The myth

“The objections to nuclear energy come from a broad, independent scientific movement. Different organisations, based on their own research, independently reach the same conclusion: nuclear energy is dangerous, expensive and unnecessary.”

The anti-nuclear movement is a remarkably small, interconnected group of organisations and individuals who cite each other’s non-peer-reviewed work, recycle the same debunked arguments, and — consciously or unconsciously — protect the business model of the fossil fuel industry.

The players

WISE: the nerve centre

WISE (World Information Service on Energy) was founded in Amsterdam in 1978. It is the international hub of the anti-nuclear movement. WISE publishes the Nuclear Monitor and coördinates campaigns in dozens of countries.

WISE Netherlands is small. The petition “Not a penny for nuclear energy” garnered just 1,312 signatures — 77% of a modest target of 1,700. But what WISE lacks in size, it compensates for with its network. WISE staff rotate between Greenpeace, the World Wide Fund for Nature, and European think tanks. Jan Haverkamp[2], WISE’s most prominent expert, is simultaneously active for Greenpeace and writes reports for the Heinrich Böll Stiftung[3]. One man, three organisations, one message.

Greenpeace: the original sin

Greenpeace has had nuclear energy as a primary target since the 1970s. The irony: the organisation was co-founded by Patrick[10] Moore, who later distanced himself with the words:

“We made the mistake of lumping nuclear energy in with nuclear weapons, as if all things nuclear were evil. I think that’s as big a mistake as if you lumped nuclear medicine in with nuclear weapons.”

Greenpeace co-finances the World Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR[4]), the most cited anti-nuclear report in the world. The WNISR is written by Mycle Schneider, a well-known anti-nuclear activist who in 2023 received the “Nuclear-Free Future Award” — a prize from anti-nuclear organisations. The report is regularly presented in the media as independent research. It is not. It is written by activists, funded by activists, and awarded by activists.

Greenpeace spends hundreds of millions of euros annually on campaigns. A substantial portion goes towards combating the cleanest large-scale energy source known to humanity. Every nuclear power station that was not built or was closed thanks to Greenpeace was replaced by fossil fuel generation.

Milieudefensie: nine arguments, nine misses

Milieudefensie — the Dutch branch of Friends of the Earth — publishes nine arguments against nuclear energy on its website [6]. Ir. Jan Rhebergen[7] wrote a detailed rebuttal as early as May 2023 [7]. The essence of that rebuttal:

1. “It takes too long to build a nuclear power station”

In Europe, that is true for recent projects — because we have lost the expertise and current construction projects are “first of a kind” (FOAK). But it is not a universal rule. The UAE built four reactors on time and within budget, despite the absence of nuclear infrastructure and extreme weather conditions. South Korea builds in 5-6 years. France erected 56 reactors in 15 years. And as Rhebergen notes: 10 GW of offshore wind will not be ready until the end of 2031 at the earliest — that is apparently not a reason not to do it.

2. “Nuclear power stations are extremely expensive”

The word “extremely” is an exaggeration. Capital costs during construction can amount to 60% of the total, but given the same favourable financing conditions as wind and solar — and why not? — the costs are manageable. Dr. Rogier Potter[11] van Loon calculated that the societal business case for nuclear energy is highly positive, with a societal return of 9.3% over 65 years [11]. Borssele, a relatively small-scale and therefore certainly not the most cost-effective nuclear power station, produced at €58/MWh. Lazard’s LCOE+ including system costs (“cost of firming intermittency”) shows that nuclear energy, even for projects that have run over budget, is cheaper than renewables with storage and backup.

3. “Nuclear power stations are dangerous”

Nuclear energy is the safest form of energy generation per TWh, together with solar energy (see Our World in Data). Nuclear energy has prevented approximately 1.84 million air-pollution-related deaths. In Fukushima there were three meltdowns, with zero radiation deaths. You receive no additional radiation from living next to a nuclear power station — whereas a return flight from Amsterdam to New York delivers a radiation dose equivalent to two chest X-rays.

