Nuclear Now
Nuclear Now is a documentary film directed, co-written, and narrated by Oliver Stone, released in 2023, that presents nuclear power as a safe, scalable, and indispensable energy source to replace fossil fuels, combat climate change, and alleviate energy poverty.[1][2] The film traces the development of nuclear technology from its mid-20th-century promise as a clean alternative to coal and oil, arguing that fear-mongering campaigns—allegedly backed by fossil fuel interests—derailed its adoption by conflating civilian nuclear energy with weapons proliferation.[1] Stone highlights empirical safety data, such as the low incidence of radiation-related fatalities compared to fossil fuel alternatives, and showcases operational nuclear facilities in France, Russia, and the United States to demonstrate current capabilities and future potential for baseload power without carbon emissions.[1][3] Premiering at the 2022 Venice Film Festival before a limited U.S. theatrical release on April 28, 2023, Nuclear Now has been praised for its bold challenge to prevailing anti-nuclear sentiments within environmental circles, earning endorsements from figures advocating pragmatic energy solutions, though it drew criticism from opponents who question nuclear waste management and proliferation risks.[4][5][6] Stone's provocative stance, including his rebuke of the environmental movement's historical opposition to nuclear development, underscores the film's aim to reframe the debate through historical context and technical facts rather than ideological preconceptions.[6][7]Background and Production
Development and Motivation
Oliver Stone initiated the development of Nuclear Now in collaboration with international relations scholar Joshua S. Goldstein, drawing inspiration from Goldstein's 2018 book A Bright Future: How Some Countries Have Solved Climate Change and the Rest Can Follow, which posits nuclear power as essential for global decarbonization.[8][9] The project evolved into a documentary script co-written by Stone and Goldstein, focusing on nuclear energy's historical suppression and untapped potential, with production involving Stone's established team, including producers Fernando Sulichin and Rob Wilson, who had prior experience on Stone's documentaries like The Untold History of the United States.[8] Filming incorporated on-location footage from nuclear facilities in France, Russia, and the United States to demonstrate operational realities.[10] Stone's primary motivation stemmed from a recognition that anti-nuclear sentiment, amplified by Hollywood depictions and high-profile accidents like Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011, has hindered adoption of what he views as the most reliable low-carbon energy source amid rising global fossil fuel demand—projected to increase with population growth to 10 billion by 2050 and developing nations' electrification needs.[9][3] He argued that conflating civilian nuclear power with weapons programs has obscured its safety record, where operational risks are statistically lower than those from coal-related air pollution or renewable intermittency issues, necessitating a public reevaluation to avert energy poverty for billions.[9][11] The film's development was driven by a causal analysis prioritizing empirical energy density and scalability: nuclear plants provide continuous baseload power at capacities exceeding 90% annually, unlike solar and wind's weather-dependent outputs averaging under 30%, positioning it as critical for meeting Paris Agreement targets without economic disruption.[1] Stone emphasized that historical policy shifts, such as the 1970s U.S. halt on new reactor builds following the Three Mile Island incident in 1979, were influenced by fossil fuel interests and irrational fear rather than data, motivating the documentary to restore factual discourse.[9][3] This urgency was underscored by 2022 global energy crises, where nuclear phase-outs in countries like Germany correlated with higher emissions and reliance on coal.[11]Filmmaking Process
Nuclear Now was co-written by director Oliver Stone and Joshua S. Goldstein, drawing from Goldstein's 2019 book A Bright Future: How Some Countries Have Solved Climate Change and the Rest Can Follow.[1] The production spanned approximately three years, longer than the initially anticipated one year, as Goldstein, despite his expertise on the subject, lacked experience in filmmaking.[10] Producers Fernando Sulichin and Rob Wilson oversaw the project, with Wilson having developed an affinity for documentary work during his involvement in Stone's 2003 film Comandante.[12] Filming occurred in nuclear facilities across France, Russia, and the United States, securing rare access to operational infrastructure and experts.[11] In the U.S., crews visited the Idaho National Laboratory, capturing footage of advanced reactor technologies.[13] Russian segments included entry to the Chernobyl site and discussions with nuclear officials, leveraging Stone's prior connections from his 2017 The Putin Interviews.[14] Interviews featured industry specialists emphasizing nuclear safety and scalability, countering historical fears amplified by fossil fuel lobbying, as Stone noted in production statements.[12] Challenges included navigating entrenched anti-nuclear sentiments rooted in past accidents and media portrayals, which Stone attributed to opposition from coal and oil interests.[12] Despite these, the team achieved "unprecedented access" to secure empirical footage demonstrating modern reactor designs.[12] Post-production culminated in the film's world premiere at the 2022 Venice Film Festival, followed by a U.S. theatrical release on April 28, 2023.[11]Synopsis and Structure
