Contextualizing the Nuclear Energy Debate

This piece originally appeared on The Alliance for Citizen Engagement. It was written by Josh Gehring. 

Background

Since the advent of the atomic bomb, scientists have sought to harness nuclear fission—the splitting of atomic particles—for a less destructive purpose: generating electricity. The first commercial nuclear reactors began operation in the 1950s. Since then, the industry has experienced periods of growth and stagnation. Today, stakeholders and policymakers continue to grapple with issues like cost, waste, and resource use which have shaped nuclear power’s long history of success and failure, with some hoping for a future powered by nuclear energy.

How Does Nuclear Energy Work?

A nuclear reactor produces energy through a complex chain reaction of uranium atom-splitting that generates heat. A cooling agent—often water—is heated into steam, which powers a turbine that generates electricity. This process creates energy with no greenhouse gas byproducts, which is why nuclear energy is a low-carbon fuel. However, it is not renewable, as it consumes radioactive fuel in the form of Uranium-235, a relatively rare metal isotope. 

Legislative Interventions

The United States is currently the world’s largest producer of nuclear energy, generating 30 percent of global nuclear electricity. In 2023, the country’s nuclear reactors generated 19 percent of the total domestic electrical output. However, despite 94 reactors currently being in operation, another 41 remain shut down and no new reactors are currently under construction. 

President Donald Trump released four executive orders in 2025 intended to reestablish the United States as “a global leader in nuclear energy.” The orders aim to reorganize the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), streamline public hearings and licensing applications, and deploy new nuclear infrastructure. Specifically, they seek to “facilitate the expansion of American nuclear energy capacity from approximately 100 GW in 2024 to 400 GW by 2050.” This proposal would double former President Joe Biden’s targets for nuclear energy, which aimed to deploy 200 GW of net new nuclear energy capacity by 2050, already more than tripling the current U.S. capacity.

Consistent bipartisan support for nuclear energy is evident in recent legislation:

Pros of Nuclear Energy

Unlike fossil fuels, many renewables—like solar and wind energy—rely on varying operating conditions based on time, weather, and geography. Nuclear energy, however, may present a solution. Along with directly helping the United States avoid over 471 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions in 2020, nuclear energy provides a stable flow of power that is largely unaffected by external conditions. The infrastructure requires little maintenance and can operate stable chain reactions for two years before needing to refuel. The average nuclear plant remains online and generates electricity more than 90 percent of the time, more than any other power source.

While populations are expected to grow to 9.8 billion people by 2050 and more land is claimed by processes like desertification, nuclear plants present a way to generate energy with less land. In the United States, a typical 1,000 megawatt nuclear facility only requires roughly 1 square mile to operate, while wind and solar farms require 360 and 75 times more land. Even compared to fossil fuels like natural gas and coal, nuclear power presents a smaller footprint per unit of electricity. 

New technologies that promise to lower costs and reduce nuclear waste are also attracting stakeholder attention. Proponents of small modular reactors, or SMRs, claim the substitute to conventional nuclear power plants could deliver nuclear power faster and more affordably. SMRs comprise a broad category of innovative nuclear reactors ranging from 1 megawatt to 300 megawatts, some of which experiment with novel fuels or cooling techniques. With 74 different SMR plans globally and over $15 billion invested, some say SMRs could be key to nuclear’s future.

Innovative nuclear waste recycling technology could also address concerns of waste production. While the United States does not currently support nuclear fuel recycling, it puts significant funds into ongoing research. Nuclear reactors don’t produce considerable waste to begin with; all the spent nuclear fuel produced over the last 60 years would fill a football field with a depth of less than 10 yards. Recycling used fuel could cut this waste by up to 90 percent while also reducing the amount of uranium mining required. 

Cons of Nuclear Energy

Since its inception, researchers have tried and often failed to overcome the high upfront costs associated with complex reactor designs and strict licensing requirements. While nuclear reactor construction costs continue to rise, renewables are now the cheapest energy source and are on track to get cheaper. In Georgia, Plant Vogtle—lauded as the first new U.S. nuclear construction project in over three decades—more than doubled its initial $14 billion budget for two reactors, and finished 6 years behind schedule in 2024. Even SMRs—which aren’t inherently more fuel efficient than traditional reactors—already appear to be repeating the cycle of cost overruns. After projected costs were revealed to be 300 percent higher than initially planned, the United States’ first SMR project, led by nuclear power company NuScale, was quickly cancelled in 2023. 

Water is essential to nuclear power generation, used to cool reactors and generate steam. Compared to other low-carbon renewables, however, nuclear uses significantly more water. One nuclear reactor can withdraw billions of gallons of water per year, which may require filtering of radionuclides before release, depending on the reactor design. Nuclear reactors pump water from a nearby river, lake, or ocean to cool and reliquify steam before returning withdrawals to their original water source. While once-through systems withdraw roughly 4.6 billion liters per day, they only consume around 30 million. Water is returned significantly warmer, however, which can have detrimental impacts on surrounding ecosystems. Closed-loop systems withdraw significantly less water, but consume more than double that of once-through systems. Roughly 65 million liters per day are lost to evaporation during a secondary cooling process, which allows for water withdrawal reuse at the expense of higher consumption. 

Finally, nuclear waste and threats of radiation poisoning remain intrinsic problems to the process of nuclear energy production. High-level nuclear waste contains particularly poisonous chemicals, including uranium pellets and plutonium, which remain radioactive for tens of thousands of years and pose risks to humans, agricultural land, and water sources. Current U.S. infrastructure, however, provides only a temporary solution, safely storing waste for roughly a century. While rare, nuclear meltdown events such as those in Fukushima (2011) and Chernobyl (1986) demonstrate the fatal impacts on human health and the environment that can ensue from fluke accidents at nuclear reactors, which can release dangerous radioactive nuclides. 

Conclusion

Nuclear energy has promised a path to a cleaner global energy system for decades. Yet despite bipartisan support and tangible benefits, it still only accounts for roughly 10 percent of global electricity production. Recent legislative preferences towards nuclear, however, may make solving problems of cost, waste, and resource consumption more feasible. Coupled with innovative technology, nuclear power could play a role in promoting low-carbon energy—or at least claim a space in today’s rapidly diversifying energy portfolio.