why is nuclear energy bad essay

• Phone This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
• Climate Change
• Policy & Economics
• Biodiversity
• Conservation

Get focused newsletters especially designed to be concise and easy to digest

• ESSENTIAL BRIEFING 3 times weekly
• TOP STORY ROUNDUP Once a week
• MONTHLY OVERVIEW Once a month
• Enter your email *
• Comments This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

The Advantages and Disadvantages of Nuclear Energy

Since the first nuclear plant started operations in the 1950s, the world has been highly divided on nuclear as a source of energy. While it is a cleaner alternative to fossil fuels, this type of power is also associated with some of the world’s most dangerous and deadliest weapons, not to mention nuclear disasters . The extremely high cost and lengthy process to build nuclear plants are compensated by the fact that producing nuclear energy is not nearly as polluting as oil and coal. In the race to net-zero carbon emissions, should countries still rely on nuclear energy or should they make space for more fossil fuels and renewable energy sources? We take a look at the advantages and disadvantages of nuclear energy. 

What Is Nuclear Energy?

Nuclear energy is the energy source found in an atom’s nucleus, or core. Once extracted, this energy can be used to produce electricity by creating nuclear fission in a reactor through two kinds of atomic reaction: nuclear fusion and nuclear fission. During the latter, uranium used as fuel causes atoms to split into two or more nuclei. The energy released from fission generates heat that brings a cooling agent, usually water, to boil. The steam deriving from boiling or pressurised water is then channelled to spin turbines to generate electricity. To produce nuclear fission, reactors make use of uranium as fuel.

For centuries, the industrialisation of economies around the world was made possible by fossil fuels like coal, natural gas, and petroleum and only in recent years countries opened up to alternative, renewable sources like solar and wind energy. In the 1950s, early commercial nuclear power stations started operations, offering to many countries around the world an alternative to oil and gas import dependency and a far less polluting energy source than fossil fuels. Following the 1970s energy crisis and the dramatic increase of oil prices that resulted from it, more and more countries decided to embark on nuclear power programmes. Indeed, most reactors have been built  between 1970 and 1985 worldwide. Today, nuclear energy meets around 10% of global energy demand , with 439 currently operational nuclear plants in 32 countries and about 55 new reactors under construction.

In 2020, 13 countries produced at least one-quarter of their total electricity from nuclear, with the US, China, and France dominating the market by far. 

Fossil fuels make up 60% of the United States’ electricity while the remaining 40% is equally split between renewables and nuclear power. France embarked on a sweeping expansion of its nuclear power industry in the 1970s with the ultimate goal of breaking its dependence on foreign oil. In doing this, the country was able to build up its economy by simultaneously cutting its emissions at a rate never seen before. Today, France is home to 56 operating reactors and it relies on nuclear power for 70% of its electricity . 

You might also like: A ‘Breakthrough’ In Nuclear Fusion: What Does It Mean for the Future of Energy Generation?

Advantages of Nuclear Energy

France’s success in cutting down emissions is a clear example of some of the main advantages of nuclear energy over fossil fuels. First and foremost, nuclear energy is clean and it provides pollution-free power with no greenhouse gas emissions. Contrary to what many believe, cooling towers in nuclear plants only emit water vapour and are thus, not releasing any pollutant or radioactive substance into the atmosphere. Compared to all the energy alternatives we currently have on hand, many experts believe that nuclear energy is indeed one of the cleanest sources. Many nuclear energy supporters also argue that nuclear power is responsible for the fastest decarbonisation effort in history , with big nuclear players like France, Saudi Arabia, Canada, and South Korea being among the countries that recorded the fastest decline in carbon intensity and experienced a clean energy transition by building nuclear reactors and hydroelectric dams.

Earlier this year, the European Commission took a clear stance on nuclear power by labelling it a green source of energy in its classification system establishing a list of environmentally sustainable economic activities. While nuclear energy may be clean and its production emission-free, experts highlight a hidden danger of this power: nuclear waste. The highly radioactive and toxic byproduct from nuclear reactors can remain radioactive for tens of thousands of years. However, this is still considered a much easier environmental problem to solve than climate change. The main reason for this is that as much as 90% of the nuclear waste generated by the production of nuclear energy can be recycled. Indeed, the fuel used in a reactor, typically uranium, can be treated and put into another reactor as only a small amount of energy in their fuel is extracted in the fission process.

A rather important advantage of nuclear energy is that it is much safer than fossil fuels from a public health perspective. The pro-nuclear movement leverages the fact that nuclear waste is not even remotely as dangerous as the toxic chemicals coming from fossil fuels. Indeed, coal and oil act as ‘ invisible killers ’ and are responsible for 1 in 5 deaths worldwide . In 2018 alone, fossil fuels killed 8.7 million people globally. In contrast, in nearly 70 years since the beginning of nuclear power, only three accidents have raised public alarm: the 1979 Three Mile Island accident, the 1986 Chernobyl disaster and the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster. Of these, only the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear plant in Ukraine directly caused any deaths.

Finally, nuclear energy has some advantages compared to some of the most popular renewable energy sources. According to the US Office of Nuclear Energy , nuclear power has by far the highest capacity factor, with plants requiring less maintenance, capable to operate for up to two years before refuelling and able to produce maximum power more than 93% of the time during the year, making them three times more reliable than wind and solar plants. 

You might also like: Nuclear Energy: A Silver Bullet For Clean Energy?

Disadvantages of Nuclear Energy

The anti-nuclear movement opposes the use of this type of energy for several reasons. The first and currently most talked about disadvantage of nuclear energy is the nuclear weapon proliferation, a debate triggered by the deadly atomic bombing of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the Second World War and recently reopened following rising concerns over nuclear escalation in the Ukraine-Russia conflict . After the world saw the highly destructive effect of these bombs, which caused the death of tens of thousands of people, not only in the impact itself but also in the days, weeks, and months after the tragedy as a consequence of radiation sickness, nuclear energy evolved to a pure means of generating electricity. In 1970, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons entered into force. Its objective was to prevent the spread of such weapons to eventually achieve nuclear disarmament as well as promote peaceful uses of nuclear energy. However, opposers of this energy source still see nuclear energy as being deeply intertwined with nuclear weapons technologies and believe that, with nuclear technologies becoming globally available, the risk of them falling into the wrong hands is high, especially in countries with high levels of corruption and instability. 

As mentioned in the previous section, nuclear energy is clean. However, radioactive nuclear waste contains highly poisonous chemicals like plutonium and the uranium pellets used as fuel. These materials can be extremely toxic for tens of thousands of years and for this reason, they need to be meticulously and permanently disposed of. Since the 1950s, a stockpile of 250,000 tonnes of highly radioactive nuclear waste has been accumulated and distributed across the world, with 90,000 metric tons stored in the US alone. Knowing the dangers of nuclear waste, many oppose nuclear energy for fears of accidents, despite these being extremely unlikely to happen. Indeed, opposers know that when nuclear does fail, it can fail spectacularly. They were reminded of this in 2011, when the Fukushima disaster, despite not killing anyone directly, led to the displacement of more than 150,000 people, thousands of evacuation/related deaths and billions of dollars in cleanup costs. 

Lastly, if compared to other sources of energy, nuclear power is one of the most expensive and time-consuming forms of energy. Nuclear plants cost billions of dollars to build and they take much longer than any other infrastructure for renewable energy, sometimes even more than a decade. However, while nuclear power plants are expensive to build, they are relatively cheap to run , a factor that improves its competitiveness. Still, the long building process is considered a significant obstacle in the run to net-zero emissions that countries around the world have committed to. If they hope to meet their emission reduction targets in time, they cannot afford to rely on new nuclear plants.

You might also like: The Nuclear Waste Disposal Dilemma

Who Wins the Nuclear Debate?

There are a multitude of advantages and disadvantages of nuclear energy and the debate on whether to keep this technology or find other alternatives is destined to continue in the years to come.

Nuclear power can be a highly destructive weapon, but the risks of a nuclear catastrophe are relatively low. While historic nuclear disasters can be counted on the fingers of a single hand, they are remembered for their devastating impact and the life-threatening consequences they sparked (or almost sparked). However, it is important to remember that fossil fuels like coal and oil represent a much bigger threat and silently kill millions of people every year worldwide. 

Another big aspect to take into account, and one that is currently discussed by global leaders, is the dependence of some of the world’s largest economies on countries like Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq for fossil fuels. While the 2011 Fukushima disaster, for example, pushed the then-German Chancellor Angela Merkel to close all of Germany’s nuclear plants, her decision only increased the country’s dependence on much more polluting Russian oil. Nuclear supporters argue that relying on nuclear energy would decrease the energy dependency from third countries. However, raw materials such as the uranium needed to make plants function would still need to be imported from countries like Canada, Kazakhstan, and Australia.

The debate thus shifts to another problem: which countries should we rely on for imports and, most importantly, is it worth keeping these dependencies?

This story is funded by readers like you

Our non-profit newsroom provides climate coverage free of charge and advertising. Your one-off or monthly donations play a crucial role in supporting our operations, expanding our reach, and maintaining our editorial independence.

About EO | Mission Statement | Impact & Reach | Write for us

About the Author

Martina Igini

Top 7 Smart Cities in the World in 2024

What the Future of Renewable Energy Looks Like

The Environmental Impacts of Lithium and Cobalt Mining

Hand-picked stories weekly or monthly. We promise, no spam!

Boost this article By donating us $100, $50 or subscribe to Boosting $10/month – we can get this article and others in front of tens of thousands of specially targeted readers. This targeted Boosting – helps us to reach wider audiences – aiming to convince the unconvinced, to inform the uninformed, to enlighten the dogmatic.

• Take Action
• Other Ways to Give
• Social Justice

Green Living

• For Green Businesses
• Green American Magazine

10 Reasons to Oppose Nuclear Energy

Green America is active in  addressing the climate crisis  by transitioning the US electricity mix away from its heavy emphasis on coal-fired and natural gas power. But all of that work will be wasted if we transition from fossil fuels to an equally dangerous source – nuclear energy. Nuclear fission power is not a climate solution. It may produce lower-carbon energy, but this energy comes with a great deal of risk.

Solar power, wind power, geothermal power, hybrid and electric cars, and aggressive energy efficiency are  climate solutions  that are safer, cheaper, faster, more secure, and less wasteful than nuclear power. Our country needs a massive influx of investment in these solutions if we are to avoid the worst consequences of climate change, enjoy energy security, jump-start our economy, create jobs, and work to lead the world in development of clean energy.

Currently there are 444 nuclear fission power plants in 30 countries worldwide, with another 63 plants potentially under construction. Those plants should not be built for the following reasons:

Ten Strikes Against Nuclear Energy

1. nuclear waste:.

The waste generated by nuclear reactors remains radioactive for tens to hundreds of thousands of years (1). Currently, there are no long-term storage solutions for radioactive waste, and most is stored in temporary, above-ground facilities. These facilities are running out of storage space, so the nuclear industry is turning to other types of storage that are more costly and potentially less safe (2).

2. Nuclear proliferation:

There is great concern that the development of nuclear energy programs increases the likelihood of proliferation of nuclear weapons. As nuclear fuel and technologies become globally available, the risk of these falling into the wrong hands is increasingly present. To avoid weapons proliferation, it is important that countries with high levels of corruption and instability be discouraged from creating nuclear programs, and the US should be a leader in nonproliferation by not pushing for more nuclear power at home (3).

3. National security

Nuclear power plants are a potential target for terrorist operations. An attack could cause major explosions, putting population centers at risk, as well as ejecting dangerous radioactive material into the atmosphere and surrounding region. Nuclear research facilities, uranium enrichment plants, and uranium mines are also potentially at risk for attacks that could cause widespread contamination with radioactive material (9).

4. Accidents

In addition to the risks posed by terrorist attacks, human error and natural disasters can lead to dangerous and costly accidents. The 1986 Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine led to the deaths of 30 employees in the initial explosion and has has had a variety of negative health effects on thousands across Russia and Eastern Europe. A massive tsunami bypassed the safety mechanisms of several power plants in 2011, causing three nuclear meltdowns at a power plant in Fukushima, Japan, resulting in the release of radioactive materials into the surrounding area. In both disasters, hundreds of thousands were relocated, millions of dollars spent, and the radiation-related deaths are being evaluated to this day. Cancer rates among populations living in proximity to Chernobyl and Fukushima, especially among children, rose significantly in the years after the accidents (4)(5).

5. Cancer risk

In addition to the significant risk of cancer associated with fallout from nuclear disasters, studies also show increased risk for those who reside near a nuclear power plant, especially for childhood cancers such as leukemia (6)(7)(8). Workers in the nuclear industry are also exposed to higher than normal levels of radiation, and as a result are at a higher risk of death from cancer (10).

6. Energy production

The 444 nuclear power plants currently in existence provide about 11% of the world’s energy (11). Studies show that in order to meet current and future energy needs, the nuclear sector would have to scale up to around 14,500 plants. Uranium, the fuel for nuclear reactors, is energy-intensive to mine, and deposits discovered in the future are likely to be harder to get to to. As a result, much of the net energy created would be offset by the energy input required to build and decommission plants and to mine and process uranium ore. The same is true for any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions brought about by switching from coal to nuclear (12).

7. Not enough sites

Scaling up to 14,500 nuclear plants isn’t possible simply due to the limitation of feasible sites. Nuclear plants need to be located near a source of water for cooling, and there aren’t enough locations in the world that are safe from droughts, flooding, hurricanes, earthquakes, or other potential disasters that could trigger a nuclear accident. The increase in extreme weather events predicted by climate models only compounds this risk.

Unlike renewables, which are now the cheapest energy sources, nuclear costs are on the rise, and many plants are being shut down or in danger of being shut down for economic reasons. Initial capital costs, fuel, and maintenance costs are much higher for nuclear plants than wind and solar, and nuclear projects tend to suffer  cost overruns  and construction delays. The price of renewable energy has fallen significantly over the past decade, and it projected to continue to fall (14).

9. Competition with renewables

Investment in nuclear plants, security, mining infrastructure, etc. draws funding away from investment in cleaner sources such as wind, solar, and geothermal. Financing for renewable energy is already scarce, and increasing nuclear capacity will only add to the competition for funding.

10. Energy dependence of poor countries

Going down the nuclear route would mean that poor countries, that don't have the financial resources to invest in and develop nuclear power, would become reliant on rich, technologically advanced nations. Alternatively, poor nations without experience in the building and maintaining of nuclear plants may decide to build them anyway. Countries with a history of nuclear power use have learned the importance of regulation, oversight, and investment in safety when it comes to nuclear. Dr. Peter Bradford of Vermont Law, a former member of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, writes, "A world more reliant on nuclear power would involve many plants in countries that have little experience with nuclear energy, no regulatory background in the field and some questionable records on quality control, safety and corruption." (15). The U.S. should lead by example and encourage poor countries to invest in safe energy technology.

Please also see the piece  Nuclear Energy is not a Climate Solution

(1) Bruno, J., and R. C. Ewing. "Spent Nuclear Fuel."  Elements  2.6 (2006): 343-49

(2) United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Dry Cask Storage”.  USNRC  (2016)

(3) Miller, Steven E., and Scott D. Sagan. "Nuclear Power without Nuclear Proliferation?"  Daedalus  138.4 (2009): 7-18

(4) Tsuda, Toshihide, Akiko Tokinobu, Eiji Yamamoto, and Etsuji Suzuki. "Thyroid Cancer Detection by Ultrasound Among Residents Ages 18 Years and Younger in Fukushima, Japan."  Epidemiology  (2016): 316-22.

(5) Astakhova, Larisa N., Lynn R. Anspaugh, Gilbert W. Beebe, André Bouville, Vladimir V. Drozdovitch, Vera Garber, Yuri I. Gavrilin, Valeri T. Khrouch, Arthur V. Kuvshinnikov, Yuri N. Kuzmenkov, Victor P. Minenko, Konstantin V. Moschik, Alexander S. Nalivko, Jacob Robbins, Elena V. Shemiakina, Sergei Shinkarev, Svetlana I. Tochitskaya, Myron A. Waclawiw, and Andre Bouville. "Chernobyl-Related Thyroid Cancer in Children of Belarus: A Case-Control Study."  Radiation Research  150.3 (1998): 349

(6) Schmitz-Feuerhake I, Dannheim B, Heimers A, et al. Leukemia in the proximity of a boiling-water nuclear reactor: Evidence of population exposure by chromosome studies and environmental radioactivity.  Environmental Health Perspectives  105 (1997): 1499-1504

(7) Spix C, Schmiedel S, Kaatsch P, Schulze-Rath R, Blettner M. "Case–control study on childhood cancer in the vicinity of nuclear power plants in Germany 1980–2003."  European Journal of Cancer  44.2 (2008): 275–284

(8) Baker PJ, Hoel DG. "Meta-analysis of standardized incidence and mortality rates of childhood leukemia in proximity to nuclear facilities."  European Journal of Cancer Care  16.4 (2007):355–363

(9) Ferguson, Charles D., and Frank A. Settle. "The Future of Nuclear Power in the United States."  Federation of American Scientists  (2012)

(10) Richardson, DB, Elisabeth Cardis, Robert Daniels, Michael Gillies, Jacqueline A O’Hagan, Ghassan B Hamra, Richard Haylock, Dominique Laurier, Klervi Leuraud, Monika Moissonnier, Mary K Schubauer-Berigan, Isabelle Thierry-Chef, Ausrele Kesminiene. "Risk of Cancer from Occupational Exposure to Ionising Radiation: Retrospective Cohort Study of Workers in France, the United Kingdom, and the United States"  BMJ  (2015)

(11) "World Statistics."  nei.org.  Nuclear Energy Institute.,Web. 04 Oct. 2016.