4. “Nuclear waste remains dangerous for a very long time”

Nuclear waste remains radioactive for a long time, but protecting yourself against it is straightforward: the radiation from the long-lived isotopes is stopped by a sheet of paper or your skin. Moreover, 96% of the material is reusable — discarding it is wasteful. And the ultimate proof that geological disposal works: the natural nuclear reactor at Oklo in Gabon, where fission products barely migrated over 2 billion years despite the reactor being exposed to groundwater flows and geological upheavals.

5. “Nuclear energy comes at the expense of solutions for you”

Everyone benefits from nuclear energy. Nuclear power stations are not subsidised; the costs of decommissioning are saved during the operational period; this is included in the cost per kilowatt-hour. Solar panels are not accessible to everyone — in effect, households that cannot afford the investment subsidise those who can. France decarbonised its electricity grid in 15 years with nuclear energy: 70% nuclear, 21 g CO2/kWh. Germany spent 25 years and €500+ billion on the Energiewende and sits at 328-363 g CO2/kWh.

6. “Nuclear power stations cannot simply be switched off”

The recently closed German plants could effortlessly ramp up or down by 100 MW per 30 seconds. During the day they delivered close to 100%, in the evening back to 40%. In the event of a sudden shortfall or surplus on the grid, they could respond immediately. That is more flexible than baseload wind with battery storage.

7. “Nuclear power stations come at the expense of investments in wind”

One could equally argue that investments in wind come at the expense of nuclear power stations. Why this false dichotomy when both aim to displace fossil fuels? Anyone who takes the climate seriously embraces all non-fossil options.

8. “Nuclear electricity is expensive”

Hundreds of nuclear power stations have been operating worldwide for decades and stubbornly refuse to go bankrupt. The German nuclear power stations produced electricity for just a few cents per kilowatt-hour shortly before their closure. Where functioning nuclear power stations are closed — Germany, Belgium — it is a political decision, not an economic one. A study by Carnegie Mellon University estimates the cost of the German nuclear phase-out at $12 billion per year. The nuclear phase-out has since resulted in approximately 1,100 avoidable deaths per year, from replacement by fossil sources. Greta Thunberg called this policy “madness” in an interview for ZDF.

9. “With solar and wind we can easily meet the expected energy demand”

The word “easily” is entirely misplaced here. No country in the world has achieved this. The variability of solar and wind requires enormous overcapacity and backup for periods of Dunkelflaute. Seasonal storage at scale does not exist. All of that together — overcapacity, storage, transmission, backup — makes the true cost of a fully renewable system many times higher than the bare LCOE figures suggest. According to Lazard, even the production of hydrogen as a storage medium is more efficient and cheaper with nuclear energy.

Heinrich Böll Stiftung: the German connection

The Heinrich Böll Stiftung is the party foundation of the German Grünen — the party that in 2023 closed the last German nuclear power stations, in the middle of an energy crisis, whilst coal-fired power stations were being restarted.

The Böll Stiftung finances and publishes anti-nuclear reports that circulate in European policy circles as if they were independent research. The most recent example:

“Diversion from Urgent Climate Action: How the European Nuclear Lobby Undermines the EU’s Energy Future” (2023), written by — once again — Jan Haverkamp[5].

This report claims that the UNECE[9] life-cycle assessment, which demonstrates that nuclear energy has the lowest CO2 emissions of all energy sources, is actually “nuclear lobby” because the World Nuclear Association (WNA) was allegedly indirectly involved. Thomas Gibon, the lead author of the UNECE study, has personally refuted this claim. He pointed out that the International Renewable Energy Association (IRENA) also contributed to the (peer-reviewed) UNECE study. The report by Jan Haverkamp is not peer-reviewed.

The circle is complete: Haverkamp writes for WISE, lobbies for Greenpeace, publishes through the Böll Stiftung, and cites the WNISR by Schneider — which in turn is funded by Greenpeace. It is a closed ecosystem that presents itself as “broad scientific support.”

The pattern: how it works

Diagram: the pattern of the anti-nuclear coalition

Not a conspiracy theory. It is a documented network of organisations and individuals who openly collaborate, cite each other’s work, and pursue the same goals. The remarkable thing is not that they collaborate — it is that they present themselves as independent sources when in essence it is the same small group.

