18 May 2009|work=The New York Times|access-date=31 January 2020}}</ref> The operational safety record in the Western world is excellent when compared to the other major kinds of power plants.<ref>{{Cite web |author=Cohen |first=Bernard |title=The Nuclear Energy Option |url=http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/BOOK.html |access-date=9 December 2009}}</ref>

Over 10,000 hospitals worldwide use radioisotopes in medicine, and about 90% of the procedures are for diagnosis. The radioisotope most commonly used in diagnosis is [[technetium-99]], which is employed in about 40 million procedures per year, thereby accounting for about 80% of all nuclear medicine procedures and 85% of diagnostic scans in nuclear medicine worldwide. The main radioisotopes such as Tc-99m cannot effectively be produced without reactors.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-nuclear-applications/radioisotopes-research/radioisotopes-in-medicine.aspx|title=Radioisotopes in Medicine |publisher=World Nuclear Association|website=world-nuclear.org}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Medical Uses of Nuclear Materials |url=https://www.nrc.gov/materials/miau/med-use.html |website=Nuclear Regulatory Commission (US)}}</ref> Most smoke detectors use [[americium-241]], meaning every American home uses these common radioisotopes to improve their safety from fire.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/smoke-detectors.html|title=Backgrounder on Smoke Detectors|website=NRC Web}}</ref>

Opponents say that nuclear power poses many threats to people and the environment. These threats include health risks and environmental damage from [[uranium mining]], processing and transport, the risk of [[nuclear proliferation|nuclear weapons proliferation]] or sabotage, and the problem of radioactive [[nuclear waste]] management.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.theworldreporter.com/2010/09/nuclear-energy-is-not-green.html |title=Nuclear Energy is not a New Clear Resource. |publisher=Theworldreporter.com |date=2 September 2010 }}</ref><ref name="gierec">Greenpeace International and European Renewable Energy Council (January 2007). ''[http://www.energyblueprint.info/fileadmin/media/documents/energy_revolution.pdf Energy Revolution: A Sustainable World Energy Outlook] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090806121526/http://www.energyblueprint.info/fileadmin/media/documents/energy_revolution.pdf |date=6 August 2009 }}'', p. 7.</ref><ref name="protest">{{cite book|author=Giugni, Marco |title=Social protest and policy change: ecology, antinuclear, and peace movements in comparative perspective |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Kn6YhNtyVigC&pg=PA44 |year=2004 |publisher=Rowman & Littlefield |isbn=9780742518278 |pages=44–}}</ref> They also contend that reactors themselves are enormously complex machines where many things can and do go wrong, and there have been serious [[nuclear accidents]].<ref>[[Stephanie Cooke]] (2009). ''[[In Mortal Hands: A Cautionary History of the Nuclear Age]]'', Black Incorporated, p. 280.</ref><ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1016/j.enpol.2008.01.040 |author=Sovacool, Benjamin K. |author-link=Benjamin K. Sovacool |title=The costs of failure: A preliminary assessment of major energy accidents, 1907–2007 |journal=[[Energy Policy (journal)|Energy Policy]] |volume=36 |issue=5 |pages=1802–20 |year=2008 |bibcode=2008EnPol..36.1802S }}</ref> Critics do not believe that these risks can be reduced through new technology.<ref>[[Jim Green (councilman)|Jim Green]]. [http://www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/nfc/power-weapons/g4nw Nuclear Weapons and 'Fourth Generation' Reactors] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130205093517/http://www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/nfc/power-weapons/g4nw|date=5 February 2013}}. ''Chain Reaction'', August 2009, pp. 18–21.</ref> They 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.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Kleiner, Kurt |title=Nuclear energy: assessing the emissions |journal=Nature Climate Change |volume=2 |pages=130–1 |date=October 2008 |issue=810 |doi=10.1038/climate.2008.99 |url=http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0810/pdf/climate.2008.99.pdf |doi-access=free |bibcode=2008NatCC...1..130K }}</ref><ref>[[Mark Diesendorf]] (2007). ''[[Greenhouse Solutions with Sustainable Energy]]'', Australia: University of New South Wales Press, p. 252.</ref><ref name="markd">Mark Diesendorf. [http://www.ceem.unsw.edu.au/content/userDocs/NukesSocialAlternativesMD.pdf Is nuclear energy a possible solution to global warming?] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120722213838/http://www.ceem.unsw.edu.au/content/userDocs/NukesSocialAlternativesMD.pdf|date=22 July 2012}}.</ref> This criticism has however been partially quelled by the [[IPCC]] which indicated in 2014 that nuclear energy was a low carbon energy production technology, comparable to wind and lower than solar in that regard.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter7.pdf|title=IPCC Report 2014 Chapter 7. |publisher=IPCC |year=2014 }}</ref>