(12) Pearce, Joshua M. "Thermodynamic Limitations to Nuclear Energy Deployment as a Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Technology."  International Journal of Nuclear Governance ,  Economy and Ecology  2.1 (2008): 113.

(13) "World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2014."  World Nuclear Industry Status Report . World Nuclear Industry, July 2014. Web. 4 Oct. 2016.

(14) "Lazard's Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis  - Version 9.0. "  Lazard.com . Lazard. 2015.

(15) Lynas, Mark, and Peter Bradford. "Should the World Increase Its Reliance on Nuclear Energy?"  The Wall Street Journal . Dow Jones & Company, 08 Oct. 2012. Web. 10 Jan. 2017.

Related News

Beyond Lead: Toxins in Toys

Investing in green energy, 10 ways to build community, economic activism is what makes our work powerful. you make our work possible, donate to our matching gift challenge.

©2024 Green America

• News & Media
• Get Updates
• Order our Magazine
• Jobs & Internships
• Membership FAQs
• Privacy Policy
• Center for Sustainability Solutions
• Green Business Network
• Green Pages

1612 K Street NW, Suite 1000, Washington DC 20006

Phone: (800) 584-7336    Tax ID/EIN: 52-1660746

• Terms and Conditions
• Site Credits

Connect With Us

Nuclear energy isn’t a safe bet in a warming world – here’s why

Honorary Senior Research Associate, UCL Energy Institute, University College London, UCL

Disclosure statement

Paul Dorfman is founder and chair of the Nuclear Consulting Group, an independent, non-profit virtual institute dedicated to providing expert research and analysis of nuclear issues.

University College London provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation UK.

View all partners

The overwhelming majority of nuclear power stations active today entered service long before the science of climate change was well-established. Two in five nuclear plants operate on the coast and at least 100 have been built just a few metres above sea level. Nuclear energy is, quite literally, on the frontline of climate change – and not in a good way.

You can listen to more articles from The Conversation, narrated by Noa, here .

Recent scientific data indicates sea levels globally will rise further and faster than earlier predictions suggested. Even over the next couple of decades, as extreme weather events become more frequent and destructive, strong winds and low atmospheric pressure will drive bigger storm surges that could threaten coastal installations.

Nuclear power plants must draw from large sources of water to cool their reactors, hence why they’re often built near the sea. But nuclear plants further inland will face similar problems with flooding in a warming world. Increasingly severe droughts and wildfire only ramp up the threat.

Around 516 million people worldwide live within a 50-mile (80km) radius of at least one operating nuclear power plant, and 20 million live within a ten-mile (16km) radius. These people bear the health and safety risks of any future nuclear accident. Efforts to build plants resistant to climate change will significantly increase the already considerable expense involved in building, operating and decommissioning nuclear plants, not to mention maintaining their stockpiles of nuclear waste.

Nuclear power is often credited with offering energy security in an increasingly turbulent world, but climate change will rewrite these old certainties. Extreme floods, droughts and storms which were once rare are becoming far more common, making industry protection measures, drafted in an earlier age, increasingly obsolete. Climate risks to nuclear power plants won’t be linear or predictable. As rising seas, storm surges and heavy rainfall erodes coastal and inland flood defences, natural and built barriers will reach their limits.

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission concludes the vast majority of its nuclear sites were never designed to withstand the future climate impacts they face, and many have already experienced some flooding. A recent US Army War College report also states that nuclear power facilities are at high risk of temporary or permanent closure due to climate threats – with 60% of US nuclear capacity at risk from future sea-level rise, severe storms, and cooling water shortages.

Before even thinking about building any more nuclear power stations, the industry must consider how models of future weather extremes and climate impacts are likely to affect them. Not only should they account for changing weather patterns over seasons, years and decades, but try to assume the worst in terms of the potential for sudden extreme events. Before any project is greenlit, the costings of all these necessary precautions must feed into the final forecast.

Nuclear power may become a significant casualty of intensifying climate impacts. As things stand, nuclear infrastructure is largely unprepared. Some reactors could soon become unfit for purpose. This should prompt a substantial reassessment of nuclear’s role in helping the world reach net zero emissions.

• Climate change
• Nuclear energy
• Extreme weather
• Sea level rise
• Decarbonisation
• Nuclear power plants
• Audio narrated

Business Development Manager, MDHS

Newsletter and Deputy Social Media Producer

College Director and Principal | Curtin College

Head of School: Engineering, Computer and Mathematical Sciences

Educational Designer

Knowledge is power

Stay in the know about climate impacts and solutions. Subscribe to our weekly newsletter.

By clicking submit, you agree to share your email address with the site owner and Mailchimp to receive emails from the site owner. Use the unsubscribe link in those emails to opt out at any time.

Yale Climate Connections

We’ve been having the wrong debate about nuclear energy

Share this:

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on X (Opens in new window)

Many Americans these days seem unable to avoid controversy on practically any topic, so why not embrace the discord and wade into the especially volatile arena of nuclear energy? Advocates claim it’s the only way to meet global climate goals, while opponents dig in their heels over safety, national security, and radioactive waste concerns.

And then there’s money, and lots of it, involved: a frequent common thread even – or perhaps especially – on the issues most splitting opinions on all-things-nuclear.

But the debate on both sides often misses key points. A central tenet of much of the pro-nuclear rhetoric is a misleadingly gloomy portrayal of renewable energy options. Meanwhile, absolutist arguments against nuclear energy too often apply primarily to older plants no longer being built. And at times both sides tend to hang their hats on optimistic advances in technologies that may or may not become commercially available in time to make needed progress toward decarbonization.

Given a pressing need to re-think the world’s energy systems, it’s worthwhile talking about nuclear energy. But first, spurious and inflammatory claims have to be cast aside in favor of a fair appraisal of the best and quickest ways to move beyond fossil fuels.

Root of the problem: Need for non-intermittent energy

Progress in greening the U.S. electricity grid is well underway. Coal is declining while renewables grow. But that formula goes only so far. Energy analysts point out that to decarbonize fully, a low- or no-carbon energy source is needed to fill in the gaps around the edges of intermittent generation.

Consider the case of California, a leading state in the deployment of renewables. Although solar energy handles most of the demand during the daylight hours, it cannot keep pace with evening energy use. Presently, natural gas “peaker” plants are used to complement solar and wind, continuing the state’s reliance on fossil fuels.

In order to phase out emissions from natural gas, either carbon capture needs to be added to gas power plants, or a low-carbon option can be used, such as improved renewables storage or nuclear power.

It’s important to note that not all eggs need to go into one basket. The nation’s present energy infrastructure relies on a combination of technologies, and a diverse approach seems likely to continue.

Is conventional nuclear on the way out in the U.S.?

Nuclear power generates 20% of the U.S. electricity supply; it’s the single largest source of non-fossil energy generation in the U.S. and the second largest globally. But the Energy Information Administration expects nuclear’s share of electricity generation to trend down in the U.S., primarily because it’s considerably more expensive than other sources of energy.

Only two new nuclear power projects have been launched in the U.S. in the past 30 years, and both suffered major setbacks. At the V.C. Summer project in South Carolina, two new reactors were in their fifth year of construction when the power plant was abandoned – after $9 billion had been sunk into it. Construction delays, design problems, budget overruns, and bankruptcy of the company building the reactors all contributed to the demise.

The other new project is Georgia’s Vogtle Units 3 and 4 near Waynesboro. These are slated to go online in 2021, despite delays and a near doubling of the cost originally projected.

New nuclear designs are in the works

For the most part, advocates for the future of nuclear energy generally are not suggesting the building of more of the types of plants operating today. Instead, one hears about “new nuclear,” “advanced nuclear,” or “Gen IV” power plants. These terms encompass a host of emerging technologies potentially offering bold promises in improvements in safety, waste reduction, and flexibility.

Here are some concepts in the development of advanced nuclear power.

Better ways to cool reactors

Current nuclear reactors are cooled with pressurized water, which must be continuously circulated through the reactor core. If the flow of cooling water is slowed or interrupted, the reactor core can overheat, leading to a potentially calamitous meltdown. That’s what happened at the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan, in the wake of the 2011 earthquake and tsunami.

The next generation of designs will use better ways of absorbing heat. Molten salt, for example, can absorb far more heat than water, and it can’t boil away. Other designs use liquid metal, such as sodium or molten lead, also heat absorbers.

Radioactive waste and disposal options pose grave challenges for nuclear energy, and they raise problems without easy solutions, despite decades of engineering efforts.

Conventional reactors consume only 1% of the original uranium in the fuel, leaving behind waste products that remain dangerous for thousands of years. New reactor designs would hypothetically use fuel more efficiently, producing less waste and running longer between refueling.

One example is a breeder reactor , which uses a series of reactions to consume some of the materials that end up as waste in conventional reactors. The result is a double benefit of less waste and more energy generated per unit of fuel.

Smaller and more flexible … but when?

An acronym one hears in the debate is SMR, small modular reactor. A nuclear industry advocacy group heralds SMRs as “bright future of nuclear energy,” but follows with the stark reality that “high up-front costs and poorly designed regulations threaten to keep these technologies from reaching the market.”

The U.S. Department of Energy describes SMRs as smaller, cheaper, and safer than conventional nuclear plants. Output from each reactor would be tens to hundreds of megawatts, similar to the output of a utility-scale wind farm. And the M in SMR stands for modular: These power plants could be built incrementally, adding more modules as needed.

Although the concept of small modular reactors offers many advantages, DOE acknowledges that “Significant technology development and licensing risks remain in bringing advanced SMR designs to market, and government support is required to achieve domestic deployment of SMRs by the late 2020s or early 2030s.”

Capable of high-heat applications

Conventional nuclear reactors have one role: to make electricity. But new reactor designs can operate at sufficiently high temperatures needed for some industrial purposes. For example, steelmaking currently uses metallurgical coal, which accounts for 17% of coal usage worldwide. As coal-burning for electricity generation is being replaced by cleaner sources, there’s no obvious replacement for making steel. Nuclear energy could potentially fill this need and help further lower carbon emissions.

Similarly, advanced nuclear reactors can be used to make hydrogen, which has multiple uses in a low-carbon energy future.

Long lead time misses the key window for action.

The next generation of nuclear reactors is still in the R&D phase. New designs will need to be prototyped, tested, and tweaked before commercial availability and operation become viable. The Generation IV International Forum – a collaboration of 14 countries involved in R&D on new nuclear reactor designs – has evaluated 130 conceptual ideas and selected six with the most promise. The timetable for bringing these ideas to fruition is long: “Some of these reactor designs could be demonstrated within the next decade, with commercial deployment beginning in 2030.”

There are no working prototypes of advanced nuclear reactors in the U.S., but six demonstration projects have been approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Department of Energy recently launched a new demonstration program that aims to build two new reactors.

So at a minimum, this technology is 10 years down the road, and likely more than that with the added complexities of financing, permitting, and politicking. Given demands for rapid decarbonizing, the world may be unwilling to wait another decade until widespread solutions can begin to be implemented.

High and uncertain price tag

It’s hard to pin down the price of advanced nuclear technology when the end goal is years away. Nonetheless, the Energy Information Administration estimates the price of advanced nuclear to be among the most expensive options for construction of new energy sources, at $82 per Mwh, which includes capital costs, operation, and transmission. That price tag does not take into account managing nuclear waste. For comparison, natural gas “peaking” electricity is $67/Mwh, onshore wind is $40, and utility-scale solar is $36. Currently, production tax credits for solar and nuclear are available, but those discounts are not included in the price estimates above.

But given the snowballing costs of the two recent nuclear plants built in the U.S., it’s difficult to know the real price of advanced nuclear.

But what about nuclear waste?

American politicians have yet to solve the nuclear waste problem, and many expect political hurdles may well outlast technological ones. A long-term, underground disposal site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for instance, has been in the works since 1987, but was never completed, largely for political reasons (including the reality that then-U.S. Senator Harry Reid (D-Nevada) was the Senate Majority Leader and a powerful opponent from 2007 to 2015). Instead, spent fuel rods are stored at power plants as they await a longer-term fate.

Even the much-heralded breeder reactors still produce radioactive waste, albeit less than their predecessors. Nuclear waste presents both an engineering problem and a social problem, because most people want nuclear waste to go somewhere far away from them. For the industry to find a credible path forward, unresolved waste, economic, national security, and sociopolitical concerns need to be resolved.

Funding and political will … uphill battles ahead

Given the long lead-time for developing new nuclear reactors and the sky-high costs relative to other energy options, the nuclear option remains a tough sell for many private investors. Projects of any meaningful scale require government investment – and here’s the rub: Nuclear energy remains unpopular with much of the American public, a perception that persists whether energy wonks like it or not. According to Pew Research polling, just 43% of Americans favor building more nuclear plants. By contrast, 90% of Americans support expanding solar energy and 83% favor increasing wind energy.

The massive investments, long lead-time, and lack of public enthusiasm make for a continued tough road ahead for nuclear energy in the U.S.

Some advocates overlook weak links in preferred solutions

Proponents of nuclear energy often dismiss a vast scale-up of wind and solar as “magical thinking.” But moving to advanced forms of nuclear energy also requires a substantial dose of optimism in the face of potentially stark challenges.

Prevailing public opinion on renewable energy – fueled by lower costs – gives it a big head start over advanced nuclear energy: It’s popular and, in comparison, cheap. But that alone is insufficient. Considerable progress in energy storage is needed to bring renewable energy into the hard-to-fix areas of the energy system, like multi-day cloudy or cold spells, steelmaking, and burgeoning energy demand globally. The necessary gains in renewable energy will be possible only if there is public will and substantial investment.

Turning to nuclear energy, several of the same things are true. There is no existing technology that can get the job done. Serious improvements are needed, the price tag is unknown, and the timeline is worryingly long.

Also see: Many nuclear plants are shutting down. Will fossil fuels replace them?

Unlike some current political debates, energy is not a simple up-or-down vote. It may be a false dichotomy that the nation’s energy future has to be either renewables or nuclear. It’s neither necessary nor helpful to build a case for one by simply squelching all consideration of another. There may be no “perfect” solution, and all the individual pieces of the puzzle will have to be hashed out in the context of science, technology, engineering, economics, and, of course, politics.

Big challenges require big solutions

In the end, transforming the world’s energy grid in just a decade or two is no easy task. Fossil fuel interests, politicization, and business-as-usual inertia have tied the world’s hands for decades, leaving a tight timeline for scaling up solutions. Perhaps the worst kind of magical thinking is that the climate crisis is solvable without creative and large-scale action.

But taking one step farther back, a few things are glaringly obvious: Smart planning, big investments, science-based strong leadership, and a motivated populace are precisely what’s needed. While we can argue about the details ad infinitum, perhaps we can also agree to stay focused on the end goal, dream big, and move forward boldly.

Karin Kirk is a geologist and freelance writer with a background in climate education. She's a scientist by training, but the human elements of climate change occupy most of her current work. Karin is... More by Karin Kirk

Nuclear Power & Global Warming

Published May 22, 2015 Updated Nov 8, 2018

The Nuclear Power Dilemma

Effectively addressing global warming requires a rapid transformation of the ways in which we produce and consume energy. The scope and impacts of climate change—including rising seas, more damaging extreme weather events, and severe ecological disruption—demand that we consider all possible options for limiting heat-trapping gas emissions—including their respective costs and timelines for implementation.

To help prevent the worst consequences of climate change, the United States must achieve economy-wide net-zero emissions by or before mid-century. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) supports policies and actions that put our nation on the path to attaining this goal.

Swiftly decarbonizing the electric sector, one of the largest sources of US carbon emissions, is among the most cost-effective steps for limiting heat-trapping gas emissions. Renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency measures can help dramatically cut the sector’s emissions, and are safe, cost-effective, and commercially available today.

Yet limiting the worst effects of climate change may also require other low- or no-carbon energy solutions, including nuclear power.

Nuclear power produces very few lifecycle carbon emissions. It also faces substantial economic challenges, and carries significant human health and environmental risks. UCS strongly supports policies and measures to strengthen the safety and security of nuclear power.

Nuclear power and natural gas

Today, nuclear power supplies approximately 20 percent of US electricity and is the third largest electricity source in the United States. Most existing US nuclear power plants have licenses that would allow them to operate until the 2030 to 2050 timeframe. However, low natural gas prices, increasingly affordable renewable technologies and grid improvements, declining demand for electricity, and costly age- and safety-related power plant repairs have led to some nuclear reactors being retiring abruptly, with little or no advance planning. Many are being replaced in large part by natural gas.

Though cleaner than coal, natural gas still generates unacceptably large amounts of carbon pollution, especially when the leakage of natural gas from pipelines and other infrastructure is considered. To the extent that a nuclear plant’s output is replaced by electricity from natural gas, the resulting emissions set back national efforts to achieve needed emissions reductions.

The Natural Gas Gamble

Today’s low market price of natural gas does not reflect the cost that carbon pollution poses to society. UCS strongly supports a robust, economy-wide price on carbon to address this market failure and level the playing field for all low- and no-carbon sources of electricity.

Until carbon pricing is in place, or natural gas prices rise significantly, owners of economically vulnerable nuclear plants will continue asking policymakers for financial assistance. Policymakers facing this situation should consider the cost and feasibility of a range of options, from providing financial support for power plants with strong safety records, to replacing their capacity with renewables, to implementing policies that lower and reconfigure customer demand for electricity. When weighing the various options, policymakers should consider the magnitude and timing of carbon reduction for each option, the respective costs, and the extent to which each option will spur technology innovation.

If policymakers provide financial assistance to existing nuclear plants, they should at the same time strengthen policies such as renewable electricity standards (RES) that stimulate the growth of low-carbon renewable energy as well as energy efficiency programs and policies. Any financial assistance to existing nuclear power plants should not dilute or otherwise come at the expense of incentives for energy efficiency, grid modernization, or renewable resources such as wind and solar, and should include provisions to periodically assess whether continued support is necessary and cost-effective.

