Skip to content

Nuclear power consumption per capita by country

Who is using nuclear energy? – Nuclear energy consumption per capita by country


Nuclear power consumption per capita by country


The above graph shows the nuclear power consumption per capita by country for the year 2003. The raw data was taken from and converted in kg oil equivalents. To convert into kWh per person per year, multiply the value by the factor 11.628 (e.g. 100 kg oil equivalents = 1'162.8 kWh).

This graph will certainly change during the next 10 to 20 years because several countries decided not to replace retired nuclear power plants any more and to phase-out nuclear energy. In the European Union, 17 out of the 27 member countries do either have no nuclear power plants or have already decided to sooner or later phase out this technology (among them are Sweden, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Austria and Germany). Switzerland is also quite unlikely to rebuild nuclear power plants since any new nuclear plant needed to get acceptance in a public vote.

You can also find on this site graphs and tables about the number of nuclear power plants by country , energy consumption per capita by country and the predicted energy consumption by the year 2050 .


ΞNuclear power

13 thoughts on “Nuclear power consumption per capita by country”

  1. Nuclear Phaseout
    I wouldn’t count on so many of those nuclear plants shutting down over the next 20 years. Germany is involved in a very active debate over their own phaseout, with a recent study by Deutsche Bank saying…

    “Shutting down nuclear is inconceivable as a serious policy,” Mark Lewis, energy analyst and author of the report, said. “It will mean missing your carbon emission targets and lead to gas-powered plants replacing today’s nuclear plants.”

    Buglaria, which shut down a pair of reactors only a week ago, is already debating bringing them back online. And your graph doesn’t take into account the possibility that Britain will build a new generation of reactors, nor the ambitious nulcear build plans in China, India and Russia.

    Eric McErlain
    Nuclear Energy Institute

    1. Alleged nuclear power phase out

      Seems like a lame brain green did the math on the nuclear phase. Let’s be archaic and use the British system for this:

      1 KG = 2.208 pounds, 100 KG = 208 pounds. 20,000 BTUs per pound of oil = 4,160,000 BTU’s. 1 kwh = 3.4 BTU’s, 4,160,000 BTU’s = 1,223,529 kwh THERMAL. Even the best heat conversion plants have only a 40% efficiency in conversion to electric energy. Thus,the 1,223.529 kwh THERMAL yield only 489.4 kwh electric.

      1. nuclear power phase out and electrical energy units

        You seem to misunderstand the unit of "kg oil equivalents". This unit is normally used by the International Energy Agency for its energy comparisons and energy values. Since we used "kg oil equivalents" for some of the predictions of the energy consumption , we thought it might make sense to use the same unit here.

        If you are interested in the conversion of the units, the American Energy Information Administration (EIA) gives on their Energy Kids page SmileSmile useful information and a unit conversion calculator. They say about "kg oil equivalents":

        "…Some popular units for comparing energy include: British Thermal Units (Btu), barrels of oil equivalents, metric tons of oil equivalents, metric tons of coal equivalents, and terajoules…"

      2. Convert much?
        right off I see that you have done your conversions wrong 1KG=2.208 pounds, 100 KG = 220.8 pounds not 208 pounds like you said. This skews the rest of your conversions.

        Seems like your the lame brain green who did the math.

        1. Just to point out–it’s
          Just to point out–it’s supposed to be you’re not your. You don’t have to get all harsh about their mistake (especially if you have one too). They’re just trying to make a point…

            1. No, it should be “you’re”,
              No, it should be “you’re”, as in “you are the lame brain.”

            2. Expert opinions on nuclear power phaseout

              Thank you for your comment regarding phase-out, delayed phase-out or even revival of nuclear power.

              Your citation of the Deutsche Bank report and their „energy analyst" points to an important topic about expert opinions and decisions affecting the general well-being:

              It would be no problem to find 10 energy experts who say exactly the opposite, then you could find 10 experts who say the opposite from the opposite and so on and so forth.

              However, why should we ask a bank whether it is wise to use nuclear power? When you want to buy a car, do you ask a banker for advice which type of car to buy? Do you ask a bank which girl to marry?

              In this context it is also absurd to ask the power generating industry how much electricity we will need in the future. This industry increases its profits the more electricity it can sell. So you can be sure it will predict an increase in the demand of electricity!

              If you were to decide whether you need an additional car, would you ask the car seller for advice? Would you ask your butcher whether you should become vegetarian?

              This leads to the main question: Who should we ask whether it is wise to build nuclear power plants? Who should we ask what is the best for our society?

              The answer may make you rub your eyes: We should ask ourselves! Important decisions in our life – and the question about nuclear power plants is such an important decision – must not be delegated to others. Neither can we delegate the responsibility. Every person with a healthy mind has a built-in sensor to support such decisions. This sensor may have different names like intuition, gut feeling, inner sense, sixth sense, common sense, inner voice, spiritual guide, heart, God in us, higher self, etc. Many pages on this site are devoted to encourage and help people to use this sensor for decision processes . It is about taking responsibility for our being here and about developing a higher consciousness . If you can't accept the existence of such sensors, you can instead call it „collective intelligence".

              There is nothing wrong with a rational discussion of pros and cons of a decision. In fact, such a discussion is also needed. However it is not helpful to argue like „expert 1 said …" and „expert 2 said …", etc. There is no generally accepted mathematical equation or reasoning available to weigh all these complex arguments concerning several kind of risks, costs, endangered life, pollution of the environment, etc. This is always subjective judgement like buying a car or marrying a girl. Is there a single reason why we should leave this subjective judgement to so-called experts, serving organisations whose purpose can be anything but the general well-being?

              When a decision affects our general well-being or the general well-being of future generations, wise decisions require attention to the above mentioned sensors.

              We can and must always make important decisions ourselves. This is the key issue. Only the details and the less important things like „how do I make a lot of money?", we can leave up to the experts like bankers, energy analysts, etc…

              1. Expert opinions on nuclear power applications
                Interesting thoughts about subjectivity and “neutral” experts, whose independence can be questioned.

                Could you provide some examples of questions or problems related to nuclear energy where you would rely on expert opinions on one hand and where you would rather rely on your own intuitive perception on the other hand?

                1. Intuitive decision-making and expert opinions
                  There are indeed a high number of decisions I would leave to the experts. Most of them are related to the design of the nuclear power plant. A few examples:

                  • Decisions about the thickness and material used for the shell protecting the nuclear reactor.
                  • Dimensioning of the cooling system.
                  • Decisions involved with programming of the software to control the electrical power station.
                  • Working parameters of the plant
                  • etc.

                  Here are some questions I would not leave to the experts to decide because everybody's intuition can be used to help deciding:

                  • Whether it is wise to build a nuclear energy plant at all.
                  • Choosing the type of cooling system (e.g. use river water or use a condensation tower).
                  • Electrical capacity of the power plant
                  • etc.

                  As a general rule, I would leave decision-making about details to the engineers, however I would use my own intuition for the higher level and more general decisions.

                2. Expert opinions on nuclear power and other technology

                  In particular if we call ourselves "experts" in a certain field, we seem to forget the fact that we might not entirely understand the technology and its effects it may cause. This is not because we are stupid but simple because mankind has not discovered everything. There are still a lot of unknowns.

                  As long as we know what we do not understand, it migth be OK, however it gets more dangerous if we don’t even know we don’t know something.

                  Have look at our short article about known and unknown unknowns!

            3. Nuclear power consumption per capita by country
              New Zealand is Nuclear free

            Comments are closed.