===Economics===
{{Main|Economics of nuclear power plants}}

The '''economics of new nuclear power plants''' is a controversial subject, since there are diverging views on the topic, and multi-billion dollar investments ride on the choice of an energy source. [[Nuclear power plant]]s typically have high capital costs for building the plant, but low direct fuel costs (with, however, much of the costs of fuel extraction, processing, use and long term storage externalised). Therefore, comparison with other power generation methods is strongly dependent on assumptions about construction timescales and capital financing for nuclear plants. Cost estimates also need to take into account [[nuclear decommissioning|plant decommissioning]] and [[nuclear waste]] storage costs. On the other hand, measures to [[mitigate global warming]], such as a [[carbon tax]] or [[carbon emissions trading]], may favour the economics of nuclear power versus fossil fuels.
 
In recent years there has been a slowdown of electricity demand growth and financing has become more difficult, which affects large projects such as nuclear reactors, with very large upfront costs and long project cycles which carry a large variety of risks.<ref name=kidd2011/> In Eastern Europe, a number of long-established projects are struggling to find finance, notably Belene in Bulgaria and the additional reactors at Cernavoda in Romania, and some potential backers have pulled out.<ref name=kidd2011>{{cite web|url=http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectioncode=147&storyCode=2058653 |title=New reactors—more or less? |author=Kidd, Steve |date=21 January 2011 |work=Nuclear Engineering International |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111212195417/http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectioncode=147&storyCode=2058653 |archive-date=12 December 2011 }}</ref> Where cheap natural gas is available and its future supply relatively secure, this also poses a major problem for nuclear projects.<ref name=kidd2011/>

Analysis of the economics of nuclear power must take into account who bears the risks of future uncertainties. To date, all operating nuclear power plants were developed by [[state-owned]] or [[Regulated market|regulated]] [[Electric utility|utility]] monopolies<ref name="ft-20100912">{{cite news |author=Crooks |first=Ed |date=12 September 2010 |title=Nuclear: New dawn now seems limited to the east |url=http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ad15fcfe-bc71-11df-a42b-00144feab49a.html |url-access=subscription |url-status=live |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221211/http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ad15fcfe-bc71-11df-a42b-00144feab49a.html |archive-date=11 December 2022 |access-date=12 September 2010 |work=Financial Times |location=London, England}}</ref> where many of the risks associated with construction costs, operating performance, fuel price, and other factors were borne by consumers rather than suppliers. Many countries have now liberalised the [[electricity market]] where these risks, and the risk of cheaper competitors emerging before capital costs are recovered, are borne by plant suppliers and operators rather than consumers, which leads to a significantly different evaluation of the economics of new nuclear power plants.<ref name=MIT-2003>{{Cite book |url=http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/ |title=The Future of Nuclear Power |publisher=[[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]] |year=2003 |isbn=0-615-12420-8 |access-date=10 November 2006 }}</ref>
 
Following the 2011 [[Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster]], costs are likely to go up for currently operating and new nuclear power plants, due to increased requirements for on-site spent fuel management and elevated design basis threats.<ref name="Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2011 xv">{{cite web |url=http://web.mit.edu/mitei/research/studies/documents/nuclear-fuel-cycle/The_Nuclear_Fuel_Cycle-all.pdf |title=The Future of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle |author=Massachusetts Institute of Technology |year=2011 |page=xv }}</ref>

===Environment===
{{Main|Environmental impact of nuclear power}}

[[File:Nuclear power environmenal collage.jpg|thumb|right|upright=1.8|Nuclear power activities involving the environment; mining, enrichment, generation and geological disposal.]]
 
