In 2026, as the disaster reaches its 40th anniversary, the world is paradoxically turning back toward nuclear energy.
Geopolitical instability in the Middle East continues to rattle energy markets, and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has exposed Europe’s energy-security vulnerabilities. At the same time, surging electricity demand tied to the artificial intelligence boom and the urgency of the climate crisis are driving a reassessment of nuclear power — from a symbol of fear to a strategic asset.
“Chernobyl was an outlier” — engineers weigh what has changed
For decades, Chernobyl served as the ultimate warning for opponents of nuclear power. More recently, expert debate has shifted from broad claims that “nuclear is dangerous” to closer analysis of which reactor designs are risky and under what conditions.
Jacopo Buongiorno, a professor of nuclear engineering at MIT, described Chernobyl as “an outlier” caused by a flawed RBMK design without a containment structure and reckless actions.
Sarah A. Pozzi, a University of Michigan professor and president of the IEEE Nuclear and Plasma Sciences Society, said no modern reactor approved under Western regulatory systems includes all of the defects present at the time.
Some experts also point to changes in reactor physics. Steven Lyman, a University of Michigan professor, cited the Soviet graphite-moderated RBMK design as central to the Chernobyl disaster. He said modern water-moderated reactors cannot experience a Chernobyl-style meltdown, describing a physical safety mechanism in which overheating causes water coolant to boil off and naturally slows the nuclear reaction.
Lyman added that, as the Fukushima accident showed, the principle does not eliminate risk but can reduce the severity of an accident. He said nuclear power matters as “scalable clean baseload power,” but high upfront costs remain the biggest obstacle. If small modular reactors, or SMRs, can bring initial costs down to a manageable level, he said, that barrier could be overcome.
Nuclear power currently supplies about 10% of global electricity and about 25% of low-carbon power. More than 400 reactors are operating in 31 countries, and about 70 more are under construction.
The United States, the world’s largest nuclear-power nation, operates 94 reactors and plans to quadruple capacity by 2050.
Thomas DiNanno, a U.S. State Department deputy assistant secretary, recently said, “The world cannot power industry, meet AI demand, or secure its energy future without nuclear power.”
China is building about 40 reactors, signaling it could surpass the United States.
Even Germany, long a symbol of anti-nuclear sentiment, is showing signs of reconsideration. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, referring to the past rise in reliance on fossil fuels, acknowledged that turning away from nuclear power was a “strategic mistake.”
Not all experts share the optimism. R. Scott Kemp, director of MIT’s Nuclear Security and Policy Program, urged caution, noting that nuclear safety is based in large part on simulation models. “In a complex system like a reactor, it is difficult to fully predict every interaction,” he said.
Kemp emphasized that human misjudgment has played a role in major accidents and warned that “a Chernobyl-type accident is absolutely possible even today.” Even if modern plants are safer, he said, unexpected accidents cannot be ruled out if human understanding of the system is incomplete.
A new front: SMRs and South Korea’s challenge
The next battleground in the nuclear market is SMRs. The factory-built, on-site “plug-and-play” approach promises lower costs and faster deployment. But the BBC and other foreign media have cautioned that SMRs’ commercial viability has not yet been fully proven.
That is where South Korea is drawing attention. The country has a top-tier supply chain capable of building standardized reactors such as the APR-1400 on budget and on schedule. But domestic conditions are complicated, with lingering fears after Fukushima, local opposition known as NIMBY sentiment, and policy uncertainty still weighing on the sector.
Experts including Lee Jeong-ik, a professor at KAIST, have said South Korea’s 12th Basic Plan for Long-term Electricity Supply and Demand still falls short of delivering a full revival of the nuclear industry.
Forty years after Chernobyl, the international order around nuclear power has shifted. Nuclear energy is increasingly framed not as an automatic object of fear, but as a practical option tied to survival.
With climate pressures, energy security and AI-driven electricity demand converging in 2026, the question being asked is no longer whether societies can afford to live with nuclear power, but whether they can afford to live without it.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.