Narrative Flow
The documentary Nuclear Now, directed and narrated by Oliver Stone, opens by examining the mid-20th-century discovery of uranium's concentrated energy potential and the United States' pioneering role in harnessing it for electricity generation following initial applications in bombs and submarines.[1] It then traces the historical momentum toward widespread nuclear adoption, which was disrupted by public relations campaigns allegedly funded by coal and oil interests that conflated civilian nuclear power with atomic weapons and amplified fears of radiation.[15] The narrative shifts to critiquing the anti-nuclear movement's role in perpetuating disinformation, particularly through misleading portrayals of accidents such as Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima, which Stone argues have overshadowed nuclear power's safety record relative to fossil fuels' environmental toll.[3] Interwoven with this are segments featuring interviews with experts like Joshua S. Goldstein and footage from nuclear facilities in France, Russia, and the United States, illustrating operational reliability and scalability where countries like France derive approximately 70% of their electricity from nuclear sources.[3][16] Progressing toward advocacy, the film contrasts nuclear energy's baseload capabilities and low-carbon emissions with the intermittency of renewables, positing that only scaled nuclear deployment can meet projected global electricity demands, potentially doubling or quadrupling within 30 years, to avert climate catastrophe and energy poverty.[16] It concludes with an urgent call for policy shifts, emphasizing human ingenuity and knowledge as antidotes to fear, while urging mass production of reactors to transition from fossil fuels.[1][15]Visual and Interview Elements
The documentary employs a visual style that juxtaposes dramatic depictions of climate change impacts, such as crumbling glaciers and flooded urban areas, with footage of nuclear facilities and historical developments to highlight the technology's potential.[17] On-site shots from nuclear sites in France, Russia, the United States, and the Idaho National Laboratory provide contemporary views of operational reactors and research, complemented by archival footage of mid-20th-century advancements like nuclear submarines and early power generation.[1][13] Oliver Stone's voiceover narration guides these sequences, framing nuclear energy as a counter to fossil fuel dependency and renewable limitations.[18] Interviews feature nuclear experts and industry leaders to substantiate claims of safety and efficacy. Key figures include Alexey Likhachev, CEO of Rosatom, interviewed outside the world's first nuclear power plant in Obninsk, Russia, discussing state-backed advancements.[19] Ashley Finan, director of the National Reactor Innovation Center in Idaho, appears to address innovation in reactor design.[20] On-site discussions at the Idaho National Laboratory involve Jacob DeWitte and Caroline Cochran, co-founders of the advanced nuclear startup Oklo, emphasizing scalable small modular reactors.[13] These segments prioritize technical explanations from proponents, avoiding dissenting voices to maintain a focused pro-nuclear narrative.[21]Core Arguments for Nuclear Power
Safety Record and Risk Assessment
Nuclear power plants have demonstrated one of the lowest rates of fatalities per unit of energy produced among all major electricity sources, with comprehensive analyses attributing approximately 0.03 deaths per terawatt-hour (TWh) to nuclear generation, including accidents and routine operations.[22] This figure encompasses historical data from over 440 operational reactors worldwide, which have generated hundreds of thousands of TWh since the 1950s without widespread catastrophic failures.[23] In comparison, fossil fuels exhibit significantly higher mortality: coal at 24.6 deaths per TWh, oil at 18.4, and natural gas at 2.8, primarily due to air pollution and mining accidents.[22] Renewables like hydropower register 1.3 deaths per TWh from dam failures, while solar and wind are comparably low at 0.02 and 0.04, respectively, though these exclude supply chain risks such as rooftop falls for solar panels.[22]| Energy Source | Deaths per TWh |
|---|---|
| Coal | 24.6 |
| Oil | 18.4 |
| Natural Gas | 2.8 |
| Hydropower | 1.3 |
| Nuclear | 0.03 |
| Wind | 0.04 |
| Solar | 0.02 |
Energy Reliability and Scalability
Nuclear power plants demonstrate exceptional reliability through high capacity factors, typically operating at over 92% annually in the United States, meaning they produce near-maximum output for the vast majority of the year.[29] This outperforms intermittent renewables, such as solar (around 25% capacity factor) and wind (around 35%), which require backup systems or storage to maintain grid stability.[29] Unlike fossil fuel plants that cycle frequently and face fuel supply disruptions, nuclear reactors provide consistent baseload power, minimizing outages from weather or market fluctuations.[30] France exemplifies nuclear reliability on a national scale, deriving approximately 70% of its electricity from nuclear sources since the 1980s, enabling low-cost, low-emission power during periods of high demand.