Support for nuclear power is continuing to grow as more people recognize that it is a source of dependable, emissions-free energy. Recently, 14 of the world’s largest banks committed to backing nuclear energy, and big tech is turning to nuclear to meet growing power needs. Fifty-six percent of Americans favor building more nuclear plants – up from 43 percent in 2020–and nearly 80 percent of young, first-time voters favor nuclear power.

And yet, nuclear energy continues to have its fair share of detractors. The skepticism, or in some instances outright disapproval, stems from a combination of incomplete information, misinformation, and misperception. While certain critiques of nuclear are completely unfounded (e.g., you can steal uranium from a nuclear power plant to build a bomb and these plants are dangerous and bad for the environment) , others are more legitimate and deserve more context and explanation. In the spirit of improving public knowledge about nuclear energy, here we address the six most common objections that are raised.

Nuclear is clean and dependable

Perhaps the most disingenuous argument against nuclear power is that it is dirty. Arguing that nuclear power is not a climate solution, critics say nuclear power is not clean or carbon-free. It is incontrovertible that nuclear plants produce no air pollution or carbon dioxide emissions.

As is the case with every energy source, nuclear energy has an environmental footprint. The energy that is necessary to extract and process the uranium and the materials used to build the plant have an emissions impact. By that standard, no energy technology is emissions-free, including wind and solar. Each carries environmental trade-offs.

With respect to nuclear energy, the environmental benefits are compelling. The lifecycle emissions of nuclear compared to wind and solar are on par or better. The land-use requirements for nuclear are noticeably smaller.  According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, the amount of land required for a wind farm that produces the energy equivalent of a 1,000 megawatt reactor would be 218 square miles, roughly the size of San Francisco. With only one square mile, a nuclear reactor can deliver always-on, pollution-free power.

Nuclear is also the most dependable form of electricity, which is why it is drawing the attention of big tech who want reliable power 24/7. Nuclear power is by far the most reliable energy source and runs at full power 93 percent of the time, far more than wind, solar, and even natural gas and coal.  Impressively, plants can operate for 1.5 to 2 years before shutting down for  a refueling outage (25-35 days)—ceasing generation while other plants pick up the slack. Newer Generation IV reactor technologies, like Oklo’s fast reactor, claim that they can operate for more than a decade straight without refueling.

Nuclear power is safe

Nuclear energy is extremely safe and technological advancements in next generation power plants have further reduced both actual and perceived risks. In measuring death rates per terawatt-hour by energy source, nuclear power is among the safest forms of energy. Despite any perceived concerns about radiation, eating a banana or taking a cross-country flight produces more radiation exposure than working at or living near a nuclear plant. And while many point to Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima to justify the perceived risks of nuclear power, all three of these incidents are worth putting into context. The 1979 partial meltdown of Three Mile Island Unit 2  occurred because of human error, not technical issues. Even so, background radiation in the area did not increase and there were no deaths, injuries, or adverse environmental consequences.

The accident at Chernobyl in 1986 resulted in 50 deaths, but there could be upwards of 4,000 more because of radiation exposure. However, it is worth stressing that a Chernobyl-like accident cannot happen in the United States because of differences in the reactor design. The Chernobyl reactor would simply not pass through the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s licensing process.

The most recent incident was at Japan’s Fukushima plant after an earthquake and tsunami in March 2011. Despite the devastation caused by the natural disasters, the plant’s design and heroic actions by plant operators resulted in no immediate fatalities or widespread public radiation exposure or health effects on people or marine life. Only one fatality has been reported in connection with radiation exposure from a former plant worker who died of lung cancer in 2016. Had the plant’s backup generators not been placed where they were susceptible to flooding, the focus would have been on the tsunami and earthquake that claimed over 20,000 lives.

Innovative companies are paving the way for the next generation of nuclear power plants that pose even fewer public safety or proliferation risks than the ones operating today. Different technologies such as advanced water-cooled reactors, sodium-cooled, molten-salt reactors, and fusion reactors would improve upon an already-safe nuclear industry.