The '''environmental impact of [[nuclear power]]''' results from the [[nuclear fuel cycle]], operation, and the effects of [[nuclear accidents]].

The [[greenhouse gas emission]]s from nuclear fission power are small relative to those associated with coal, oil, gas, and biomass. They are about equal to those associated with wind and hydroelectric.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.world-nuclear.org/uploadedFiles/org/WNA/Publications/Working_Group_Reports/comparison_of_lifecycle.pdf|title=Comparison of Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Various Electricity Generation Sources}}</ref>

The routine health risks from nuclear fission power are very small relative to those associated with coal, oil, gas, solar, biomass, wind and hydroelectric.<ref name="ExterneE">[http://manhaz.cyf.gov.pl/manhaz/strona_konferencja_EAE-2001/15%20-%20Polenp~1.pdf Economic Analysis of Various Options of Electricity Generation  – Taking into Account Health and Environmental Effects, based on EU ExterneE Project data] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927230434/http://manhaz.cyf.gov.pl/manhaz/strona_konferencja_EAE-2001/15%20-%20Polenp~1.pdf|date=27 September 2007}}.</ref>

However, there is a "catastrophic risk" potential if containment fails,<ref name=ipfm2010/> which in nuclear reactors can be brought about by over-heated fuels melting and releasing large quantities of fission products into the environment. The public is sensitive to these risks and there has been considerable [[Anti-nuclear movement|public opposition to nuclear power]]. Even so, in comparing the fatalities for major accidents alone in the energy sector, it is still found that the risks associated with nuclear power are extremely small relative to those associated with coal, oil, gas and hydroelectric.<ref name="ExterneE" /> For the operation of a 1000-MWe nuclear power plant, the complete nuclear fuel cycle, from mining to reactor operation to waste disposal, the radiation dose is cited as 136 person-rem/year. The dose is 490 person-rem/year for an equivalent coal-fired power plant.<ref>https://www.ornl.gov/sites/default/files/ORNL%20Review%20v26n3-4%201993.pdf, p. 28.</ref>

The 1979 [[Three Mile Island accident]] and 1986 [[Chernobyl disaster]], along with high construction costs, ended the rapid growth of global nuclear power capacity.<ref name=ipfm2010>{{cite web |url=http://www.fissilematerials.com/ipfm/site_down/rr09.pdf |title=The Uncertain Future of Nuclear Energy |author=International Panel on Fissile Materials |date=September 2010 |work=Research Report 9 |page=1 }}{{Dead link|date=April 2024 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> A further disastrous release of radioactive materials followed the 2011 Japanese tsunami which damaged the [[Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant]], resulting in [[Fukushima I nuclear accidents|hydrogen gas explosions and partial meltdowns]] classified as a [[International Nuclear Event Scale|Level 7]] event. The large-scale release of radioactivity resulted in people being evacuated from a 20&nbsp;km exclusion zone set up around the power plant, similar to the 30&nbsp;km radius [[Chernobyl Exclusion Zone]] remains in effect. Subsequent scientific assessment of the health impacts of radiation has shown that these evacuations were more damaging than the radiation could have been, and recommend that the population be advised to remain in place in all but the most severe radiological release events.<ref>{{Cite journal|title=J-value assessment of relocation measures following the nuclear power plant accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi|first1=I.|last1=Waddington|first2=P. J.|last2=Thomas|first3=R. H.|last3=Taylor|first4=G. J.|last4=Vaughan|date=1 November 2017|journal=Process Safety and Environmental Protection|volume=112|pages=16–49|doi=10.1016/j.psep.2017.03.012|doi-access=free|bibcode=2017PSEP..112...16W |hdl=1983/f281150c-c2ab-4b06-8773-4aa2292f1991|hdl-access=free}}</ref>