Water-Smart Power

Nuclear power risks and impacts.

Nuclear power entails substantial safety and security risks, waste disposal challenges, and water requirements. These risks also make nuclear power vulnerable to public rejection (as seen in Japan and Germany following the Fukushima disaster of 2011).

Many of nuclear power’s risks can and should be substantially reduced, regardless of whether new nuclear power plants are built. Since its founding, UCS has served as a nuclear safety watchdog, working to ensure that US nuclear power is adequately safe and secure. Our recommendations include better enforcement of existing regulations, expedited transfer of nuclear waste into dry casks, strengthened reactor security requirements, and higher safety standards for new plants. We advocate the continued prohibition of reprocessing and a ban on the use of plutonium-based fuels. We also support continued research and development of nuclear power technologies that are safer, more secure, and lower cost.

Related resources

Water, Water Every Where

Looming Deadlines for Coastal Resilience

Follow the Money

The Electric Utility Toolkit

We use cookies to improve your experience. By continuing, you accept our use of cookies. Learn more .

Support our work

Other ways to give.

• Honor & memory
• Become a member
• Give monthly
• Make a planned gift
• Gift memberships

Your donation at work

Find anything you save across the site in your account

Is Nuclear Power Worth the Risk?

On a blustery Sunday in Okuma last spring, a crowd was seated under red-and-white tents awaiting the arrival of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. They had gathered to celebrate the opening of a new town hall, and the reopening, just a few days earlier, of the town of Okuma itself. In March, 2011—after a magnitude-nine earthquake, one of the most powerful in recorded history, triggered a twelve-story tsunami—the nearby Fukushima Daiichi nuclear-power plant flooded and lost power, prompting three of the plant’s six reactors to partially melt down. Radioactive water flowed into the sea, and plumes of radioactive particles spewed into the sky. The fallout contaminated Okuma and the surrounding towns. More than a hundred thousand people were ordered to leave their homes, with little sense of when, if ever, they would be able to return. Many more people across Fukushima Prefecture—which is slightly larger than Connecticut—self-evacuated, afraid and uncertain about the danger the fallout posed.

“It’s been 2,956 days since 3/11,” Jin Ishida, Okuma’s vice-mayor, told me, referring to the date of the disaster. We were standing near the entrance to the new town hall, a glass-and-cedar building next to a stubbly field that had once been rice paddies. Ishida, who is sixty-five, had returned to live in Okuma alone, without his family. He had given the day’s opening speech, followed by a parade of officials, including Fukushima’s governor, a member of the national assembly, representatives from Japan’s Ministries of Environment and Economics, and the Okuma mayor. Abe, who was late, was coming from a nearby sports complex known as J-Village, which had, until recently, served as a logistics base for disaster-response workers. In 2020, the Japan leg of the Tokyo Olympic-torch relay will begin on its grounds, to celebrate the region’s recovery—at least, that is the hope.

After years of decontamination efforts, as well as the natural decay of certain radioactive isotopes, the Japanese government has gradually lifted the evacuation orders for the towns that were contaminated. Okuma was among the last towns to reopen, and, even so, only partially; some of its territory was still part of the so-called difficult-to-return zone, where radiation levels remained above acceptable limits. Cleanup efforts included the demolition of buildings with high radiation levels and the removal of the top metre of soil from what had once been highly productive farms and rice paddies throughout the region. By 2022, Ishida said, another 2,125 acres of topsoil—the nutrient-rich dirt that had been like gold for local farmers—would be removed. “Ideally,” Ishida said, “if it’s possible to totally clean up to pre-3/11 levels, we should.”

The unit of measurement for the impact of ionizing radiation on a person’s health is called a sievert. One sievert, absorbed at once, can make you very sick, and a few more will kill you. One millisievert—a thousandth of a sievert—will have no effect; a chest CAT scan, for example, delivers a dose of seven millisieverts. The concern is long-term exposure, and the science around how much low-dose exposure increases the risk of cancer and other illnesses is contentious. The lowest annual dose that has clearly shown a link to cancer is a hundred millisieverts. The Japanese government decided that once the radiation dose in evacuated areas got down below twenty millisieverts per year it would allow people to return. This was roughly the dose in the newly opened areas of Okuma.

There were other problems, though—in particular, meltdown fuel remained inside the power plant’s core reactor. “Another severe earthquake could happen tomorrow,” Ishida said. The reactor complex is built to be earthquake-proof, and its owner, Tokyo Electric, which is in the process of decommissioning the Daiichi plant, has built structures to contain the spent fuel and contaminated water, but such measures cannot entirely eliminate the risk. The radioactive waste will likely sit around the plant for generations to come.

Around one per cent of the former population, which was nearly twelve thousand, have registered to live in Okuma. Most of the people I spoke to at the opening ceremony were visiting from other cities, where they planned to stay. Some feared that the region was still not safe; others believed that life would be too difficult and lonely here—there is no good grocery store, for instance, and aggressive wild boar are on the prowl. “There are many evacuees who want to come back, mostly elders,” Masumi Kowata, the only woman on Okuma’s twelve-member town council, told me. “Two children will come back this month.” They were, as far as she knew, the only two children.

Kowata, who is sixty-four, with a pixie haircut and a youthful face, had lived most of her life in Okuma, where she previously ran a tutoring program. But, she told me, she would not be returning, either; her house remained in the difficult-to-return zone. She lived in Aizu now, the mountainous western swath of Fukushima Prefecture, beyond the contamination. “I’m a second-generation radiation victim,” she said. Her father, who died in 2015, told her in their last conversation that he had worked as a medical aide in Hiroshima after the United States dropped the atomic bomb. At thirty-three, Kowata got lung cancer, which she now believes was the result of her father’s radiation exposure; she survived thanks to surgery.

Kowata was elected to the town council the year that her father died. She is anti-nuclear, and her campaign was motivated by a feeling that local officials had not sufficiently communicated townspeople’s anxieties to the national government. Abe’s party, the Liberal Democratic Party, or L.D.P., is decidedly pro-nuclear power. As Abe’s motorcade finally pulled up, Kowata told us that residents had prepared soup and rice, made with some local ingredients, for the officials, including the Prime Minister. “It’s very ironic,” she said, smiling. He was pushing for people to return, emphasizing that it was safe. “But will he eat our food?”

A few minutes later, Abe emerged from a tent, wearing a gold tie and a red ribbon on his gray suit jacket. He bowed before the Japanese and Okuma flags, then took his place behind a lectern. “During prolonged evacuation,” the people of Okuma had “retained their passion to return,” he said. “Now is the time of a new beginning.” The 2020 Tokyo Olympic Games would have great significance for Fukushima, he went on. The evacuation order near the local train station was expected to be lifted soon. “We’ll continue doing our best until the day when the reconstruction and revitalization in Okuma town will outshine the time before the earthquake,” he said.

After the speech, the crowd moved to the entrance of the town hall, where there was a red carpet, a red ribbon, and a glittery gold sphere. Men in suits lined up, with Abe at the center. A woman passed out scissors to each man, and an excited command came over the loudspeaker. They cut, the ribbon fell, and the gold sphere opened in half, sending down a flurry of confetti and a banner congratulating Okuma on its new town-hall building. Abe smiled for the cameras, scissors still awkwardly in hand. Later, as I walked back to where the food was being served, the governor of Fukushima stopped to shake my hand. “We’ve had a very tough time since the disaster on 3/11,” he said, in English. “I would like to express sincere appreciation and gratitude for the world’s friendship and solidarity. Thank you for being here today.” I was surprised and touched, but, before I could respond, he was gone.

I sat down for lunch with Kowata. The soup and rice were delicious. (Later, a news broadcast showed Abe taking a bite from a locally made onigiri.) Music began; flutists, drummers, and dancers wearing elaborate animal costumes and masks approached the tents and paraded to the front of the crowd. They were performing a deer dance, called chigo shishimai , to ask the Shinto gods for a rich harvest and to welcome the arrival of spring. “In the past, they would dance in front of the town’s Shinto shrine,” which was located a few miles away, Kowata said. “But the shrine area is still too highly contaminated.” She pointed out that all of the performers were adults. “It’s actually supposed to be children dancing,” she said. “But most of the children haven’t come back.”

A week before the ceremony in Okuma, Steven Pinker, a Harvard University psychology professor, Joshua S. Goldstein, an international-relations professor at American University, and Staffan Qvist, a Swedish nuclear engineer, published an Op-Ed in the Times , headlined, “ Nuclear Power Can Save the World .” The only way to supply the growing global demand for electricity without fossil fuels, they argue, is through a mix of renewable energy and nuclear power—not just with what we currently have but through a buildup of safer, advanced nuclear plants. Their position has been around for decades, but it is gaining currency again, as the climate crisis increases in urgency and the memory of Fukushima, the most recent of the world’s three major nuclear-power disasters (after Three Mile Island, in 1979, and Chernobyl, in 1986), grows more distant. Before the Fukushima disaster, there was serious discussion among energy experts about a nuclear “renaissance.” Countries had started gingerly planning new nuclear-power plants, largely owing to high oil prices and a growing conviction that next-generation nuclear power was both safer and a necessary stopgap to confront the climate crisis. After the accident, however, several countries changed course, deciding, yet again, that the risks of nuclear power were too great.

France announced a major decrease, and Belgium, Switzerland, and Germany announced complete phaseouts. Germany’s deadline, set for 2022, as part of its ambitious Energiewende (energy transition) to a hundred per cent renewable energy, is the most aggressive. In the past decade, Germany has made impressive progress—roughly doubling its renewable-energy generation. And yet the country has seen, so far, almost no reductions in its carbon emissions, and is far behind schedule for its climate-mitigation goals. While installing large solar and wind farms, the country has simultaneously been retiring its nuclear fleet. Meanwhile, lignite, which is a particularly dirty form of coal, continues to be strip-mined and burned, and it now accounts for a significant portion of Germany’s electricity mix.

“Germany is an example of getting the order of operations wrong,” Jesse Jenkins, an energy-systems engineering professor at Princeton University, told me. “While you are growing new sources of low-carbon electricity, from a climate perspective, you simultaneously shut down coal as rapidly as possible, then natural gas and oil.” Once you have eliminated fossil fuels, increased renewables, and reconfigured your electric grid, he added, “then you can start retiring your nuclear plants.”

Proponents of a renewables-only solution often point to the fact that the energy landscape has changed dramatically since Germany accelerated its Energiewende , in 2011; in the past decade, the cost of solar energy has dropped by around ninety per cent, and the cost of wind has dropped by seventy per cent. Battery-storage technology, which would help solve the problem of intermittency, is advancing rapidly, with declining costs, as well. Still, economic models show that once roughly eighty per cent of a grid’s electricity comes from solar, wind, and battery storage, an additional low-carbon source of energy—something that is reliable and consistent (not weather-dependent, for instance)—is required. Nuclear power is the only such broadly scalable technology commercially available today.

At the same time, a vast buildup of new nuclear-power plants is not the silver bullet that Pinker and other nuclear evangelists claim it to be. Even if new nuclear technologies are safer, the high cost and long construction time is prohibitive—especially for the kind of rapid decarbonization needed in the next decade—and the social opposition is likely to remain strong in places like Japan. What is key is that nuclear power remains part of the mix until the fossil-fuel economy no longer exists. “Our window of time to mitigate the climate crisis is shrinking by the day,” Pushker Kharecha, a scientist at Columbia University’s Climate Science, Awareness, and Solutions Program, said. “Given this urgency, it simply makes no sense to curtail a non-fossil source like nuclear power in countries that produce significant power from fossil fuels.” To avert the statistically remote possibility of a local disaster would add to the certainty of global catastrophe. “Climate change is a trolley moving inexorably but slowly toward the people on the tracks,” Steven Davis, an earth-system science professor at the University of California, Irvine, said. “Maybe nuclear is scarier because a person could be run down before she even sees the trolley.”

Nowhere is this tension more pronounced than in Japan, a country with a traumatic atomic history and limited domestic energy supplies. After the Fukushima disaster, all of Japan’s fifty operating nuclear-power reactors, situated around the country, were shut down, pending safety reviews and improvements. (As Evan Osnos reported for The New Yorker , in 2011, Tokyo Electric had a long history of falsifying safety records and ignoring experts’ warnings.) Many observers expected that the disaster would lead Japan to overhaul its energy policy and make a progressive plan for the future. Instead, coal and gas largely filled the gap, and the country’s electricity-sector greenhouse-gas emissions increased.

Abe, who was first elected Prime Minister in 2006, and again in 2012, has always been an ally of Japan’s so-called nuclear village—the coalition of corporations, electrical utilities, and government that controls and profits from nuclear power—and he has backed the industry’s attempt to return to business as usual. In his administration’s 2018 strategic energy plan, nuclear energy is expected to provide at least twenty per cent of the country’s electrical power through 2050. So far, a handful of reactors have been restarted, and others have received the necessary permits to restart. National officials say that they have learned from what went wrong at Fukushima Daiichi. The Japanese public disagrees. According to a survey concluded in 2018, nearly seventy-four per cent of the Japanese population reported feeling insecure and anxious about nuclear energy. When I told a couple in Tokyo that I had borrowed a Geiger counter from the Fukushima Prefecture’s central office, they laughed and said that they don’t trust the government’s equipment. Surfers in the city of Shimoda, a hundred miles south of Tokyo, told me, inaccurately, that I might get cancer if I surfed in Fukushima. According to Ryohei Kataoka, from the Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center, about sixty-five per cent of the population is no-nuke. “That number has been quite consistent,” he said, “even if people don’t outwardly protest.”

The first person to move back to Okuma was a man named Seiichi Idogawa, who returned on April 24, 2018, after seven years away. My interpreter, Aihara Hiroko, and I visited him last April, just before Okuma’s opening ceremony. The previous afternoon, we had driven fifty miles through a spring snowstorm, from Fukushima city, over white-capped mountains, to the coast. We saw few people along the way, apart from helmeted men in Tyvek jumpsuits who dug up contaminated dirt with heavy machinery. Every few miles there were pyramids of black garbage bags plopped, like some kind of political art installation, in vast muddy fields, each bag stuffed with contaminated soil. After the meltdown, the wind blew east for four days, taking the growing cloud of radioactive dust to sea. If it had been blowing in the opposite direction, as it often does, the contamination could have been much worse. (Fukushima means “Fortune Island.”)

In Okuma, we got lost looking for Idogawa’s house and arrived at a dead end, next to a small, mossy cemetery, bordered by overgrown woods. When the government began the cleanup, residents and their extended families had asked officials to decontaminate the town’s cemeteries, including this one, before any other area. A yellow sign posted at the cemetery’s edge gave the latest radiation reading: on March 18, 2019, the contamination level had been 0.6 microsieverts per hour, down from 2.63 microsieverts per hour—a dangerous level—before the cleanup. Around the gray stone tombs, pagodas, and narrow wooden slats, called sotoba (traditional Buddhist signs of devotion to the deceased), the ground was covered in white patches of crunchy snow, snapped branches, and freshly felled red camelia flowers. For such a remote, uninhabited place, the cemetery felt alive and well-tended.

Idogawa’s home was just down the street. He was waiting outside the front door, next to a large white mailbox decorated with French phrases: “ Bienvenue chez moi ” (“Welcome to my home”) and “ Je vous souhaite bonne chance ” (“I wish you good luck”). In his front yard, a peach tree was in bloom, and a large vegetable garden, which he was in the process of planting, was surrounded by an electric fence, to keep out the wild boar. Idogawa, who is stocky, with a buzz cut, rimless glasses, and a limp, welcomed us inside. He wore a gray fleece vest printed with snowflakes. Next to the mailbox was a small, solar-powered Geiger counter.

In the living room, Idogawa gestured for us to sit on pillows on the floor, next to one of two tables, and served black coffee in ceramic mugs designed to look as if many tiny shards had been lacquered back together—a style of Japanese ceramic called kintsugi , or the art of broken pieces. People in Fukushima often start their stories of the disaster with the exact moment the shaking began. Idogawa sat, with his legs crossed, in front of the other table, and said, “On March 11, 2011, at 2:46 p.m. , I was working at my job at a newsstand in town.” The power at the store went out, he said, and he returned home, where his father also lived. Though the earthquake damaged the roof and the foundation of the house, they were able to stay there overnight. The next morning, a firefighter arrived in his own car and told them to evacuate immediately, without mentioning the onset of a meltdown. Idogawa and his father fled to Matsumoto, on the opposite coast, where they lived in a complex originally built as teachers’ housing. A year later, he moved in with his sister in Iwaki, a city thirty minutes south of Okuma that had been spared the fallout and where many other evacuees eventually settled as well.

Ultimately, the government did most things right to protect the public—rapidly evacuating areas that had been contaminated and restricting the food supply. Investigations by various groups—the World Health Organization, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, the International Atomic Energy Agency—all found extremely low exposure among the population. But it failed in one main way: public relations. “The Japanese government and some scientists unfortunately have not communicated well to their population, both during the accident and afterward,” John Boice, an epidemiologist and the director of science for the U.S. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, told me. “There’s no question that there is still a fear or perception that radiation is more hazardous than it actually is.”

In March, 2011, a radiation health expert named Shunichi Yamashita, whom the government had appointed as the prefecture’s health-management adviser, gave a speech in Fukushima city that many people cite as an example of why the government could not be trusted. He told the audience that the environmental levels of radiation were not dangerous, apart from the areas that had been evacuated, and that “the name Fukushima will spread all over the world,” that “it already beat Hiroshima and Nagasaki,” and that “crisis is an opportunity—the biggest opportunity. Fukushima became really famous without doing anything.” The crowd laughed nervously. He went on, “If you smile, you will not experience any radiation impact. It does not come to those who smile, it comes to those who are gloomy. This is made clear by experiments on animals.”

After a year in Iwaki, Idogawa found work as a cleanup operator in Okuma. “I got my license to operate a backhoe,” he said. “We cart off soil from the rice paddies, the vegetable fields.” Initially, the radiation levels were quite high. “Before we started the cleanup,” he said, “it was fifteen microsieverts per hour; some areas higher, others lower. I wore a white Tyvek suit, coveralls, gloves, and a mask.” Idogawa was unconcerned, especially now, about his exposure levels. “I’m old,” he said, shrugging. He got up and went to retrieve his dosimeter, a digital device the same size as my recorder. It was branded, in English, “MyDose MINI,” and read, “This side faces your body.” He showed us his reading, and it was safe.

In 2017, a town that neighbored Okuma was reopened. “I saw that the area around my home might reopen soon, too, so I started to prepare to come back,” Idogawa said. He destroyed his old house, and the government and Tokyo Electric paid for the construction of a new one. The home was nice, with every modern convenience. (The toilet even had a motion sensor, so that the lid lifts when someone enters the bathroom.) A neighbor, a man slightly younger than him, had since moved back, too. Idogawa hoped that stores would reopen soon, and more people would return. When we arrived, I had noticed a leash on the door and a tiny dog coat—pink plaid with a white fringe—on the couch, but no other signs of a pet. “My dog died last week,” he told us. She was a toy poodle named Maruko. She was thirteen when she died, and had been with Idogawa throughout his years as an evacuee. “I miss her,” he said, and looked down at his hands, folded in his lap.

After visiting Idogawa, my translator and I went to a farm in Okuma called Moo Mow Garden, whose caretaker, Satsuki Tani, has become a minor local celebrity. In 2013, Tani quit her job with a nonprofit organization in Tokyo and moved to Fukushima, to help save abandoned cows and the elderly farmers who owned them. Thousands of cows have been abandoned during the disaster, and many were locked in their sheds, where most of them starved to death. Government officers killed some of the irradiated cows that were wandering loose and, a few months later, asked the farmers to kill or castrate the remaining animals. “I was asked to save the cows by a farmer,” Tani said. “At first, the cows ran away from me because they were scared to be killed by a human, just like their families and colleagues who were killed in front of them.” To entice them into a fenced area she had built with other farmers, Tani said, “I pretended to be a cow with four legs, walking and saying, ‘Moo, moo, I am not your enemy, I come here to save you.’ ”

At the time of the meltdown, Tani, who is thirty-seven, tan, with shoulder-length black hair and a toothy grin, thought that anyone exposed to radiation would be at risk of getting cancer. Then she did more research. The impact of radiation from a flight from Japan to New York—as much as ninety-three microsieverts over the course of fourteen hours—is worse, she pointed out, than the level to which she would be exposed. (At the farm, my Geiger counter showed a dose of 0.5 microsieverts per hour, or seven microsieverts per fourteen hours.) “My calculations are like this,” Tani said. “The risk of getting cancer in this area is not much higher than in the course of one’s life elsewhere.”

Tani blogged about her efforts. In her posts, she often took the voice of the cows. She gained a following and was able to raise enough money to help restore Moo Mow Farm, which is still within the exclusion zone, and buy hay for the winter. The name of the place refers to the cows’ new job: because their milk is considered unsafe, as is their meat, for which they had previously been raised, Tani argues that the animals’ practical use is to eat the grass, which keeps the abandoned land clear and encourages people to return.

The morning we arrived, Tani was outside, delivering marching orders to a semicircle of twelve people. Farther from the road, eleven cows lolled in a narrow green valley—“enough for a soccer team,” Tani said—and farther still, in the hills, radioactive wild boar and snow monkeys roamed. During the week, Tani does a lot of the cow work herself, but on the weekends she recruits volunteers, via Facebook, to help. The volunteers often come from Tokyo and are unfamiliar with rural life. As Tani explained the chores to the crew—the main task would be rolling out hay bales—one man put on a helmet.

For Tani, the farm has been a chance to start over with wild land. She was able to crowdfund enough money to buy farm equipment, and the harvests from her vegetable garden continue to improve. “I want to create a model that fits people, animals, and other species together, living together, coexisting and co-prospering in this environment,” she said. “In other places, the ecosystem, it is collapsing. Here, too, on 3/11, human beings destroyed the ecosystem. I want to see balance restored.” I later asked her how she felt about nuclear power. “I do feel deep pain in regards to the nuclear accident,” she said. But she couldn’t help but note that, for her cows, the disaster was not the worst thing that ever happened to them. “The cattle of Okuma-machi used to be ready for shipping, as wagyu beef, after two years,” she said. “Ironically, because of the nuclear accident, after eight years, they still live.”

Tani took us to a nearby farm, which looked like Vermont in Japan, with a big red barn, a wooden fence, and black cattle grazing under a stand of blooming cherry-blossom trees. The owner, a spry senior citizen named Yukio Yamamoto, who wore a red Ferrari cap, had invested ten thousand dollars to buy a breed of cow known for producing prize-winning wagyu beef. He had refused to kill his cows after the disaster. “Our cows are survivors,” he said, proudly. He now wanted to restart the business, with new cows bought outside the area, and continue breeding: he hoped that his farm, like Moo Mow, might also become a center of tourism. Tani was helping him. “She is small, but she can move a roll of hay bigger than her,” Yamamoto said. “She was unusual, coming here alone. But we are so grateful, she has been helping us all a lot by posting our situation on social media.”

The most famous cowboy in Fukushima is a sixty-five-year-old man named Masami Yoshizawa. He was one of the few people who had refused to evacuate at all, despite the high levels of contamination around his land and the mandatory evacuation order for his town, Namie, which neighbors Okuma. (Over the years, police officers had forced Yoshizawa to sign apologies whenever they caught him entering the exclusion zone.) Like Tani and Yamamoto, he also refused to kill his cattle. Instead, he had turned his ranch into a center of anti-nuclear protest, calling it the Ranch of Hope. He is, he likes to say, “the cowboy resistance.” He had received visitors and donations from around the country and the world, been the subject of a French documentary and a beautifully illustrated children’s book (featuring a painting of him caressing a cow’s face), and had even run for mayor of Namie. He lost.

His farm had a decidedly more outlaw feel than the others. Cattle skulls and bones lined the entrance road, and a scratchy green gully, where a herd of black cows roamed, stretched toward the coast. Yoshizawa drove up to meet us in a tractor and brought us into a little shack—the walls covered with newspaper clippings about the accident, anti-nuclear protests, and photos of himself—then proceeded to give a lecture on how the accident happened, how the government failed the people, how the fallout has caused damage. In the mountain forests, for instance, where the radiation has not been cleaned up, contamination levels can be as much as ten or fifteen times higher than in the surrounding reopened areas. His cows had been afflicted with strange white spots, similar to the white spots found on animals in Chernobyl. “This situation has two faces, the light and the dark,” Yoshizawa said, about Okuma’s reopening and the community’s future. “We have to focus on both sides.”

“There is a phenomenon in Japan,” Jusen Asuka, an expert on climate change and energy policy and a distinguished economist at Tohoku University, just north of Fukushima, told me. “The Japanese government keeps saying that nuclear power is very important for climate-change mitigation. So, some people who have dedicated their lives to anti-nuclear activism, they have a motivation to not believe in the climate-change arguments.” Several anti-nuclear activists told me that coal is preferable to nuclear power; others, especially from the postwar generation, are even vocally skeptical that hydrocarbon emissions cause climate change. When I told Ian Shimizu, an environmental activist in Tokyo and a former organizer of Japan’s chapter of the international climate-activism group 350.org, that I was reporting on nuclear power’s future role for addressing climate change, he told me, “You’re gonna have a hard time with that here.”

Asuka suggested that the Kyoto Protocol, the first major international climate agreement, signed in 1997, was, in part, responsible for the general complacency. “People think, Global warming? We already did our part. That’s settled.”Another reason for the lack of concern has been, possibly, Japan’s relatively mild climate. “We haven’t had wildfires or, relatively speaking, bad heat waves or floods,” Asuka said. That, of course, is quickly changing. A recent study by eleven hurricane scientists found that anthropogenic climate change has likely contributed to typhoons in the Northwest Pacific reaching their maximum intensity farther north, directly affecting Japan. In 2018, Typhoon Jebi, the worst typhoon in twenty-five years, killed eleven people in Japan, injured hundreds, and caused an estimated $12.6 billion in damages, while an extended summer heat wave killed more than a hundred people. This year, in September, Typhoon Faxai flooded Chiba Prefecture, east of Tokyo, destroying nearly two hundred homes and damaging thousands more. Typhoon Hagibis slammed Tokyo in October, bringing the heaviest rain and winds in sixty years and killing more than ninety people in the country.

Asuka believes it is possible for the world to get to a hundred per cent renewables by 2050. He is currently trying to come up with a concrete energy plan for Japanese policymakers, along the lines of a Green New Deal. Nuclear power would not be included. Asuka and other climate activists in Japan argue that the nuclear and coal industries are inextricably linked, so the country must get rid of both. “The government says that it is a trade-off between coal and nuclear power, but it’s not that way,” he told me. “It’s a trade-off between nuclear and coal versus energy conservation and renewables.”

Steven Davis, of the University of California, Irvine, is currently doing some work that shows that, if Japan built enough wind and solar capacity to generate a hundred and fifty per cent of its annual electricity demand, along with energy storage for twelve hours of its average electricity use, and a new electrical grid for the entire country, it could meet ninety-eight per cent of its electricity demand with solar and wind alone, and get the remaining two per cent from neighboring countries, carbon capture and storage (C.C.S.), and geothermal energy. “So it’s doable,” Davis said, “but the price tag is the question.”

Asuka acknowledged that, at the very least, the political will is lacking. “Japan,” he said, “is the only developed country in the world that is building coal plants.” After the Fukushima disaster, fifty new coal-fired plants were scheduled to be built; since then, fifteen have opened, twenty-two are still in the preliminary stages of construction, and thirteen have been cancelled. (Japan imports most of its coal from Australia, a country that reëlected an industry-friendly Prime Minister this year.) At the same time, Asuka said, the Japanese government has made an effort to convince the public that nuclear is not only very cheap but the best option for climate mitigation. “They are saying that with misleading data,” he said. In the latest data from the U.S. Energy Information Agency, he noted, solar is the cheapest option. Nevertheless, he said, because the government did not make early investments in solar or wind, “the public still believes renewables are very expensive.”

In part because Japan is generally not a protest culture, Asuka said, the Japanese system is “very difficult to change.” He mentioned that some young Japanese activists recently brainstormed what they could do to bring attention to climate change. One young woman had suggested an action at Shibuya Crossing—the famous five-way intersection in Tokyo’s center. They could walk a bit slower than the rest of the pedestrians, she said. His exasperation reminded me of a recent interview I had conducted at an Earth Day festival in Tokyo’s Yoyogi Park. I had scheduled a meeting with two women from a Japanese nonprofit that advocates for “zeronomix,” an economic plan that relies on zero fossil fuels and zero nuclear. (It’s a response to so-called Abenomics—the Prime Minister’s economic-revitalization plan, which is heavily reliant on nuclear and fossil fuels.) When I arrived to the meeting spot, the women introduced me to a green bear mascot named Zeronomikuma (“ kuma ” means “bear” in Japanese), who presented me with his business card.

Given Asuka’s commitment to combatting climate change, and the public’s reluctance to stage massive protests demanding a hundred per cent renewables, I asked him whether nuclear was, at least in the immediate future, a preferable option to coal and gas. A recent study by Pushker Kharecha and Makiko Sato, of Columbia University, found that if Japan and Germany had reduced coal power, instead of nuclear, they could have prevented twenty-eight thousand premature air-pollution-induced deaths and twenty-four hundred million metric tons of cumulative carbon-dioxide emissions. In Germany, pausing its nuclear phaseout would be the equivalent of removing about two hundred million passenger cars from the road for an entire year. It would also prevent an additional sixteen thousand premature deaths.

Asuka is well aware of coal’s danger—he is a co-plaintiff in a lawsuit against a new coal plant in Sendai province, arguing that its operations have resulted in nineteen premature deaths. And yet he hates this argument. “Air pollution and a nuclear accident are so different,” he said. “You cannot compare.” In 2014, in response to an open letter written by the legendary climate scientist James Hansen, of Columbia University, and three other scientists, which had urged the adoption of a new generation of nuclear reactors in order to address climate change, Asuka and his co-authors pointed out that, while the Fukushima nuclear disaster had not directly killed anyone, some fourteen hundred people had died indirectly as a result of the evacuation—“people who died due to difficult and long-term evacuation,” they wrote, “or those who committed suicide, lamenting the radioactive pollution of their farm lands and farm animals, who had lost hope to ever rebuild their lives.” Women had even decided not to give birth, fearing the effects of fetal radiation exposure, the authors noted. The birth rate in Koriyama, one of the most populated cities in the region, had dropped by thirty-four per cent in the two years after the disaster.

Ultimately, Asuka argued that the most preferable option for mitigating climate change is to move as quickly as possible to renewables and energy conservation. They are better for the environment and, in the long run, the most economically and politically sensible option. They can create new jobs and they are safe. It is just a matter of overcoming the industry’s vested interests—eighty per cent of government energy subsidies go to coal and nuclear, he noted—and accepting the upfront costs. “We are lacking an A.O.C.,” he said, referring to the U.S. congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. “We have to figure out how to disrupt the system, in the Japanese context.”

Kaori Suzuki, an elegant, lanky mother of three and a former yoga teacher, co-founded Tarachine, or, the Mothers’ Radiation Lab Fukushima, soon after the disaster, in the city of Iwaki. “Many people were anxious about food safety,” Suzuki said, “so we set up the lab to test anything anyone wanted tested.” The fears were understandable. Radiation is invisible—no smell, no color, nothing. Donors funded radiation-detection machinery and purchased equipment from Belarus, where communities were affected by the Chernobyl disaster. At first, Suzuki and other volunteers had to translate the instructions as best they could, but they eventually received training from experts. “Many people rushed our lab,” she said. “It was trial and error for the first three months to find a system that worked.”

Tarachine’s lab now includes equipment sufficient to test food, liquids, dirt, and any other household items for isotopes like strontium-90, beta rays, and gamma rays. The day I visited, there were samples on the counter, which people had mailed to the lab—wild chestnuts, a bag of vacuumed dust, sea salt. Most recent tests showed nothing to worry about, but there have been occasional high levels, found in wild mushrooms and pine cones from the mountains. The office also has a whole-body counter to determine radioactive material in humans; I sat for a reading in a colorfully painted homemade booth, watching a computer screen that showed what were meant to be relaxing images: a little nautilus propulsing its way through watery blue depths; a clown fish nibbling on coral reefs. Although the government conducts widespread testing, Suzuki saw Tarachine as a check on their efforts. “We don’t think that, if the government is doing the testing, that means we’re not needed,” she said. “It’s good to feel like we can make a decision independently, by ourselves, about whether something is safe.”

As the recent HBO miniseries “Chernobyl” so terrifyingly depicts, in the aftermath of the Chernobyl nuclear explosion, the Soviet government lied and withheld information from the public. Six years after the disaster, an epidemic of thyroid cancer spread among young children—with more than six thousand cases observed and, as of 2005, fifteen deaths. There will likely be more cancer cases, but, fortunately, thyroid cancer is highly treatable. Radiologists have concluded that the children in the Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia who were diagnosed with thyroid cancer had consumed heavily contaminated milk. This is not a concern in Fukushima, but families have been, nonetheless, scared that they would face the same outcome.

At a thyroid-cancer screening hosted by Tarachine, I met Noriko Tanaka. When the tsunami hit, she was three months pregnant. She and her husband evacuated for ten days before returning to their home in Iwaki. Her son, who is now seven, was born healthy, but Tanaka is still apprehensive, and carefully monitors where she gets her food. “At first, my husband wasn’t concerned about radiation,” Tanaka said. “So I told him, in a firm voice, ‘You have to think about the kids’ health.’ Finally, he gave up and accepted my position.” Their son, who had just been screened, was now chasing his sister around the parking lot. “In a Tarachine clinic, doctors explain in detail why they are checking the thyroid, what they are doing, they answer any questions we have,” Tanaka told me. “If someone only gets screened by the government, they might feel even more scared because the government does not explain the situation.” The clinic doctor told me they have never identified a patient with thyroid cancer.

In the 2018 landmark report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, scientists presented four mitigation pathways for limiting global heating to 1.5 degrees Celsius above the preindustrial average. In each one, nuclear power expanded substantially until 2050 (although far outpaced by the growth in renewables). In the best-case scenario, in which innovation led to significantly lower energy demand coupled with a higher living standard worldwide, especially in the Global South, nuclear power would increase a hundred and fifty per cent from 2010 levels by 2050. In the most resource- and energy-intensive scenario, in which our only hope would be carbon-dioxide-removal technologies, which are currently nonexistent at a useful scale, nuclear would increase by four hundred and sixty-eight per cent by 2050.

Nuclear power, which currently provides about ten per cent of the world’s electricity, remains a profoundly risky technology. Of the world’s four hundred and fifty reactors, most are decades old, and rely on systems that have previously caused accidents, however few. There are other long-standing problems. Nuclear waste can be deadly, and no one, except Finland , has figured out what to do with it. (After a decades-long planning and negotiation process with a remote island community, the country will bury the waste in copper tubes, in a tomb thirteen hundred feet below the bedrock.) There is a stockpile of spent fuel rods—a quarter-million metric tons in some fourteen countries, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency—mostly collecting in cooling pools at nuclear plants themselves. These repositories are potential terrorist targets. More nuclear plants could also lead to greater nuclear-weapons proliferation. As Eric Schlosser, a journalist who has written extensively about nuclear weapons and risk, told me, ultimately, with a technology that complicated and powerful, “We don’t know what the fuck we are doing.”

Still, relative to the amount of energy produced, the amount of spent fuel is small compared with the waste of fossil fuels—like coal ash, not to mention greenhouse gases. Five grams of uranium-oxide powder, baked into a one-centimetre-by-one-centimetre pellet, can power a typical American household for half a year. Unfortunately, there is no way to obtain that much power from a source that fits inside a thimble without the possibility of tragedy. Managing this trade-off comes down to good governance, and to layers and layers of safety checks and contingency plans. Of course, people will inevitably make mistakes. And yet, over the last few decades, most of the world has grossly underestimated the threat of climate change while, in some cases, overreacting to nuclear’s risks.

Suzuki, at Tarachine, recognizes that radiation exposure is no longer her organization’s only concern, and she has recently expanded its scope to offer mental-health and healing services—like massage and yoga—to children and their mothers. At a new annex, a clinical psychologist came a few times a week to meet with kids, and sometimes their mothers, too. Suzuki said they’ve already had success. One mother brought her son to the clinic after he stopped speaking and leaving the house. “After a few months, he has started to go to school again,” Suzuki said, with a smile. “This all came about because people have asked how they can manage to stay here. The parents’ stress causes problems with the child.” She added, “We now have a bigger mission: to mentally support the children, to provide therapy, and to make a future for this place.”

• Clean energy
• Nuclear energy
• Top pros and cons of...

The top pros and cons of nuclear energy

• Share to LinkedIn
• Share to Facebook
• Jacob Marsh

As subject matter experts, we provide only objective information. We design every article to provide you with deeply-researched, factual, useful information so that you can make informed home electrification and financial decisions. We have:

Sourced the majority of our data from hundreds of thousands of quotes through our own marketplace.

Incorporated third-party data and information from primary sources, government agencies, educational institutions, peer-reviewed research, or well-researched nonprofit organizations.

Built our own database and rating system for solar equipment, including solar panels, inverters, and batteries.

We won't charge you anything to get quotes through our marketplace. Instead, installers and other service providers pay us a small fee to participate after we vet them for reliability and suitability. To learn more, read about how we make money and our Editorial Guidelines .

As with any energy source, renewable or non-renewable, there are pros and cons to using nuclear energy. We'll review some of these top benefits and drawbacks to keep in mind when comparing nuclear to other energy sources.

• 100% free to use, 100% online
• Access the lowest prices from installers near you
• Unbiased Energy Advisors ready to help

Top pros and cons of nuclear energy

Despite the limited development of nuclear power plants recently, nuclear energy still supplies about 20 percent of U.S. electricity. As with any energy source, it comes with various advantages and disadvantages. Here are just a few top ones to keep in mind:

Pros and cons of nuclear power

On the pros side, nuclear energy is a carbon-free electricity source (with other environmental benefits as well!). It needs a relatively small land area to operate and is a great energy source for reliable baseload power for the electric grid. On the cons side, nuclear is technically a non-renewable energy source, nuclear plants have a high up-front cost associated with them, and nuclear waste and the operation of nuclear plants pose some environmental and health challenges.

Below, we'll explore these pros and cons in further detail.

Advantages of nuclear energy

Here are four advantages of nuclear energy:

Carbon-free electricity

Small land footprint, high power output, reliable energy source.

While traditional fossil fuel generation sources pump massive amounts of carbon dioxide (the primary cause of global climate change) into the atmosphere, nuclear energy plants do not produce carbon dioxide, or any air pollution, during operation. That's not to say that they don't pollute at all, though - mining, refining, and preparing uranium use energy, and nuclear waste pose a completely separate environmental problem. We'll discuss nuclear waste's role in all this later on.

Nuclear energy plants take up far less physical space than other common clean energy facilities (particularly wind and solar power). According to the Department of Energy, a typical nuclear facility producing 1,000 megawatts (MW) of electricity takes up about one square mile of space. Comparatively, a wind farm producing the same amount of energy takes 360x more land area, and a large-scale solar farm uses 75x more space. That's 431 wind turbines or 3.125 million (!!!) solar panels. Check out this graphic from the Department of Energy for more fun comparisons of energy sources, like how many Corvettes are needed to produce the same amount of energy as one nuclear reactor.

Nuclear power plants produce high energy levels compared to most power sources (especially renewables), making them a great provider of baseload electricity. "Baseload electricity" simply means the minimum level of energy demand on the grid over some time, say a week. Nuclear has the potential to be this high-output baseload source, and we're headed that way - since 1990, nuclear power plants have generated 20% of the US's electricity. Additionally, nuclear is a prime candidate for replacing current baseload electricity sources that contribute significantly to air pollution, such as large coal plants.

Lastly, nuclear energy is a reliable renewable energy source based on its constant production and accessibility. Nuclear power plants produce their maximum power output more often (93% of the time) than any other energy source, and because of this round-the-clock stability, makes nuclear energy an ideal source of reliable baseload electricity for the grid.

Disadvantages of nuclear energy

Here are four disadvantages of nuclear energy:

Uranium is technically non-renewable

Very high upfront costs

Nuclear waste

Malfunctions can be catastrophic, uranium is non-renewable.

Although nuclear energy is a "clean" source of power, it is technically not renewable. Current nuclear technology relies on uranium ore for fuel, which exists in limited amounts in the earth's crust. The longer we rely on nuclear power (and uranium ore in particular), the more depleted the earth's uranium resources will become, which will drive up the cost of extracting it and the negative environmental impacts of mining and processing the uranium.

High upfront costs

Operating a nuclear energy plant is a relatively low-cost endeavor, but building it in the first place is very expensive. Nuclear reactors are complex devices that require many levels of safety built around them, which drives up the cost of new nuclear plants. 

And now, to the thorny issue of nuclear waste – we could write hundreds of articles about the science of nuclear waste, its political implications, cost/benefit analyses, and more regarding this particular subject. The key takeaway from that would be this: nuclear waste is a complicated issue, and we won't claim to be anything near experts . Nuclear waste is radioactive, making it an environmental and health catastrophe waiting to happen. These reasons are exactly why governments spend tons of money to safely package and dispose of used-up nuclear fuel. At the end of the day, yes, nuclear waste is a dangerous by-product of nuclear power plants, and it takes extreme care and advanced technology to handle it properly.

A nuclear meltdown occurs when the heat created by a nuclear reactor exceeds the amount of heat being transferred out by the cooling systems; this causes the system to exceed its melting point. If this happens, hot radioactive vapors can escape, which can cause nuclear plants to melt down fully and combust, releasing harmful radioactive materials into the environment. This is an extremely unlikely worst-case scenario, and nuclear plants are equipped with numerous safety measures to prevent meltdowns.

Create your own clean energy with solar panels.

Enjoy the benefits of solar without rooftop panels.

Explore heat pumps, the latest in clean heating & cooling technology.

See solar prices near you.

Enter your zip code to find out what typical solar installations cost in your neighborhood.

• Our offerings
• Community solar
• Heating & cooling
• Backup power
• EV charging
• For your business
• Other energy options
• Solar calculator
• Solar rebates
• Home solar guide
• Market intel
• Refer a friend
• Mission & values
• How it works
• Editorial guidelines
• Work with us
• Solar & HVAC installers
• Corporate partnerships
• Community programs
• Utility programs

ENERGYSAGE is a registered trademark and the EnergySage logo is a trademark of EnergySage, Inc. Other trademarks are the property of either EnergySage, Inc. or our licensors and are used with permission.

© Copyright 2009-2024 EnergySage, Inc. All rights reserved.

Learn more about our success working with the U.S. Department of Energy.

• Climate & Environment
• Health & Medicine
• Science & Technology
• Society & Culture
• University News
• UBC Media Relations
• For Journalists
• For Faculty

Why nuclear energy is not the solution to the climate crisis

In this Q&A, Dr. M.V. Ramana discusses key insights from his new book and why nuclear power does not help mitigate climate change.

Sachi Wickramasinghe

Despite about 20 countries declaring plans to triple nuclear energy by 2050 and the backing of billionaires like Bill Gates , we should not support expanding nuclear power.

That’s according to a new book, Nuclear is Not the Solution: The Folly of Atomic Power in the Age of Climate Change , by Dr. M.V. Ramana, the Simons Chair in Global Disarmament and Human Security at the school of public policy and global affairs at UBC.

We spoke to Dr. Ramana about key insights from the book and why nuclear power does not help mitigate climate change.

What motivated you to write this book?

Just 20 or 30 years ago, talking about nuclear energy as an environmentally friendly source of electricity would probably get you laughed out of the room.

But in the last decade, advocates of nuclear energy – from energy companies to governments and tech billionaires – have advertised the technology as a clean source of electricity that is vital to solving climate change.

Their arguments make no sense given what we know about the history and the technical characteristics of nuclear energy, so one motivation for this book is to lay out those arguments yet again, because they seem to have been forgotten.

How do you respond to claims that nuclear energy is necessary for meeting our carbon reduction goals?

Many technologies have low carbon footprints but we need to consider two other important factors: cost and deployment time.

Nuclear energy is one of the most expensive ways to generate electricity. Investing in cheaper low-carbon sources of energy will provide more emission reductions per dollar. Second, it takes about a decade to build a nuclear plant. If you add the time needed for environmental clearances, community consent and raising the huge amounts of funding necessary, you’re looking at 15-20 years before a nuclear project can even start producing electricity. This timeline is incompatible with the urgent demands of climate science.

Thus, nuclear power fails on two key metrics for evaluating any technology claiming to deal with climate change.

What risks associated with nuclear energy are most overlooked by its proponents?

First, nuclear reactors by their very nature are susceptible to catastrophic releases of energy and radioactivity – we’ve seen that happen with Fukushima and Chernobyl. It’s impossible to guarantee severe accidents won’t happen again.

Second, all activities linked to the nuclear fuel chain, from mining uranium to dealing with the radioactive wastes produced, have significant public and environmental impacts. Some radioactive materials remain hazardous for hundreds of thousands of years. There is no demonstrated solution to managing these wastes.

Third, the technology to generate nuclear power is closely tied to the one to make nuclear weapons. Expanding nuclear energy will increase the potential for nuclear weapons proliferation.

Proponents downplay all these problems. But as I explain in my book, they will afflict new nuclear reactors too.  

What renewable energy sources are most promising, and how can we accelerate their adoption?

Solar energy has become the cheapest power source in the past decade, with solar and wind now leading new-electricity generation.

We have learned how to manage grids with high proportions of renewable sources. To balance this variability, we must invest in a mix of renewable energy technologies across various regions, and in battery and other storage technologies to store excess energy. In addition, we need to shape electricity demand to more closely match supply.

These renewables are not a panacea, but they seem to be the best option. Addressing climate change isn’t just about technology; it’s also about making appropriate social and political changes. For reasons discussed in my book, nuclear power is incompatible with the kind of social and political transformations needed to address climate change.

Featured Researcher

M.V. Ramana, PhD

Professor, School of Public Policy and Global Affairs

Erik Rolfsen UBC Media Relations Tel: 604-822-2644 Cel: 604-209-3048 Email: [email protected]

JOURNALIST RESOURCES

Looking for a new story idea? Check out our latest News Tips

Find Other stories with Related Topics

Smell reports reveal the need to expand urban air quality monitoring, say ubc researchers, ubc super-black wood can improve telescopes, optical devices and consumer goods, the noxious cocktail of wildfire smoke, is it safe to exercise in extreme heat and smoky skies, the mystery of the missing butterflies in vancouver, basic income could solve global poverty and stop environmental destruction, study finds, recent stories.

People’s moral values change with the seasons

Why Nuclear Energy Is Not Good? Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Why nuclear energy is not best alternative.

Energy source that is being proposed and used by people in the public, one must always look at safety and economic use. This paper provide thesis argument: nuclear energy is not good.

Making nuclear plant that would be good for replacing fossil fuels must require many nuclear plants which each need billion dollars. In the end this means the country would have to waste with so much money before it can remove the energy demand for the United States even as much as the fossil fuels (Mackenzie, 1977). Even the day and time needed to create a nuclear plant would be bog problem because one plant take about ten years in order to complete.

Again even shutting a nuclear plant involves massive expensive because it must be decommissioned by a decommissioning authority. Even those who say net production is cost effective for unit of nuclear energy produced may not be saying the truth because most of these estimate forget that nuclear energy is recipient of many government subsidies.

Most researches in renewable energy are done with help of government inventions and subsidies in it. If these are removed because they cannot be there in the future then cost of producing this power would be so high. Therefore, it would not be good idea to make large scale nuclear energy because it would be good to improve current energy sources in because of costs.

Another problem and issue is environmental damage being taken by this source of electricity. Nuclear energy is bad for total of nuclear waste removed at time of production and this waste often radioactive (Diesendorf, 2007). It is because of these problem, factories must have system in place that allow disposals and this must be very expensive that make a number of them very much uneconomical.

If they have not been in position to do so then the environment suffer through the emission of any kind of heat in waste or because radioactive emissions that be very harmful to the human body. Furthermore, even process of mining the material to begin with for nuclear energy production i.e. uranium mining would being radioactive dumps which being in some sort of negative cycles. One method used to remove of this kind of waste has been making of electricity during the use of heat from the waste.

Here, people who support of nuclear energy say that natural gas can be generated through such method and this may therefore increase the convenience of the waste. But, major reason for take up nuclear energy is to protect the environment from carbon emissions. It would not be good to use clean energy to make dirty one (Lowe & Brook, 2010). Another method in getting rid these effects is US must build repository.

Still, do not forget radioactive nature of the materials, there must be radioactive resistant material that you use so to prevent the spread of these radiations to outside world. Also, nuclear energy building factories are using too much of resource – they want too much of water in order to make cooling effect.

Some plants like this one in Southern Australia consumers thirty million liters of water and plans in future for tripling this water. When economic activity bring to much of using of important natural resource like the water then it is environmental sustainability should always be wrong since it now competing with other kinds of uses that may be more important to the people (Bodansky, 2008).

Last one; many nuclear firm will like to focus on high level of the waste like the one radioactive material from factory after completing the process but very small number of them will think on low level wastes like radiation clothing (that may been used so that it can cover workers not to get radioactive emissions), rags, syringes and other smaller produces of radioactive emissions that may not attract many attention from manufacturers but this still be a dangerous thing to the public.

One other issue concerning nuclear energy is likely harm is may present to the public. Any employee who works at nuclear plant is risky always of being exposed to low level of radiations that may be responsible for many sick persons. Still, some disastrous events even occur especially around this form of energy.

The most big case of them was the Chernobyl accident. Not just this, smaller accidents have occurred or will be going to occur in the everyday to day making nuclear energy. For example, in Minnesota, it was said contaminated equipment transported from another location, this could put many at big danger (Cooke, 2009). And this is not enough, any people who live near nuclear plants always put the other at problem of long term health effects.

Those who work or live near the factories may be in danger to long term complications like cancer. Even though the chance of having affects by these issues may be highly small when safety measures and throwing away are obeyed, studies show serious problem there is still a danger of getting a health problem because of going near radioactive emissions or radioactive work.

These many risk of nuclear energy i.e. safety problem and around health of workers and residents, the building factories is not and environmental problems are many. Make this nuclear energy not a good and clean energy for the United States and world.

Mackenzie, J. (1977). The nuclear power controversy. Biology quarterly review, 52(4), 467

Cooke, S. (2009). A cautionary history on nuclear age. NY: Black inc

Diesendorf, M. (2007). Greenhouse solutions and sustainable energy. NSW: New South Wales university press

Lowe, I. & Brook, B. (2010). Why vs. Why: Nuclear power. Sydney: Pantera Press

Bodansky, D. (2008). Environmental paradox of nuclear power. Environmental practice, 3(2), 86

• Energy and Momentum in the Daily Life
• Should There Be a Limit to What Scientists Can Discover and Create When It Relates to the Wealfare of Humanity?
• The Effect of Nuclear Energy on the Environment
• Radioactive Decay Types:  Environments
• Impact of Nuclear Energy in France
• Theoretical Aspects of Quantum Teleportation
• The Wonders of the Universe
• The Evolution of Electricity
• Ethnography Reflection
• Foundations of Earth Science
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, July 31). Why Nuclear Energy Is Not Good? https://ivypanda.com/essays/renewable-energy/

"Why Nuclear Energy Is Not Good?" IvyPanda , 31 July 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/renewable-energy/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'Why Nuclear Energy Is Not Good'. 31 July.

IvyPanda . 2018. "Why Nuclear Energy Is Not Good?" July 31, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/renewable-energy/.

1. IvyPanda . "Why Nuclear Energy Is Not Good?" July 31, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/renewable-energy/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Why Nuclear Energy Is Not Good?" July 31, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/renewable-energy/.

Create an account

Create a free IEA account to download our reports or subcribe to a paid service.

Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System

About this report.

With nuclear power facing an uncertain future in many countries, the world risks a steep decline in its use in advanced economies that could result in billions of tonnes of additional carbon emissions. Some countries have opted out of nuclear power in light of concerns about safety and other issues. Many others, however, still see a role for nuclear in their energy transitions but are not doing enough to meet their goals.

The publication of the IEA's first report addressing nuclear power in nearly two decades brings this important topic back into the global energy debate.

Key findings

Nuclear power is the second-largest source of low-carbon electricity today.

Nuclear power is the second-largest source of low-carbon electricity today, with 452 operating reactors providing 2700 TWh of electricity in 2018, or 10% of global electricity supply.

In advanced economies, nuclear has long been the largest source of low-carbon electricity, providing 18% of supply in 2018. Yet nuclear is quickly losing ground. While 11.2 GW of new nuclear capacity was connected to power grids globally in 2018 – the highest total since 1990 – these additions were concentrated in China and Russia.

Global low-carbon power generation by source, 2018

Cumulative co2 emissions avoided by global nuclear power in selected countries, 1971-2018, an aging nuclear fleet.

In the absense of further lifetime extensions and new projects could result in an additional 4 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions, underlining the importance of the nuclear fleet to low-carbon energy transitions around the globe. In emerging and developing economies, particularly China, the nuclear fleet will provide low-carbon electricity for decades to come.

However the nuclear fleet in advanced economies is 35 years old on average and many plants are nearing the end of their designed lifetimes. Given their age, plants are beginning to close, with 25% of existing nuclear capacity in advanced economies expected to be shut down by 2025.

It is considerably cheaper to extend the life of a reactor than build a new plant, and costs of extensions are competitive with other clean energy options, including new solar PV and wind projects. Nevertheless they still represent a substantial capital investment. The estimated cost of extending the operational life of 1 GW of nuclear capacity for at least 10 years ranges from $500 million to just over $1 billion depending on the condition of the site.

However difficult market conditions are a barrier to lifetime extension investments. An extended period of low wholesale electricity prices in most advanced economies has sharply reduced or eliminated margins for many technologies, putting nuclear at risk of shutting down early if additional investments are needed. As such, the feasibility of extensions depends largely on domestic market conditions.

Age profile of nuclear power capacity in selected regions, 2019

United states, levelised cost of electricity in the united states, 2040, european union, levelised cost of electricity in the european union, 2040, levelised cost of electricity in japan, 2040, the nuclear fade case, nuclear capacity operating in selected advanced economies in the nuclear fade case, 2018-2040, wind and solar pv generation by scenario 2019-2040, policy recommendations.

In this context, countries that intend to retain the option of nuclear power should consider the following actions:

• Keep the option open:  Authorise lifetime extensions of existing nuclear plants for as long as safely possible. 
• Value dispatchability:  Design the electricity market in a way that properly values the system services needed to maintain electricity security, including capacity availability and frequency control services. Make sure that the providers of these services, including nuclear power plants, are compensated in a competitive and non-discriminatory manner.
• Value non-market benefits:  Establish a level playing field for nuclear power with other low-carbon energy sources in recognition of its environmental and energy security benefits and remunerate it accordingly.
• Update safety regulations:  Where necessary, update safety regulations in order to ensure the continued safe operation of nuclear plants. Where technically possible, this should include allowing flexible operation of nuclear power plants to supply ancillary services.
• Create a favourable financing framework:  Create risk management and financing frameworks that facilitate the mobilisation of capital for new and existing plants at an acceptable cost taking the risk profile and long time-horizons of nuclear projects into consideration.
• Support new construction:  Ensure that licensing processes do not lead to project delays and cost increases that are not justified by safety requirements.
• Support innovative new reactor designs:  Accelerate innovation in new reactor designs with lower capital costs and shorter lead times and technologies that improve the operating flexibility of nuclear power plants to facilitate the integration of growing wind and solar capacity into the electricity system.
• Maintain human capital:  Protect and develop the human capital and project management capabilities in nuclear engineering.

Executive summary

Nuclear power can play an important role in clean energy transitions.

Nuclear power today makes a significant contribution to electricity generation, providing 10% of global electricity supply in 2018.  In advanced economies 1 , nuclear power accounts for 18% of generation and is the largest low-carbon source of electricity. However, its share of global electricity supply has been declining in recent years. That has been driven by advanced economies, where nuclear fleets are ageing, additions of new capacity have dwindled to a trickle, and some plants built in the 1970s and 1980s have been retired. This has slowed the transition towards a clean electricity system. Despite the impressive growth of solar and wind power, the overall share of clean energy sources in total electricity supply in 2018, at 36%, was the same as it was 20 years earlier because of the decline in nuclear. Halting that slide will be vital to stepping up the pace of the decarbonisation of electricity supply.

A range of technologies, including nuclear power, will be needed for clean energy transitions around the world.  Global energy is increasingly based around electricity. That means the key to making energy systems clean is to turn the electricity sector from the largest producer of CO 2 emissions into a low-carbon source that reduces fossil fuel emissions in areas like transport, heating and industry. While renewables are expected to continue to lead, nuclear power can also play an important part along with fossil fuels using carbon capture, utilisation and storage. Countries envisaging a future role for nuclear account for the bulk of global energy demand and CO 2 emissions. But to achieve a trajectory consistent with sustainability targets – including international climate goals – the expansion of clean electricity would need to be three times faster than at present. It would require 85% of global electricity to come from clean sources by 2040, compared with just 36% today. Along with massive investments in efficiency and renewables, the trajectory would need an 80% increase in global nuclear power production by 2040.

Nuclear power plants contribute to electricity security in multiple ways.  Nuclear plants help to keep power grids stable. To a certain extent, they can adjust their operations to follow demand and supply shifts. As the share of variable renewables like wind and solar photovoltaics (PV) rises, the need for such services will increase. Nuclear plants can help to limit the impacts from seasonal fluctuations in output from renewables and bolster energy security by reducing dependence on imported fuels.

Lifetime extensions of nuclear power plants are crucial to getting the energy transition back on track

Policy and regulatory decisions remain critical to the fate of ageing reactors in advanced economies.  The average age of their nuclear fleets is 35 years. The European Union and the United States have the largest active nuclear fleets (over 100 gigawatts each), and they are also among the oldest: the average reactor is 35 years old in the European Union and 39 years old in the United States. The original design lifetime for operations was 40 years in most cases. Around one quarter of the current nuclear capacity in advanced economies is set to be shut down by 2025 – mainly because of policies to reduce nuclear’s role. The fate of the remaining capacity depends on decisions about lifetime extensions in the coming years. In the United States, for example, some 90 reactors have 60-year operating licenses, yet several have already been retired early and many more are at risk. In Europe, Japan and other advanced economies, extensions of plants’ lifetimes also face uncertain prospects.

Economic factors are also at play.  Lifetime extensions are considerably cheaper than new construction and are generally cost-competitive with other electricity generation technologies, including new wind and solar projects. However, they still need significant investment to replace and refurbish key components that enable plants to continue operating safely. Low wholesale electricity and carbon prices, together with new regulations on the use of water for cooling reactors, are making some plants in the United States financially unviable. In addition, markets and regulatory systems often penalise nuclear power by not pricing in its value as a clean energy source and its contribution to electricity security. As a result, most nuclear power plants in advanced economies are at risk of closing prematurely.

The hurdles to investment in new nuclear projects in advanced economies are daunting

What happens with plans to build new nuclear plants will significantly affect the chances of achieving clean energy transitions.  Preventing premature decommissioning and enabling longer extensions would reduce the need to ramp up renewables. But without new construction, nuclear power can only provide temporary support for the shift to cleaner energy systems. The biggest barrier to new nuclear construction is mobilising investment.  Plans to build new nuclear plants face concerns about competitiveness with other power generation technologies and the very large size of nuclear projects that require billions of dollars in upfront investment. Those doubts are especially strong in countries that have introduced competitive wholesale markets.

A number of challenges specific to the nature of nuclear power technology may prevent investment from going ahead.  The main obstacles relate to the sheer scale of investment and long lead times; the risk of construction problems, delays and cost overruns; and the possibility of future changes in policy or the electricity system itself. There have been long delays in completing advanced reactors that are still being built in Finland, France and the United States. They have turned out to cost far more than originally expected and dampened investor interest in new projects. For example, Korea has a much better record of completing construction of new projects on time and on budget, although the country plans to reduce its reliance on nuclear power.

Without nuclear investment, achieving a sustainable energy system will be much harder

A collapse in investment in existing and new nuclear plants in advanced economies would have implications for emissions, costs and energy security.  In the case where no further investments are made in advanced economies to extend the operating lifetime of existing nuclear power plants or to develop new projects, nuclear power capacity in those countries would decline by around two-thirds by 2040. Under the current policy ambitions of governments, while renewable investment would continue to grow, gas and, to a lesser extent, coal would play significant roles in replacing nuclear. This would further increase the importance of gas for countries’ electricity security. Cumulative CO 2 emissions would rise by 4 billion tonnes by 2040, adding to the already considerable difficulties of reaching emissions targets. Investment needs would increase by almost USD 340 billion as new power generation capacity and supporting grid infrastructure is built to offset retiring nuclear plants.

Achieving the clean energy transition with less nuclear power is possible but would require an extraordinary effort.  Policy makers and regulators would have to find ways to create the conditions to spur the necessary investment in other clean energy technologies. Advanced economies would face a sizeable shortfall of low-carbon electricity. Wind and solar PV would be the main sources called upon to replace nuclear, and their pace of growth would need to accelerate at an unprecedented rate. Over the past 20 years, wind and solar PV capacity has increased by about 580 GW in advanced economies. But in the next 20 years, nearly five times that much would need to be built to offset nuclear’s decline. For wind and solar PV to achieve that growth, various non-market barriers would need to be overcome such as public and social acceptance of the projects themselves and the associated expansion in network infrastructure. Nuclear power, meanwhile, can contribute to easing the technical difficulties of integrating renewables and lowering the cost of transforming the electricity system.

With nuclear power fading away, electricity systems become less flexible.  Options to offset this include new gas-fired power plants, increased storage (such as pumped storage, batteries or chemical technologies like hydrogen) and demand-side actions (in which consumers are encouraged to shift or lower their consumption in real time in response to price signals). Increasing interconnection with neighbouring systems would also provide additional flexibility, but its effectiveness diminishes when all systems in a region have very high shares of wind and solar PV.

Offsetting less nuclear power with more renewables would cost more

Taking nuclear out of the equation results in higher electricity prices for consumers.  A sharp decline in nuclear in advanced economies would mean a substantial increase in investment needs for other forms of power generation and the electricity network. Around USD 1.6 trillion in additional investment would be required in the electricity sector in advanced economies from 2018 to 2040. Despite recent declines in wind and solar costs, adding new renewable capacity requires considerably more capital investment than extending the lifetimes of existing nuclear reactors. The need to extend the transmission grid to connect new plants and upgrade existing lines to handle the extra power output also increases costs. The additional investment required in advanced economies would not be offset by savings in operational costs, as fuel costs for nuclear power are low, and operation and maintenance make up a minor portion of total electricity supply costs. Without widespread lifetime extensions or new projects, electricity supply costs would be close to USD 80 billion higher per year on average for advanced economies as a whole.

Strong policy support is needed to secure investment in existing and new nuclear plants

Countries that have kept the option of using nuclear power need to reform their policies to ensure competition on a level playing field.  They also need to address barriers to investment in lifetime extensions and new capacity. The focus should be on designing electricity markets in a way that values the clean energy and energy security attributes of low-carbon technologies, including nuclear power.

Securing investment in new nuclear plants would require more intrusive policy intervention given the very high cost of projects and unfavourable recent experiences in some countries.  Investment policies need to overcome financing barriers through a combination of long-term contracts, price guarantees and direct state investment.

Interest is rising in advanced nuclear technologies that suit private investment such as small modular reactors (SMRs).  This technology is still at the development stage. There is a case for governments to promote it through funding for research and development, public-private partnerships for venture capital and early deployment grants. Standardisation of reactor designs would be crucial to benefit from economies of scale in the manufacturing of SMRs.

Continued activity in the operation and development of nuclear technology is required to maintain skills and expertise.  The relatively slow pace of nuclear deployment in advanced economies in recent years means there is a risk of losing human capital and technical know-how. Maintaining human skills and industrial expertise should be a priority for countries that aim to continue relying on nuclear power.

The following recommendations are directed at countries that intend to retain the option of nuclear power. The IEA makes no recommendations to countries that have chosen not to use nuclear power in their clean energy transition and respects their choice to do so.

• Keep the option open:  Authorise lifetime extensions of existing nuclear plants for as long as safely possible.
• Value non-market benefits:  Establish a level playing field for nuclear power with other low carbon energy sources in recognition of its environmental and energy security benefits and remunerate it accordingly.
• Create an attractive financing framework:  Set up risk management and financing frameworks that can help mobilise capital for new and existing plants at an acceptable cost, taking the risk profile and long time horizons of nuclear projects into consideration.
• Support new construction:  Ensure that licensing processes do not lead to project delays and cost increases that are not justified by safety requirements. Support standardisation and enable learning-by-doing across the industry.
• Support innovative new reactor designs:  Accelerate innovation in new reactor designs, such as small modular reactors (SMRs), with lower capital costs and shorter lead times and technologies that improve the operating flexibility of nuclear power plants to facilitate the integration of growing wind and solar capacity into the electricity system.

Advanced economies consist of Australia, Canada, Chile, the 28 members of the European Union, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey and the United States.

Reference 1

Cite report.

IEA (2019), Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System , IEA, Paris https://www.iea.org/reports/nuclear-power-in-a-clean-energy-system, Licence: CC BY 4.0

Share this report

• Share on Twitter Twitter
• Share on Facebook Facebook
• Share on LinkedIn LinkedIn
• Share on Email Email
• Share on Print Print

Subscription successful

Thank you for subscribing. You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link at the bottom of any IEA newsletter.

When you hear the words “clean energy,” what comes to mind?

Most people immediately think of solar panels or wind turbines, but how many of you thought of nuclear energy?

Nuclear is often left out of the “clean energy” conversation despite it being the second largest source of low-carbon electricity in the world behind hydropower.

So, just how clean and sustainable is nuclear?

Try these quick facts for starters.

1. Nuclear energy protects air quality

McGuire Nuclear Station located in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.

Nuclear is a zero-emission clean energy source.

It generates power through fission, which is the process of splitting uranium atoms to produce energy. The heat released by fission is used to create steam that spins a turbine to generate electricity without the harmful byproducts emitted by fossil fuels.

According to the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), the United States avoided more than 471 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions in 2020. That’s the equivalent of removing 100 million cars from the road and more than all other clean energy sources combined.

It also keeps the air clean by removing thousands of tons of harmful air pollutants each year that contribute to acid rain, smog, lung cancer and cardiovascular disease.

2. Nuclear energy’s land footprint is small

Despite producing massive amounts of carbon-free power, nuclear energy produces more electricity on less land than any other clean-air source.

A typical 1,000-megawatt nuclear facility in the United States needs a little more than 1 square mile to operate. NEI says wind farms require 360 times more land area to produce the same amount of electricity and solar photovoltaic plants require 75 times more space.

To put that in perspective, you would need more than 3 million solar panels to produce the same amount of power as a typical commercial reactor or more than 430 wind turbines (capacity factor not included).

See more comparisons here .

3. Nuclear energy produces minimal waste

Nuclear fuel is extremely dense.

It’s about 1 million times greater than that of other traditional energy sources and because of this, the amount of used nuclear fuel is not as big as you might think.  

All of the used nuclear fuel produced by the U.S. nuclear energy industry over the last 60 years could fit on a football field at a depth of less than 10 yards!

That waste can also be reprocessed and recycled, although the United States does not currently do this.

However, some advanced reactor designs being developed could operate on used fuel.

The  NICE Future Initiative  is a global effort under the Clean Energy Ministerial that makes sure nuclear will be considered in developing the advanced clean energy systems of the future.

*Updated June 2022

Press centre

Nuclear technology and applications.

• Climate change
• Environment
• Food and agriculture
• Nuclear science
• Nuclear safety and security
• Human and organizational factors
• Governmental, legal and regulatory framework
• Nuclear installation safety
• Radiation protection
• Security of nuclear and other radioactive material
• Radioactive waste and spent fuel management
• Emergency preparedness and response

Safeguards and verification

• Basics of IAEA Safeguards
• Safeguards implementation
• Safeguards legal framework
• Assistance for States
• Member States Support Programmes

Technical Cooperation Programme

• How it works
• How to participate

Coordinated research activities

• Legislative assistance

Key programmes

• Atoms4NetZero
• International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles (INPRO)
• Together for More Women in Nuclear
• NUTEC Plastics
• Peaceful Uses Initiative
• Rays of Hope
• The SMR Platform and Nuclear Harmonization and Standardization Initiative (NHSI)
• Zoonotic Disease Integrated Action (ZODIAC)

Review missions and advisory services

• Catalogue of review missions and advisory services
• Peer review and advisory services calendar

Laboratory services

• Analytical reference materials
• Dosimetry calibration
• Dosimetry auditing
• Inter-laboratory comparisons
• Global Nuclear Safety and Security Network (GNSSN)

Education and training

• Training courses
• Online learning

Scientific and technical publications

• Full catalogue
• Safety Standards
• Nuclear Security Series
• Nuclear Energy Series
• Human Health Series
• Conference Proceedings
• Newsletters
• Nuclear Fusion Journal

General interest material

• IAEA Bulletin
• Nuclear Explained
• Photos (Flickr)
• Photo essays
• Briefs and factsheets
• IAEA Virtual Tours

Official documents

• Information circulars

NUCLEUS information resources

• International Nuclear Information System (INIS)
• Power Reactor Information System (PRIS)
• Advanced Reactors Information System (ARIS)
• Integrated Nuclear Fuel Cycle Information System (iNFCIS)
• Spent Fuel and Radioactive Waste Information System (SRIS)
• Nuclear Data Services (NDS)
• Research Reactor Database (RRDB)

Other resources

• Library – Nuclear Information Services
• Impact stories
• Press releases
• Media advisories
• Director General statements
• Photo library
• Press contacts
• Press enquiries
• General Conference
• Board of Governors
• Scientific and technical events
• Scientific Forum
• Medium-Term Strategy
• Partnerships
• Gender at the IAEA
• Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
• Multilingual content
• List of Member States

Management team

• Director General
• Deputy Directors General

Organizational structure

• Offices Reporting to the Director General
• Technical Cooperation
• Nuclear Energy
• Nuclear Safety and Security
• Nuclear Sciences and Applications
• Working at the IAEA
• Types of Employment

Procurement

• Procurement overview

Search form

You are here, infographic: what makes nuclear energy safe.

If you would like to learn more about the IAEA’s work, sign up for our weekly updates containing our most important news, multimedia and more.

• Arabic (monthly)
• Chinese (monthly)
• English (weekly)
• French (monthly)
• Russian (monthly)
• Spanish (monthly)

Related stories

Infographics: Nuclear Energy Compared

Related resources

• Nuclear Explained – the Podcast
• Nuclear power plant safety
• Safety standards
• 10 Years after Fukushima: Progress in Nuclear Safety
• Design of nuclear power plants
• Safety and security culture
• Department of Nuclear Energy
• Division of Nuclear Installation Safety
• Department of Nuclear Safety and Security

More on the IAEA

• Privacy Policy
• Logo Usage Guidelines

Scientific resources

• Information Circulars
• Standards and guides
• Safeguards and Additional Protocol

Stay in touch

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Auto Racing
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

You had a lot of questions about next-generation nuclear reactors. We posed them to the experts

FILE - Taillights trace the path of a motor vehicle at the Naughton Power Plant, Jan. 13, 2022, in Kemmerer, Wyo., next to a site where Bill Gates and his energy company are starting construction on a next-generation nuclear plant. (AP Photo/Natalie Behring, File)

• Copy Link copied

The United States is speeding up efforts to license and build a new generation of nuclear reactors to supply carbon-free electricity.

Faster development is one thing Congress and the administration agree on. President Joe Biden signed legislation in July to modernize the licensing of new reactor technologies so they can be built faster. Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate environment and House energy committees praised the enactment.

The U.S. is pursuing small modular reactors and advanced reactors. Some designs use something other than water for cooling, such as liquid metal, helium or liquid salt. Developers say the advanced coolants allow the reactors to run at low pressure, making them safer than traditional designs.

Russia and China are the only countries that are already operating advanced reactors.

The United States is trying to boost the new technology; the Energy Department announced $900 million in funding in June. Bill Gates’ company, TerraPower , is the first in the U.S. to apply to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a construction permit for an advanced reactor that would operate as a commercial nuclear power plant.

Readers had questions for The Associated Press about evolving nuclear. They wonder how the next generation of reactors can be a climate solution, where the radioactive waste would go, and above all, whether these new reactor designs are safe.

The AP turned to White House National Climate Advisor Ali Zaidi and experts at the Energy Department and Nuclear Regulatory Commission to help answer those questions.

Q: Elizabeth M. from Bisbee, Arizona said advanced nuclear seems like a compromise that, despite drawbacks, is the most practical and clean solution for America’s big energy appetite. We asked Zaidi for his take on how these new reactors can be a climate solution.

Zaidi said the world has to feed future energy needs “in a way that doesn’t add to the problem of climate change.” Nuclear energy is one tool that can do that, he said.

“As we are finding ourselves in the middle of the climate crisis in the decisive decade for climate action, it’s incumbent on us to pull every tool off of the sidelines and help harness these technologies in the race for the future,” Zaidi said.

Nuclear power plants don’t emit the planet-warming greenhouse gases that come from power plants that burn fossil fuels.

Q: At least one reader wondered about the timeline for these reactors to come online, lamenting how long it takes for older plants to get running.

Zaidi said the U.S. is working hard to make it happen “in this decade.” And he said the goal is “a massive ramp-up and scale-up of this technology” over the next 10 to 15 years.

The project furthest along, from Gates’ TerraPower, applied for its construction permit in March. The company has said it wants to start operating commercially in Wyoming in 2030. The NRC has a 27-month goal for its technical review. If NRC approves the project along that timeline, TerraPower could be spinning up electricity in the early 2030s if it takes about three years to gets its plant built and obtain an operating license. But that’s not certain. Other first-of-their-kind nuclear projects frequently faced delays and cost overruns.

Q: Lots of readers — including Jim M. from Manheim, Pennsylvania — wanted to know what would happen to the radioactive waste from new reactors. The question stems from the United States’ decades-long inability to find a place to store spent fuel from current and former nuclear plants nationwide. Right now, spent fuel is being stored at more than 70 sites in more than 30 states — enclosed in steel-lined concrete pools of water or in steel containers known as dry storage casks.

Acting Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Michael Goff said spent fuel from the new reactors will be stored at the same sites where it’s used — the same situation the U.S. has today — until some federal storage facility is operational.

Goff said spent fuel from any new plants must be “stored, transported and disposed of” to meet the same NRC requirements that govern waste from current plants. That basically means keeping it cooled and secured.

The shape and composition of the fuel from some of the new reactors will be different, meaning it may require some technical changes to the way the fuel is packaged and contained, the Department of Energy said.

Goff noted that nuclear fuel can be recycled to make new fuel and byproducts, saying that “more than 90%” of its potential energy remains even after the fuel has been used in a reactor for five years. The U.S. doesn’t currently recycle any of its spent nuclear fuel, but Goff said other countries, including France, do. And he said some advanced U.S. reactor designs might “consume or run on spent nuclear fuel” someday.

The French nuclear industry reprocesses spent fuel to recover uranium and plutonium for reuse, which reduces the volume of waste. Some radioactive materials, or byproducts, have commercial, medical and academic uses . The United States has studied the prospect of commercial reprocessing of spent fuel, but expected little interest from applicants for reprocessing facilities and currently does not encourage it.

Q: Anne L. from East Bay, California wants to know if these reactors have the same problems and dangers as large plants. She wasn’t the only reader to wonder about such risks as overloads or meltdowns.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman Scott Burnell said all U.S. nuclear plants have to meet NRC safety requirements, showing how they operate safely under ordinary conditions.

“They must also show they can safely shut down, and then keep their fuel properly cooled, under normal conditions and in case of severe weather, earthquakes, problems with plant systems and other extreme events. Current reactors use pumps and backup power systems to stay safe; new designs can rely on natural processes such as gravity and convection to remain safe,” he said.

Burnell said the latest designs are proposing nuclear fuels and cooling capabilities that reduce the already small possibility of fuel overheating or melting. The NRC will require even those designs to account for extreme events and keep their fuel cooled and safe, he said.

The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org .

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Majority of Americans support more nuclear power in the country

A majority of U.S. adults remain supportive of expanding nuclear power in the country, according to  a Pew Research Center survey from May . Overall, 56% say they favor more nuclear power plants to generate electricity. This share is statistically unchanged from last year.

But the future of large-scale nuclear power in America is uncertain. While Congress recently passed a bipartisan act intended to ease the nuclear energy industry’s financial and regulatory challenges, reactor shutdowns continue to gradually outpace new construction.

Americans remain more likely to favor expanding solar power (78%) and wind power (72%) than nuclear power. Yet while support for solar and wind power has declined by double digits since 2020 – largely driven by drops in Republican support – the share who favor nuclear power has grown by 13 percentage points over that span.

When asked about the federal government’s role in encouraging the production of nuclear energy, Americans are somewhat split. On balance, more say the government should encourage (41%) than discourage (22%) this. But 36% say the government should not exert influence either way, according to a March 2023 Center survey .

To measure public attitudes toward the use of nuclear power in the United States, we analyzed data from Pew Research Center surveys. Most of the data comes from our survey of 8,638 U.S. adults conducted May 13-19, 2024.

Everyone who took part in the survey is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way, nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the  ATP’s methodology .

Here are the survey  questions used for this analysis , along with responses, and its  methodology .

Links to related Center surveys, including their questions and methodologies, can be found throughout the post.

In addition, we tracked the number of U.S. nuclear power reactors over time by analyzing data from the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA)  Power Reactor Information System . The IAEA classifies a reactor as “operational” from the date of its first electrical grid connection to the date of its permanent shutdown. Reactors that face temporary outages are still categorized as operational. Annual totals exclude reactors that closed that year.

Views by gender

Attitudes on nuclear power production have long differed by gender.

In the May survey, men remain far more likely than women to favor more nuclear power plants to generate electricity in the United States (70% vs. 44%). This pattern holds true among adults in both political parties.

Views on nuclear energy differ by gender globally, too, according to a Center survey conducted from fall 2019 to spring 2020 . In 18 of the 20 places surveyed around the world (including the U.S.), men were more likely than women to favor using more nuclear power as a source of domestic energy.

Views by party

Republicans are more likely than Democrats to favor expanding nuclear power to generate electricity in the U.S. Two-thirds of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say they support this, compared with about half of Democrats and Democratic leaners.

Republicans have supported nuclear power in greater shares than Democrats each time this question has been asked since 2016.

The partisan gap in support for nuclear power (18 points) is smaller than those for other types of energy, including fossil fuel sources such as coal mining (48 points) and offshore oil and gas drilling (47 points).

Still, Americans in both parties now see nuclear power more positively than they did earlier this decade. While Democrats remain divided on the topic (49% support, 49% oppose), the share who favor expanding the energy source is up 12 points since 2020. Republican support has grown by 14 points over this period.

While younger Republicans generally tend to be more supportive of increasing domestic renewable energy sources than their older peers, the pattern reverses when it comes to nuclear energy. For example, Republicans under 30 are much more likely than those ages 65 and older to favor more solar panel farms in the U.S. (80% vs. 54%); there’s a similar gap over expanding wind power. But when it comes to expanding nuclear power, Republicans under 30 are 11 points less likely than the oldest Republicans to express support (61% vs. 72%).

A look at U.S. nuclear power reactors

The U.S. currently has 94 nuclear power reactors, including one that just began operating in Georgia this spring. Reactors collectively generated  18.6% of all U.S. electricity in 2023 , according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

About half of the United States’ nuclear power reactors (48) are in the South, while nearly a quarter (22) are in the Midwest. There are 18 reactors in the Northeast and six in the West, according to data from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

The number of U.S. reactors has steadily fallen since peaking at 111 in 1990. Nine Mile Point-1, located in Scriba, New York, is the oldest U.S. nuclear power reactor still in operation. It first connected to the power grid in November 1969. Most of the 94 current reactors began operations in the 1970s (41) or 1980s (44), according to IAEA data. (The IAEA classifies reactors as “operational” from their first electrical grid connection to their date of permanent shutdown.)

Within the last decade, just three new reactors joined the power fleet. Three times as many shut down over the same timespan.

One of the many reasons nuclear power projects have dwindled in recent decades may be the perceived dangers following  nuclear accidents  in the U.S. and abroad. For example, the 2011  Fukushima Daiichi accident  led the Japanese government to greatly decrease its reliance on nuclear power and prompted other countries to  rethink their nuclear energy plans . High construction costs and radioactive waste storage issues are also oft-cited hurdles to nuclear energy advancement.

Still, many advocates say that nuclear power is key to reducing emissions from electricity generation. There’s been a recent flurry of interest in reviving decommissioned nuclear power sites, including the infamous Three Mile Island plant and the Palisades plant , the latter of which shuttered in 2022. Last year, California announced it would delay the retirement of its one remaining nuclear power plant until 2030. And just this summer, construction began on a new plant in Wyoming. It’s set to house an advanced sodium-cooled fast reactor, pending approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission .

Note: Here are the  questions used for the analysis , along with responses, and its  methodology . This is an update of a post first published March 23, 2022.

• Climate, Energy & Environment
• Partisanship & Issues
• Political Issues

Rebecca Leppert is a copy editor at Pew Research Center .

Brian Kennedy is a senior researcher focusing on science and society research at Pew Research Center .

Americans’ Extreme Weather Policy Views and Personal Experiences

U.s. adults under 30 have different foreign policy priorities than older adults, about 3 in 10 americans would seriously consider buying an electric vehicle, how americans view national, local and personal energy choices, electric vehicle charging infrastructure in the u.s., most popular.

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

• Share full article

For more audio journalism and storytelling, download New York Times Audio , a new iOS app available for news subscribers.

Harris Chooses Walz

A guide to the career, politics and sudden stardom of gov. tim walz of minnesota, now vice president kamala harris’s running mate..

This transcript was created using speech recognition software. While it has been reviewed by human transcribers, it may contain errors. Please review the episode audio before quoting from this transcript and email [email protected] with any questions.

Hey, it’s Michael. Before we get started, I want to tell you about another show made by “The New York Times” that pairs perfectly with “The Daily.” It’s called “The Headlines.” It’s a show hosted by my colleague, Tracy Mumford, that quickly catches you up on the day’s top stories and features insights from “The Times” reporters who are covering them, all in about 10 minutes or less.

So if you like “The Daily”— and if you’re listening, I have to assume you do — I hope that means you’re going to “The Headlines” as well. You can now find “The Headlines” wherever you get your podcasts. So find it, subscribe to it, and thank you. And now, here’s today’s “Daily.”

From “The New York Times,” I’m Michael Barbaro. This is “The Daily.”

[MUSIC PLAYING]

Today, the story of how a little known Midwestern governor became Kamala Harris’s choice for a running mate. My colleague Ernesto Londoño walks us through the career, politics, and sudden stardom of Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota.

It’s Wednesday, August 7.

Ernesto, over the past few days, we watched Vice President Harris bring the final three contenders for her running mate to her house in Washington, DC, for a set of in-person interviews. And then we watched as she seemed to narrow her pool of choices down to a final two — the governor of Pennsylvania, Josh Shapiro, and the governor of Minnesota, Tim Walz. And now, of course, we know that she has made her choice. What has she told us about her campaign strategy, the way she views this race, in ultimately choosing Tim Walz?

Michael, I think what the choice tells us is that Kamala Harris was drawn to two qualities that Governor Walz brings to the table. And what’s interesting is they may seem to be in tension. For starters, here’s the ultimate everyday man, somebody who grew up in a small town in Middle America, served in the National Guard, was a high school teacher, a football coach, very plain-spoken, goes to campaign events wearing T-shirts and baseball caps, is a gun owner and very proud about it. He sort of embodies the Midwest.

And she clearly thinks that that is going to bring the kind of moderate, white, working class voters that the campaign needs in swing states to come to them, to make this feel like a balanced ticket and something that will give her enough of the crucial votes to defeat Donald Trump in the fall.

On the other hand, as governor, he passed a slew of pretty progressive legislation in the past couple of years, everything from abortion rights to gun control. So these things are likely to appeal to bread and butter Democrats.

But the question is, when voters have examined these two facets of Tim Walz, may it bring them enough enthusiasm from the base and enough undecided voters that the campaign desperately needs, or at some point, do these two aspects of him start canceling each other out?

Right. In short, you’re saying Harris is betting on a dual appeal from Walz to two essential constituencies, but the risk is that the appeal to one of them is just much, much greater than to the other.

Right. You could definitely see a scenario where voters, once they’ve examined Tim Walz’s story and legacy, may conclude that both of these candidates are quite liberal.

OK, so tell us the story of Tim Walz, a story that I think a lot of us don’t know because we really don’t know Walz all that well, and how he has come to embody these two qualities and that tension that you just described.

Michael, the origin story of Tim Walz’s political career is quite fascinating.

He and his wife were teachers in a small city south of Minneapolis. And in 2004, when George W. Bush was running for re-election, Walz took a group of his students to a political rally in his hometown. They wanted to just see the president make his case. And a strange scuffle happened when they were trying to get in.

Well, one of the kids had a John Kerry sticker on his wallet. And this is where the individual says, well, you’re not going to be allowed to enter. You’ve been deemed a threat.

Apparently, one of the students had a sticker for Bush’s rival, John Kerry, on his wallet. And security officials at the rally didn’t want to let them in.

And I said, oh, it’s OK. They’re with me. And who are you? And I said, I’m Tim Walz. I’m their teacher here, and showed them my ID. And they said, well, you two have been deemed a threat to the president. And I said, well, that’s not true. And it kind of escalated.

And this really ticked off Tim Walz. He was really upset. There was a fight and a confrontation at the rally.

At this point in time, I’m kind of nervous. I’m getting arrested. So I’m like saying, well, I’m Teacher of the Year in Mankato. And they didn’t care about that. And it was kind of a sad epiphany moment, how it felt for people to be looked right through by people. These people didn’t see me. And this is happening.

And ultimately, he sort of walks away from this moment feeling really sick of the Bush administration, the politics of the day. And he turns around and volunteers for the Kerry campaign.

And then the more interested he becomes in politics in this era, he starts looking around his congressional district, and there’s a Republican who’s held the seat for many, many years. This was a largely rural district in southern Minnesota. And there’s no reason to believe that a newcomer to politics, somebody without a donor base, could make a run for this seat and win.

But Walz signs up for this weekend boot camp, where expert campaigners train newcomers who want to run for office. And he gets really enthused by the idea that he can pull it off. So he starts raising money with the support of an army of students who become so thrilled and energized by the prospect that their nerdy and kind geography teacher is making this uphill bid for a congressional race.

So his campaign staff is basically his former students.

That’s right. And he proves to be a formidable candidate. He draws a lot of attention to his experience in the classroom and as a coach.

When I coached football, these stands held about 3,000 people. That’s a lot. It’s also the number of American soldiers who have died fighting in Iraq.

He’s a very strong advocate for pulling out of the war in Iraq.

Serving right now are kids that I taught, coached, and trained to be soldiers. They deserve a plan for Iraq to govern itself, so they can come home.

And one thing that happens in the campaign that is really surprising to people is he comes out as being in favor of same-sex marriage. Now, it’s useful to remember that this is 2006, when the vast majority of Democrats, Democrats running for most elected office, were not ready to come out in favor of same-sex marriage.

