Growing up in Austria in the 1990s, one of the underlying lessons I learned in middle school was that nuclear power is humanity’s downfall. Though never explicitly described that way in the curriculum, from a young age my peers and I knew to associate the black-and-yellow trefoil symbol with apocalyptic environmental destruction. Reflecting on my upbringing helps me understand why so many in Germany, Austria, Denmark, Greece, and Italy argue that nuclear power should be our last resort as an energy resource. How could we allow the development and use of such dangerous technologies in our own lives? How could we just move on and accept that a nuclear accident could kill all of us at any moment?  

My generation was born near the nuclear disaster of Chernobyl, whose radioactive cloud reached Austria and continues to contaminate local food. Government authorities advised us not to eat extensive amounts of wild mushrooms or venison because of the amount of radioactive matter in them. Our parents had to sign permission forms for us to receive iodine tablets in case of a nuclear emergency. These precautions likely contributed to the anti-nuclear movement’s impact on our collective thinking about energy policies.  

I felt fear and despair when I read about the excruciating death through radiation in the novel Die Wolke (The Cloud) by Gudrun Pausewang. The book is about a young girl who has to flee a radioactive “cloud” caused by a nuclear accident in Germany and loses her family members.  

Before I knew much about climate change, I wrestled with the danger of radioactive rain. My coming-of-age was not shaped by #FridaysforFuture but by the Anti-Atom-Komitee. My first demonstration was against Temelin, a Czech nuclear power plant close to the Austrian border that was deemed unsafe.  

Is what we learned to fear now part of the solution? 

Tragically, today’s environmental realities—with skyrocketing emissions and rising temperatures—compel us to wrestle with the instinctive antipathy we feel toward nuclear power. We simply cannot afford to cross nuclear power off the proverbial list yet. We will need to integrate nuclear power in the transition to renewable energy. The European Union Commission reached a similar conclusion when it decided to label investments in nuclear as sustainable and green this February.  

Still, the path for nuclear in Europe is unclear and will likely remain a source of legal and political conflict. Many European Union member states, such as Germany and Belgium, are on a trajectory to abandon nuclear power and shut down any remaining plants. Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel began to phase out nuclear energy after the Fukushima disaster. Other states, such as France and Finland, are pushing for additional nuclear reactors. Now that Angela Merkel is out of office and Emmanuel Macron has announced the “rebirth of France’s nuclear industry,” it will be interesting to see which nuclear policies will prevail in Brussels.  

The Green party’s rise in political power across Europe will further complicate an already messy picture. Many of these parties emerged out of national anti-nuclear movements.  

Critical questions loom on the horizon  

Which countries will reverse course on nuclear energy? Was Germany’s decision to close its nuclear plants taken too soon and will it further complicate German dependency on Russian gas? Will a reliance on nuclear power slow the development of other renewable energies? Are anti-nuclear movements going to be reinvigorated as part of the fight against climate change or will they become relics of the past? 

There are signs that public opinion is shifting even in countries known for their anti-nuclear posture. Even some Green parties have reconsidered their stance. In 2020, the Finish Green Party was the first to announce that it is not categorically opposed to building small nuclear reactors.  

A recent poll showed that in Germany, Italy, and Denmark, a majority of respondents want nuclear to be part of the energy mix, either with a minor or major role alongside wind and solar. In Germany, 48 percent of respondents think that nuclear power is necessary to combat climate change. Another survey indicates that a third of Germans would want to keep the remaining three nuclear power plants running if it would decrease energy prices.  

However, European countries cannot ignore the costs when committing to build and run nuclear power plants. The risk of nuclear accidents will never be zero. We also still have to find lasting and safe solutions for the disposal of nuclear waste. At the same time, gas and oil are similarly if not more harmful to our environment, since carbon dioxide is both heating up the planet and making our food less nutritious.  

Can we have both nuclear reactors and other green technology? 

While nuclear energy is technically clean, it should not distract from the massive investments needed in other green energy technologies. Further, nuclear power has a higher upfront cost and reactors take much longer to be operable than solar and wind installations. However, completely shutting down nuclear generation will increase short-term dependency on fossil fuels—as is the case in Germany. 

Decisions about nuclear power could become Europe’s litmus test on whether it is serious about speeding up the green energy transition. Countries will have to decide if nuclear embodies the best or the worst of energy options on the path to net-zero. The costs, facts, and science about the long-term environmental footprints must guide the discourse around energy policy.  

Political leaders also should do more to understand and respond to the complex histories and emotions that are at the heart of this debate. My generation’s instilled fears still have validity and remain part of the conversation. 

Regarding trade-offs and time, we have plenty of the former and precious little of the latter. Deconstructing my own deeply held beliefs about nuclear power has been eye opening. While I still doubt that nuclear power is the solution to our energy crisis, I can at least accept that the contested energy is a necessary option among increasingly dire alternatives.