In May 2023, the Washington Post wrote, "Had Germany kept its nuclear plants running from 2010, it could have slashed its use of coal for electricity to 13 percent by now. Today’s figure is 31 percent... Already more lives might have been lost just in Germany because of air pollution from coal power than from all of the world’s nuclear accidents to date, Fukushima and Chernobyl included."<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/05/10/germany-end-nuclear-cost-climate-health/ Data on the German retreat from nuclear energy tell a cautionary tale], Washington Post, 10 May 2023, [https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/05/10/germany-end-nuclear-cost-climate-health/ Archive]</ref>

===Accidents===
{{Main|Nuclear and radiation accidents}}

[[File:View of Chernobyl taken from Pripyat.JPG|thumb|upright=1.4|The abandoned city of [[Pripyat (city)|Pripyat]] with the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the distance]]

The effect of nuclear accidents has been a topic of debate practically since the first [[nuclear reactor]]s were constructed. It has also been a key factor in [[Anti-nuclear movement|public concern about nuclear facilities]].<ref name=mvr>[[M.V. Ramana]]. Nuclear Power: Economic, Safety, Health, and Environmental Issues of Near-Term Technologies, ''Annual Review of Environment and Resources'', 2009, 34, p. 136.</ref> Some technical measures to reduce the risk of accidents or to minimise the amount of [[radioactivity]] released to the environment have been adopted. Despite the use of such measures, [[human error]] remains, and "there have been many accidents with varying effects as well near misses and incidents".<ref name="mvr"/><ref>{{cite news |author=Wald |first=Matthew |date=29 February 2012 |title=The Nuclear Ups and Downs of 2011 |url=http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/29/the-nuclear-ups-and-downs-of-2011/ |work=The New York Times}}</ref>
 
[[Benjamin K. Sovacool]] has reported that worldwide there have been 99 accidents at nuclear power plants.<ref name=critev/> Fifty-seven accidents have occurred since the Chernobyl disaster, and 57% (56 out of 99) of all nuclear-related accidents have occurred in the USA.<ref name=critev>Benjamin K. Sovacool. A Critical Evaluation of Nuclear Power and Renewable Electricity in Asia ''Journal of Contemporary Asia'', Vol. 40, No. 3, August 2010, pp. 393–400.</ref> Serious [[nuclear power plant]] accidents include the [[Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster]] (2011), [[Chernobyl disaster]] (1986), [[Three Mile Island accident]] (1979), and the [[SL-1]] accident (1961).<ref name="timenuke">{{cite magazine |date=28 March 2009 |title=The Worst Nuclear Disasters – Photo Essays |url=http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1887705,00.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090328130544/http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1887705,00.html |archive-date=28 March 2009 |magazine=Time}}</ref> Stuart Arm states, "apart from [[Chernobyl Disaster|Chernobyl]], no nuclear workers or members of the public have ever died as a result of exposure to [[ionizing radiation|radiation]] due to a commercial [[nuclear reactor]] incident."<ref>{{cite journal |last=Arm |first=Stuart T. |date=July 2010 |title=Nuclear Energy: A Vital Component of Our Energy Future |url=http://www.aiche.org/uploadedFiles/About/Press/Articles/1007_Nuclear_Energy_Preprint.pdf |url-status=dead |journal=Chemical Engineering Progress |location=New York, New York |publisher=American Institute of Chemical Engineers |pages=27–34 |issn=0360-7275 |oclc=1929453 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110928095317/http://www.aiche.org/uploadedFiles/About/Press/Articles/1007_Nuclear_Energy_Preprint.pdf |archive-date=28 September 2011 |access-date=26 July 2010}}</ref>
 
The [[International Atomic Energy Agency]] maintains a website reporting recent accidents.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www-pub.iaea.org/mtcd/publications/accres.asp |title=IAEA Publications |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071123031308/http://www-pub.iaea.org/mtcd/publications/accres.asp |access-date=20 November 2021|archive-date=23 November 2007 }}</ref>

===Safety===
{{Main|Nuclear safety and security}}

Nuclear safety and security covers the actions taken to prevent [[nuclear and radiation accidents]] or to limit their consequences. This covers [[nuclear power plants]] as well as all other nuclear facilities, the transportation of nuclear materials, and the use and storage of nuclear materials for medical, power, industry, and military uses.