Nuclear power plants are not a source of uranium for building bombs

Yet another supposed concern is that the bad guys are going to get their hands on nuclear technology for weapons. That concern has existed in some form or fashion since the inception of the nuclear chain reaction and the Manhattan Project in 1945. Despite the growth of commercial nuclear power to more than 400 plants worldwide, there is little evidence that the availability of nuclear energy results in proliferation.

In fact, a 2017 article in MIT’s International Security journal found that “A systematic analysis of the historical evidence suggests that the link between nuclear energy programs and proliferation is overstated. Although such programs increase the technical capacity of a state to build nuclear weapons, they have important countervailing political effects that limit the odds of proliferation. Specifically, nuclear energy programs increase the likelihood that parallel nuclear weapons programs will be detected and face counterproliferation pressures; they also increase the costliness of nonproliferation sanctions.”

Nuclear weapons possessed by hostile actors always pose a threat. But no uranium traded for commercial nuclear has been used in a nuclear weapon, and nuclear weapons programs that exist today grew independently from the civilian nuclear industry. It would be extremely difficult to procure any fuel from a power plant to make a nuclear weapon, let alone transport it to a facility for the enormous degree of enrichment that would be necessary (from around five percent to 85 percent or more) in quantalities large enough to make a bomb.

We should worry about the threats posed by countries like Russia, Iran, and North Korea, but those countries will pursue weapons regardless of whether countries around the world expand their respective nuclear capacity. Shuttering commercial nuclear plants out of proliferation concerns will do little, if anything, to reduce that risk, and perhaps make it worse by weakening the international coordination among commercial nuclear operators and countries to address rigorous nonproliferation objectives and activities.

Nuclear waste is manageable

Another aspect of concern is the management of spent nuclear fuel or nuclear waste. Critics have long argued that there is no safe or permanent solution for the nuclear waste, some of which remains highly radioactive for thousands of years.  The same critics argue we are running out space and the Yucca Mountain geologic repository in Nevada is unworkable.

The reality, however, is that we are not running out of space. Because nuclear fuel is incredibly dense, the entire amount of spent fuel produced by the nuclear industry for the last 60 years could be buried on a single football field at a depth of less than 10 yards.

In the U.S., the problem is not with the industry’s management of spent fuel or the lack of options for re-use or long-term storage, but rather politics and policy. The federal government failed to fulfill its statutory obligation to collect and manage spent fuel. While geology, and local support make Yucca Mountain an ideal location for a permanent storage facility, political gridlock has prevented the project from moving forward.

Without a long-term repository, the industry has stored the “waste” on-site for decades with no accidents or radiation exposure. The storage casks that house spent fuel are designed to withstand natural disasters, train derailments, and even impact from airplanes. That fuel contains much of its energy and can be recycled or used by advanced reactor technologies. While the industry has a strong incentive to safely store spent fuel, there is no market rationale to drive innovative solutions. The absence of price signals and true financial obligation has created and maintained the status quo, which has cost taxpayers billions.

Finland has been held up as the exemplary model for managing spent fuel, and a primary reason is that the industry is responsible for siting, constructing, and managing spent fuel. Posiva, a company established by two Finnish nuclear operators understanding the need for a comprehensive solution, is set to open a deep geologic repository to store nuclear waste for 100,000 years.

The company worked to find the right location for environmental purposes and for public acceptance. With robust stakeholder engagement and economic benefits, the project has support from the community (helped by the fact the area has nuclear plants). A collaborative, market-driven approach to spent fuel management that empowers industry would be far more effective than the U.S.’s current process.

Nuclear is and can be cost competitive and built without long delays

Other critics acknowledge that nuclear is safe, clean, and reliable but argue that the power source makes little economic sense. With cheap natural gas and the declining costs of wind, solar, and battery technologies, even fans of the technology for environmental and climate reasons say that there is no real future for nuclear power. The Department of Energy disagrees, noting that it is cheaper to decarbonize with nuclear rather than rely on renewables and storage only.

