Jack Fresina | US Environmental Policy Student
“You can’t be pro-environment without being pro-nuclear.”
A few years ago, I came across this quote in a comment section under a TikTok promoting the wonder of nuclear power generation. While I can’t find the original post, the comment’s sentiment has stuck with me—nuclear is essential for a sustainable future.[1] Since the 1950s, nuclear plants have been generating electricity with virtually zero emissions, releasing only water vapor from their towers.[2]
I assumed that my fellow environmentalists were already on the nuclear bandwagon. Why wouldn’t they be? A clean, established power generation source like nuclear seems too good to be true. However, my assumption was challenged earlier this year when I attended a career fair organized by Duke’s Energy and Climate Club.
At the event, I spoke with representatives from a leading North Carolina nonprofit working to advance clean energy through policy and market development. When our conversation hit a lull, I asked, “Does the organization do anything to promote nuclear energy?” They paused, exchanged glances, and replied that the organization doesn’t take a position on nuclear, though their personal views might differ. Later research revealed that many environmental groups, who are otherwise champions of decarbonization, either sideline nuclear power or oppose it outright, focusing only on renewables.[3]/[4] The hostility surprised me—shifting their stance could be an important lever to fight climate change faster.
Relying solely on renewables isn’t yet feasible, especially with the urgent need to rapidly cut greenhouse gas emissions.[5] A major challenge is their variability. Solar energy, for instance, generates the “duck curve,” peaking when demand is low and fading when demand spikes.[6] Wind power is equally unpredictable—on a calm day, turbines sit powerless.
As we work through the challenges of renewable energy, nuclear offers a stable, zero-emissions backbone to support this transition—a bridge to a fully renewable grid. But with regulatory red tape already slowing progress, outside opposition only deepens the roadblocks. To prevent climate catastrophe, environmental groups must embrace nuclear energy—not only as a practical bridge to a renewable future but also as a catalyst for policy change that can accelerate clean energy deployment.
Some criticize nuclear for equity concerns tied to uranium mining—but renewable tech has its own issues.[7]/[8] Lithium extraction for batteries is water-intensive, polluting, and often exploits communities in lower-income countries.[9] Batteries degrade over time, are rarely recycled, and are expensive—California would need $2.5 trillion worth just to reach their 80% renewable power goal.[10]/[11]/[12]
When we make decisions on our energy future, there will be tradeoffs. Nuclear energy is one of the best ways to minimize the negatives, and it can serve as a clean energy “bridge” as we take the necessary time and resources to upgrade our grid to accommodate renewable resources. Nuclear fuel is extremely energy-dense, so a very small amount of uranium can produce extremely high amounts of power.[13] As a result, the impacts of acquiring the fuel are much smaller than extracting larger amounts of materials for batteries and solar panels. It provides 24/7 baseload power with the highest capacity factor (92%) of all types of energy generation.[14] And when considering lifecycle emissions per GWh of energy produced, nuclear beats out renewable sources as the generation method with the lowest emissions.[15]
Despite concerns, nuclear statistically among the safest energy sources. The public shunned nuclear power after the major meltdowns at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima, which stoked long-lasting fears.[16] Outside of these accidents—which are now nearly impossible to repeat due to significant technological and safety improvements—only ~15 deaths have been attributed to nuclear power plants since 1960.[17] The death rates from natural gas and coal are 100 times higher and 800 times higher, respectively, largely due to the pollution produced and its health impacts.12
Another common concern is nuclear waste. Communities don’t like the thought of storing the waste in their backyards, and their resistance has killed entire projects.[18] In reality, all spent nuclear fuel in the U.S. since the 1950s could fit within a single football field, stacked just 10 yards deep.[19] And with today’s storage technology, regulation, and best practices, storage is extremely safe.[20] Moreover, fuel cells can now be recycled, as about 90% of their potential energy remains after initial use.19 In all, nuclear waste is far more manageable than many understand. Environmental groups could play a crucial role here—educating the public, dispelling irrational fears, and reducing resistance to nuclear projects.
In general, though, Americans want more nuclear energy. Public support is rising, and nuclear is one of the few energy sources that unites politicians across the aisle.[21] In 2023, the Biden-championed Inflation Reduction Act created financial incentives for nuclear generation, and on President Trump’s first day in office, he called on agencies to review rules or processes that place “undue burden” on nuclear development, among other fuels.[22]/[23] With action coming from both sides of the spectrum, nuclear isn’t a very divisive issue in Washington these days.
