Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Differences in carbon emissions reduction between countries pursuing renewable electricity versus nuclear power

Matters Arising to this article was published on 27 January 2022

Matters Arising to this article was published on 27 January 2022


Two of the most widely emphasized contenders for carbon emissions reduction in the electricity sector are nuclear power and renewable energy. While scenarios regularly question the potential impacts of adoption of various technology mixes in the future, it is less clear which technology has been associated with greater historical emission reductions. Here, we use multiple regression analyses on global datasets of national carbon emissions and renewable and nuclear electricity production across 123 countries over 25 years to examine systematically patterns in how countries variously using nuclear power and renewables contrastingly show higher or lower carbon emissions. We find that larger-scale national nuclear attachments do not tend to associate with significantly lower carbon emissions while renewables do. We also find a negative association between the scales of national nuclear and renewables attachments. This suggests nuclear and renewables attachments tend to crowd each other out.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type



Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Graphical display of the moderating influence of GDP per capita on the effect of nuclear electricity production on CO2 emissions.
Fig. 2: Graphical display of bivariate relationships between nuclear and renewable electricity production.
Fig. 3: Construction lead times and opportunity costs for nuclear and renewable power plants.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article and its Supplementary Information.


  1. Pacala, S. & Socolow, R. Stabilization wedges: solving the climate problem for the next 50 years with current technologies. Science 305, 968–972 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Armstrong, R. C. et al. The frontiers of energy. Nat. Energy 1, 15020 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Morgan, M. G., Abdulla, A., Ford, M. J. & Rath, M. US nuclear power: the vanishing low-carbon wedge. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 7184–7189 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Chu, S. & Majumdar, A. Opportunities and challenges for a sustainable energy future. Nature 488, 294–303 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Stephen, J. D. et al. Net-zero emissions energy systems. Science 360, eaas9793 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Jin, T. & Kim, J. What is better for mitigating carbon emissions—renewable energy or nuclear energy? A panel data analysis. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 91, 464–471 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Vaidyanathan, G. Nuclear power must make a comeback for climate’s sake: James Hansen and other climate scientists argue for more reactors to cut coal consumption. Scientific American (4 December 2015).

  8. Cao, J. et al. China-U.S. cooperation to advance nuclear power. Science 353, 547–548 (2016).

  9. Kharecha, P. A. & Hansen, J. E. Prevented mortality and greenhouse gas emissions from historical and projected nuclear power. Environ. Sci. Technol. 20, 4889–4895 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. International Energy Agency Energy Technology Perspectives 2012 (OECD, 2012).

  11. Climate Change and Nuclear Power (International Atomic Energy Agency, 2013).

  12. Kharecha, P. A. & Hansen, J. E. Prevented mortality and greenhouse gas emissions from historical and projected nuclear power. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 4889–4895 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. International Energy Agency Technology Roadmap: Nuclear Energy (OECD, 2010).

  14. Jacobson, M. Z. et al. 100% clean and renewable wind, water, and sunlight all-sector energy roadmaps for 139 countries of the world. Joule 1, 108–121 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Dmitrii, B. et al. Radical transformation pathway towards sustainable electricity via evolutionary steps. Nat. Commun. 10, 1077 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Mitchell, C. The Political Economy of Sustainable Energy (Palgrave MacMillan, 2010).

  17. Mitchell, C. Momentum is increasing towards a flexible electricity system based on renewables. Nat. Energy 1, 15030 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Gross, R. et al. The Costs and Impacts of Intermittency: an Assessment of the Evidence on the Costs and Impacts of Intermittent Generation on the British Electricty Network (UK Energy Research Centre, 2006).

  19. Service, R. F. Solar plus batteries is now cheaper than fossil power. Science 365, 108 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Scrase, I. & MacKerron, G. (eds) Energy for the Future: A New Agenda (Palgrave Macmillan, 2009).

  21. Elliott, D. (ed.) Nuclear or Not? Does Nuclear Power Have a Place in a Sustainable Future (Palgrave MacMillan, 2007).

  22. Johnstone, P. & Stirling, A. Comparing nuclear trajectories in Germany and the UK: from regimes to democracies in social technical transitions and discontinuities. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 59, 1–27 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Rutsky, R. L. High Techne: Art and Technology from the Machine Aesthetic to the Posthuman (Univ. of Minnesota Press, 1999).

