The Indispensable Role of Nuclear Power in Climate Justice

Why “Renewables-Only” Falls Short

Meeting the global climate challenge demands more than wind, solar, and batteries. While renewable sources are vital, they are inherently intermittent—and studies consistently show that relying on them alone, without clean, firm, on-demand power like nuclear energy, leads to higher costs, increased land use, and greater risks to grid reliability.

A “renewables-only” approach, though well-intentioned, often sacrifices realism for ideology. It risks derailing climate progress by making decarbonization slower, more expensive, and less equitable—especially in regions where energy poverty, industrial demand, or geographic constraints make 24/7 power non-negotiable.

Earthrise Accord’s position is clear: nuclear energy and long-duration hydrogen storage are not optional—they are indispensable to achieving deep decarbonization on a timeline that meets the urgency of the crisis and the demands of justice. This position is supported by a growing body of peer-reviewed research, global energy system modeling, and hard-earned lessons from nations that have tried, and failed, to build renewables-only grids.

In this post, we examine some of the most influential studies and real-world case studies to demonstrate why an inclusive, pragmatic energy mix is not just more effective—but more fair.

🔍 Before We Get Started: Let’s Clarify Our Terms

If we’re serious about solving the climate crisis, we need to be serious about how we talk about solutions. And that starts with language.

Much of the public discourse around energy—especially from legacy environmental organizations—still uses terms that obscure rather than clarify. Chief among them: the phrase “low-carbon.”

This language, seemingly benign, is anything but. It groups together fundamentally different technologies—nuclear power, natural gas with carbon capture, hydroelectric dams, even biomass—as if they all offer equivalent climate benefits. But they don’t. And calling them all “low-carbon” hides this fact behind a veil of false equivalence.

⚛️ Nuclear Is Not Merely “Low-Carbon”

Let’s be clear: nuclear power is ultra-low-carbon. In terms of lifecycle emissions—everything from mining uranium to plant construction to decommissioning—nuclear consistently ranks among the cleanest energy sources on the planet. At the point of generation, it emits zero CO₂. Over its full lifecycle, it emits less than wind, and in some scenarios, less than solar.

Yet it’s routinely framed in the same breath as fossil-fueled technologies with carbon capture, which still emit both carbon and methane and remain technically speculative at scale. This isn’t just misleading—it’s part of a broader rhetorical campaign that has long tried to make nuclear seem like a necessary evil, rather than what it is: a necessary solution.

So for clarity and intellectual honesty, here’s how we’ll refer to nuclear in this post:

• Clean firm power – reliable, carbon-free electricity available on demand.

• Zero-carbon electricity – to emphasize nuclear’s total absence of operational CO₂ emissions.

• Ultra-low lifecycle emissions – to reflect its superior performance across the full supply chain.

This isn’t semantics. It’s the foundation for a realistic climate policy.

📊 What “Low-Carbon” Really Means (and Why It Misleads)

Energy Source	Lifecycle Emissions (gCO₂-eq/kWh)
⚛️ Nuclear	5–15
🌬️ Wind (Onshore)	8–20
🌊 Wind (Offshore)	12–23
☀️ Utility-scale Solar PV	20–40
🔥 Gas with Carbon Capture	100–200+ (depends on leakage)
🏭 Coal with Carbon Capture	200–300+

Sources: IPCC AR6 WGIII (2022); NREL Lifecycle Emissions Data

👉 Calling both nuclear and fossil gas “low-carbon” ignores differences that matter by an order of magnitude. If the goal is decarbonization, this is not a trivial mistake—it’s a catastrophic one.

🗣️ Note on Rhetoric: When Climate Leaders Undermine the Science

This issue extends beyond academic discourse—it permeates the rhetoric of influential figures within the climate movement.

In a 2022 post on his Substack newsletter, The Crucial Years, climate activist Bill McKibben exemplified this distortion. Reflecting on energy choices in the climate transition, he wrote:

“There are, of course, other lower-carbon power sources, such as nuclear and biomass—but they come with their own huge set of problems.”— Bill McKibben, “Stare at the Sun,” The Crucial Years, 2022

By grouping nuclear with biomass and labeling both as "lower-carbon," McKibben diminishes the uniquely powerful role nuclear energy can play in decarbonization. This framing—common across much of the renewables-only movement—reinforces the illusion that nuclear belongs to a second tier of climate solutions, despite its comparable or superior emissions profile to solar and wind.

Such language has tangible consequences. It confuses policymakers, fuels public skepticism, and sidelines the very tools we need to decarbonize the grid, hard-to-electrify sectors, and the Global South—where firm power is not optional, but essential.

🔎 Earthrise Accord refuses to inherit the rhetorical distortions of a movement that too often sacrifices scientific clarity for ideological comfort. Nuclear is clean. Nuclear is safe. Nuclear is essential. And we will name it as such.

Now, let's get started.

Re-examining the “Renewables-Only” Assumption

Calls for 100% renewable energy often rest on the idea that wind, solar, and batteries alone can power the world. Prominent advocates include:

🌍 350.org

Global Climate Movement: Founded by author and climate activist Bill McKibben, 350.org is a leading international campaign calling for the end of fossil fuels and a transition to 100% renewable energy. It mobilizes grassroots actions, divestment drives, and policy advocacy rooted in climate justice and decentralized solar and wind solutions. While effectively highlighting the urgent need for climate action, 350.org consistently portrays nuclear power negatively or omits it altogether, equating nuclear with fossil fuels due to perceived risks and waste concerns. This position neglects extensive scientific evidence demonstrating nuclear’s proven safety record, minimal environmental footprint, and indispensable role in achieving rapid and deep decarbonization.

⚡ The Solutions Project

Science-Based 100% Renewables Advocacy: Launched by Stanford’s Mark Z. Jacobson, The Solutions Project champions a future powered entirely by wind, water, and solar (WWS), explicitly excluding nuclear, biofuels, and carbon capture technologies. The organization prominently relies on Jacobson’s modeling, which has faced extensive criticism from other climate scientists and energy experts for employing unrealistic assumptions, such as vastly underestimated land-use requirements, overly optimistic storage capabilities, and exaggerated cost-effectiveness of renewable-only scenarios. By systematically excluding nuclear, which provides reliable, dispatchable, and scalable zero-carbon energy, The Solutions Project inadvertently reinforces a misleading narrative that underplays nuclear's proven contributions to emissions reduction and grid stability.

🔌 Rewiring America

Electrify Everything with Renewables: Rewiring America promotes electrification of homes, vehicles, and industries powered exclusively by renewable electricity. Its strategy emphasizes wind, solar, and battery storage to replace fossil fuels, focusing on affordability, job creation, and U.S. policy reform. While advocating important electrification strategies, Rewiring America often sidelines nuclear energy by omitting or dismissing its potential role in an electrified future. This omission perpetuates misconceptions about nuclear’s economic viability and safety, overlooking substantial data indicating that nuclear significantly lowers total system costs and provides essential grid stability, especially critical during extreme weather events or peak demand periods. By excluding nuclear, Rewiring America narrows the spectrum of practical, scalable solutions needed to achieve deep decarbonization rapidly and equitably.

The Danger of Distortion

These renewables-only organizations significantly distort the climate debate by persistently promoting an overly idealized and impractical renewable-only solution. By doing so, they not only ignore robust scientific evidence supporting nuclear power but also dangerously mislead the public and policymakers. The insistence on a "pure" renewable solution, free from technologies like nuclear, effectively stalls and complicates urgent climate action. This distortion is not merely an academic disagreement; it constitutes a grave risk to global climate stability and directly contributes to ongoing ecological devastation.

By misrepresenting the capabilities and limitations of renewables, these organizations inadvertently extend humanity’s reliance on fossil fuels, perpetuating ecocide and risking catastrophic climate outcomes, including the potential for human extinction. In a rapidly warming world, every moment spent pursuing unrealistic purity tests or demonizing proven zero-carbon solutions like nuclear is time we cannot afford. Ultimately, such distortions undermine meaningful climate mitigation efforts and exacerbate the very crises these groups aim to solve. Immediate and scientifically informed action, inclusive of all viable zero-carbon technologies, is crucial to safeguarding the future of humanity and our planet.

Firm Power Isn’t Optional: The Cost, Risk, and Injustice of Excluding Nuclear

Despite the rhetorical appeal of the renewables-only vision, deep decarbonization analyses consistently show that excluding firm, on-demand low-carbon resources—such as nuclear energy, hydro reservoirs, geothermal, or fossil fuel with carbon capture—makes the energy transition significantly more expensive, more technically complex, and more prone to failure. In the context of accelerating climate disruption and widening global energy inequality, such a strategy is not just risky. It is unjust.