Although there is no way to guarantee that a reactor will always be designed, built and operated safely, the nuclear power industry has improved the safety and performance of reactors, and has proposed safer reactor designs, though many of these designs have yet to be tested at industrial or commercial scales.<ref name=globen/> Mistakes do occur and the designers of reactors at [[Timeline of the Fukushima nuclear accidents|Fukushima]] in Japan did not anticipate that a tsunami generated by an earthquake would disable the backup systems that were supposed to stabilise the reactor after the earthquake.<ref name="Hugh Gusterson">{{cite web |author=Gusterson |first=Hugh |date=16 March 2011 |title=The lessons of Fukushima |url=http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists/hugh-gusterson/the-lessons-of-fukushima |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130606023005/http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists/hugh-gusterson/the-lessons-of-fukushima |archive-date=6 June 2013 |work=Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists}}</ref><ref name="DIAZMAURIN2011">{{cite journal |last=Diaz Maurin |first=François |date=26 March 2011 |title=Fukushima: Consequences of Systemic Problems in Nuclear Plant Design |url=http://epw.in/epw/uploads/articles/15865.pdf |journal=Economic & Political Weekly |location=Mumbai, India |volume=46 |issue=13 |pages=10–12}} {{dead link|date=February 2018|bot=InternetArchiveBot|fix-attempted=yes}}</ref> According to [[UBS]] AG, the [[Fukushima I nuclear accidents]] have cast doubt on whether even an advanced economy like Japan can master nuclear energy safety.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-04-04/fukushima-crisis-worse-for-atomic-power-than-chernobyl-ubs-says.html |title=Fukushima Crisis Worse for Atomic Power Than Chernobyl, UBS Says |author=James Paton |date=4 April 2011 |work=Bloomberg Businessweek |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110515064305/http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-04-04/fukushima-crisis-worse-for-atomic-power-than-chernobyl-ubs-says.html |archive-date=15 May 2011 }}</ref> Catastrophic scenarios involving terrorist attacks are also conceivable.<ref name=globen>{{cite web |url=http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/JDEnPolicyPt1.pdf |title=Providing all Global Energy with Wind, Water, and Solar Power, Part I: Technologies, Energy Resources, Quantities and Areas of Infrastructure, and Materials |author1=Jacobson, Mark Z.  |author2=Delucchi, Mark A.  |name-list-style=amp |year=2010 |work=Energy Policy |page=6 }}</ref>

An interdisciplinary team from MIT have estimated that given the expected growth of nuclear power from 2005 to 2055, at least four serious nuclear accidents would be expected in that period.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/docs/policy-briefs/201101_RSU_PolicyBrief_1-2nd_Thought_Nuclear-Sovacool.pdf |title=Second Thoughts About Nuclear Power |author=Benjamin K. Sovacool |date=January 2011 |publisher=National University of Singapore |page=8 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130116084833/http://spp.nus.edu.sg/docs/policy-briefs/201101_RSU_PolicyBrief_1-2nd_Thought_Nuclear-Sovacool.pdf |archive-date=16 January 2013 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/pdf/nuclearpower-full.pdf |title=The Future of Nuclear Power |author=Massachusetts Institute of Technology |year=2003 |page=48 }}</ref> To date, there have been five serious accidents ([[core damage]]) in the world since 1970 (one at [[Three Mile Island accident|Three Mile Island]] in 1979; one at [[Chernobyl]] in 1986; and three at [[Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster|Fukushima-Daiichi]] in 2011), corresponding to the beginning of the operation of [[generation II reactor]]s. This leads to on average of one serious accident happening every eight years worldwide.<ref name="DIAZMAURIN2011" /> Despite these accidents and public opinion, the safety record of nuclear power, in terms of lives lost (ignoring nonfatal illnesses) per unit of electricity delivered, is better than every other major source of power in the world, and on par with solar and wind.<ref name="ExterneE"/><ref>{{cite web |title=Dr. MacKay "Sustainable Energy without the hot air" page 168. Data from studies by the Paul Scherrer Institute including non EU data |url=http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c24/page_168.shtml |access-date=20 November 2021 |publisher=University of Cambridge |language=en-uk |publication-place=England}}</ref><ref>World Nuclear Association. [http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf06.html Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070204134656/http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf06.html |date=4 February 2007 }}.</ref>