[31] The fleet's historical uptime supported energy independence post-1973 oil crisis, though recent maintenance issues in 2022 highlighted vulnerabilities from aging infrastructure rather than inherent unreliability.[32] In the U.S., nuclear's 93% average capacity factor in recent years underscores its role in grid resilience, contributing over 800 billion kilowatt-hours annually without carbon emissions.[30] Scalability of nuclear power stems from its modular design potential and proven large-scale deployment, with single reactors generating 800 megawatts or more, sufficient for powering thousands of homes or industrial loads like data centers.[33] France's rapid construction of 56 reactors between 1974 and 1990, reaching 70% nuclear electricity share, demonstrates feasible national-scale rollout under decisive policy.[34] Emerging small modular reactors (SMRs) enhance scalability by offering units from 1 to 1,000 megawatts, deployable in clusters for flexible sizing—from remote communities to urban grids—while leveraging factory production to reduce site-specific delays.[35] Uranium fuel abundance further supports long-term scaling, with known reserves equating to centuries of supply at current usage rates.[36]Environmental and Climate Benefits
Nuclear power exhibits among the lowest lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of any large-scale electricity generation technology, typically ranging from 5 to 15 grams of CO₂-equivalent per kilowatt-hour (g CO₂eq/kWh), comparable to onshore wind and far below solar photovoltaic (38-48 g CO₂eq/kWh) or fossil fuels like coal (over 800 g CO₂eq/kWh).[37][38][39] A 2023 parametric life cycle assessment estimated global nuclear emissions at 6.1 g CO₂eq/kWh on average, with variations depending on fuel cycle and reactor type, underscoring its role in mitigating climate change through near-zero operational emissions.[37] This low footprint arises from the energy-dense nature of nuclear fuel, where a single ton of uranium yields energy equivalent to millions of tons of coal or gas, minimizing upstream extraction and downstream emissions relative to dispersed renewables.[40] The technology's high capacity factor—often exceeding 90%—enables consistent baseload power, displacing intermittent renewables backed by fossil fuels and avoiding emissions spikes during low wind or solar periods.[41] In 2022, global nuclear output averted approximately 2.5 billion tons of CO₂ emissions annually, equivalent to removing one-third of the world's passenger vehicles from roads.[42] Unlike variable renewables, nuclear's dispatchability supports grid stability, reducing reliance on natural gas peaker plants that emit GHGs during peak demand; for instance, France's nuclear-heavy grid achieved per capita emissions 10 times lower than Germany's renewable-focused system in recent years.[43] Land use intensity for nuclear is exceptionally low, at a median of 7.1 hectares per terawatt-hour per year (ha/TWh/y), outperforming solar (around 20-50 ha/TWh/y) and onshore wind (up to 100 ha/TWh/y when accounting for spacing).[44][45] This efficiency preserves vast habitats and agricultural lands; a single gigawatt-scale nuclear plant occupies less than 1 square kilometer while generating power equivalent to thousands of square kilometers of solar arrays or wind farms.[46] By concentrating infrastructure, nuclear minimizes ecosystem disruption, habitat fragmentation, and biodiversity loss associated with sprawling renewable installations, which often require clearing forests or grasslands.[47] Nuclear waste generation is minimal in volume and contained, contrasting with the diffuse pollution from fossil fuels (e.g., billions of tons of coal ash and scrubber sludge annually) or end-of-life disposal challenges for renewables (e.g., millions of tons of retired solar panels and turbine blades).[48][49] All spent fuel from U.S. reactors since 1950s totals under 90,000 metric tons—manageable in secure, retrievable storage—while advanced reactors promise to reduce high-level waste by over 90% through recycling and transmutation.[49] This controlled approach avoids the unmitigated releases of particulates, heavy metals, and GHGs from fossil combustion, positioning nuclear as a high-density solution for decarbonization without widespread environmental dispersion.[50]Empirical Evaluation of Claims
Statistical Comparisons with Alternatives
Nuclear power exhibits one of the lowest mortality rates among energy sources when measured by deaths per terawatt-hour (TWh) of electricity produced, encompassing accidents, air pollution, and occupational hazards over the full lifecycle. According to data compiled from historical records and epidemiological studies, nuclear energy results in approximately 0.03 deaths per TWh, comparable to modern renewables like wind (0.04 deaths per TWh) and utility-scale solar (around 0.02 deaths per TWh), but orders of magnitude safer than fossil fuels such as coal (24.6 deaths per TWh) and oil (18.4 deaths per TWh).[22][51] Natural gas fares better among fossils at 2.8 deaths per TWh, while hydropower's rate of 1.3 deaths per TWh is elevated due to large dam failures.[22] These figures derive from comprehensive meta-analyses, including those by Sovacool et al. and the Unscear reports, which account for events like Chernobyl and Fukushima but emphasize nuclear's overall empirical safety record surpasses perception-driven fears.[22]| Energy Source | Deaths per TWh |
|---|---|
| Coal | 24.6 |
| Oil | 18.4 |
| Natural Gas | 2.8 |
| Hydropower | 1.3 |
| Rooftop Solar | 0.44 |
| Wind | 0.04 |
| Nuclear | 0.03 |