A landmark study by Sepulveda et al. (2018), conducted through the MIT Energy Initiative, modeled 912 different electricity system scenarios designed to achieve near-zero emissions by mid-century. These scenarios varied across geographies, technology cost projections, and policy constraints. The results revealed a clear and consistent pattern: decarbonization pathways that included firm, carbon-free energy sources were between 10 percent and 62 percent less expensive than those that relied solely on variable renewables and energy storage. In other words, an all-of-the-above strategy—one that values flexibility and resilience—outperformed the restrictive, renewables-only model every single time. MIT Energy Initiative, “Study: Adding Power Choices Reduces Cost and Risk of Carbon-Free Electricity”

This is not an isolated result. The finding has been replicated and reinforced in numerous independent studies. What makes the Sepulveda et al. work particularly striking is its breadth: it systematically accounted for varying assumptions about the future costs of solar, wind, storage, and carbon capture, as well as different regional resources and grid characteristics. No matter how favorable the conditions for renewables, excluding firm power led to steep increases in total system costs. That is money that could otherwise go toward climate adaptation, public health, or poverty alleviation—priorities central to any just energy transition.

Crucially, the implications are not only economic. They are structural and systemic. A 2018 paper by Jenkins et al., published in Joule, examined the technical challenges of achieving high penetrations of variable renewable energy (VRE) like wind and solar. Their review of dozens of decarbonization studies showed that as VRE penetration rises beyond approximately 50 to 70 percent of annual electricity generation, the cost and complexity of balancing supply and demand increase sharply. While fossil-fueled plants can serve as a flexible backup at low-to-moderate levels of VRE, reaching near-total decarbonization “requires replacing the vast majority of fossil-fueled power plants or equipping them with carbon capture systems.” Jenkins et al., “Getting to Zero Carbon Emissions in the Electric Power Sector,” Joule, 2018

The challenge here is not simply about replacing megawatts—it’s about replacing reliability. Variable resources generate electricity when nature allows, not necessarily when people need it. Batteries and demand response can help, but only to a point. One modeling result cited by Jenkins et al. showed that when renewables supply up to 60 percent of annual electricity, energy curtailment—the wasted excess produced during surplus periods—is minimal. But once a system approaches 100 percent renewables, curtailment can reach a staggering 40 percent of total annual electricity demand. This means that vast amounts of clean energy are effectively thrown away, despite massive investments in overbuilt capacity, large-scale batteries, and flexible loads.

To avoid blackouts during rare but severe lulls in wind and solar, planners must build enough extra capacity to cover even the worst-case weather events. This leads to a situation where three or four times the average needed capacity must be installed—only to go unused much of the year. Such an approach is not only wasteful, it is economically and materially unsustainable.

Moreover, system costs rise nonlinearly as renewable penetration approaches 100 percent. The final increments of decarbonization—going from 90 to 100 percent clean electricity—become disproportionately expensive. Maintaining reliability under such conditions would require ultra-cheap, long-duration energy storage technologies that do not exist today. Even under optimistic assumptions, Jenkins et al. calculated that if battery storage costs dropped to $100 per kilowatt-hour—far below current prices—storing just one week’s worth of electricity for the United States would cost more than $7 trillion. That is equivalent to 19 years of total U.S. power sector revenue. For seasonal storage to be economically viable, its cost would need to fall by an additional order of magnitude relative to lithium-ion batteries—a technological leap that remains speculative at best.

The takeaway from both the MIT and Joule studies is direct and sobering: excluding firm, clean, dispatchable power sources from the grid dramatically increases the cost, complexity, and fragility of deep decarbonization. Sepulveda et al. usefully categorize energy resources into three strategic types. “Firm” resources, such as nuclear or hydro reservoirs, provide constant, on-demand power. “Fuel-saving” resources, like wind and solar, displace fuel use when available. “Fast-burst” resources, such as batteries or demand response, fill in short gaps. All three are needed. But removing the firm category makes the entire system brittle and deeply inefficient.

A grid built exclusively around wind, solar, and batteries requires gross overbuilding—three to four times the peak demand—and still struggles to deliver power with confidence. By contrast, a grid that integrates clean firm power can meet peak demand with capacity closer to one-to-one, uses assets more effectively, and avoids the massive levels of curtailment seen in high-renewables scenarios.

And here the equity issue becomes impossible to ignore. The planet may not care how we cut emissions, but people do—especially those in regions of the world already struggling with energy poverty or grid instability. An affordable, resilient, firm-backed electricity system is inherently a more just solution, because it makes deep decarbonization feasible not only for the wealthiest nations, but for all countries, including those that cannot afford multi-trillion-dollar experiments in overcapacity and speculative storage.

Climate justice is not served by ideological purity. It is served by pragmatic, technically sound strategies that maximize reliability and minimize cost, while ensuring that no community is left behind in the transition. That requires nuclear. It requires firm power. It requires honesty.

Evidence from Key Decarbonization Studies

To ground this discussion in concrete data, let’s delve into three pivotal studies that underscore why a renewables-only approach is insufficient. These studies—by Sepulveda et al. (2018), Jenkins et al. (2018), and a Pacific Northwest analysis by E3/Williams et al. (2018)—approach the problem from different angles (national-scale modeling, comprehensive literature review, and regional energy optimization), yet reach strikingly similar conclusions. Together, they form a compelling scientific case for including firm, reliable, zero-carbon resources, especially nuclear power, as foundational elements in effective climate strategies.

Sepulveda et al. (2018, MIT/Joule): The High Cost of Excluding Firm Power

Nestor Sepulveda and colleagues at the MIT Energy Initiative modeled hundreds of electricity system scenarios designed to achieve near-total decarbonization, exploring variations in technology availability, geographic contexts, and policy environments. The study rigorously compared two broad categories of energy portfolios: an inclusive portfolio, which integrated variable renewable energy sources (wind, solar), batteries, and firm, zero-carbon resources (nuclear power, bioenergy, or fossil fuels equipped with carbon capture and storage [CCS]), versus a restricted portfolio consisting exclusively of wind, solar, and batteries, supplemented by demand management and extensive transmission infrastructure.

The results were unequivocal: inclusive portfolios incorporating firm, zero-carbon resources consistently outperformed renewables-only scenarios across all variations. Depending on specific technological and economic assumptions, the cost advantage of incorporating firm zero-carbon resources ranged significantly—from 10% savings at the conservative end to as much as 62% in scenarios less favorable to renewables-only approaches. Strikingly, in many scenarios, more than half of the total system cost could be eliminated by simply allowing firm zero-carbon technologies like nuclear power into the energy mix.

Even under deliberately unfavorable conditions—such as scenarios assuming extremely low costs for renewable resources and artificially inflated costs for nuclear energy—firm zero-carbon resources still conferred significant economic advantages over renewables-only portfolios. This finding robustly counters popular but misleading claims that "100% renewable" solutions necessarily represent the cheapest, easiest, or most efficient pathway to deep decarbonization.

The implications of Sepulveda et al.'s findings are profound and extend well beyond mere economics. Affordability is integral not only to the feasibility of climate action but also to global climate equity. As the authors emphasize, unnecessarily restricting available technologies inflates costs, diverting critical resources away from other pressing global needs, such as poverty alleviation, healthcare, and infrastructure development in underserved communities. Every dollar overspent on artificially constrained energy strategies represents resources unavailable to address these vital issues, exacerbating existing inequalities and undermining climate justice.

Crucially, the inclusion of zero-carbon, reliable resources like nuclear power enhances system resilience, reducing both operational risks and the likelihood of failure during critical periods of high demand or resource scarcity. By providing steady, dispatchable electricity independent of weather conditions, nuclear energy acts as a cornerstone of a robust, resilient energy grid.

In sum, Sepulveda et al.’s extensive modeling work underscores that firm zero-carbon sources—chiefly nuclear power—serve not merely as optional supplements but as essential cost-containment and risk mitigation measures in achieving deep, equitable, and timely decarbonization globally. Excluding such technologies arbitrarily inflates costs, introduces unnecessary risks, and fundamentally undermines the broader objectives of climate stability and energy justice.

Jenkins et al. (2018, Joule): Reliability and Economic Limits of 100% Variable Renewable Energy (VRE)

In their highly influential article in Joule, Jesse Jenkins and colleagues comprehensively synthesize findings from numerous deep-decarbonization studies to critically assess the feasibility of achieving near-100% renewable energy grids. They identify substantial reliability and economic barriers as renewable energy penetration surpasses roughly 80% to approach full renewable dependency.

Core Challenges: Surpluses and Shortfalls

The study emphasizes two primary, interconnected challenges:

1. Energy Surpluses: When wind and solar generation conditions are favorable, renewable-only systems must generate excessive energy to ensure sufficient supply during periods of low generation. This results in significant electricity surpluses, leading to extensive curtailment—energy that must be wasted or stored at substantial cost. For instance, Jenkins et al. reference models demonstrating that even with extensive continent-wide transmission infrastructure, curtailment at near-100% renewable scenarios could reach 40% of total annual demand. In other words, nearly half of the theoretically generated clean energy would need to be discarded or stored, severely undermining the efficiency and economic viability of renewable investments.