==Energy transition==
[[File:Schneebergerhof 01.jpg|thumb|upright=0.8|left|Photovoltaic array and wind turbines at the Schneebergerhof wind farm in the German state of Rheinland-Pfalz]]
[[File:Parabolic trough solar thermal electric power plant 1.jpg|thumb|upright=1.2|Parabolic trough power plant for electricity production, near the town of Kramer Junction in the California Mojave Desert]]
[[File:Global public support for energy sources (Ipsos 2011).png|thumb|right|upright=1.8|alt=Global public support for energy sources, based on a 2011 poll by Ipsos Global @dvisor|Global public support for energy sources, based on a survey by [[Ipsos]] (2011)<ref name="ipsos 2011 preference for renewables">
{{harvnb|Ipsos|2011|p=3}}.
</ref>]]
{{See also|Energy transition|100% renewable energy|nuclear power debate|green movement}}
[[Energy transition]] is the shift by several countries to sustainable economies by means of [[renewable energy]], [[Efficient energy use|energy efficiency]] and [[sustainable development]]. This trend has been augmented by diversifying electricity generation and allowing homes and businesses with solar panels on their rooftops to sell electricity to the grid. In the future this could "lead to a majority of our energy coming from decentralized solar panels and wind turbines scattered across the country" rather than large power plants.<ref>{{cite web | url = https://www.en-powered.com/blog/the-bumpy-road-to-energy-deregulation | title = The Bumpy Road to Energy Deregulation | publisher = EnPowered | date = 28 March 2016 | access-date = 6 April 2017 | archive-date = 7 April 2017 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20170407145323/https://www.en-powered.com/blog/the-bumpy-road-to-energy-deregulation | url-status = dead }}</ref> The final goal of German proponents of a nuclear power phase-out is the abolishment of coal and other non-renewable energy sources.<ref>{{Cite book |author=Federal Ministry for the Environment |url=http://erneuerbare-energien.de/files/pdfs/allgemein/application/pdf/leitstudie2011_bf.pdf |title=Langfristszenarien und Strategien für den Ausbau der erneuerbaren Energien in Deutschland bei Berücksichtigung der Entwicklung in Europa und global |date=29 March 2012 |publisher=Federal Ministry for the Environment (BMU) |location=Berlin, Germany |language=de |trans-title=Long-term Scenarios and Strategies for the Development of Renewable Energy in Germany Considering Development in Europe and Globally |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121027171200/http://erneuerbare-energien.de/files/pdfs/allgemein/application/pdf/leitstudie2011_bf.pdf |archive-date=27 October 2012 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

Issues exist that currently prevent a shift to 100% renewable technologies. There is debate over the [[environmental impact of solar power]], and the [[environmental impact of wind power]]. Some argue that the pollution produced and requirement of [[rare-earth elements]] offsets many of the benefits compared to other alternative power sources such as hydroelectric, geothermal, and nuclear power.<ref name="US Department of Energy">{{cite web |date=12 February 2015 |title=Advantages and Challenges of Wind Power |url=http://energy.gov/eere/wind/advantages-and-challenges-wind-energy |work=Department Of Energy |publication-place=United States}}</ref>

== See also ==
{{Portal|Nuclear technology}}

<!-- Please respect alphabetical order. -->
* [[Nuclear renaissance]]
* [[Anti-nuclear movement]]
* [[As low as reasonably practicable]]
* [[Energy conservation]]
* [[Energy development]]
* [[Fossil fuel phase-out]]
* [[List of energy topics]]
* [[Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty]]
* [[Nuclear energy policy]]
* [[Nuclear power controversy]]
* [[Nuclear power in France]]
* [[Renewable energy commercialization|Renewable energy commercialisation]]
* [[Wind power]]