So if Americans want nuclear power, and both parties support nuclear development, what’s the holdup? The short answer is regulation. While some rules from the 1974 Energy Reorganization Act—created in response to the Three Mile Island meltdown—were crucial for safe nuclear generation, they also contribute to a regulatory environment that discourages new development.[24]/[25] In the 1970s and 80s, nuclear developers saw “rapid price escalation” as permitting, licensing, and inspection processes became more costly.[26] Nowadays, the average nuclear plant faces a regulatory burden of about $60 million—the same cost as about 2-3 years of fuel.[27] Due to these regulations, building a plant can also take over 15 years from submitting a licensing application to the end of construction.[28] These burdens have caused the total number of nuclear plants to decrease to 94 current reactors from its peak of 111 in 1990.15
To spur nuclear investment and development, we need to cut the red tape. Luckily, the process has already begun on Capitol Hill – the bipartisan ADVANCE Act, signed into law in 2024, hopes to bring the US back to leadership in the nuclear space and could facilitate a “nuclear renaissance” in the US. The law aims to reduce risk, boost financing, modernize old reactor sites, and reform the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to streamline applications and ensure more efficient, predictable reviews.[29]
While the ADVANCE Act made important progress, momentum must continue, and environmental groups can provide it. Many of the law’s provisions focus on new nuclear technologies, leaving out traditional light-water reactors. Expanding these reforms to all reactor types would attract developers like The Nuclear Company, which aims to scale traditional plants for the future. The act also retains the outdated requirement for mandatory licensing hearings—even for uncontested projects—which can delay progress by months. Developers also urge the DOE to use its authority to offer risk-sharing contracts under the Energy Policy Act of 2005.[30]
To make these changes happen, environmental groups need to be advocates for nuclear, not barriers. The renewable energy transition won’t happen overnight and we need to be strategic with the power generation techniques we use in the meantime. Nuclear power offers a clean, reliable, and highly efficient bridge to tomorrow, allowing us to phase out harmful, greenhouse gas-emitting fossil fuels as we look to accommodate renewables and solve the new problems they face. Groups advocating for green energy are already putting in amazing work to help create a carbon-free future. Adopting nuclear may not just bolster their case, it could lead to real wins in Congress that help them gain footholds, relationships, and coalitions that come in handy for future sustainable legislation. Nuclear energy attempts to address the same problems as renewables, and is better equipped to handle the problems of today. So embrace nuclear – there may not be a clean energy futur
[1] “3 Reasons Why Nuclear Is Clean and Sustainable.” n.d. Energy.Gov. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/3-reasons-why-nuclear-clean-and-sustainable.
[2] “Here’s How a Nuclear Reactor Actually Works.” 2019. Nuclear Energy Institute. September 26, 2019. https://www.nei.org/news/2019/how-reactor-actually-works.
[3] “Former Greenpeace Director Explains His Support for Nuclear Energy.” n.d. – ANS / Nuclear Newswire. https://www.ans.org/news/article-4126/former-greenpeace-director-explains-his-support-for-nuclear-energy/.
[4] Harder, Amy. 2019. “Green New Deal Activists Dismiss Nuclear Power.” Axios, May 16, 2019. https://www.axios.com/2019/05/16/green-new-deal-activists-dismiss-nuclear-power.
[5] Ai, Consensus. 2024. “Can The World Decarbonise Without Nuclear Power? – Consensus: AI Search Engine for Research.” Consensus: AI Search Engine for Research. October 10, 2024. https://consensus.app/home/blog/can-the-world-decarbonise-without-nuclear-power/.
[6] Waters, Carlos. 2018. “This ‘Duck Curve’ Is Solar Energy’s Greatest Challenge.” Vox, May 9, 2018. https://www.vox.com/2018/5/9/17336330/duck-curve-solar-energy-supply-demand-problem-caiso-nrel.
[7] Gunter, Linda Pentz, and Samantha Borek. 2022. “Nuclear Power Doesn’T Belong in the Green New Deal.” Truthout, January 3, 2022. https://truthout.org/articles/nuclear-power-doesnt-belong-in-the-green-new-deal/.