2. Energy Shortfalls: Conversely, during extended periods of insufficient renewable resources (such as prolonged cloudy or windless conditions), renewable-only systems confront critical energy shortfalls. Current battery technologies and demand-side flexibility strategies, while capable of shifting energy usage by several hours, prove inadequate for bridging prolonged gaps in generation lasting days or weeks. Jenkins et al. highlight that contemporary battery solutions cannot feasibly store and supply energy at the necessary scale and duration required for multi-day or seasonal deficits. For instance, providing just one week of battery backup storage for the United States would cost an estimated $7 trillion, a prohibitively high and impractical figure.

The Essential Role of Firm Resources

Given these limitations, Jenkins et al. conclude that achieving reliable, zero-carbon electricity necessitates incorporating either firm zero-carbon generation sources or advanced, ultra-long-duration storage solutions. However, alternative long-duration storage technologies—such as hydrogen, thermal storage, or synthetic methane generated via electrolysis—remain untested at the required scales and are fraught with technological and economic uncertainties.

Thus, the most pragmatic and immediate solution recommended by Jenkins et al. is to incorporate firm zero-carbon plants, such as nuclear facilities or gas turbines utilizing carbon-neutral fuels. Even a relatively modest deployment of these firm resources drastically reduces the need for excessive renewable capacity, curtailment, and complex storage infrastructure. Such inclusion enables the total installed generation capacity to align more closely with actual peak demand rather than oversizing infrastructure to mitigate extreme reliability risks.

Economic and Policy Implications

The study provides a clear and critical insight for policymakers: maintaining a diverse energy portfolio—including firm, dispatchable, zero-carbon technologies like nuclear—is essential. Firm resources act effectively as stabilizing "shock absorbers" within energy systems, preventing runaway costs, curtailment inefficiencies, and complex feasibility issues. Avoiding a monolithic reliance on variable renewable energy protects against the escalating costs and reliability risks associated with achieving high renewable penetrations.

Ultimately, Jenkins et al. emphasize that a diversified and balanced approach, rather than exclusive reliance on renewables and unproven technological breakthroughs, offers the safest, most economically viable, and timely pathway to deep decarbonization. This framing underscores the dangers of rigid ideological commitments to renewable purity, advocating instead for pragmatic, evidence-based solutions to secure our shared climate future.

Williams et al. (2018, E3 Pacific Northwest Study): Regional Pathways and Firm Power

The necessity of firm zero-carbon energy is demonstrated concretely in regional planning as well. In 2018, Energy + Environmental Economics (E3), under the direction of James H. Williams, conducted an extensive analysis titled “Pacific Northwest Zero-Emitting Grid” to evaluate the least-cost strategies to achieve approximately 100% clean electricity for Washington, Oregon, and surrounding regions. Sponsored by local utilities and policymakers, the study compared scenarios incorporating firm zero-carbon resources, such as small modular reactors (SMRs) or zero-carbon fuels, against scenarios excluding these options.

Key Findings

The findings resonated strongly with national-scale research: when firm generation technologies were permitted, the region was able to achieve full decarbonization at manageable and affordable costs. Conversely, scenarios excluding firm resources experienced significant cost escalations. Without firm zero-carbon capacity, the model forced an extreme overbuild of renewable infrastructure, storage, and transmission, resulting in severe inefficiencies and inflated expenses.

Earlier analyses by E3 in 2017 revealed that achieving an 80% CO₂ reduction in the Northwest was most cost-effective using a mix of hydro, renewables, and limited natural gas. Attempts to accomplish the same 80% target using only renewables resulted in higher costs, and outright restrictions on natural gas were even less economically feasible.

For the final push toward zero emissions, the 2018 study underscored that access to firm zero-carbon technologies such as SMRs or turbines using biogas or hydrogen significantly reduced overall system costs and enhanced reliability. Conversely, eliminating these firm options made the final steps toward complete decarbonization excessively expensive and created substantial concerns about resource adequacy.

Capacity Credit and Resource Adequacy

Another critical insight from E3 was the diminishing capacity credit of renewable resources. As the penetration of wind and solar increases, their incremental value in meeting peak demands decreases significantly. E3’s subsequent 2019 resource adequacy study highlighted that at high renewable penetration levels, even batteries lose effectiveness in addressing peak loads and emergency scenarios, necessitating dependable firm capacity.

In the short term, natural gas emerged as the least-cost firm capacity option due to existing technologies and affordability. However, E3 indicated that as advanced nuclear and other firm zero-carbon technologies mature, they would be ideally positioned to replace gas as the primary firm resource.

Implications for Policy and Planning

The E3 studies underscore that regional decarbonization, like national efforts, achieves the best economic and environmental outcomes by leveraging all available technologies. Particularly in regions like the Northwest, which already benefits from abundant hydropower (a firm renewable resource), further firm capacity is essential when surpassing approximately 90% carbon-free electricity.

Mandates that restrict decarbonization solely to renewables can inadvertently increase costs and impede practical climate solutions. Instead, adopting technology-neutral goals—such as achieving "100% carbon-free" rather than exclusively "100% renewable"—can significantly lower costs, enhance reliability, and ultimately make ambitious climate goals more achievable and equitable.

Why a Renewables-Only Strategy Falls Short of Climate Justice

Economic and Reliability Risks

Taken together, the studies discussed above present a clear and consistent warning: a renewables-only strategy for decarbonization is inherently slower, significantly costlier, and less reliable than one that includes firm zero-carbon sources like nuclear. From the standpoint of climate justice, these issues are profoundly concerning. Higher costs inevitably translate into increased energy prices or larger governmental expenditures, diverting essential resources away from social programs, healthcare, education, and infrastructure. Such elevated costs disproportionately burden poorer communities, potentially making clean energy inaccessible precisely to those who most urgently need it.

Moreover, lower grid reliability—characterized by frequent shortages, instability, or outright blackouts—has especially severe consequences for vulnerable populations and developing regions. These areas typically lack the financial means to upgrade grid infrastructure substantially or to endure prolonged energy outages without suffering significant economic and social disruption. Thus, advocating for a renewables-only solution that is largely theoretical, reliant on optimistic assumptions, and tailored primarily for wealthy nations with advanced infrastructure undermines the foundational principles of climate justice.

Global Inequity and Accessibility Issues

An overly rigid commitment to renewables risks creating a bifurcated energy future: affluent nations maintaining stable electricity through costly infrastructure upgrades, while poorer countries face persistent energy shortfalls or resort to polluting and costly backup diesel generators. Such a scenario exacerbates global inequalities, fails billions of individuals who require immediate, practical, and affordable energy solutions, and ultimately hampers worldwide progress toward climate goals.

In contrast, a balanced portfolio including nuclear energy presents a clear path to a more equitable global energy system. According to Sepulveda et al.'s MIT study, achieving deep decarbonization through an inclusive strategy—incorporating firm zero-carbon sources—can be realized at a "relatively modest" additional cost. This cost-effectiveness makes the transition realistic and accessible even for emerging economies, crucially enabling them to leapfrog directly from coal or gas to sustainable, zero-emission power systems without suffering crippling economic impacts.

Environmental and Social Footprint Considerations

Firm power sources such as nuclear also dramatically reduce the environmental and societal footprints associated with renewable-only systems. Wind, solar, and battery storage technologies, though essential and beneficial, are inherently land- and resource-intensive. For instance, according to recent analyses by the Breakthrough Institute and Earth.Org, generating the equivalent annual energy of a 1-gigawatt nuclear plant requires fewer than 2 square miles of land, compared to approximately 75 square miles of solar arrays or more than 250 square miles of wind turbines. This significant disparity in land use has critical implications for densely populated, agricultural, or ecologically sensitive regions, where large-scale renewable deployment could lead to substantial displacement of communities and wildlife, exacerbating existing injustices.

By integrating nuclear into the energy mix, we can greatly reduce these pressures, preserving critical habitats and reducing displacement impacts. This represents a vital yet often overlooked dimension of climate justice—ensuring that clean energy deployment does not inadvertently worsen existing inequalities or ecological degradation.

Time and the Imperative for Urgency

Climate justice demands immediate, decisive action. Every delay in reducing emissions translates directly into intensified climate disasters—heatwaves, floods, droughts, and other extreme events disproportionately affecting marginalized and vulnerable communities. If a renewables-only strategy proves insufficient at higher penetrations, and the realization occurs decades from now, we may lose the critical window for meaningful intervention.

Current research and studies already provide strong evidence favoring a diversified and balanced approach as inherently more robust and reliable. Integrating firm zero-carbon solutions such as nuclear from the outset accelerates decarbonization efforts by consistently displacing fossil fuels. Unlike intermittent renewables, firm nuclear energy provides round-the-clock clean power, directly eliminating coal and gas plants 24/7. Each newly built nuclear plant can displace a coal plant entirely, whereas renewable additions typically require additional storage or backup from fossil sources to ensure consistent output.