== Notes and references ==
{{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}

==Further reading==
{{See also|List of books about nuclear issues}}

* Angwin, Meredith (2020). ''Shorting the Grid, The Hidden Fragility of Our Electric Grid,'' Carnot Communications.
* Conley, Mike and Maloney, Tim (2017). ''[http://www.roadmaptonowhere.com/ ROADMAP TO NOWHERE The Myth of Powering the Nation With Renewable Energy.]''
* [[Stephanie Cooke|Cooke, Stephanie]] (2009). ''[[In Mortal Hands: A Cautionary History of the Nuclear Age]]'', Black Inc.
* Cragin, Susan (2007). ''[[Nuclear Nebraska|Nuclear Nebraska: The Remarkable Story of the Little County That Couldn’t Be Bought]]'', AMACOM.
* [[Mark Diesendorf|Diesendorf, Mark]] (2007). ''[[Greenhouse Solutions with Sustainable Energy]]'', University of New South Wales Press.
* [[David Elliott (professor)|Elliott, David]] (2007). ''[[Nuclear or Not?|Nuclear or Not? Does Nuclear Power Have a Place in a Sustainable Energy Future?]]'', Palgrave.
* Falk, Jim (1982). ''Global Fission: The Battle Over Nuclear Power'', Oxford University Press.
* [[Amory Lovins|Lovins, Amory B.]] (1977). ''[[Soft energy path|Soft Energy Paths: Towards a Durable Peace]]'', Friends of the Earth International, {{ISBN|0-06-090653-7}}
* Lovins, Amory B. and John H. Price (1975). ''[[Non-Nuclear Futures: The Case for an Ethical Energy Strategy]]'', Ballinger Publishing Company, 1975, {{ISBN|0-88410-602-0}}
* [[Ron Pernick|Pernick, Ron]] and [[Clint Wilder]] (2007). ''[[The Clean Tech Revolution|The Clean Tech Revolution: The Next Big Growth and Investment Opportunity]]'', Collins, {{ISBN|978-0-06-089623-2}}
* Price, Jerome (1982). ''The Antinuclear Movement'', Twayne Publishers.
* Rudig, Wolfgang (1990). ''Anti-nuclear Movements: A World Survey of Opposition to Nuclear Energy'', Longman.
* [[Mycle Schneider|Schneider, Mycle]], [[Stephen Thomas (economist)|Steve Thomas]], Antony Froggatt, Doug Koplow (August 2009). ''[[The World Nuclear Industry Status Report]]'', [[Federal Ministry for Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety|German Federal Ministry of Environment, Nature Conservation and Reactor Safety]].
* [[Benjamin K. Sovacool|Sovacool, Benjamin K.]] (2011). ''[[Contesting the Future of Nuclear Power]]: A Critical Global Assessment of Atomic Energy'', [[World Scientific]].
* Walker, J. Samuel (2004). ''[[Three Mile Island (book)|Three Mile Island: A Nuclear Crisis in Historical Perspective]]'', University of California Press.
* William D. Nordhaus, ''The Swedish Nuclear Dilemma – Energy and the Environment''. 1997. Hardcover, {{ISBN|0-915707-84-5}}.
* [[Bernard Leonard Cohen]], ''The Nuclear Energy Option: An Alternative for the 90's''. 1990. Hardcover. {{ISBN|0-306-43567-5}}. [http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/ Bernard Cohen's homepage] contains the full text of the book.

== External links ==
* [http://energytransition.de/ German Energy Transition]
* [http://www.fairewinds.org/ Fairewinds Energy Education]

{{Nuclear and radiation accidents and incidents}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Nuclear Power Phase-Out}}

[[Category:Environmentalism]]
[[Category:Nuclear technology]]
[[Category:Nuclear history]]
[[Category:Technological phase-outs]]