Jack Fresina | US Environmental Policy Student<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cYou can\u2019t be pro-environment without being pro-nuclear.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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\u2019t find the original post, the comment\u2019s sentiment has stuck with me\u2014nuclear is essential for a sustainable future.[1]<\/sup><\/a> Since the 1950s, nuclear plants have been generating electricity with virtually zero emissions, releasing only water vapor from their towers.[2]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n I assumed that my fellow environmentalists were already on the nuclear bandwagon. Why wouldn\u2019t 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\u2019s Energy and Climate Club.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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, \u201cDoes the organization do anything to promote nuclear energy?\u201d They paused, exchanged glances, and replied that the organization doesn\u2019t 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]<\/sup><\/a>\/[4]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> The hostility surprised me\u2014shifting their stance could be an important lever to fight climate change faster.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Relying solely on renewables isn\u2019t yet feasible, especially with the urgent need to rapidly cut greenhouse gas emissions.[5]<\/sup><\/a> A major challenge is their variability. Solar energy, for instance, generates the \u201cduck curve,\u201d peaking when demand is low and fading when demand spikes.[6]<\/sup><\/a> Wind power is equally unpredictable\u2014on a calm day, turbines sit powerless.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As we work through the challenges of renewable energy, nuclear offers a stable, zero-emissions backbone to support this transition\u2014a 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\u2014not only as a practical bridge to a renewable future but also as a catalyst for policy change that can accelerate clean energy deployment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Some criticize nuclear for equity concerns tied to uranium mining\u2014but renewable tech has its own issues.[7]<\/sup><\/a>\/[8]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> Lithium extraction for batteries is water-intensive, polluting, and often exploits communities in lower-income countries.[9]<\/sup><\/a> Batteries degrade over time, are rarely recycled, and are expensive\u2014California would need $2.5 trillion worth just to reach their 80% renewable power goal.[10]<\/sup><\/a>\/[11]<\/sup><\/a>\/[12]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 \u201cbridge\u201d 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]<\/sup><\/a> 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]<\/sup><\/a> And when considering lifecycle emissions per GWh of energy produced, nuclear beats out renewable sources as the generation method with the lowest emissions.[15]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n 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]<\/sup><\/a> Outside of these accidents\u2014which are now nearly impossible to repeat due to significant technological and safety improvements\u2014only ~15 deaths have been attributed to nuclear power plants since 1960.[17]<\/sup><\/a> 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<\/sup> <\/p>\n\n\n\n Another common concern is nuclear waste. Communities don\u2019t like the thought of storing the waste in their backyards, and their resistance has killed entire projects.[18]<\/sup><\/a> 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]<\/sup><\/a> And with today\u2019s storage technology, regulation, and best practices, storage is extremely safe.[20]<\/sup><\/a> Moreover, fuel cells can now be recycled, as about 90% of their potential energy remains after initial use.19<\/sup> In all, nuclear waste is far more manageable than many understand. Environmental groups could play a crucial role here\u2014educating the public, dispelling irrational fears, and reducing resistance to nuclear projects.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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]<\/sup><\/a> In 2023, the Biden-championed Inflation Reduction Act created financial incentives for nuclear generation, and on President Trump\u2019s first day in office, he called on agencies to review rules or processes that place \u201cundue burden\u201d on nuclear development, among other fuels.[22]<\/sup><\/a>\/[23]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> With action coming from both sides of the spectrum, nuclear isn\u2019t a very divisive issue in Washington these days.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So if Americans want nuclear power, and both parties support nuclear development, what\u2019s the holdup? The short answer is regulation. While some rules from the 1974 Energy Reorganization Act\u2014created in response to the Three Mile Island meltdown\u2014were crucial for safe nuclear generation, they also contribute to a regulatory environment that discourages new development.[24]<\/sup><\/a>\/[25]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> In the 1970s and 80s, nuclear developers saw \u201crapid price escalation\u201d as permitting, licensing, and inspection processes became more costly.[26]<\/sup><\/a> Nowadays, the average nuclear plant faces a regulatory burden of about $60 million\u2014the same cost as about 2-3 years of fuel.[27]<\/sup><\/a> Due to these regulations, building a plant can also take over 15 years from submitting a licensing application to the end of construction.[28]<\/sup><\/a> These burdens have caused the total number of nuclear plants to decrease to 94 current reactors from its peak of 111 in 1990.15<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n To spur nuclear investment and development, we need to cut the red tape. Luckily, the process has already begun on Capitol Hill \u2013 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 \u201cnuclear renaissance\u201d 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]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n While the ADVANCE Act made important progress, momentum must continue, and environmental groups can provide it. Many of the law\u2019s 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\u2014even for uncontested projects\u2014which 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]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n To make these changes happen, environmental groups need to be advocates for nuclear, not barriers. The renewable energy transition won\u2019t 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 \u2013 there may not be a clean energy futur<\/p>\n\n\n\n [1]<\/sup><\/a> \u201c3 Reasons Why Nuclear Is Clean and Sustainable.\u201d n.d. Energy.Gov. https:\/\/www.energy.gov\/ne\/articles\/3-reasons-why-nuclear-clean-and-sustainable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [2]<\/sup><\/a> \u201cHere\u2019s How a Nuclear Reactor Actually Works.\u201d 2019. Nuclear Energy Institute. September 26, 2019. https:\/\/www.nei.org\/news\/2019\/how-reactor-actually-works.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [3]<\/sup><\/a> \u201cFormer Greenpeace Director Explains His Support for Nuclear Energy.\u201d n.d. – ANS \/ Nuclear Newswire. https:\/\/www.ans.org\/news\/article-4126\/former-greenpeace-director-explains-his-support-for-nuclear-energy\/.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [4]<\/sup><\/a> Harder, Amy. 2019. \u201cGreen New Deal Activists Dismiss Nuclear Power.\u201d Axios<\/em>, May 16, 2019. https:\/\/www.axios.com\/2019\/05\/16\/green-new-deal-activists-dismiss-nuclear-power.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [5]<\/sup><\/a> Ai, Consensus. 2024. \u201cCan The World Decarbonise Without Nuclear Power? – Consensus: AI Search Engine for Research.\u201d Consensus: AI Search Engine for Research. October 10, 2024. https:\/\/consensus.app\/home\/blog\/can-the-world-decarbonise-without-nuclear-power\/.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [6]<\/sup><\/a> Waters, Carlos. 2018. \u201cThis \u2018Duck Curve\u2019 Is Solar Energy\u2019s Greatest Challenge.\u201d Vox<\/em>, May 9, 2018. https:\/\/www.vox.com\/2018\/5\/9\/17336330\/duck-curve-solar-energy-supply-demand-problem-caiso-nrel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [7]<\/sup><\/a> Gunter, Linda Pentz, and Samantha Borek. 2022. \u201cNuclear Power Doesn\u2019T Belong in the Green New Deal.\u201d Truthout<\/em>, January 3, 2022. https:\/\/truthout.org\/articles\/nuclear-power-doesnt-belong-in-the-green-new-deal\/.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [8]<\/sup><\/a> Karlsson, Carl-Johan, and Katarina Zimmer. 2020. \u201cGreen Energy\u2019s Dirty Side Effects.\u201d Foreign Policy<\/em>, June 18, 2020. https:\/\/foreignpolicy.com\/2020\/06\/18\/green-energy-dirty-side-effects-renewable-transition-climate-change-cobalt-mining-human-rights-inequality\/.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [9]<\/sup><\/a> B, Lakshmi R. 2024. \u201cThe Environmental Impact of Battery Production for EVs.\u201d Earth.Org. March 4, 2024. https:\/\/earth.org\/environmental-impact-of-battery-production\/.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [10]<\/sup><\/a> \u201cExpected Lifespan of Battery Storage Systems – PowerLink Global.\u201d 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\/.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [11]<\/sup><\/a> Pashov, Resim. 2023. \u201cKey Challenges of Large-Scale Battery Recycling and How to Resolve Them &Bull; Battery Recyclers of America.\u201d Battery Recyclers of America<\/em> (blog). August 25, 2023. https:\/\/www.batteryrecyclersofamerica.com\/key-challenges-of-large-scale-battery-recycling-and-how-to-resolve-them\/.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [12]<\/sup><\/a> Temple, James. 2024. \u201cThe $2.5 Trillion Reason We Can\u2019t Rely on Batteries to Clean up the Grid.\u201d MIT Technology Review<\/em>, 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\/.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [13]<\/sup><\/a> The European Nuclear Society. 2019. \u201cFuel Comparison – ENS.\u201d ENS. May 22, 2019. https:\/\/www.euronuclear.org\/glossary\/fuel-comparison\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [14]<\/sup><\/a> \u201cNuclear Power Is the Most Reliable Energy Source and It\u2019s Not Even Close.\u201d n.d. Energy.Gov. https:\/\/www.energy.gov\/ne\/articles\/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [15]<\/sup><\/a> Ritchie, Hannah. 2020. \u201cWhat Are the Safest and Cleanest Sources of Energy?\u201d Our World in Data. February 10, 2020. https:\/\/ourworldindata.org\/safest-sources-of-energy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [16]<\/sup><\/a> Saad, By Lydia. 2024. \u201cGallup Vault: Nuclear Power Plant Fears After Chernobyl.\u201d Gallup.Com<\/em>, October 16, 2024. https:\/\/news.gallup.com\/vault\/191099\/gallup-vault-nuclear-power-plant-fears-chernobyl.aspx.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [17]<\/sup><\/a> Wikipedia contributors. 2024. \u201cNuclear and Radiation Accidents and Incidents.\u201d Wikipedia. December 13, 2024. https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [18]<\/sup><\/a> Millhiser, Ian. 2025. \u201cThe Supreme Court Faces the Absurdly Difficult Problem of Where to Put Nuclear Waste.\u201d Vox<\/em>, February 26, 2025. https:\/\/www.vox.com\/scotus\/399304\/supreme-court-nuclear-waste-texas-nrc-nimby.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [19]<\/sup><\/a> \u201c5 Fast Facts About Spent Nuclear Fuel.\u201d n.d. Energy.Gov. https:\/\/www.energy.gov\/ne\/articles\/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [20]<\/sup><\/a> \u201cWhat Happens to Nuclear Waste in the U.S.?\u201d 2019. Nuclear Energy Institute. November 19, 2019. https:\/\/www.nei.org\/news\/2019\/what-happens-nuclear-waste-us.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [21]<\/sup><\/a> Blazina, Carrie. 2024. \u201cMajority of Americans Support More Nuclear Power in the Country.\u201d Pew Research Center<\/em>, August 5, 2024. https:\/\/www.pewresearch.org\/short-reads\/2024\/08\/05\/majority-of-americans-support-more-nuclear-power-in-the-country\/.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [22]<\/sup><\/a> BCLP – Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner. n.d. \u201cInflation Reduction Act Expands Support for Nuclear Power Plants.\u201d 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [23]<\/sup><\/a> The White House. 2025. \u201cUnleashing American Energy.\u201d The White House. March 21, 2025. https:\/\/www.whitehouse.gov\/presidential-actions\/2025\/01\/unleashing-american-energy\/.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [24]<\/sup><\/a> U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Three Mile Island Accident of 1979: Knowledge Management Digest.<\/em> Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, March 2013<\/p>\n\n\n\n [25]<\/sup><\/a> Cohen, Bernard L. n.d. \u201cCOSTS OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS \u2014 WHAT WENT WRONG?\u201d http:\/\/www.phyast.pitt.edu\/~blc\/book\/chapter9.html.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [26]<\/sup><\/a> Lovering, Jessica R., Arthur Yip, and Ted Nordhaus. 2016. \u201cHistorical Construction Costs of Global Nuclear Power Reactors.\u201d Energy Policy<\/em> 91, no. February (February): 371\u201382. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.enpol.2016.01.011.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [27]<\/sup><\/a> Heard, Ben. 2019. \u201cHow Red Tape Hampers Nuclear \u2013 and the Climate.\u201d Sustainability Times. April 30, 2019. https:\/\/www.sustainability-times.com\/expert-opinions\/over-regulation-hampers-nuclear-and-climate\/.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [28]<\/sup><\/a> Barnard, Christopher. 2023. \u201cBureaucratic Red Tape Is Blocking a U.S. Nuclear Renaissance.\u201d RealClearEnergy. January 23, 2023. https:\/\/www.realclearenergy.org\/articles\/2023\/01\/23\/bureaucratic_red_tape_is_blocking_a_us_nuclear_renaissance_877124.html.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [29]<\/sup><\/a> Patel, Sonal, and Sonal Patel. 2024. \u201cThe ADVANCE Act\u2014Legislation Crucial for a U.S. Nuclear Renaissance\u2014Clears Congress. Here\u2019S a Detailed Breakdown.\u201d 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\/.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n