Accelerating Decarbonization and Enhancing Climate Justice

Ultimately, climate justice requires solutions that are not just theoretically clean but practically reliable, scalable, and accessible for all countries. Firm power sources such as nuclear are critical enablers—ensuring that a fully decarbonized global energy system remains both achievable and fair. By preserving reliability, minimizing environmental impacts, and reducing costs, nuclear power directly contributes to a just energy transition, enabling rapid and widespread adoption of zero-carbon systems globally.

Beyond the Power Sector: Nuclear’s Expanded Role

The subsequent sections explore in detail how nuclear energy, particularly when paired with hydrogen production and storage, can effectively address some of the most challenging sectors for decarbonization—aviation, maritime shipping, heavy industry, heating, and remote energy access. These sectors are especially significant from a climate justice perspective, as they underpin modern living standards and economic development across both developed and developing countries.

Nuclear-backed solutions can provide substantial, scalable contributions to these traditionally difficult-to-decarbonize sectors, complementing renewables and forming a robust, comprehensive, and equitable clean energy ecosystem.

Decarbonizing Hard-to-Abate Sectors with Nuclear and Hydrogen

Even with significant progress in cleaning up electricity generation, several critical sectors remain challenging to electrify or decarbonize through renewables alone. Industries such as long-distance aviation, maritime shipping, steel and chemical production, and district heating require energy solutions with high density, reliability, and consistent availability—characteristics that intermittent renewable resources alone struggle to deliver.

In this context, nuclear energy—particularly when integrated with hydrogen production or carbon capture utilization—can provide robust, scalable solutions. Two transformative approaches stand out:

1. Nuclear-Powered Direct Air Capture and Synthetic Fuels (NDACSF)

This innovative strategy employs nuclear reactors to power direct air capture (DAC) systems, extracting CO₂ directly from the atmosphere. Concurrently, nuclear energy facilitates the production of green hydrogen through electrolysis. The captured carbon and green hydrogen are then combined to synthesize carbon-neutral fuels such as synthetic jet fuel or maritime fuel. These synthetic fuels function as direct, "drop-in" replacements for conventional fossil fuels, allowing existing aviation and shipping infrastructure to transition seamlessly to carbon neutrality without extensive redesign or retrofitting.

2. Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and Advanced Reactors for Heat, Power, and Hydrogen Production

Compact nuclear technologies—such as Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and advanced Generation IV reactors—can deliver high-temperature heat reliably and safely. This heat is essential for numerous industrial processes, including steel and cement production, chemical manufacturing, and large-scale hydrogen generation. SMRs are also ideal for supplying reliable district heating networks and powering large vessels, evidenced by the U.S. Navy’s decades-long track record of safely operating nuclear reactors aboard submarines and aircraft carriers.

Sector-by-Sector Analysis: Nuclear and Hydrogen’s Decarbonization Potential

Aviation

Long-distance air travel remains among the most challenging sectors to decarbonize due to stringent energy density requirements. Synthetic aviation fuels produced via NDACSF represent a promising solution, offering identical energy characteristics to traditional jet fuels without the associated carbon emissions. Major aircraft redesigns become unnecessary, facilitating rapid adoption and scalability, crucial for global decarbonization targets.

Maritime Shipping

The global shipping sector currently relies heavily on oil-based fuels due to their affordability, energy density, and ease of storage. Synthetic maritime fuels from nuclear-powered hydrogen and carbon capture offer practical and economically viable solutions for carbon-free shipping. Additionally, SMRs could directly power large vessels, as proven by nuclear-powered naval fleets, substantially reducing maritime emissions and reliance on fossil fuels.

Heavy Industry: Steel, Cement, and Chemicals

Industries like steelmaking, cement manufacturing, and chemical production require consistently high temperatures and steady energy inputs, conditions often difficult to satisfy with intermittent renewables. Advanced nuclear reactors, particularly SMRs and high-temperature reactors (HTRs), can reliably supply the necessary heat and power. When coupled with hydrogen production, nuclear energy enables sustainable production processes, such as hydrogen-based steelmaking, significantly reducing industrial emissions.

District Heating Systems

In densely populated urban areas, district heating is often a critical infrastructure component. Traditionally reliant on fossil fuels, district heating networks can be effectively decarbonized through SMRs, which supply dependable, continuous heat without emissions. Cities and regions globally, particularly those with harsh winters, could transition seamlessly to sustainable district heating, significantly reducing their carbon footprint.

Remote and Off-Grid Energy Access

Many remote communities globally depend heavily on diesel generators for electricity, contributing to high operational costs, pollution, and carbon emissions. SMRs offer a compelling alternative, providing continuous, affordable, and clean power to isolated or remote regions. Such installations improve local air quality, lower long-term energy costs, and significantly enhance living standards, aligning strongly with climate justice objectives.

Data Centers and Digital Infrastructure

Data centers are rapidly growing energy consumers, requiring constant, uninterrupted electricity supply. Currently, many data centers rely on fossil fuel backups or grids heavily dependent on fossil energy. Small modular nuclear reactors can efficiently provide stable, carbon-free power around the clock, dramatically reducing the carbon intensity of global digital infrastructure.

Agriculture: Fertilizers and Green Ammonia Production

The agricultural sector relies extensively on nitrogen-based fertilizers, primarily derived from natural gas, resulting in substantial emissions. Nuclear energy can facilitate large-scale production of green hydrogen, which can be converted into ammonia (green ammonia) for sustainable fertilizer production. This approach offers an economically and environmentally superior alternative to conventional, fossil-based methods.

Conclusion: Nuclear’s Vital Role in Climate Justice and Global Decarbonization

These sector-specific analyses underscore nuclear energy's pivotal role in addressing challenging decarbonization scenarios across various crucial global industries. By integrating nuclear with hydrogen production and advanced storage solutions, we gain scalable, reliable, and economically viable pathways toward deep decarbonization. Such solutions are essential not only for meeting climate goals but also for ensuring a just and equitable global energy transition, capable of sustainably supporting modern living standards and industrial needs worldwide.

Aviation: Achieving Carbon-Neutral Air Travel with Nuclear-Powered Direct Air Capture Fuels

The Unique Decarbonization Challenge of Aviation

Air travel stands out as one of the most challenging sectors to decarbonize due to its specific technical demands. Jet fuel possesses extraordinary energy density, providing substantial energy in a compact, lightweight form—critical for aircraft performance and range. Current battery technology falls significantly short of meeting these requirements, offering only a fraction of the energy density and dramatically increasing aircraft weight, which severely limits their use to very short-distance flights. Hydrogen, while possessing high energy density by mass, requires bulky, cryogenic storage solutions that are impractical for most existing aircraft designs and infrastructures.

Consequently, the aviation industry currently lacks realistic zero-carbon alternatives for long-haul flights, which constitute the bulk of global aviation emissions.

Nuclear-Powered Direct Air Capture and Synthetic Fuels (NDACSF): A Transformative Solution

An innovative solution is emerging: synthetic aviation fuels produced through Nuclear-powered Direct Air Capture and Synthetic Fuel (NDACSF) systems. This method harnesses nuclear reactors to generate abundant, reliable, zero-carbon energy—both as electricity and high-temperature heat—to drive direct air capture (DAC) processes. DAC units extract carbon dioxide (CO₂) directly from ambient air, and nuclear power concurrently supports the electrolytic production of clean hydrogen from water.

By combining captured atmospheric CO₂ and hydrogen, synthetic liquid fuels such as kerosene (e-fuels or Sustainable Aviation Fuels, SAF) can be synthesized through established chemical processes like Fischer–Tropsch or methanol-to-jet. These fuels are chemically identical to conventional jet fuel, offering a seamless transition as "drop-in" replacements without necessitating any modifications to current aircraft engines or fueling infrastructure.

When burned, these synthetic fuels emit CO₂ previously captured from the atmosphere, effectively creating a closed carbon loop. Thus, if powered entirely by nuclear or another zero-carbon energy source, these fuels achieve carbon neutrality, offering a practical path to decarbonize aviation sustainably and at scale.

Why Nuclear-Powered Synthetic Fuels Are Essential

The criticality of nuclear-driven synthetic aviation fuels lies in the industry's limited decarbonization pathways. A recent Nature Sustainability study underscored that rapid scale-up of carbon-neutral fuels is essential to meet the aviation industry's net-zero emissions targets. The International Air Transport Association (IATA) further reinforces this, estimating that billions of gallons of sustainable aviation fuel will be needed by mid-century to meet global climate commitments.

While battery-electric or hydrogen propulsion may become viable for shorter flights, their technological constraints prevent their practical use in long-haul flights. Synthetic hydrocarbon fuels, therefore, emerge as the cornerstone solution for decarbonizing long-distance aviation, which represents the majority of aviation's carbon footprint.