The fossil shadow

The fossil fuel industry has a direct interest in the failure of nuclear energy. Natural gas is the indispensable backup for intermittent renewable sources — no wind or solar farm without a gas-fired power station on standby. Nuclear energy is the only technology that can fully replace baseload fossil fuels. Those who block nuclear energy protect the gas market.

Michael Shellenberger[1] of Environmental Progress[1] documented how:

  • The Sierra Club in the US received $26 million from Chesapeake Energy, the largest natural gas producer, whilst the club campaigned against nuclear energy
  • Fossil fuel companies consistently invest in wind + gas combinations, not in nuclear energy
  • The Energiewende in Germany — the textbook example of the anti-nuclear agenda — led to an explosion in natural gas imports and the construction of new gas-fired power stations

The Heinrich Böll Stiftung published a report in 2023 entitled “Understanding the German Nuclear Exit” — a defence of the policy that led to an electricity grid that is 15-17 times dirtier than the French grid, at five times the cost. The Böll Stiftung presents Germany’s most costly environmental mistake as a success story.

What they share: the playbook

All four organisations follow the same playbook:

  1. Ignore the consensus. IPCC, JRC[8], UNECE, IEA — all major scientific institutions support nuclear energy as a climate solution. The anti-nuclear coalition ignores or disqualifies them as “lobby.”

  2. Only cite each other. Storm van Leeuwen, Schneider (WNISR), Haverkamp (WISE/Greenpeace/Böll) — a small circuit of non-peer-reviewed sources presented in the media as “broad scientific evidence.”

  3. Move the goalposts. If nuclear energy becomes cheaper, it is “too dangerous.” If it proves safe, “it takes too long.” If it can be done faster, “there is not enough uranium.” If there is enough uranium, “the waste is unsolvable.” There is no scenario in which nuclear energy becomes acceptable — because the goal is not truth but obstruction.

  4. Never call it by its name. None of these organisations says: “we prefer gas-fired power stations over nuclear power stations.” But that is the actual result of their activism. Every blocked nuclear power station becomes a gas-fired power station. Every single time.

Conclusion

The anti-nuclear movement in Europe is dominated by a handful of organisations — WISE, Greenpeace, Milieudefensie[6] and the Heinrich Böll Stiftung — that are interconnected, share the same individuals, and cite each other’s non-peer-reviewed work as if it were independent evidence.

They present themselves as a broad scientific movement, yet stand diametrically opposed to every major scientific institution that has assessed nuclear energy: the IPCC, the JRC, the UNECE, the IEA and the WHO.

The result of fifty years of anti-nuclear activism is not a cleaner world. It is a world that emits more CO2 than was necessary, consumes more fossil fuels than was necessary, and has lost more human lives to air pollution than was necessary.

That is not an environmental movement. That is — however well-intentioned — climate criminality.

Sources

  1. Environmental Progress, “The War on Nuclear” — Shellenberger, M. ↗
  2. Haverkamp, J. (2023), Diversion from Urgent Climate Action, Heinrich Böll Stiftung EU — not peer-reviewed ↗
  3. Heinrich Böll Stiftung (2023), Understanding the German Nuclear Exit ↗
  4. World Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR), annual publication ↗
  5. Haverkamp, J., Criteria voor een duurzaam energiesysteem en kernenergie, WISE/Greenpeace ↗
  6. Milieudefensie, “Waarom is kernenergie niet duurzaam” ↗
  7. Rhebergen, J.B. (2023), Repliek op Milieudefensie-argumenten tegen kernenergie
  8. JRC (2021), Technical assessment of nuclear energy ↗
  9. UNECE (2022), Integrated Life-cycle Assessment of Electricity Sources ↗
  10. Patrick Moore, cited in MacKay, D. (2009), Sustainable Energy — Without the Hot Air, chapter 24
  11. Potter van Loon, R., Kernenergie: een analyse van de maatschappelijke kosten en baten, e-Lise ↗