Gen - z - a not so very nuclear generation
For many Romanians, nuclear energy remains a controversial and misunderstood topic. While some see it as a clean, efficient solution to energy security and climate change, others fear radiation risks, waste management issues, and catastrophic accidents. Misinformation, particularly on social media, only deepens this divide.
We wanted to know: what do young Romanians think? Given their role in shaping future policies, understanding their perspectives is crucial. However, thorough research on young people’s views on information about nuclear energy in Romania has not yet been done. To bridge this gap, we conducted a survey among university students to explore their knowledge, concerns, and stance on nuclear energy. Their voices, combined with insights from expert studies and online debates, offer a fresh look at how nuclear energy is perceived and what the future may hold for it in Romania.
A brief history of nuclear energy in Romania
Romania’s nuclear journey began in the communist era, with a mix of ambition, secrecy, and speculation. Under the Ceaușescu regime (1967-1989), rumors circulated that Romania might develop an atomic bomb, an idea used to showcase the country’s technological superiority and to justify Western engagement. However, this was largely propaganda, and actual developments in nuclear technology soon shifted to civilian nuclear power.
In the 1970s, efforts were made to expand electricity access, leading to the construction of the Cernavodă Nuclear Power Plant in the Dobrogea region. The plant, still operational today, uses CANDU (CANada Deuterium Uranium) reactors, which rely on natural uranium and heavy water as a moderator. Currently, Romania generates 1,400 GW of nuclear energy, with plans to expand through the addition of Units 3 and 4 at Cernavodă over the next decade. It is also thinking about the introduction of six Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) in Doicești, Dâmbovița County.
Today, Romania’s energy mix is made up of coal, natural gas, hydro, and renewables – as well as nuclear. However, public perception of nuclear energy is now no longer shaped not just by technological advancements but also by lingering fears, misinformation, and international influences.
How much do young Romanians know about nuclear energy?
We conducted a qualitative survey amongst 38 participants. Of these, 29 were STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) students, while 9 studied humanities; 24 identified as female and 14 as male. Though modest in size and scope, the survey revealed that awareness of nuclear energy in Romania is moderate at best. When asked to rate their knowledge on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being very little, 5 being highly knowledgeable), most responses clustered between 2 and 4.
While some students viewed nuclear energy as an essential and beneficial energy source, others were sceptical or neutral. Most respondents acknowledged the benefits of nuclear power, with some expressing it is an effective way to ensure Romania’s energy security and contribute to the country’s sustainability goals. However, others indicated they did not have enough information to form an opinion; were concerned about safety and waste management; or cited historical accidents and environmental concerns as major deterrents.
These results are aligned with previous studies, which found that greater awareness of nuclear policies correlated with a more positive stance. Ok, so no groundbreaking new insights so far. However, then we dug deeper.
The power of fake news
Misinformation (fake news that is created and spread by mistake) and disinformation (fake news that is created and spread deliberately) are a major influence on public opinion, particularly on social media. A key finding from our survey was that participants were actually a) aware of fake news surrounding nuclear technology, b) disappointed in the availability of clear and reliable sources of information about nuclear energy.
Students reported forming their opinions primarily through social media, followed by traditional news sources and educational materials. The dominant use of social media as a source of information amongst survey respondents raises concerns, given the prevalence of unverified claims on these platforms. Moreover, mainstream news media in Romania are known to rely on sensationalist reporting that can exaggerate risks, with reporters admitting they no longer ask questions or conduct in-depth investigations .
Specifically, the nuclear energy debate in Romania is being shaped by a dangerous mix of genuine misconceptions and deliberately falsified or exaggerated information. Russia has been actively spreading incorrect narratives about nuclear safety across Europe, employing tactics like inflated radiation risks and equating peaceful nuclear energy with weapons programmes (a strategy designed to undermine energy security). Simultaneously, environmental groups, while well-intentioned, contribute to public scepticism by disproportionately focusing on worst-case scenarios. This information finds fertile ground due to education and awareness gaps, i.e. limited understanding makes it difficult for some audiences to distinguish between nuclear weapons (a genuine security concern) and nuclear power (a possible clean energy solution). The result is a distorted public perception that could hinder Romania’s ability to make informed decisions about its energy future, particularly as SMRs and other advanced nuclear technologies emerge as potential solutions for both energy independence and decarbonisation.
Exploring Romanian socials
While social media offers easy access to information, it also spreads misleading narratives and expressions of public frustration. Exploring the comment section on an Embassy Facebook post about radiological and nuclear terrorism, we found mostly polite greetings… alongside one striking comment referencing Prometheus and Asimov’s I, Robot. This allusion captured the complex cultural and existential views Romanians hold about nuclear energy: it is seen as a powerful, double-edged force requiring ethical oversight. The comment reveals the depth of belief systems behind public responses, and highlights how underlying narratives shape the interpretation of nuclear topics beyond social, technical or political discourse.