Nuclear’s Strategic Advantage for Synthetic Fuels Production

The NDACSF approach offers significant advantages due to nuclear energy's unique capabilities:

• Continuous Availability: Unlike intermittent renewables, nuclear reactors operate reliably around the clock, ensuring steady production rates for direct air capture and synthetic fuel synthesis processes. Continuous operation is critical because intermittent energy sources would require vastly oversized facilities to achieve comparable production volumes.

• Economic Viability: Steady, 24/7 operation maximizes utilization of expensive DAC infrastructure, significantly reducing overall production costs. Intermittency from renewables would force facilities to remain idle or underutilized during periods without sunlight or wind, thereby escalating costs and complicating logistics.

• Scalability and Reliability: Nuclear’s high-capacity factor allows for consistent and large-scale fuel synthesis. This scalability is critical to addressing the vast quantities of synthetic fuel needed for global aviation sustainably and economically.

Long-Duration Energy Storage: Synthetic Fuels as Energy Carriers

Synthetic aviation fuels effectively function as long-duration energy storage. Aircraft require fuel that reliably carries them across continents, oceans, through nighttime and adverse weather conditions—independent of real-time renewable generation. By converting nuclear-generated energy into synthetic fuel, this approach essentially charges a large-scale "battery" capable of delivering energy exactly when and where needed. It directly addresses renewables' temporal and spatial limitations, thereby complementing broader electrification strategies effectively.

Broader Economic and Climate Justice Implications

Decarbonizing aviation is crucial from a climate justice perspective. Aviation connects communities globally, supports tourism-dependent economies, facilitates international commerce, and enables rapid humanitarian aid responses. Without decisive action, aviation emissions—together with maritime shipping—could account for 5–10% of global CO₂ emissions by 2050, jeopardizing climate stability and disproportionately affecting vulnerable populations worldwide.

NDACSF offers a compelling path forward, maintaining affordable and equitable access to global mobility. Rather than restricting air travel to the wealthy through punitive carbon pricing, synthetic fuels enable equitable and accessible decarbonized aviation. Additionally, developing countries with abundant nuclear or renewable resources could produce and export synthetic fuels, creating new economic opportunities and fostering global equity.

Real-World Progress and Policy Momentum

The practical feasibility of nuclear-powered synthetic fuels is increasingly evident. For instance, the U.S. Air Force successfully conducted a test flight using synthetic aviation fuel in 2021. Policies supporting sustainable aviation fuels—such as the European Union's mandated minimum share of e-fuels by 2030—will further accelerate demand, incentivizing investments in synthetic fuel infrastructure.

Critically, scaling NDACSF aligns perfectly with nuclear expansion strategies. Mandating synthetic fuel blends necessitates a corresponding scale-up of zero-carbon energy infrastructure, providing a clear and synergistic pathway for increased nuclear deployment alongside renewables.

Expanding Decarbonization Beyond Aviation

Similar nuclear and hydrogen solutions can substantially aid decarbonization in other challenging sectors, including:

• Maritime Shipping: Nuclear-generated synthetic marine fuels can offer zero-carbon alternatives for long-distance cargo vessels.

• Heavy-Duty Transport and Freight: Synthetic fuels or hydrogen directly powered by nuclear energy can decarbonize trucking and rail systems.

• Chemical Industry and Plastics Production: Nuclear-powered hydrogen and heat can facilitate sustainable chemical synthesis, eliminating emissions from conventional fossil-based processes.

  
  

Conclusion: Nuclear and Synthetic Fuels—A Crucial Partnership

Nuclear-powered direct air capture and synthetic fuels represent a realistic, scalable solution for fully decarbonizing aviation. Recognizing that electrification has inherent limitations in long-haul aviation, synthetic fuels bridge critical gaps, ensuring that we do not leave essential emissions reductions on the table.

This integrated nuclear-hydrogen strategy exemplifies the complementary roles these technologies play alongside electrification. Together, they address different dimensions of the global decarbonization challenge, delivering robust, equitable, and timely climate solutions.

Shipping: Decarbonizing Maritime Transport with Nuclear Power and Green Ammonia

Maritime Shipping’s Emissions Challenge

Maritime shipping is a cornerstone of the global economy, transporting roughly 80–90% of world trade by volume. Yet, this essential industry is heavily dependent on fossil fuels, primarily heavy fuel oil (also known as bunker fuel), a pollutant-rich petroleum residue.

Maritime shipping accounts for approximately 2–3% of global CO₂ emissions today, a figure expected to rise dramatically—to potentially 10–15% of global emissions by mid-century—as other sectors decarbonize more rapidly. Although shipping was not explicitly included in the Paris Agreement’s emission reduction targets, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) aims for at least a 50% reduction in emissions by 2050. Achieving this goal presents unique technical and logistical hurdles.

Ships require fuels with very high energy density, capable of powering voyages spanning weeks at sea without refueling. Renewable-based solutions, like battery power, are prohibitively heavy, significantly reducing cargo capacity. Hydrogen, despite its high energy density by mass, is challenging to store and manage at scale due to the immense volume required, either as compressed gas or as a cryogenic liquid.

Given these challenges, two transformative nuclear-powered solutions offer feasible pathways to maritime decarbonization:

• Onboard Nuclear Propulsion

  
  

• Production of Carbon-Neutral Fuels (Green Ammonia, Synthetic Diesel)

1. Onboard Nuclear Propulsion: Adapting Proven Naval Technology

The concept of nuclear-powered commercial shipping is supported by over six decades of proven operational experience within naval fleets worldwide, most notably the U.S. Navy. Nuclear propulsion is well-established in military vessels, including submarines and aircraft carriers, with over 6,200 reactor-years of safe operation and zero significant reactor-related incidents in the U.S., UK, and French naval fleets. By 2021, the U.S. Navy alone had operated 526 reactor cores across roughly 100 ships, showcasing exceptional reliability, efficiency, and safety.

These naval reactors are essentially early forms of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), compact, robust, and capable of operating safely for extended periods—often years—without refueling. Translating this proven military technology into civilian shipping is thus largely an engineering, regulatory, and policy challenge rather than a technological or scientific one.

Several potential advantages of nuclear-powered civilian ships include:

• Zero operational CO₂ emissions, directly aligning with global decarbonization goals.

• Elimination of fuel stops, increasing operational efficiency, speed, and range.

• Freed cargo space normally dedicated to fuel, potentially enhancing profitability.

• Reduced vulnerability to fossil fuel price volatility, stabilizing shipping costs long-term.

Despite these advantages, civilian adoption would require careful management of safety protocols, proliferation risks, international regulatory frameworks, and public acceptance. Initiatives from reactor manufacturers and marine certification bodies such as Lloyd’s Register are already underway to create regulatory frameworks and feasibility assessments for civilian nuclear-powered ships. Even partial adoption—focusing initially on very large vessels like container ships, cruise liners, or icebreakers—could rapidly deliver significant decarbonization benefits across global shipping fleets.

2. Carbon-Neutral Fuels: Nuclear-Powered Green Ammonia and Synthetic Diesel

An alternative or complementary approach is producing zero-carbon synthetic fuels, especially ammonia (NH₃) or synthetic diesel, using nuclear power. Green ammonia, in particular, has emerged as a leading maritime fuel candidate due to its carbon-free composition, relatively straightforward storage requirements (liquid at moderate pressures and temperatures), and the existing global ammonia handling infrastructure.

Production involves combining green hydrogen—produced via nuclear-powered electrolysis—and atmospheric nitrogen. When burned in adapted ship engines or used in fuel cells, ammonia emits no CO₂, effectively eliminating carbon emissions from shipping operations. Additionally, synthetic diesel or methanol, produced through nuclear-powered direct air capture (DAC) processes combined with green hydrogen, offer alternative low-carbon fuels compatible with minimal engine modifications.

The scale and continuous operational capability of nuclear reactors perfectly align with the demands of industrial-scale ammonia and synthetic fuel production facilities. Nuclear plants running steadily, 24/7, maximize throughput and lower costs compared to intermittent renewable-powered facilities, ensuring the consistent, large-scale supply needed for global shipping fleets.

Critically, transitioning to nuclear-produced ammonia or synthetic fuels does not require immediate, widespread replacement of existing vessels. With relatively straightforward engine retrofits or by co-firing these fuels alongside traditional bunker fuels, the existing fleet can rapidly begin decarbonizing. This approach leverages the long lifespans (20–30 years) of ships, facilitating immediate emissions reductions instead of waiting decades for natural fleet turnover.

Additional Benefits: Climate Justice and Global Equity

Decarbonizing maritime shipping using nuclear technologies also addresses broader climate justice and economic considerations. Shipping enables critical supply chains, connects remote and island communities to global markets, and supports humanitarian relief and disaster responses. Ensuring these services remain viable in a carbon-constrained world, without raising costs excessively through punitive carbon pricing, helps safeguard vulnerable coastal communities and developing nations dependent on affordable maritime logistics.

Furthermore, countries with abundant nuclear resources could become key producers and exporters of green ammonia or synthetic fuels, creating new economic opportunities and promoting equitable participation in the global clean-energy economy.

