Sometimes it takes an event thousands of kilometres away to illuminate a debate much closer to home.

Recent reports from Hungary indicate that exceptionally low water levels in the Danube River are threatening the operation of the country’s Paks Nuclear Power Plant. The Danube is not merely a scenic European river; it is the cooling lifeline for Hungary’s largest electricity-generating facility. When the river falls, or when its temperature rises beyond acceptable limits, the ability of the reactors to operate safely can be compromised.

For me, this story resonates deeply.

Between 1977 and 1983 I lived and studied engineering in Hungary. The Danube was woven into everyday life, just as the Paks Nuclear Power Plant became woven into Hungary’s national energy strategy. Watching today’s reports is, therefore, not merely an academic exercise, it is a reminder that even countries with decades of nuclear experience remain subject to the immutable laws of nature.

Physics, unlike politics, never negotiates.

The Hungarian experience also arrives at a time when Jamaica is actively exploring small modular reactors (SMRs) as part of its future energy mix. Prime Minister Andrew Holness has spoken optimistically about nuclear energy becoming a reality within the next decade. In October 2024, the Government executed a memorandum of understanding with Canadian Nuclear Laboratories and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to explore nuclear science and technology, including SMRs. As minister without portfolio in the Office of the Prime Minister Andrew Wheatley stated in Parliament, “Jamaica is now taking seriously an option that small island developing states have historically deferred: nuclear energy.”

As an engineer, I admire ambition, but I admire evidence even more.

Nuclear power deserves neither blind enthusiasm nor ideological rejection; it deserves rigorous engineering analysis. That is precisely why my friend and colleague, Dr Dennis Minott, has challenged Jamaica to ask the difficult questions before embracing what would become one of the most technologically demanding undertakings in our nation’s history. In his recent letter to The Gleaner, Dr Minott asked: “How would a 60-300 MW reactor unit interact with an electrical system whose peak demand remains below 700 MW? What would be the consequences of an unexpected reactor trip or SCRAM [fast emergency shutdown] event?”

I share many of those concerns. My own scepticism, however, stems from a somewhat broader engineering perspective. The first concerns technological maturity.

Small modular reactors are frequently presented as though they are simply smaller versions of conventional nuclear plants, ready for deployment anywhere. They are not. Although considerable progress has been made, commercial SMRs remain, in many respects, an emerging technology. According to The Gleaner’s editorial analysis, “Currently, there are only two of these small plants in commercial operation anywhere in the world — one in China and the other in Russia.”

More importantly, I struggle to identify countries whose electricity systems resemble Jamaica’s in size, complexity, and isolation that have successfully integrated commercial SMRs into their national grids. Engineering decisions should not be based on marketing brochures or optimistic projections; they should be informed by demonstrated operational experience under conditions comparable to our own.

The second issue is institutional capacity. A nuclear power programme is not built simply by importing reactors. It requires generations of highly trained professionals: nuclear engineers, reactor physicists, radiation protection specialists, emergency planners, regulators, maintenance experts, and safety inspectors. These are not disciplines that can be developed overnight or easily sustained in a small island State competing with wealthier nations for scarce expertise.

An analysis by Energy for Growth notes that, “The team operating Jamaica’s research reactor is small (under 20 people), and nuclear engineering training remains minimal across the region.” This represents a significant human resource challenge. As Dr Minott rightly mused, “What specialised workforce would be necessary to operate, regulate, inspect, and maintain such facilities safely over decades, day after day, hour by hour, minute by minute?”

Third is the issue of radioactive waste. Every nuclear discussion eventually returns to this unavoidable reality. Electricity may be generated for 60 years, but the spent fuel remains hazardous for generations beyond our own. Where will it be stored? Under what legal arrangements? Who bears responsibility centuries into the future? These are not details to be settled after construction begins. They are fundamental design considerations that must precede any investment decision.