We soon noticed a contrast between the friendly, supportive comments on posts by official nuclear sector institutions – and the more hostile reactions on posts by news outlets. For example, a TV channel post announcing Romania’s plan to develop an AI hub alongside a nuclear energy project drew 100 comments: three times as many as the Embassy message. Moreover, many of the comments were critical or confused. While some voiced distrust toward the AI component, or misunderstood the concept entirely, one sarcastic response stood out for blending satire with disinformation. It makes exaggerated claims about brain implants and government overreach. This illustrates how quickly online discourse can distort serious policy initiatives and fueling inaccurate public perceptions.
A post from a smaller news outlet, analysing the safest places in Romania during a potential nuclear attack, drew 125 comments. This underlines how less formal platforms tend to generate higher engagement. Rather than engaging seriously with the article’s survival tips, most commenters responded with dark humour, religious fatalism, or pop-culture references. This mix of irony and scepticism reveals how people often use cultural narratives to cope with fear and distrust official guidance.
The future: investment and career opportunities
As Romania moves forward with expanding its nuclear sector, public perception – especially among the next generation – will play a critical role in shaping the future of these projects. Our survey of predominantly STEM students showed a mix of cautious optimism and uncertainty. While many recognise the potential for nuclear energy to enhance Romania’s energy independence and support climate commitments, a significant portion of respondents expressed hesitation rooted in a lack of accessible, clear information about the technology and its risks. Concerns about safety, radioactive waste management, and costs were common, but what stood out most was how many simply felt underinformed to take a firm stance. This uncertainty reflects a wider knowledge gap that often leaves youth reliant on social media, where technical accuracy can be lost amid polarised narratives.
This challenge is not unique to Romania but is amplified by the country’s history and cultural memory. The lingering shadow of Chernobyl continues to fuel deep-seated fears about nuclear safety, while decades of economic instability have fostered scepticism toward large-scale government projects and investments. The Romanian saying “Cine se arde cu ciorbă, suflă și-n iaurt” (loosely, “Once bitten, twice shy”) encapsulates this collective cautiousness: it reflects a cultural lens through which nuclear energy is often viewed not just as a technical or economic issue, but as a societal and existential one. Online discussions mirror this ambivalence, where factual debates about nuclear innovation coexist with myths and misunderstandings, sometimes exacerbated by misinformation or political rhetoric.
Despite this complex backdrop, there is an appetite among certain groups for deeper engagement with nuclear topics. Our particular survey respondents expressed interest in documentaries, scientific literature, and expert-led forums as ways to bridge their knowledge gaps. Yet, career interest in the nuclear field remains moderate at best, often driven more by pragmatic considerations like job availability than by passion or ideological commitment. For Romania to cultivate a new generation of nuclear professionals and secure public backing for its energy transition, investments must extend beyond infrastructure to include transparent communication, education initiatives, and community dialogue. Only by addressing the cultural narratives and information needs of its youth can Romania transform cautious curiosity into confident participation in its nuclear future.
Conclusion: can we change the narrative?
Romania’s challenge now lies in shifting the narrative from passive uncertainty about nuclear energy to active, informed engagement. To achieve this, Romania should adopt a multidimensional strategy. First, education systems must evolve to include structured nuclear literacy programs, tailored to different age groups. High schools could integrate workshops modelled after Finland’s successful STEM initiatives, while universities might offer courses combining virtual simulations with debates led by industry experts. Such programmes would not only thin the vail of mystery around nuclear technology but also encourage young people to separate fact from fiction.
Transparency is equally vital. France’s "Nuclear Citizen Forum" model demonstrates how regular, open dialogues between policymakers, scientists, and the public can reduce scepticism.Romania could replicate this approach, hosting forums where regulators address concerns, disclose safety data, and even involve citizens in participatory budgeting for energy projects. Simultaneously, media literacy campaigns should teach young people how to identify reliable sources - whether International Atomic Energy Agency reports, peer-reviewed studies, or verified industry updates - while recognising the hallmarks of misleading content. If universities, media, and other relevant institutions collaborate to equip young people with knowledge and critical thinking tools, the narrative can change. The conversation must move from " distrust to informed debate.
So, we would like to leave you with this question: how can Romania ensure that its energy decisions are shaped by facts rather than fear? Share your thoughts below, and if you are curious about verified information, we encourage you to explore resources like the IAEA’s Romania page or Nuclearelectrica’s latest sustainability reports. The future of energy is not just about technology, it is about who gets to define it.
Many thanks to the Black Sea Region Women in Nuclear (BSWN) Network, whose support made this post possible. This network serves as a professional platform to support the advancement of women in nuclear fields by encouraging leadership, facilitating knowledge exchange, and providing opportunities for mentoring and career growth.