Expanding Nuclear's Role in Maritime Decarbonization

A likely future scenario could involve a mixed maritime fleet where nuclear propulsion directly powers larger, energy-intensive vessels, while smaller and medium-sized ships transition to synthetic fuels produced by land-based nuclear plants. Such hybrid approaches allow for gradual technological integration, minimize disruption, and optimize investments.

Historically, nuclear-powered civilian ships like the pioneering NS Savannah in the 1960s and contemporary nuclear-powered icebreakers already demonstrate practical feasibility. Modern technology advances now significantly enhance the viability and safety of nuclear maritime propulsion.

Three Additional Hard-to-Decarbonize Sectors Nuclear Can Transform

Beyond aviation and maritime shipping, nuclear energy combined with hydrogen can profoundly impact several other challenging sectors:

• Steel and Cement Production: Nuclear-generated high-temperature heat and hydrogen can decarbonize heavy industry, directly replacing fossil fuels in traditionally emissions-intensive processes.

• Long-Distance Road and Rail Freight: Synthetic diesel or hydrogen fuel derived from nuclear-powered electrolysis offers practical alternatives to fossil diesel, enabling deep emissions reductions in freight transport.

• Remote Power and Mining Operations: Deploying SMRs to provide continuous, carbon-free power to isolated communities and mining sites currently reliant on diesel generators significantly reduces carbon footprints and fuel transport risks.

  
  

Conclusion: Nuclear’s Essential Role in Maritime Decarbonization

Maritime shipping’s decarbonization is critical for global climate stability and environmental justice, directly impacting ocean health, marine biodiversity, and coastal communities worldwide. Nuclear-powered propulsion and synthetic fuel production represent realistic, scalable strategies to eliminate shipping emissions while maintaining efficient and economically viable global trade.

Leveraging existing nuclear experience from naval fleets and large-scale fuel synthesis capabilities positions nuclear energy as a cornerstone technology in maritime decarbonization. As climate urgency intensifies, reexamining and scaling these proven nuclear solutions provides a clear path toward a sustainable, equitable, and emissions-free global shipping industry.

Heavy Industry: Decarbonizing High-Temperature Processes with Nuclear Heat and Hydrogen

The Industrial Decarbonization Challenge

Heavy industries—such as steelmaking, cement production, chemical manufacturing, and refining—are among the most challenging sectors to decarbonize due to their reliance on intense heat and carbon-intensive processes. These industries require continuous, reliable, high-density energy, often at extreme temperatures (from hundreds to over 1500°C), which intermittent renewable sources alone cannot efficiently supply.

For example:

• Steelmaking: Traditional steel production involves blast furnaces heated to approximately 1500°C, using coal as both a fuel and a reducing agent to extract oxygen from iron ore.

• Cement Production: Cement manufacturing heats limestone to around 1400°C, releasing CO₂ from fuel combustion and from the limestone itself.

• Chemicals and Refining: Many chemical reactions and refining processes depend heavily on fossil fuels for both energy and carbon-based feedstocks.

These processes, responsible for a significant share of global emissions, pose unique decarbonization challenges as standard electrification solutions currently fall short in terms of efficiency, temperature range, and continuous operation.

Advanced Nuclear Solutions for High-Temperature Industrial Heat

Modern nuclear reactor technologies offer a powerful solution, producing reliable, zero-carbon heat directly suitable for industrial processes:

• High-Temperature Reactors (HTRs): Advanced designs such as high-temperature gas-cooled reactors (HTGRs) and molten salt reactors can produce heat at temperatures of 600–800°C or higher, directly meeting the thermal requirements of many industrial processes without intermediate energy conversion losses.

• Small Modular Reactors (SMRs): Compact, modular reactors offer tailored, scalable solutions for industrial facilities, providing both heat and electricity with high reliability. Even existing light-water reactors generate steam (~300°C), suitable for lower-temperature industrial applications or efficient hydrogen production via electrolysis.

Organizations like Earth.org underscore nuclear’s capacity to deliver high-temperature, carbon-free process heat, effectively displacing fossil fuels in sectors like steel, cement, and petrochemicals. Envision integrated nuclear-industrial complexes where an SMR positioned adjacent to a steel plant provides continuous electricity, high-temperature heat, and clean hydrogen, enabling full decarbonization of production processes.

Hydrogen: A Synergistic Partner for Nuclear Decarbonization

Hydrogen produced from nuclear power represents a transformative opportunity for decarbonizing industry:

• Clean Reducing Agent for Steel: Hydrogen can directly reduce iron ore, substituting carbon monoxide derived from coal, dramatically cutting steel sector emissions.

• Chemical Feedstock Replacement: Nuclear-produced hydrogen serves as a zero-carbon alternative feedstock for ammonia, methanol, and other chemical processes currently dependent on fossil-derived natural gas.

• Industrial Fuel: Hydrogen combustion provides zero-carbon high-temperature heat, releasing only water vapor, making it ideal for furnaces previously fueled by fossil energy.

The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that global clean hydrogen capacity must reach between 3,000–8,000 GW by 2050 to achieve deep decarbonization across industrial sectors. Achieving such scale requires leveraging all low-carbon energy sources, including significant contributions from nuclear, especially in dedicated "nuclear hydrogen" (pink hydrogen) facilities.

Major institutions, such as the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, emphasize nuclear's crucial role in a robust hydrogen economy, highlighting its reliability and scalability as essential for industrial hydrogen supply.

Real-World Examples of Nuclear-Powered Industrial Decarbonization

Several notable projects demonstrate nuclear's practical role in industrial decarbonization:

• Dow Chemical’s X-energy SMR Project: The U.S. Department of Energy’s Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program supports Dow Chemical’s initiative to deploy an advanced high-temperature SMR at its Gulf Coast plant. This facility will supply clean process heat and power for chemical and plastics manufacturing traditionally powered by natural gas, significantly reducing emissions and potentially contributing surplus electricity to the grid.

• Hydrogen-Based Steelmaking: European steelmakers, notably Sweden’s HYBRIT initiative, are pioneering hydrogen-based steel production. While initial projects typically rely on renewables, nuclear could play a complementary or primary role in regions where nuclear energy is predominant or where consistent hydrogen supply is crucial.

Microreactors: Transforming Remote Industrial and Extraction Sites

Remote industries—such as mining operations and oil extraction sites—often rely on diesel generators for power and heat, resulting in substantial carbon emissions and logistical complexities. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), approximately 30% of global oil and gas extraction sites are off-grid, relying heavily on fossil fuels transported over challenging terrain, driving costs and emissions upward.

Microreactors (very small nuclear reactors, typically under 20 MW) present an innovative solution, offering factory-built, truck-transportable nuclear units capable of supplying isolated sites with reliable, continuous power and heat. Terra Praxis, an organization dedicated to decarbonizing hard-to-abate sectors, emphasizes that microreactors are uniquely suited to electrify and decarbonize remote industrial operations. Such reactors can:

• Provide steam and electricity to power extraction processes without burning fossil fuels.

• Eliminate the risks and logistical complexity of transporting diesel fuel over long distances.

• Significantly lower operational emissions, making resource extraction cleaner and economically more sustainable during the global energy transition.

Climate Justice and Economic Development Considerations

From a climate justice perspective, effectively decarbonizing heavy industry is critically important. Industries like steel and cement form the economic backbone of many emerging economies, such as India, Brazil, Nigeria, and others. Providing realistic, affordable decarbonization pathways ensures these nations can achieve climate targets without sacrificing crucial economic development.

For instance, countries heavily reliant on fossil-based district heating, like Poland and Czechia, could significantly reduce emissions by transitioning coal and gas boilers to SMRs. A recent study by Finland’s VTT Technical Research Centre found SMRs to be highly viable for replacing fossil fuels in district heating, drastically cutting lifecycle emissions and improving local air quality. This not only meets climate goals but enhances community health and energy security.

Additional Hard-to-Decarbonize Sectors Nuclear Can Revolutionize

Beyond heavy industry, nuclear technologies combined with hydrogen can enable rapid decarbonization across several other challenging sectors:

• Agricultural Fertilizers and Green Ammonia: Nuclear-powered hydrogen can sustainably produce ammonia-based fertilizers, replacing current natural gas-dependent processes and significantly reducing agricultural emissions.

• Long-Distance Ground Freight: Hydrogen or synthetic diesel derived from nuclear-powered electrolysis offers scalable alternatives for heavy-duty trucking, crucial for global logistics chains.

• Data Centers and Digital Infrastructure: Data centers require continuous, carbon-free electricity to meet growing global digital demands. SMRs provide reliable, around-the-clock clean power, ensuring data center operations are decarbonized.

Conclusion: Leveraging Nuclear for Industrial Decarbonization

Advanced nuclear reactors and nuclear-produced hydrogen offer reliable, scalable, and economically viable solutions for deeply decarbonizing heavy industry. By supplying continuous high-temperature heat and zero-carbon chemical feedstocks, nuclear power enables industries historically dependent on fossil fuels to transition swiftly and sustainably.

