Discussing possible futures to neutralise nuclear energy discourse

Nuclear energy discourse is deeply entrenched, with historical incidents and excessive objectivity deepening for-or-against lines that impede collaborative discussions. This research advocates for a futures thinking approach where stakeholders discuss possibilities before debating probabilities and preferences. This method is demonstrated by deriving four scenarios through an expert led review of historical events and recent research. 1) Spillover Benefits envisages the staggered deployment of small modular reactors stemming from remote power projects in a few leading nations that need continued government support and significant technological advancement. 2) Disruption Rebound envisages the ramifications of an energy security crises that that may shift public opinion, justify political actors, and fragment international partnerships. 3) Catastrophe Contraction envisages the severe setback of a major nuclear accident, stressing the challenge of enduring social apprehensions on the way to ultra reliable operation. 4) Strategic Fulcrum examines the geopolitical implication of using nuclear technology to establish long-term alliances, which could either increase or decrease technology costs and conflict risks depending on uncertain geopolitical developments. In this research, futures thinking allowed experts to openly consider scenarios they may otherwise have dismissed as unlikely or undesirable. Other stakeholders can apply this method to facilitate inclusive discussions, transforming contentious debates into constructive discourse. • Futures consider possibilities before debating probability or preference. • Spillover Benefits examines import of small modular reactor commercialised abroad. • Disruption Rebound analyses rallied support amid prolonged energy security crises. • Catastrophe Contraction highlights fragile trust challenged by nuclear accidents. • Strategic Fulcrum explores role of international projects for power and diplomacy.