We stand at a crossroads. The choices we make over the next decade will impact the world for centuries to come.

The effects of the climate crisis are no longer a distant worry but are clear and present. According to the World Meteorological Organisation, the planet has averaged 1.55 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels in 2024. Coral reefs are now passed their tipping point.  Over the last 140 years, sea levels have risen by 8 inches.

There is still hope. In 2024, the UK took its last coal power station offline. As shown below, the share of electricity generated with wind has risen rapidly. However, the proportion generated with natural gas has risen by 30TWhs since 1994 (a 50% rise) and bioenergy with dubious sustainability promises is creeping upwards while nuclear power has fallen by 48TWhs (more than halving).

Had we kept the same amount of nuclear energy as in 1994, we could have completely avoided this increase in natural gas use. However, in 1995 Sizewell B became the last nuclear plant to be built in the UK. Since the sector was privatised in 1996, not a single new reactor has entered operation.

Graph from Our World in Data

Why Nuclear Power?

Nuclear power is available 24/7, regardless of weather. Its lifetime greenhouse gas emissions are the lowest of all major sources, and it is one of the safest per unit of energy produced. It also uses a fraction of the land, produces a fraction of the waste, and uses a fraction of the raw resources.

The above chart summarises lots of complicated research, which we explain further as we continue to write about this topic (and have explained further in our background paper) and which we encourage readers to dig into if they would like a more detailed understanding.

We believe that these are two of the most important issues when determining the composition of our electricity grid. As this chart shows, nuclear power has the lowest carbon footprint and the second lowest death rate of any energy source. That is the crux of why we believe it should be built.

But other sustainability issues matter two. The UK is a small island, and the Green Party has big ambitions. We need land to set aside for nature conservation, to build council houses, and to farm sustainably. While we should always look for ways to combine those things with electricity generation (think rooftop solar or agrivoltaics), inevitably our desire to boost renewables will conflict with those missions.

Once you factor in the land used for mining, nuclear power actually uses less land than coal power plants, and orders of magnitude less than wind and solar.

The Green Party is also very concerned about resource usage and potential depletion. Even if it is true, as some economists argue, that the supply of raw resources on Earth is almost limitless, many of the minerals used in the construction of power plants have negative environmental and social consequences when they are mined (they have sometimes been called ‘conflict minerals’).

While it will be possible in the future to get some of the required resources from recycling existing power plants, currently these resources come from mining and recycling will always be imperfect. It is for these reasons that the green movement has long prioritised reduction over recycling.

We should ask whether there are clear differences in the resource consumptions of different power plants? The answers are yes, and the clear favourite is nuclear power stations. This also results in nuclear generating far less waste than wind or solar even after you account for the fuel consumption.

Graph 1 by Greens For Nuclear based on calculations by the US Department of Energy
Graph 2 from the International Energy Agency

Green Party Nuclear Policy

So, if nuclear is clean, safe, land-efficient and can be produced all day every day, surely Green Party policy is in support of it? Alas, no. It states that not only are we opposed to new nuclear power plants but that we want to phase out existing ones.

They cite cost, time, and its links to nuclear weapons. However, on close examination these issues prove to be more complex. While offshore wind farms can be connected in phases, they often take as long or longer to reach the same generation capacity. And because wind and solar must be time shifted to when they are needed, they can end up costing as much or more than nuclear power.

While the first wave of nuclear power plants in the UK were designed around nuclear weapons, there is absolutely no reason why a country with nuclear power must also have nuclear weapons, and in fact most countries with nuclear power (such as Finland) do not have these nuclear weapons.

In a crucial moment for our planet, the Green party continues to oppose safe, clean and green energy. Fortunately, there is a solution. The Green party is democratic, every member has a vote, and here at Greens for Nuclear we will be pushing for this every conference. We just need as many members as possible to get this vote over the line. Sign up now to Greens for Nuclear now!

It’s time for better. It’s time for nuclear energy.

• Join us!
• Read Our Background Paper
• Watch the documentary Critical from our partner organisation Greens For Nuclear Energy