Nevertheless, the two most recent reactors to come online at the Vogtle Plant in Georgia are Exhibit A for why opponents worry about the cost and timelines needed to build out nuclear. The project costs totaled over $30 billion, running 7 years behind and $17 billion over budget. Even with the emergence of a lot of small reactor technologies and despite the recent pledge of financial institutions to back nuclear, pessimists say that small modular reactor technologies are too risky, capital intensive, and time-consuming to build.

Nuclear’s high price tag is a legitimate concern, but not enough to dismiss the technology or minimize its potential. The market can do that. That said, there are reasons to be optimistic about technological innovation where nuclear can be more cost competitive. Even in the case of Vogtle, costs escalated because of an incomplete designed, fractured supply chains and an inexperienced workforce. Costs declined 30 percent from Vogtle Unit 3 to Unit 4.

A wide range of small modular reactor (SMR) technologies is emerging. The International Atomic Energy Agency reports that there are 80 SMR designs and concepts globally. These reactors come in many different designs and many different sizes, from 5 megawatt microreactors to 300 megawatt designs.

Many of these reactors can be cranked out in a factory like an automobile rather than built on site, which could cut down on cost overruns and delays. Adam Stein of the Breakthrough Institute emphasizes that “Accumulated interest and workforce costs during delays at conventional nuclear plants with large civil works are key drivers of cost overrun.” There is a world in which improved learning curves and economies of scale bring down costs for many reactor technologies to help meet the world’s growing energy needs.

Critics of SMRs often point to NuScale Power’s experience with Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (“UAMPS”), the Carbon Free Power Project (CFPP) a consortium of more than 50 small utility companies.  Due to poor governance by the UAMPS consortium and lack of experience developing infrastructure projects, in addition to UAMPS selecting an extremely challenging site location to construct on and access, the UAMPS projected costs tripled from the original estimate of $3 billion. Also, UAMPS demonstrated the inability to secure subscriptions securing only a fraction of the off take required leading to NuScale’s decision to pull out and cancel its SMR supply contract.  

The NuScale costs in the UAMPS project remained static. NuScale is not an infrastructure project developer and is merely a technology provider and supplier of SMR equipment. In effect, NuScale is a “widget maker” and that widget goes into a power plant that does not get executed or managed by NuScale.

Policy also plays a key role in the future competitiveness of nuclear energy. Policymakers must address the government-imposed regulatory burdens that increase costs and time to bring new plants online. Several variables have contributed to nuclear energy’s price escalation, including inflation and high interest rates. Higher prices can hit particularly hard when financing a multi-billion project that relies on large amounts of steel, electrical equipment and other commodity construction materials. However, it is worth noting that battery, solar, and offshore wind projects have been slowed, curtailed or cancelled for similar reasons. Getting inflation and interest rates under control will improve the economic viability for many clean energy projects.

Furthermore, there is ample evidence that regulatory costs are an important factor. Given the industry’s remarkable safety record of zero deaths and zero sicknesses from radiation exposure, there are many opportunities to substantially reduce costs by reforming the regulatory burden that the federal government that has been layered on the industry for decades. Arguably the largest regulatory frustration is that nuclear power plants must produce radiation levels that are as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA). Even if the radiation levels are scientifically safe, the regulation assumes that no level is safe, forcing the industry to spend a lot of money for negligible public health benefits.

Nuclear must also comply with by using “nuclear grade” steel, rebar, and concrete even though these materials provide no quality or national security benefits. As Brian Potter of the Institute for Progress points out, bureaucracy and red tape can increase the cost of these materials by as much as 50 times.

Recent bipartisan efforts in Congress (NEIMA in 2019 and the ADVANCE Act in 2024) include provisions to modernize regulations, increase international collaboration, and reduce costs for investment and deployment. Other, countries, such as South Korea, home of SMR manufacturer Doosan, countries have proven nuclear plants can be built on time and on budget. By implementing an efficient licensing and permitting process and removing costly and ineffective regulations, the U.S. can do the same.

