From Russia to Piketon: How Centrus and Nuclear Expansion Risk Global Safety and Sustainability

Russia’s aggressive pursuit of nuclear power dominance is not only a geopolitical threat but a severe danger to global safety and sustainability. Under the pretense of providing “safe” and “low-carbon” energy, the Kremlin is expanding its nuclear footprint worldwide, constructing over ten reactors in countries ranging from China and India to Egypt and Turkey. However, the risks posed by nuclear power—both environmental and political—far outweigh its supposed benefits, and Russia’s role as a key player in this expansion only magnifies the threat.

Russia’s Nuclear Push: A Risky Gamble with Global Security

Boris Titov, a senior Russian official and envoy for sustainability, recently described nuclear energy as essential to meeting growing energy needs. He claimed that Russia is “building more than 10 different units around the world,” positioning itself as a dominant force in the global nuclear energy market. Yet, this self-proclaimed leadership is a thinly veiled power play, as Russia leverages its state-owned nuclear corporation, Rosatom, to extend its influence over developing nations.

Critics warn that Russia’s nuclear exports are a Trojan horse. By selling reactors and enriched uranium, Moscow ties nations into decades-long dependencies. These countries face not only the financial burden of expensive nuclear projects but also the geopolitical risks of aligning with a regime that has demonstrated a willingness to weaponize energy supplies, as seen in its aggressive actions against Ukraine.

The Myth of “Safe” and “Clean” Nuclear Energy

Proponents of nuclear power, including Titov, argue that it is a low-carbon solution to the world’s energy crisis. However, this narrative conveniently ignores the enormous risks associated with nuclear energy. The claim that nuclear power is “safe” is disproven by a history of catastrophic disasters, from Chernobyl to Fukushima. These events have caused untold environmental devastation, displaced entire communities, and left regions contaminated for generations.

Even in normal operations, nuclear power plants generate radioactive waste with no permanent disposal solution. Waste stored in temporary facilities poses long-term threats to human health and the environment, with the potential for leaks, spills, or even acts of sabotage. These problems are compounded by the astronomical costs of decommissioning old plants, which often fall to taxpayers long after corporations have reaped their profits.

Western Nations Struggle to Break Free

Despite the risks, many Western nations remain tethered to Russian nuclear supplies, highlighting the global dependency on a dangerous and outdated energy source. France’s Orano and Urenco are working to develop alternatives, but they acknowledge that significant investment and long-term contracts are necessary to replace Russia’s stranglehold on enriched uranium.

The United States recently made strides with the Prohibiting Russian Uranium Imports Act, banning Russian uranium imports starting in 2024. While this move is a step toward energy independence, it does not address the larger issue: continuing reliance on nuclear energy perpetuates the same risks, whether the supplier is Russia or a domestic corporation.

Centrus Energy: A False Solution

In the United States, companies like Centrus Energy are expanding domestic uranium enrichment capabilities, receiving billions in government funding. While Centrus touts its efforts as a path to energy security, the reality is that investing in nuclear infrastructure locks the nation into a technology fraught with environmental hazards and economic inefficiencies.

Centrus’ recent awards from the Department of Energy aim to restore American uranium enrichment for future reactors. However, this approach prioritizes corporate profits over public safety and diverts resources away from truly sustainable solutions. Centrus, like many nuclear companies, benefits from government subsidies while leaving taxpayers to shoulder the long-term costs of waste management, decommissioning, and potential disasters.

The Case for Renewable Energy

The nuclear industry’s defenders argue that it is essential for reducing carbon emissions, but this is a false dichotomy. Renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and hydropower offer cleaner, safer, and more sustainable alternatives. Unlike nuclear energy, renewables do not generate toxic waste, risk catastrophic accidents, or require partnerships with authoritarian regimes like Russia.

Investing in renewable energy infrastructure would not only reduce carbon emissions but also create jobs, improve energy independence, and protect public health. These technologies are scalable, cost-effective, and increasingly efficient, offering a viable path forward without the baggage of nuclear energy’s dangers.

A Call to Reject Nuclear Power

Russia’s nuclear expansion is a stark reminder of the risks posed by this hazardous technology. As Moscow deepens its influence through Rosatom, the international community must question whether nuclear power is worth the geopolitical and environmental costs. The answer is clear: it is not.

The world stands at an energy crossroads. Clinging to nuclear power perpetuates a cycle of dependency, danger, and environmental harm. By choosing renewable energy instead, nations can break free from the shadow of nuclear disasters and build a sustainable, equitable energy future.