  24. Gilbert, A., Sovacool, B. K., Johnstone, P. & Stirling, A. Cost overruns and financial risk in the construction of nuclear power reactors: a critical appraisal. Energy Pol. 102, 644–649 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Wheatley, S., Sovacool, B. K. & Sornette, D. Of disasters and dragon kings: a statistical analysis of nuclear power incidents & accidents. Risk Anal. 37, 99–115 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Wheatley, S., Sovacool, B. K. & Sornette, D. Reassessing the safety of nuclear power. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 15, 96–100 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Barron, R. W. & Hill, M. C. A wedge or a weight? Critically examining nuclear power’s viability as a low carbon energy source from an intergenerational perspective. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 50, 7–17 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. IRENA Renewable Cost Database and Auctions Database (International Renewable Energy Agency, 2017).

  29. Kobos, P. H., Erickson, J. D. & Drennen, T. E. Technological learning and renewable energy costs: implications for US renewable energy policy. Energy Pol. 34, 1645–1658 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Nemet, G. F. Beyond the learning curve: factors influencing cost reductions in photovoltaics. Energy Pol. 34, 3218–3232 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Grubler, A. The costs of the French nuclear scale-up: a case of negative learning by doing. Energy Pol. 38, 5174–5188 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hultman, N. E., Koomey, J. G. & Kammen, D. M. What history can teach us about the future costs of U.S. nuclear power. Environ. Sci. Technol. 41, 2087–2094 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Cohen, B. L. in The Nuclear Energy Option Ch. 9 (Plenum Press, 1990).

  34. Downer, J. & Ramana, M. V. Empires built on sand: on the fundamental implausibility of reactor safety assessments and the implications for nuclear regulation. Regul. Gov. (in the press).

  35. Verbruggen, A., Laes, E. & Lemmens, S. Assessment of the actual sustainability of nuclear fission power. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 32, 16–28 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Schneider, M. et. al. The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2019 (World Nuclear Industry Status Report, 2019).

  37. Markard, J., Bento, N., Kittner, N. & Nuñez-Jimenez, A. Destined for decline? Examining nuclear energy from a technological innovation systems perspective. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 67, 101512 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Edwards, M. W., Schweitzer, R. D., Shakespeare-Finch, J., Byrne, A. & Gordon-King, K. Living with nuclear energy: a systematic review of the psychological consequences of nuclear power. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 47, 1–15 (2019).

  39. Bromet, E. J. Emotional consequences of nuclear power plant disasters. Health Phys. 106, 206–210 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Lehtonen, M., Kojo, M., Jartti, T., Litmanen, T. & Kari, M. The roles of the state and social licence to operate? Lessons from nuclear waste management in Finland, France, and Sweden. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 61, 101353 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Petrova, M. A. NIMBYism revisited: public acceptance of wind energy in the United States. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 4, 575–601 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. McGowan, F. & Sauter, R. Public Opinion on Energy Research: a Desk Study for the Research Councils (Sussex Energy Group, Science Policy Research Unit, Univ. of Sussex, 2005).

  43. Poortinga, W., Pidgeon, N., & Lorenzioni, I. Public Perceptions of Nuclear Power, Climate Change and Energy Options in Britan: Summary of Findings of a Survey Conducted during October and November 2005 (School of Environmental Science, Univ. of East Anglia, 2006).

  44. Stirling, A. Multicriteria diversity analysis: a novel heuristic framework for appraising energy portfolios. Energy Pol. 38, 1622–1634 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Stirling, A. Diversity and ignorance in electricity supply investment: addressing the solution rather than the problem. Energy Pol. 22, 195–216 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. World Bank Metadata Glossary;

  47. Sovacool, B. K., Nugent, D. & Gilbert, A. An international comparative assessment of construction cost overruns for electricity infrastructure. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 3, 152–160 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



B.K.S. and A.S.: conceptualization; investigation; methodology; project administration; supervision; validation; writing, reviewing and editing of manuscript. P.S. and G.W.: conceptualization; data curation; formal analysis; methodology; validation; visualization; writing, reviewing and editing of manuscript. G.M.: writing, reviewing and editing of manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benjamin K. Sovacool.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Tables 1 and 2.

Supplementary Data

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sovacool, B.K., Schmid, P., Stirling, A. et al. Differences in carbon emissions reduction between countries pursuing renewable electricity versus nuclear power. Nat Energy 5, 928–935 (2020).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing