Debate Desk
Is Nuclear Power Too Dangerous to Rely On for America's Electricity?
Per unit of electricity, nuclear has one of the best safety records of any source, and it is the largest source of carbon-free power in America.
The claim
Critics point to Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima and say that nuclear accidents are catastrophic, that waste stays dangerous for thousands of years, and that plants take too long and cost too much to build. Wind and solar, they say, are safer and quicker.
The answer in three points
- Measured by deaths per unit of electricity produced, nuclear has one of the lowest rates of any source, comparable to wind and solar and far below coal, oil and gas when air pollution is counted. The accidents that shape our fears were rare, and the American record is one of no public deaths from radiation at a commercial plant.
- The waste problem is real and manageable. The volume is small, it is stored in secure casks, and new reactor designs and recycling could reduce it. The failure to finish a permanent repository is a political failure, not a technical one.
- Cost and delay come largely from regulation and licensing, not from physics. The Navy built and ran reactors safely for decades under Admiral Rickover, and other countries build plants faster and cheaper. Reforming the licensing process would reduce the cost and keep the safety.
The numbers on safety, reliability and emissions make a strong case for building more nuclear plants.
The numbers
- The Energy Information Administration reports that nuclear plants supplied about 19 percent of U.S. electricity in 2023.
- The Department of Energy reports that nuclear is the largest source of carbon-free electricity in the United States, supplying close to half of it.
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission was created in 1975, and the Three Mile Island accident occurred in 1979, according to the commission.
What they will say next
"Fukushima and Chernobyl show what can go wrong." Both involved designs and conditions unlike modern American plants, and Chernobyl lacked a containment structure. Lessons from each have been applied. The damage from those events is a reason for strict standards, not for dropping the technology.
"New plants run over budget." Many have, and the cause is often a long, uncertain licensing process and one-off designs. Standardized designs and a faster review would help. That is a regulatory problem we can fix.
"What about the waste?" The country has a decades-old record of storing spent fuel safely on site, and the question of a permanent home is one of political will. Other countries have solved it.
"Renewables are quicker." They can be built quickly, and they need backup when the wind and sun are not available. Nuclear provides steady power around the clock and keeps the grid stable.
A serious energy plan builds more of what runs all the time, and nuclear belongs near the top of the list.
"Small modular reactors are unproven." They are in early stages, and the first projects will show costs and timelines. Regulatory reform that lets them be tested and built under sensible rules gives the country a chance to find out.