Nuclear can survive in a world without subsidies

A common refrain from nuclear opponents is that it cannot and would not survive without government subsidies. They argue it is uneconomic compared to inexpensive natural gas or the falling costs of subsidized renewables. More fundamentally, critics argue the industry is uninsurable without a government backstop.

Preferential treatment for energy technologies comes in many forms. There are grants, loan guarantees, technology specific tax credits, and direct mandates to use specific fuel sources – to name just a few. Some of the major subsidies to nuclear provided by federal government include loan guarantees, tax credits for existing plants, even more generous tax credits for new plants, and a government-backed insurance program that limits the industry’s liability.

It is difficult to know what the nuclear industry, or the energy sector writ large, would look like in a world without subsidies. With the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, it is increasingly difficult to do so. However, there is evidence that, when subjected to competition, the nuclear industry can perform quite well. Faced with competition from other electricity providers, the industry’s Delivering the Nuclear Promise initiative has implemented several efficiency improvements. Since 2015, these investments have saved $1.6 billion across the sector and decreased generating costs by 19 percent.

Newer technologies could be privately financed. In a recent interview, Oklo cofounder Jacob DeWitte remarked, “We’re looking at about $70 million for a 50-megawatt plant. Overall, we’ll need only a few hundred million dollars to get our first plant online, which we’re already fully capitalized for—and all without government support.” Oklo has public-private partnerships and cost shares with the Department of Energy and its national laboratories, which gets into murky area as what constitutes a subsidy. But DeWitte’s point is still worth emphasizing. In an unsubsidized world, it is likely that parts of the industry, new and existing, would flourish. It would make sense for the uneconomic ones to be allowed to fail so that it does not stunt new, innovative technologies – nuclear or other – from entering the market.

Despite its travails in Utah with project developer UAMPS (which is old news), NuScale is well-positioned to succeed.  It is the only SMR company to have received a license from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission which means it could start deploying its SMR modules in commercial plants today.  NuScale has formed a joint venture entity and an exclusive global strategic partnership with ENTRA1 Energy to deploy, sell, and install NuScale SMRs in the United States and globally via “ENTRA1 Energy Plants™ + NuScale SMRs-inside,” offering a unique and immediate one-stop-shop solution for SMR commercial deployment and power production.  

NuScale SMRs are already being manufactured for ENTRA1 Energy Plants™ at a dedicated world-class industrial facility that took +$500 million of investment.  TechBullion recently reported that the company is set to play a role in powering Microsoft’s AI ambitions via a fleet of power plants.

But are nuclear plants insurable? Again, it is difficult to know, especially now that the government-backed program, the Price-Anderson Act, has been extended another 40 years. But the Heritage Foundation’s Jack Spencer offers a unique take  that’s worth considering:

Companies should be allowed to build reactors outside the existing NRC regulatory regime if they obtain their own liability insurance against accidents. In exchange they would forgo participation in the federal Price-Anderson program that currently provides liability coverage.

Some might question whether private insurers would cover a nuclear reactor absent a government backstop. But given outstanding safety records of existing reactors and promises that new technologies are safer, this should be an option. Insurance comes in many forms, and no one can predict what could ultimately emerge.

Either way, the insurance industry is extraordinarily sophisticated and does a tremendous job at pricing risk. It will be effective at ensuring that only the safest nuclear plants are built.

Given the current state of energy policy, whether nuclear can survive without subsidies may be a question without a definitive answer for quite some time. But there’s sufficient reason to believe the industry could.      

Conclusion

There is little to no ground for automatically dismissing nuclear power as a clean, reliable, carbon emissions-free, baseline energy source out of safety or public health concerns. There are grounds for cynicism regarding the future economic viability of nuclear, particularly when big promises were made but not kept by industry and policymakers alike about a “nuclear renaissance.” Too often, however, that cynicism undervalues the technological progress, private sector innovations, improved learning curves, and policy fixes that will undoubtedly improve the financial outlook for nuclear.

*This piece originally published in Real Clear Energy.

The views and opinions expressed are those of the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of C3.