Combined with complementary renewable solutions, nuclear’s capacity to deliver round-the-clock clean energy and hydrogen can power a comprehensive global industrial transformation. This not only addresses critical climate imperatives but also supports global economic justice by enabling developing and industrialized nations alike to participate fully in a zero-carbon economy.

District Heating and Remote Communities: Clean, Reliable Heat Everywhere with Nuclear Solutions

The Hidden Challenge of Heating Emissions

While electricity often receives the spotlight in decarbonization discussions, heat generation represents a massive share of global energy consumption and emissions. Heating is essential not only for residential and commercial buildings (space heating, water heating) but also for many industrial processes. In colder climates, centralized district heating networks are common, delivering heat from centralized plants via hot water or steam to multiple buildings. Traditionally, these district heating plants rely heavily on coal, natural gas, or biomass—fuels that emit significant CO₂ and contribute heavily to urban air pollution.

Decarbonizing heating poses specific technical challenges. Electrifying heat using heat pumps is possible but typically requires extensive building retrofits and, importantly, a reliably clean electricity grid. Alternatively, lower-carbon fuels can be used, but supply and sustainability constraints limit scalability. Nuclear energy, specifically through small modular reactors (SMRs) designed explicitly for heating, offers a robust, scalable, and clean solution for these challenges.

Nuclear-Powered District Heating: A Practical Solution for Cities

Small nuclear reactors optimized for district heating offer an ideal pathway to rapidly and effectively decarbonize heating networks. Unlike intermittent renewable sources, these nuclear heat reactors can operate reliably around the clock, precisely matching seasonal demand fluctuations—producing continuous heat throughout winter, scaling back in summer, or even generating electricity or hydrogen as valuable byproducts during lower heat demand periods.

Several innovative projects around the world highlight nuclear’s transformative potential in district heating:

• Finland’s LDR-50 Reactor: Finland’s VTT Technical Research Centre is developing the LDR-50, a 50 MW thermal reactor specifically optimized for district heat. The first units are expected to be operational in Finnish cities later this decade. This design directly integrates into existing heating networks, eliminating fossil fuels without extensive system modifications.

• Eastern Europe’s SMR Momentum: Countries like Estonia, Poland, Czechia, and others in Eastern Europe express strong interest in SMRs designed for combined heat and power generation. This approach simultaneously addresses regional climate goals and severe winter air pollution caused by coal-burning heating plants.

• China’s Pool-Type Reactors: China has successfully tested small pool-type reactors, such as the "HReactors," to provide district heating to entire urban neighborhoods. These reactors have proven capable of delivering consistent, emissions-free heating throughout harsh winters.

• Czech Republic’s "Teplator" Design: A highly innovative approach, the Czech "Teplator" reactor utilizes spent nuclear fuel or low-enriched uranium to produce approximately 150 MW of heat at about 95°C. This temperature is perfectly matched to retrofit existing district heating networks, significantly reducing conversion costs and emissions without sacrificing reliability or efficiency.

In Europe alone, approximately 60 million people depend on district heating, many systems still fueled by coal or natural gas. Transitioning these networks to nuclear heat can dramatically cut emissions and urban air pollution, directly improving health outcomes and reducing fuel price volatility, thereby delivering significant benefits in energy security and equity.

Decarbonizing Remote and Off-Grid Communities

Beyond urban district heating, remote communities—from Arctic villages to isolated island nations—often face severe energy challenges. Many rely on imported diesel fuel, both carbon-intensive and expensive. Electricity and heating in these remote locations can cost several times the national grid average due to the logistical complexity of fuel delivery.

Nuclear technology, especially microreactors and small modular reactors, offers these communities an unprecedented opportunity to leapfrog directly to clean, reliable energy:

• Microreactors for Remote Regions: Microreactors, typically ranging from 1 to 20 MW of capacity, are specifically engineered for portability, minimal maintenance, and decades-long operation without refueling. Examples include the U.S. projects "Aurora" by Oklo and "eVinci" by Westinghouse, which aim to deploy microreactors in remote Alaskan communities and mining operations by the late 2020s. These compact units eliminate diesel dependence, reduce emissions drastically, and significantly cut energy costs.

• Floating Nuclear Power: Russia's "Akademik Lomonosov," a floating nuclear power plant, already demonstrates the feasibility of supplying isolated Arctic towns with continuous electricity and heat, showcasing how innovative reactor placement can reliably serve geographically challenging locations.

Social and Climate Justice Benefits

Deploying nuclear reactors in remote communities offers profound social and environmental justice benefits:

• Reliable and Continuous Power: Facilities such as hospitals and schools can access uninterrupted electricity, ensuring critical services like medical care, vaccine refrigeration, education, and communication remain stable and dependable year-round.

• Reduction of Energy Poverty: Eliminating reliance on imported diesel reduces vulnerability to fuel shortages, price spikes, and logistical failures, significantly enhancing local resilience and economic stability.

• Local Environmental Health: Transitioning from diesel generators to nuclear substantially reduces local air pollutants and carbon emissions, directly benefiting community health and environmental quality.

Nuclear Flexibility: Tailoring Solutions to Local Needs

Ensuring global applicability requires nuclear technologies that are versatile, scalable, and adaptable. Fortunately, current nuclear innovation provides precisely this flexibility, offering reactors across multiple scales and configurations:

• Microreactors (1–20 MW): Ideal for isolated communities, small industries, or emergency power generation in remote or difficult-to-reach locations.

• Small Modular Reactors (50–300 MW): Suited for urban district heating networks, medium-scale industrial facilities, and cogeneration applications providing simultaneous heat, power, and hydrogen production.

• Large Nuclear Reactors (1000+ MW): Continue to play a vital role in grid-scale electricity generation, industrial hydrogen production, and extensive district heating networks in major urban centers.

Reactors can be specifically engineered to produce electricity exclusively, heat exclusively, or multiple combined outputs (heat, electricity, hydrogen), enabling tailored solutions for diverse global energy needs.

Additional Hard-to-Decarbonize Sectors Nuclear and Hydrogen Can Transform

Beyond district heating and remote communities, nuclear solutions can further revolutionize other difficult sectors:

• Long-Haul Freight and Rail: Nuclear-generated hydrogen or synthetic diesel provides carbon-neutral fuel options for trucks and trains, decarbonizing critical logistics infrastructure.

• Agricultural and Fertilizer Production: Nuclear-produced hydrogen can create green ammonia-based fertilizers, significantly reducing agriculture’s reliance on fossil fuels.

• Digital Infrastructure (Data Centers): Nuclear reactors provide stable, continuous, carbon-free electricity critical to powering rapidly expanding global digital networks and data centers, ensuring that digital growth does not exacerbate emissions.

Conclusion: Achieving Universal Clean Heat with Nuclear Technology

Nuclear solutions—ranging from innovative microreactors to robust district heating SMRs—provide reliable, scalable, and immediately actionable pathways to decarbonize heat worldwide. By enabling rapid transition from fossil fuels, nuclear energy addresses both emissions reduction and climate justice, ensuring secure, equitable energy access for urban populations and remote communities alike.

Embracing nuclear heat technologies ensures communities globally can thrive economically and environmentally, laying essential foundations for a universally sustainable, resilient, and equitable energy future.

Summary: Nuclear Solutions for Hard-to-Decarbonize Sectors

Effectively addressing climate change demands decarbonizing sectors that are challenging to electrify or fully supply with intermittent renewable energy alone. Nuclear power, often paired with nuclear-generated hydrogen or synthetic fuels, offers powerful complementary solutions for these difficult sectors, overcoming critical barriers that renewables alone face.

Electric Power

Challenges:

• Intermittency and variability of wind and solar energy.

• Massive, expensive storage requirements to ensure reliability at high renewable penetrations.

Nuclear Solutions:

• Reliable, 24/7 power generation provides firm capacity, complementing renewables by balancing intermittent generation.

• Significantly reduces total energy system costs—by 10% to 62%—through avoided infrastructure overbuild.

Aviation

Challenges:

• Batteries lack sufficient energy density for long-haul flights.

• Hydrogen requires bulky and heavy storage, impractical for current aircraft.

Nuclear Solutions:

• Nuclear-powered Direct Air Capture (DAC) combined with green hydrogen production creates carbon-neutral synthetic jet fuels.

• Synthetic fuels act as drop-in replacements, allowing existing aircraft and infrastructure to achieve near-zero emissions without redesign.

Maritime Shipping

Challenges:

• Ocean-going vessels need fuels capable of powering long voyages without refueling.

• Existing bunker fuels are dirty yet economically advantageous, and alternatives like batteries or hydrogen storage are currently impractical at scale.

Nuclear Solutions:

• Proven nuclear propulsion (demonstrated by naval reactors with over 6,200 reactor-years of safe operation) can directly power ships with zero operational emissions.