[8] Karlsson, Carl-Johan, and Katarina Zimmer. 2020. “Green Energy’s Dirty Side Effects.” Foreign Policy, June 18, 2020. https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/06/18/green-energy-dirty-side-effects-renewable-transition-climate-change-cobalt-mining-human-rights-inequality/.
[9] B, Lakshmi R. 2024. “The Environmental Impact of Battery Production for EVs.” Earth.Org. March 4, 2024. https://earth.org/environmental-impact-of-battery-production/.
[10] “Expected Lifespan of Battery Storage Systems – PowerLink Global.” n.d. PowerLink Global Site Premium Quality Generators, Lighting Tower, Air Compressors and Battery System. https://powerlinkenergy.com/news/expected-lifespan-of-battery-storage-systems/.
[11] Pashov, Resim. 2023. “Key Challenges of Large-Scale Battery Recycling and How to Resolve Them &Bull; Battery Recyclers of America.” Battery Recyclers of America (blog). August 25, 2023. https://www.batteryrecyclersofamerica.com/key-challenges-of-large-scale-battery-recycling-and-how-to-resolve-them/.
[12] Temple, James. 2024. “The $2.5 Trillion Reason We Can’t Rely on Batteries to Clean up the Grid.” MIT Technology Review, August 22, 2024. https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/07/27/141282/the-25-trillion-reason-we-cant-rely-on-batteries-to-clean-up-the-grid/.
[13] The European Nuclear Society. 2019. “Fuel Comparison – ENS.” ENS. May 22, 2019. https://www.euronuclear.org/glossary/fuel-comparison/.
[14] “Nuclear Power Is the Most Reliable Energy Source and It’s Not Even Close.” n.d. Energy.Gov. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close.
[15] Ritchie, Hannah. 2020. “What Are the Safest and Cleanest Sources of Energy?” Our World in Data. February 10, 2020. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy.
[16] Saad, By Lydia. 2024. “Gallup Vault: Nuclear Power Plant Fears After Chernobyl.” Gallup.Com, October 16, 2024. https://news.gallup.com/vault/191099/gallup-vault-nuclear-power-plant-fears-chernobyl.aspx.
[17] Wikipedia contributors. 2024. “Nuclear and Radiation Accidents and Incidents.” Wikipedia. December 13, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents.
[18] Millhiser, Ian. 2025. “The Supreme Court Faces the Absurdly Difficult Problem of Where to Put Nuclear Waste.” Vox, February 26, 2025. https://www.vox.com/scotus/399304/supreme-court-nuclear-waste-texas-nrc-nimby.
[19] “5 Fast Facts About Spent Nuclear Fuel.” n.d. Energy.Gov. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel.
[20] “What Happens to Nuclear Waste in the U.S.?” 2019. Nuclear Energy Institute. November 19, 2019. https://www.nei.org/news/2019/what-happens-nuclear-waste-us.
[21] Blazina, Carrie. 2024. “Majority of Americans Support More Nuclear Power in the Country.” Pew Research Center, August 5, 2024. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/08/05/majority-of-americans-support-more-nuclear-power-in-the-country/.
[22] BCLP – Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner. n.d. “Inflation Reduction Act Expands Support for Nuclear Power Plants.” BCLP – Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner – Inflation Reduction Act Expands Support for Nuclear Power Plants. https://www.bclplaw.com/en-US/events-insights-news/inflation-reduction-act-expands-support-for-nuclear-power-plants.html.
[23] The White House. 2025. “Unleashing American Energy.” The White House. March 21, 2025. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/unleashing-american-energy/.
[24] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Three Mile Island Accident of 1979: Knowledge Management Digest. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, March 2013
[25] Cohen, Bernard L. n.d. “COSTS OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS — WHAT WENT WRONG?” http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html.
[26] Lovering, Jessica R., Arthur Yip, and Ted Nordhaus. 2016. “Historical Construction Costs of Global Nuclear Power Reactors.” Energy Policy 91, no. February (February): 371–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.01.011.
[27] Heard, Ben. 2019. “How Red Tape Hampers Nuclear – and the Climate.” Sustainability Times. April 30, 2019. https://www.sustainability-times.com/expert-opinions/over-regulation-hampers-nuclear-and-climate/.
[28] Barnard, Christopher. 2023. “Bureaucratic Red Tape Is Blocking a U.S. Nuclear Renaissance.” RealClearEnergy. January 23, 2023. https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2023/01/23/bureaucratic_red_tape_is_blocking_a_us_nuclear_renaissance_877124.html.