Fourth, we cannot ignore Jamaica’s economic structure. Tourism remains one of our largest foreign exchange earners and one of the principal pillars of our economy. The Caribbean’s international brand is inseparable from images of pristine beaches, crystal-clear waters, and an unspoilt natural environment.

Whether justified or not, public perception matters. One serious nuclear incident anywhere in the region — even one involving no measurable public harm — could have consequences extending far beyond electricity generation. Tourism depends as much upon confidence as it does upon sunshine.

The fifth issue is geology. Unlike many established nuclear nations, Jamaica occupies a seismically active region near the boundary of the Caribbean and North American tectonic plates. Significant earthquakes are part of our geological history.

Modern nuclear facilities can certainly be engineered to withstand substantial seismic events. Indeed, today’s reactors incorporate safety systems unimaginable half a century ago. However, under IAEA site evaluation standards, nuclear installations must be assessed for “earthquake-induced ground motion” and “slope instability”, including landslides that could affect plant safety. A proposed site may be declared unsuitable if “reliable evidence shows the existence of a capable fault that has the potential to affect the safety of the nuclear installation”.

These are not abstract regulatory concerns; they are binding safety criteria. Our seismic environment deserves far more than passing acknowledgement.

Finally — and prompted by the situation now unfolding on the Danube — I return to perhaps the most basic engineering requirement of all: cooling.

Every thermal power station, whether fuelled by coal, natural gas, or uranium, ultimately depends upon its ability to reject heat. Nuclear reactors simply reject a great deal of it.

Hungary’s current predicament demonstrates that even a mighty river like the Danube cannot always be taken for granted. According to Reuters, the Paks plant could remain shut for weeks because water levels in the Danube are expected to stay too low for it to operate safely. The water level in Budapest fell to a record low of 31 centimetres, forcing the shutdown of Unit 3 on July 29. This represents the first complete shutdown of Hungary’s only nuclear power plant.

The situation extends beyond Hungary. Romania shut down Unit 1 of its Cernavoda nuclear plant on July 28 for the same reason, and Unit 2 remains at risk. The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) reported that the Danube has fallen to “the lowest levels for 30 years in several countries, including neighbouring Serbia and Romania”.

Prolonged drought and rising temperatures can reduce both the quantity and effectiveness of cooling water available to a nuclear station.

Jamaica does not possess the Danube. We are, instead, becoming increasingly familiar with prolonged droughts, water restrictions, and the growing uncertainties associated with climate change. An analysis of the vulnerability of nuclear plants to climate effects found that, “The average frequency of climate-linked power outages at nuclear power plants globally has dramatically increased…” Higher ambient temperatures can foster algae growth that clogs cooling water intakes, and “many of the developing countries where electricity access is currently lowest…already have relatively high ambient temperatures, which are likely to increase further”.

This raises a legitimate engineering question: If climate variability is already stressing our freshwater resources, how resilient would a future nuclear programme be under prolonged drought conditions? Would seawater cooling become the preferred option? If so, what would be the implications for marine ecosystems, coastal infrastructure, corrosion management, hurricane resilience, and long-term operating costs?

These questions are neither speculative nor alarmist, they are precisely the questions engineers are trained to ask. In engineering, success is rarely determined by the headline technology itself; rather, it is determined by whether every supporting system performs reliably under the most adverse conditions reasonably foreseeable. The Danube is reminding Europe of that lesson today. Jamaica would do well to learn it before committing itself to one of the most consequential infrastructure decisions in its history.

Energy security is unquestionably one of our nation’s greatest challenges. We need affordable, reliable, and environmentally responsible electricity to drive economic growth, strengthen our competitiveness, and improve the quality of life for every Jamaican.

If Jamaica does proceed, let it be because the evidence overwhelmingly supports it — not because the promise sounded attractive. In engineering, hope has never been an acceptable design criterion, neither should it become one for national energy policy.

Dr Patrick Dallas is a Jamaican engineer, information and communications technology expert, and corporate leader.