Let the invasion of Ukraine be a lesson to America: don’t make the same mistakes as Europe, who became reliant on Putin’s fossil fuels while simultaneously shutting the door on nuclear energy. This has left countries like Germany unable to boycott Russian oil and gas. We need to reevaluate our national nuclear energy strategy, which has laid nearly dormant for decades, and plan for a future that includes this clean, reliable, domestic energy source.

The European Union gets 40% of their natural gas and 25% of their oil from Russia, which fuels significant portions of their transportation and heating needs, as well as some of their electric grid. This heavy attachment has long been a foreseeable issue, but it did not reach a pinnacle until the recent Russian invasion of Ukraine, which has been inhumane, illogical, and chaotic. Germany, in particular, has become more reliant on Russian fossil fuels as it has decommissioned its nuclear power plants, with Russia now accounting for 55% of its natural gas and over 30% of its oil in 2020. Some see this increased reliance on Russia as the single most costly mistake of Angela Merkel’s long tenure as German chancellor. This move has been antithetical to both Germany’s goals to mitigate climate change and its aims to lead a strong, independent European Union.

While Germany has increased their renewable energy generation capacity in recent decades, deciding to close nuclear power plants that are still within their decades-long operational lifespan is wasteful. Coupling nuclear energy with renewable energy growth is doable and less harmful than relying on only fossil fuels for a country’s energy transition. (Energy transition refers to the significant structural change in an energy system; examples include transitioning from fossil fuels to renewables, or transitioning from preindustrial, decentralized energy sources to an industrialized society.) Germany’s fierce antinuclear stance has left them with fewer energy options than their neighbors. Belgium, who had plans to phase out nuclear power by 2025, reversed course in March 2022 and extended the operations of their nuclear power plants until at least 2035 over concerns of a reliance on Russia that would result in more carbon pollution whether or not they cut ties. Germany’s last nuclear plants are set to go offline this year, and thus they couldn’t reverse this mistake even if they wanted to. The EU effectively cannot sanction Russian gas or oil to support Ukraine. They’re stuck.

Having the ability to choose who to do business with adds flexibility, security, and strength to a country’s energy mix, which refers to the unique combination of energy sources, such as oil, natural gas, and nuclear energy, that serve a region’s energy needs. Right now, Europe is not in a position to choose. And while the US can afford to sanction Russian oil, we also don’t find ourselves in the most comfortable or flexible position either. While Russian oil only accounts for 7% of US imports, even we had to go knocking at the doors of other oil exporters to help make up for the supply loss and curb rising oil prices. If reliability is your primary concern when determining foreign policy, energy policy, and general governance, then you should be nervous to hear that Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates reportedly wouldn’t take our calls. The Biden administration had reached out in hopes that they’d help bail us out of our current oil crunch, but the leaders of these oil rich countries declined to speak with President Biden. Biden had initially snubbed the leader of Saudi Arabia following his inauguration in 2021.

Perhaps our shortsightedness is part of the reason we’re now the ones given the cold shoulder. Additionally, the oil market is notoriously volatile, with regular cycles of booms and busts. And right now, we’re feeling the pain at the pumps. However, if human rights abuses are your primary concern, rather than reliability, then choosing to not do business with Saudi Arabia and the UAE, who have, in recent years, waged a devastating proxy war in Yemen is a privilege we currently lack. Ironically, in order to curb the effect of our Russian sanctions, the US is initiating talks with Venezuela to reconsider oil sanctions we imposed on their undemocratic government. What messages do US sanctions send if they can be partially reversed in order to keep the status quo stateside? How much do sanctions hurt our foes if they also hurt us in turn, through rising gas prices and accelerated inflation? Perhaps countries, especially one of the most powerful countries in the world, can endeavor to put themselves in plush positions, both domestically and internationally, to be able to choose who to do business with without rocking the boat back at home too much. If national security is your primary concern, then reducing the threat of climate change by reducing our carbon emissions is essential. Climate change will destabilize governments and create millions of climate refugees, amongst other effects. Associated with national security is energy security, which is defined as “the uninterrupted availability of energy sources at an affordable price” by the International Energy Agency (IEA). This term encompasses both long term prospects, like investing in a reliable long term supply of nuclear energy, as well as short term aspects like being able to “react promptly to sudden changes in the supply-demand balance” of an energy system (IEA). The current crisis with Ukraine and Russia is a great example of a short term challenge to the energy security of various countries.

While nuclear energy is not a direct substitute for oil, the two could be more closely competitive in a future where more utilities and cars are electrified. We’re not ready for that greener energy future. We’re behind both on investing in renewables and looking at a narrowing future for nuclear energy as 1-2 plants close every year, with only 5 new nuclear power plants having broken ground since 1996. This energy source, which makes up 20% of the nation’s electricity, does not have a clear future. But it could, especially if we allow ourselves to think long term. The US is neither anti-nuclear nor pro-nuclear. We are not phasing out our nuclear power plants en masse before the end of their safe operational lifespan. But at the same time, we’ve entertained a cultural discomfort for nuclear power ever since the tragic accident at Chernobyl nuclear power plant in 1986 and the decidedly not-tragic accident at Three Mile Island in 1979. More crucially, we’ve allowed economically unfavorable conditions and delay stricken planning timelines to dominate the domestic market for nuclear energy.

Now, to be sure, having flexibility is a key part of energy security and national autonomy. No amount of energy independence, which often refers to the lofty desire to not need to rely on other countries in order to satisfy your energy supply, can sever a country from global ties. In this case for nuclear energy, uranium is needed to power nuclear reactors, albeit in much smaller quantities than fuels like oil or coal. The US gets 46% of its supply from Russia and its allies. However, Canada and Australia are our other biggest suppliers, among other sources. Time is on our side to source uranium more favorably since nuclear plants take several years to construct and the US can produce more uranium, as it has in the past. In fact, several Republican senators have introduced legislation for the USA to maintain a Strategic Uranium Reserve. For this to occur, though, there would need to be both favorable economic policies and thorough discussions with Native American communities, who have been historically impacted by domestic uranium mining.

Nuclear power plants are also notoriously expensive to construct, especially in America. While their high upfront costs do even out over their 40+ year lifespans, there are changes that can be made now to make the commission of new plants in America more economical. Other countries, like Canada, France, Japan, and South Korea, have all recently built far more nuclear plants at costs lower than American levels. Some ideas we can learn from them include streamlining designs, building multiple reactors at one site, and enacting policies that economically favor clean energy. Additionally, smaller, cheaper commitments to nuclear power through new technologies like small modular reactors are gaining traction.

Bolstering nuclear energy satisfies concerns in everyone’s corner, and keeps America where it likes to be: a cut above the rest.

Lastly, the invasion of Ukraine has stirred up concerns about the safety of nuclear power plants in an active war zone, but this is over- blown due to the high safety standards to which these plants are engineered and the international attention paid to keeping these facilities safely operational.

Both US parties want to sanction Russia, Republicans are clamoring for energy independence, and Democrats are desperate to make good on some of Biden’s climate promises. Avoiding repeating Europe’s mistakes casts the US in a good light. Americans like to feel that America is an exceptional force for good. Conservatives especially like to believe in elements of this American exceptionalism. It’s not a bad idea to give people something to believe in. For once, this mess isn’t one of our own creation, so let’s use it as an opportunity to better ourselves and our energy future. Bolstering nuclear energy satisfies priorities for everyone and keeps America where it likes to be: a cut above the rest.