• Nuclear-produced green ammonia or synthetic diesel can decarbonize existing shipping fleets using current engine technology, facilitating immediate emissions reductions without extensive fleet overhauls.

Heavy Industry (Steel, Cement, Chemicals)

Challenges:

• Requires continuous, high-temperature heat often difficult to electrify.

• Frequently relies on carbon-intensive feedstocks and energy sources.

Nuclear Solutions:

• Advanced nuclear reactors can directly provide high-temperature steam and heat necessary for industrial processes, replacing fossil fuels completely.

• Nuclear-generated hydrogen serves as a clean reducing agent (for steel production) and as a chemical feedstock, eliminating fossil-derived carbon emissions.

District Heating

Challenges:

• Many urban heating networks rely heavily on fossil fuels (coal, natural gas), contributing significantly to local air pollution and carbon emissions.

• Full electrification requires costly grid and infrastructure upgrades.

Nuclear Solutions:

• Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) optimized for heat generation can directly supply existing district heating networks.

• Nuclear heat significantly reduces local CO₂ emissions, air pollution, and land use, while leveraging existing pipeline infrastructure for seamless transition.

Remote Regions & Islands

Challenges:

• Dependence on diesel generators for power and heat, leading to high costs, emissions, and complex logistics.

• Limited access to reliable renewable energy due to geography, climate extremes (e.g., polar nights), and energy storage constraints.

Nuclear Solutions:

• Microreactors provide continuous, reliable, emissions-free power and heat with minimal maintenance and rare refueling.

• Enhances local economic resilience, energy independence, and environmental quality, making energy accessible and affordable for remote Arctic communities, isolated islands, and mining operations.

Integrating Nuclear for Climate Justice

The integration of nuclear technologies with renewables creates a robust, flexible toolkit capable of addressing diverse global decarbonization challenges. Rather than expecting intermittent renewables to manage every energy demand alone—an impractical scenario—embracing a diverse energy strategy enhances global climate resilience and justice.

• Versatility: Nations can tailor their energy mixes according to geography, resources, and specific socioeconomic contexts.

• Equity: Ensures inclusive access to clean, affordable, and reliable energy solutions worldwide—from sub-Saharan Africa using solar with SMRs for stability and desalination, to Northern Europe combining offshore wind with nuclear district heating, to Pacific islands leveraging solar microgrids alongside microreactors.

• Adaptability: A flexible approach using nuclear power complements renewables, ensuring decarbonization pathways are realistic, equitable, and sustainable for all communities.

Ultimately, the successful transition to a global zero-carbon economy will rely heavily on integrating nuclear power with renewable solutions, leveraging their complementary strengths to overcome sector-specific challenges and deliver climate justice universally.

Conclusion: An Integrated, Equitable, and Pragmatic Approach to Global Decarbonization

The era of false dichotomies—renewables versus nuclear—must be replaced by an inclusive and integrated approach. Achieving genuine climate justice, defined as a swift and comprehensive transition to net-zero emissions that leaves no community or nation behind, demands the utilization of every proven and viable technology available. The studies analyzed here expose the inherent risks and unnecessary constraints imposed by a renewables-only mindset, clearly demonstrating the vital role of firm, zero-carbon resources such as nuclear power.

Embracing an Integrated Clean Energy Paradigm

The global technical capacity exists to diversify and strengthen our clean energy portfolio significantly by leveraging the complementary attributes of renewable energy sources alongside nuclear energy and hydrogen-based technologies. Renewable energy resources provide mass scalability, while nuclear energy offers unparalleled reliability, consistent power output, and operational stability. When combined with hydrogen production and synthetic fuels, this integrated approach ensures energy availability through intermittent periods, seasonal fluctuations, and extreme weather conditions—covering critical gaps inherent in a renewables-only approach.

For policymakers and climate advocates, the strategic direction is clear: rather than positioning clean energy options as mutually exclusive, policy frameworks should actively foster integration and technological innovation across all viable zero-carbon avenues.

Specifically, this includes:

• Accelerating renewable energy deployment alongside the preservation and strategic expansion of existing and advanced nuclear reactors.

  
  

• Promoting substantial investments in advanced nuclear technologies, hydrogen electrolysis facilities, synthetic fuel production plants, and robust infrastructure such as enhanced transmission grids and long-duration energy storage.

  
  

• Revising market and regulatory mechanisms to accurately value reliability, resilience, and continuous operation—qualities inherent to nuclear energy—ensuring these essential attributes are properly recognized in energy planning and investment.

  
  

Legal Equity and Climate Justice: Empowering Diverse Energy Solutions

From both legal and ethical perspectives, adopting an inclusive energy strategy aligns directly with the global climate action principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities.” Different countries possess unique geographical, technological, economic, and social contexts that naturally dictate diverse energy pathways:

• Nations abundant in solar and wind resources might prioritize renewables.

  
  

• Countries with established nuclear expertise and infrastructure can leverage nuclear power as their central clean-energy pillar.

Forcing uniform energy strategies or excluding viable technologies, particularly nuclear, through ideological biases or financial constraints inadvertently sustains fossil fuel dependency, counteracting the very objectives of climate justice. True climate equity entails enabling every country to access and implement the technologies best suited for achieving rapid and economically feasible decarbonization.

As emphasized by Earthrise Accord, climate justice is fundamentally about equipping all nations with comprehensive clean-energy options, ensuring affordable, reliable, and universally accessible energy solutions rather than luxury commodities.

Urgency and Practicality: A Global Imperative

The global community stands at a critical juncture—one demanding immediate action to peak and dramatically reduce emissions within this decade. As underscored by the International Energy Agency (IEA), achieving net-zero emissions requires an “unprecedented transformation” of our global energy systems. In this context, dismissing any effective and proven solution is not merely imprudent but dangerous.

Firm, zero-carbon resources such as nuclear power, combined with emerging solutions like nuclear-powered direct air capture (DAC) and synthetic fuel production, offer foundational stability. They enable continuous clean energy provision, regardless of weather or time of day, ensuring hospitals, factories, residential areas, and critical infrastructure remain operational without fossil fuels. Synthetic fuels produced through nuclear energy can sustainably power aviation and maritime shipping. Nuclear-generated heat can replace coal and gas for heating urban areas and industrial processes, drastically reducing emissions. Furthermore, nuclear microreactors can deliver clean, affordable power to remote and isolated communities beyond the practical reach of traditional renewables.

Beyond Ideology: Delivering Real-World Solutions

Ultimately, achieving timely and equitable decarbonization transcends ideological preferences or energy popularity contests. The critical measure remains reducing emissions rapidly, consistently, and universally. Our shared atmosphere tracks emissions, indifferent to their technological origin—whether wind turbines, solar arrays, or nuclear reactors.

Meeting ambitious climate goals demands pragmatic, science-based solutions and human-centered decision-making. The comprehensive analysis presented underscores a critical conclusion: nuclear energy and hydrogen-based fuels are indispensable partners for renewable energy sources. Collectively, these technologies form a robust, versatile, and integrated toolkit essential to effectively combating climate change.

Together, renewables, nuclear, and hydrogen solutions pave the pathway to a cleaner, more equitable world—a future where abundant, reliable clean energy is accessible to all, transforming net-zero from a distant aspiration into a tangible, lived reality across the globe.

Sources

• Sepulveda et al. (2018) – The Role of Firm Low-Carbon Electricity Resources in Deep Decarbonizationhttps://energy.mit.edu/news/study-adding-power-choices-reduces-cost-risk-carbon-free-electricity/

• Jenkins et al. (2018) – Getting to Zero Carbon Emissions in the Electric Power Sectorhttps://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(18)30562-2

• Energy + Environmental Economics (Williams et al., 2018) – Pacific Northwest Low Carbon Scenario Analysishttps://www.ethree.com/projects/study-pacific-northwest-low-carbon-scenario-analysis/

• Earthrise Accord (2025) – Nuclear-Powered Direct Air Capture Fuels: Closing the Carbon Loophttps://www.earthriseaccord.org/post/nuclear-powered-direct-air-capture-fuels-closing-the-carbon-loop-for-hard-to-decarbonize-sectors

• World Nuclear Association (2021) – Nuclear-Powered Ships: Safety and Operational Experiencehttps://world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-nuclear-applications/transport/nuclear-powered-ships.aspx

• IAEA (2022) – Decarbonizing Industries with Small and Micro Nuclear Reactorshttps://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/decarbonizing-industries-with-the-help-of-small-and-micro-nuclear-reactors

• NucNet / Finland VTT (2024) – SMRs: A Viable Option for Replacing Fossil Fuels in Heat Productionhttps://www.nucnet.org/news/smrs-a-viable-option-for-replacing-fossil-fuels-in-heat-production-7-1-2024

• Earth.org (2022) – What Role Does Nuclear Energy Play in the Race to Net Zero?https://earth.org/what-role-does-nuclear-energy-play-in-the-race-to-net-zero/