[29] Patel, Sonal, and Sonal Patel. 2024. “The ADVANCE Act—Legislation Crucial for a U.S. Nuclear Renaissance—Clears Congress. Here’S a Detailed Breakdown.” POWER Magazine. June 21, 2024. https://www.powermag.com/the-advance-act-legislation-crucial-for-a-u-s-nuclear-renaissance-clears-congress-heres-a-detailed-breakdown/.
[30] Utility Dive. 2024. “The Bipartisan ADVANCE Act Is Boosting US Nuclear. What Does the Industry Want Next?,” September 24, 2024. https://www.utilitydive.com/news/bipartisan-law-boosting-nuclear-energy-advanced-reactors/727804/.
Thank you for the insight into nuclear energy Jack, this was a really compelling argument. I appreciated how you broke down common misconceptions around safety and waste, and how you compared the tradeoffs of nuclear with those of renewables like solar and wind. The point about lithium extraction’s environmental and human costs really stood out, it shows that even “clean” tech can have its downsides. Also, your mention of the ADVANCE Act and how it has gained bipartisan support has made me more optimistic about nuclear’s future. I also agree that environmental groups could be powerful advocates if they shifted their stance, it’s not about choosing nuclear over renewables, but using both strategically. Overall, it seems to me that nuclear is a necessary part of the solution if we want to transition quickly and reliably.
I found this blog post extremely engaging and fascinating. I agree, nuclear is pivotal to the renewable energy transition and must be pushed to the forefront, not pushed aside. Two of your points really stuck out to me. In paragraph eight, you mention public fears around nuclear. While these fears are completely understandable due to the shocking events at Three Mile Island, etc., they also exemplify the fossil fuel industry’s ability to avoid blame for the disasters they cause–deaths and destruction in Florida hurricanes, California wildfires, etc. While a nuclear leak is of course scary, the fossil fuel industry is much scarier. Secondly, you mention the barriers to nuclear such as delayed permitting processes. This highlights an additional misconception of clean energy—many people believe renewables are an economic burden. In reality, renewables are already cost-competitive or cheaper than oil and gas. Government subsidies actively keep fossil fuels competitive with renewable energy, so nuclear is also working against this hurdle as well. Overall, you raise fantastic arguments and had a great story of the career fair. Thanks for sharing, Jack!
I agree with your take on nuclear energy, especially your point about environmental groups needing to embrace nuclear as a bridge technology rather than opposing it. It’s refreshing to see that nuclear is slowly being de-villainized after all these years, as people recognize its utility in the current energy landscape. The statistics comparing nuclear safety to fossil fuels were great, as that’s a big part of why people are so hesitant around nuclear, so dispelling fears about safety is really important. The stats about regulatory burden ($60M per plant) and how it contributes to slow development were also great to include. I thought the analysis of the storage issue was particularly compelling—the football field comparison helps visualize just how manageable nuclear waste truly is compared to public perception. I’m also curious to see what role nuclear will play in the energy sector in the next decade or two, especially with newer nuclear tech (e.g., SMRs, etc.) being developed that seem promising for addressing some of the cost and construction timeline concerns you mentioned. Maybe these designs could potentially bypass some of the regulatory hurdles facing traditional plants? We’ll have to see. Either way, great post, I think it would be eye-opening for many and help them to reconsider their hesitations about nuclear.
I thought that this was a great post. I think an important thing to address is how we don’t really come into contact with nuclear in our everyday lives in the same way we see solar panels or recycling programs. As a result, it makes nuclear as a clean energy solution feel a bit daunting (especially from the perspective of a college student). To me, this makes nuclear feel abstract. It’s almost like nuclear belongs to the federal government or big corporations rather than something students and local communities can engage with. Yet, it is nice to hear that nuclear as an issue at the federal level isn’t that divisive or partisan. The part about lithium mining near lower income communities made me think about the environmental justice considerations for nuclear. Analyzing where to site new plants or store waste through an EJ lense can shift existing patterns of inequality. I agree with you that embracing nuclear doesn’t meaning giving up on renewables which is a common misconception. A balance is necessary to work towards a carbon-free future. I really enjoyed the immense amount of evidence in your post as it made your piece very compelling. Great post Jack