And here’s a guy who’s new to politics, who’s trying to unseat a Republican who’s held on to his seat for more than 12 years, taking what appeared to be a reckless position on something. And when he was asked about it at the time, Tim Walz told a supporter, this just happens to be what I believe in. And I’d rather lose a race that I’ve ran being true and consistent to my values than try to run as somebody I’m not.

And of course, he wins.

Yes. To everybody’s surprise, he pulled it off.

So from the get-go, he shows a kind of maverick, “politics be damned” quality, taking stands that he knows may be unpopular among the voters he’s trying to win over. But he’s got some innate political gifts that are all making it work.

Yeah, I think that first campaign showed us that Tim Walz had real political chops. He was a very effective campaigner. And people really liked him. When he was knocking on doors, when he was introducing himself to voters, they saw him as somebody who was very genuine and who was admirable.

So once he gets elected in this conservative leaning district in Minnesota, what does he actually do in Congress?

In Congress, he develops a reputation for being somebody who can work across the aisle. And this is a period where Democrats and Republicans were deeply polarized over the Iraq War. He spends a lot of his time lobbying to expand benefits for veterans, so it’s easier for them to go to college after their service, and also becomes a leading voice in the quest to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the policy that prohibited openly gay servicemen from serving in uniform.

And he remained really popular. He easily won re-election five times. The last time he runs for his seat happens to be 2016, when President Trump wins his district by about 15 points.

And still, voters kept Tim Walz in office.

I think it’s important to note what you just said. Walz is distinguishing himself as a Democrat who can take some pretty progressive positions, as he did in that first campaign on gay rights, as he did with Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and keep winning in very Trump-friendly districts of his state.

That’s right. And as he’s serving his sixth term in office, he sets his sights on the governor’s mansion and decides to run for office in 2018. He wins that race easily. And early on, during his time as governor, the eyes of the world are on Minnesota after a police officer kills George Floyd. And what we see is massive looting and protests in Minneapolis.

Right, and remind us how Governor Walz handles that violence, those protests.

Yeah, I think that’s a crucial chapter in Tim Walz’s political career and one that will come under scrutiny in the days ahead.

After George Floyd was killed on a Monday —

People are upset, and they’re tired. And being Black in Minnesota already has a stigma and a mark on your back.

— protests took root in Minneapolis.

Y’all want to sit out here and shoot off your rubber bullets and tear gas.

And they got progressively larger and more violent.

There comes a point where the mayor and the police chief in Minneapolis plead for help. They ask the governor to send in the National Guard. And crucially, that request was not immediately heeded.

This is the third precinct here. There are fires burning to the left of it at the —

And at the height of the crisis, a police precinct building was abandoned.

There’s someone climbing up the wall right now, kicking the window in, trying to climb up the wall.

Because city officials grew concerned that protesters were about to overrun it and may attack the cops inside their own turf.

[EXPLOSIONS]

And the building is set on fire.

Right, a very memorable image. I can recall it happening in real-time.

Yeah, and in the days that followed, I think there were a lot of questions of why the governor didn’t send in troops earlier and whether a more muscular, decisive response could have averted some of the destruction that spread through the city.

And how does Walz end up explaining his decision not to send in the National Guard more quickly?

The governor and his administration have said that they were really, really dealing with an unprecedented challenge. And I think there was a concern that sending in troops into this really, really tense situation could have done more to escalate rather than pacify things on the street.

But in the weeks and months that followed, there were a lot of questions about Governor Walz’s leadership. And there were critics who said, during what may have been the most challenging week of his life, we saw a governor who was indecisive and who waited too long to send in resources that ultimately allowed the city to get to a semblance of order.

Right, and it feels like this is a moment that will almost assuredly be used against him by Donald Trump and JD Vance, the Republican ticket, which has made law and order so central to their message in this campaign.

Yeah, absolutely. And here in Minnesota, that was certainly a liability for him when he ran for re-election in 2022. But voters kept him in office, and he won that race handily. And not only did he win, but Democrats managed to flip the Senate and have full control of the legislature on his watch.

And that sets in motion one of the most productive legislative sessions in Minnesota history, where Tim Walz and his allies in the House and the Senate managed to pass a trove of really progressive legislation, oftentimes on a party vote.

Tell us about some of that legislation.

Well, Minnesota becomes the first state in the wake of the Supreme Court ending the constitutional right to abortion to actually codify this right under state statute. And they did a lot more stuff. They had a huge budget surplus, and they used that, for instance, to fund meals for all school children.

They managed to pass a couple of gun control laws that were very contentious. They gave the right to undocumented immigrants to get driver’s licenses. They legalized recreational marijuana. And finally, the governor takes a pretty bold stance on this issue of gender affirming care for transgender kids and teenagers, and says that Minnesota will be a safe haven for people who want that health care.

So, Ernesto, so how should we think about that blitz of legislation and the largely progressive tone of it, given the way that Walz had campaigned and succeeded up to that moment as somebody with such broad appeal across the political spectrum?

When the governor was asked whether this had been too much too quickly in terms of progressive legislation, his answer was that these were broadly popular policies, that these are issues Democrats had campaigned on. And here, Democrats had a window of opportunity where they were in control of the governor’s mansion and control of the House, the Senate, and that when you have political capital, you spend it.

But when you start listening to Republicans in Minnesota, they say, here’s a guy who campaigned on this mantra of “One Minnesota.” That was his campaign slogan. And he sort of came into office with this promise that he would govern in a bipartisan way, reach across the aisle.

But when they had all the votes they needed to pass their policies, Republicans felt that Walz was not bothering to bring them into the fold and to pass legislation that was going to be palatable to conservatives in the state. So I think people who once regarded him as a moderate now start seeing him as somebody who, when he had the power, acted in ways that were really progressive and liberal.

So at the height of his power, Governor Walz emerges as somebody who, when given a shot at getting done what he really wants to get done with a Democratic legislature, is a pretty progressive leader, even at the risk of being somewhat at odds with his earlier image as more moderate, because in his mind, enough people in the state are behind these policies.

Yeah, and I think he assumed that he had banked enough goodwill and that people across the state liked him enough to tolerate policies they may have disagreed with. And I think it’s safe to say, among the people who cover him here regularly, there was never any real hint that Tim Walz was eyeing a run for higher office. He’s not somebody who has written the kind of political memoir that oftentimes serves as a case of what you would bring to a national ticket or to the White House. And he seems pretty happy with a state job.

So it was a huge surprise when Tim Walz starts going viral through a string of cable news appearances right after President Biden drops out of the race, and the Democrats are scrambling to put Harris at the top of the ticket. And what becomes clear is that Walz is very forcefully auditioning for the role of vice president, and Vice President. Harris starts taking him very seriously.

We’ll be right back.

So, Ernesto, tell us about this cable news audition that Governor Walz undertakes over the past few weeks and how, ultimately, it seemed to help him land this job of being Harris’s running mate.

I think Walz does something really interesting, and that is that he says that Democrats shouldn’t be talking about Trump and Vance as existential threats. He kind of makes the case that Democrats have been in this state of fear and paralysis for too long, and that it’s not serving them well. So the word he latches onto is “weird.”

Well, it’s true. These guys are just weird.

It is. It is.

And they’re running for he-man women hater’s club or something. That’s what they go at. That’s not what people are interested in.

And I think one other thing we see in Walz is somebody who’s putting himself out there as a foil to JD Vance.

That angst that JD Vance talks about in “Hillbilly Elegy,” none of my hillbilly cousins went to Yale, and none of them went on to be venture capitalists or whatever. It’s not —

I think the case he’s making is that Tim Walz is a more authentic embodiment of small town values.

What I know is, is that people like JD Vance know nothing about small town America. My town had 400 people in it, 24 kids in my graduating class. 12 were cousins. And he gets it all wrong. It’s not about hate.

And behind the scenes, people from Tim Walz’s days on Capitol Hill start calling everybody they know in the Harris campaign and the Harris orbit and saying, here’s a guy who has executive experience as governor, but also somebody who has a really impressive record from his time on Capitol Hill and somebody who could be an asset in helping a Harris administration pass tough legislation. So you should take a hard look at this guy.

Which is, of course, exactly what Harris ends up doing. And I want to talk for a moment about how Harris announces Walz as her running mate on Tuesday morning. She did it in an Instagram message. And it felt like the way she did it very much embraced this idea that you raised earlier, Ernesto, that Walz contains these two appeals, one to the Democratic base, one to the white working class.

Harris specifically cites the work that Walz did with Republicans on infrastructure and then cites his work on gun control. She mentions that he was a football coach and the founder of the high school Gay Straight Alliance. She’s straddling these two versions of Walz.

But I want to linger on the idea for a moment of Walz’s vulnerabilities, because once he becomes Harris’s running mate, Harris and Walz are going to lose a fair amount of control over how they present him to the country, because he’s going to become the subject of very fierce attacks from the Republicans in this race. So talk about that for just a moment.

Yeah, I mean, it’s important to keep in mind that Governor Walz has never endured the scrutiny of a presidential race. So the questions he’s going to be asked and the way his record is going to be looked at is going to be different and sharper. I think the Harris campaign is billing him as, first and foremost, a fighter for the middle class. And I think that certainly will have some appeal.

But I think in coming days, there’s going to be a lot of attention drawn to parts of his record that may be unpopular with many voters. For instance, giving undocumented immigrants driver’s licenses, which Governor Walz championed. It’s likely to provide fodder for an attack ad.

The very dramatic footage of Minneapolis burning in 2020 is also something that I think people will be drawn to. And there’s going to be interest in reexamining what the governor did and what he could have done differently to avert the chaos.

And on Tuesday, we saw that the Trump campaign wasted no time in trying to define Tim Walz as soft on crime, permissive on immigration policy. And they also made clear they wanted to relitigate the era of George Floyd’s killing. And specifically, they want to try to tie him to the effort at the time to defund the police, which is a movement that Walz personally never endorsed.

So the Republican attack here will be pretty simple. Walz is liberal. Harris is liberal. So, in their efforts to speak to especially white working class and rural voters in swing states, the Trump campaign is going to say this is not the ticket for that group of voters. This is the ticket of burning police precincts and gun control. And of course, that may not be fair, but that’s very likely going to be the message over the next couple of months.

Right. I think there’s going to be effort to portray him as a radical liberal who has used his small town roots to put on this sort of veneer of being a moderate and a really sort of understanding and being part of the segments of the electorate that I think are critical in this election.

I want to speak for just a moment about the person Harris did not pick when she chose Walz because many Democrats had felt that Walz was a potentially too liberal seeming running mate for a candidate, Kamala Harris, who herself comes from a blue state and is caricatured by the Republicans as liberal herself.

And the person she didn’t choose was Governor Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, who was seen as having a huge appeal in that particular key swing state, but also presented risks of his own of alienating parts of the Democratic base with his well-documented support for Israel and his criticism of campus protesters. How should we think about the fact that, ultimately, Harris chose Walz over Shapiro?

Yeah, I think in the final stretch of this campaign to be the vice presidential pick, we started seeing a lot of acrimony in pockets of the Democratic base, drawing attention to the fact that Governor Shapiro could be divisive on Gaza, which has really sort of split the party in recent months.

So I think at the end of the day, they made a calculation that Tim Walz would be more of a unifying figure and would be somebody who would inspire and energize enough pockets of the electorate that they need, particularly in the Midwest, to make him the stronger and more exciting pick and somebody who wouldn’t force them to go back to defending and relitigating the Biden administration’s record on Israel and on the war in Gaza.

Right, and then, on Tuesday night, we got our first glimpse of Harris and Walz together on stage for the first time at a campaign rally. I’m curious, what struck you about their debut together.

Good evening, Philadelphia.

I think everybody was watching the opening scene of this rally to see what the chemistry between these two people was going to be like. And they both seemed giddy. They were literally, at times, bouncing with enthusiasm.

Since the day that I announced my candidacy, I set out to find a partner who can help build this brighter future.

So Pennsylvania, I’m here today because I found such a leader.

Governor Tim Walz of the great state of Minnesota.

They soon got down to business. And that business was how to define Tim Waltz for voters who don’t know him well.

To those who know him best, Tim is more than a governor.

And right off the bat, we saw that Kamala Harris really highlighted a lot of pieces of his pre-political career.

To his former high school football players, he was Coach.

She repeatedly called him Coach Walz, Mr. Walz, evoking his time in the classroom, and even used his military title from his days in the Army.

To his fellow veterans, he is Sergeant Major Walz.

And then when it came time for Tim Walz to introduce himself on this massive stage —

Welcome the next vice president of the United States, Tim Walz.

— he drew a lot of attention to his small town roots.

I was born in West Point, Nebraska. I lived in Butte, a small town of 400.

He said something that he said repeatedly recently in campaign appearances, which is —

In Minnesota, we respect our neighbors and their personal choices that they make. Even if we wouldn’t make the same choice for ourselves, there’s a golden rule — mind your own damn business.

The golden rule of small towns is you mind your own damn business, which is something he said in the context of his argument that Republicans have been limiting, rather than expanding, people’s rights. But he also drew attention to the fact that he’s a gun owner.

By the way, as you heard, I was one of the best shots in Congress. But in Minnesota, we believe in the Second Amendment, but we also believe in common sense gun violence laws.

And then when it came time to draw a sharp contrast with their opponents, Tim Walz said, these guys are phonies.

Donald Trump is not fighting for you or your family. He never sat at that kitchen table like the one I grew up at, wondering how we were going to pay the bills. He sat at his country club in Mar-a-Lago, wondering how he can cut taxes for his rich friends.

He said it’s actually people like me and Kamala Harris who come from humble origins and showed what is possible in America when you hail from a working class background, and you seize opportunities that were available to you.

Thank you, Philadelphia. Thank you, Vice President. God bless America.

So when it comes to this question of Walz’s dual identities and dual appeals, what did we learn on day one of this new Democratic ticket, do you think?

I think the campaign is trying to convey that these two facets of Tim Walz’s life are not mutually exclusive, that they don’t need to be in tension. They don’t cancel each other out. They’re both part of Tim Walz’s story. And I think that’s how they’re going to present him from now until Election Day.

Ernesto, thank you very much. We appreciate it.

It’s my pleasure, Michael.

Here’s what else you need to know today. On Tuesday, Hamas said that Yahya Sinwar, one of the masterminds behind the deadly October 7 attacks on Israel, had consolidated his power over the entire organization. Until now, Sinwar had held the title of Hamas’s leader in Gaza. But with the assassination of Hamas’s top political leader by Israel last week, Hamas said that Sinwar would take on that title as well. Sinwar remains a major target of Israel and is believed to have been hiding in tunnels underneath Gaza since October 7.

And the US Department of Justice has charged a Pakistani man with ties to Iran with trying to hire a hitman to assassinate political figures in the United States. The man recently traveled to the US and was arrested in New York last month. American authorities believe that his potential targets likely included former President Trump.

Today’s episode was produced by Alex Stern, Eric Krupke, and Olivia Natt. It was edited by Lisa Chow and Patricia Willens, contains original music by Pat McCusker and Marion Lozano, and was engineered by Alyssa Moxley. Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Nick Pittman and Minnesota Public Radio.

That’s it for “The Daily.” I’m Michael Barbaro. See you tomorrow.

• Apple Podcasts
• Google Podcasts

Hosted by Michael Barbaro

Featuring Ernesto Londoño

Produced by Alex Stern Eric Krupke and Olivia Natt

Edited by Lisa Chow and Patricia Willens

Original music by Marion Lozano and Pat McCusker

Engineered by Alyssa Moxley

Listen and follow The Daily Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | YouTube

Earlier this summer, few Democrats could have identified Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota.

But, in a matter of weeks, Mr. Walz has garnered an enthusiastic following in his party, particularly among the liberals who cheer on his progressive policies. On Tuesday, Vice President Kamala Harris named him as her running mate. Ernesto Londoño, who reports for The Times from Minnesota, walks us through Mr. Walz’s career, politics and sudden stardom.

On today’s episode

Ernesto Londoño , a reporter for The Times based in Minnesota, covering news in the Midwest.

Background reading

Who is Tim Walz , Kamala Harris’s running mate?

Mr. Walz has faced criticism for his response to the George Floyd protests.

There are a lot of ways to listen to The Daily. Here’s how.

We aim to make transcripts available the next workday after an episode’s publication. You can find them at the top of the page.

The Daily is made by Rachel Quester, Lynsea Garrison, Clare Toeniskoetter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Chris Wood, Jessica Cheung, Stella Tan, Alexandra Leigh Young, Lisa Chow, Eric Krupke, Marc Georges, Luke Vander Ploeg, M.J. Davis Lin, Dan Powell, Sydney Harper, Michael Benoist, Liz O. Baylen, Asthaa Chaturvedi, Rachelle Bonja, Diana Nguyen, Marion Lozano, Corey Schreppel, Rob Szypko, Elisheba Ittoop, Mooj Zadie, Patricia Willens, Rowan Niemisto, Jody Becker, Rikki Novetsky, Nina Feldman, Will Reid, Carlos Prieto, Ben Calhoun, Susan Lee, Lexie Diao, Mary Wilson, Alex Stern, Sophia Lanman, Shannon Lin, Diane Wong, Devon Taylor, Alyssa Moxley, Olivia Natt, Daniel Ramirez and Brendan Klinkenberg.

Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Paula Szuchman, Lisa Tobin, Larissa Anderson, Julia Simon, Sofia Milan, Mahima Chablani, Elizabeth Davis-Moorer, Jeffrey Miranda, Maddy Masiello, Isabella Anderson, Nina Lassam and Nick Pitman.

An earlier version of this episode misstated the subject that Walz’s wife taught. She taught English, not Social Studies.

How we handle corrections

Ernesto Londoño is a Times reporter based in Minnesota, covering news in the Midwest and drug use and counternarcotics policy. More about Ernesto Londoño

Advertisement