It is puzzling that for decades we've had the ability to safely generate nearly infinite, clean energy with minimal fuel and negligible waste, yet we haven't fully embraced it. The main obstacle for nuclear energy has been public opinion. Despite being safer, more energy-dense, space-efficient, cleaner, and more reliable than any other energy source, nuclear power has faced significant public resistance. This resistance stems from a lack of understanding and widespread misinformation, leading to irrational fears and hesitation. If we are committed to our clean energy goals and reducing emissions, nuclear power must play a crucial role in transforming the future energy landscape.
The Advantages of Nuclear Power
Nuclear power has significant advantages over both renewable and traditional energy sources. One key insight is the energy density of nuclear fuel. A uranium pellet weighing 20 grams generates as much energy as 400 kilograms of coal, 410 litres of oil, or 350 cubic meters of natural gas, making it 20,000 times more energy-dense than its fossil fuel counterparts.
When compared to renewable energy, nuclear power is incredibly space-efficient. A single nuclear reactor generating 1 gigawatt of electricity occupies 1 square mile of land. In contrast, producing the same amount of energy would require 431 wind turbines spread over 360 square miles or 3.1 million solar panels covering 75 square miles.
Furthermore, nuclear power is far more reliable than any of the alternatives. The capacity factor measures how much energy is generated relative to the maximum possible output, indicating the performance and reliability of power plants. Nuclear power leads with an unrivalled 92.7 percent capacity factor, followed by geothermal and natural gas at 71 and 54.4 percent, respectively. All other sources fall below 50 percent, making nuclear power the most reliable energy source.
Despite common misconceptions, nuclear power is the second safest source of electricity. The safety of an energy source is measured by the death rate per terawatt hour of electricity, considering accidents and pollution throughout the entire lifecycle of the energy source, from mining to manufacturing, construction, and maintenance. Nuclear power has a very low death rate of 0.03 per terawatt hour, only surpassed by solar energy at 0.02. In stark contrast, coal, brown coal, oil, and gas have death rates of 57.34 (brown coal and coal), 18.43, and 2.82, respectively. This makes coal, oil, and gas 1911.3, 614.3, and 94 times as deadly as nuclear power. To further emphasise this point, the estimated global electricity consumption in 2023 was 27,064 terawatt hours.
The estimated number of deaths due to the fossil fuel industry that year alone is between 1.1 and 2.55 million (likely underestimates). This makes the transition from fossil fuels not only an environmental issue but also a moral one. It's important to note that this information accounts for the impact of accidents in the nuclear industry, such as Chernobyl, which is discussed later.
Finally, nuclear energy is one of the cleanest power sources available today. Contrary to common misunderstandings, a nuclear power plant does not release any radiation into the surroundings during normal operation. Ironically, typical fossil fuel plants release radiation into the environment when radioactive isotopes in the fuel are incinerated, in addition to greenhouse gases. Research shows that the greenhouse gas emissions per gigawatt hour of electricity over the lifetime of a nuclear power station amount to 6 tonnes, the smallest greenhouse footprint of any energy source.
You may wonder, if nuclear power performs so well against its counterparts, why don't we see more of it?
The Public Perception Problem
Despite its advantages, nuclear power has failed to enter the mainstream, largely due to public misconceptions. High-profile accidents such as Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island, along with popular media like "The Simpsons," have ingrained the belief that nuclear energy is inherently dangerous. However, the reality is far different. Modern reactor designs incorporate safety features that completely mitigate even the worst-case scenarios.
Nuclear power is not an outdated technology; exciting new developments are happening in the field. These range from meltdown-proof reactors, thorium reactors, to smaller industrial modular reactors with the potential to power towns, factories, or aid disaster relief zones. Following the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, many countries, such as Italy and Germany, shut down their nuclear reactors or implemented laws preventing the deployment of nuclear technology (source). This stems from a lack of understanding and education, turning nuclear power into a bogeyman for the general public.
When an oil rig explodes and destroys thousands of miles of habitat or an oil spill devastates marine life, countries don't rush to close fossil fuel plants as they do with nuclear power, even though such accidents often have higher casualties and grave consequences. The public's perception is fixated on a completely avoidable accident caused by a lack of safety measures and gross negligence by one of the most incompetent and corrupt bureaucracies in modern history. Other accidents are often blown out of proportion relative to their actual impact, further alienating the technology. This lack of perspective has been a nail in the coffin for nuclear power since its inception, where instead of being excited by its potential, people fear it.
Further criticism of nuclear power often includes the associated costs and the handling of nuclear waste. The initial upfront cost for building a nuclear power plant is three times that of a gas plant, creating a barrier for entry in low-income countries or raising funding when cheaper and faster alternatives are available. However, once built, the operating cost of a nuclear power plant outweighs the initial investment. Cheap fuel costs and a long lifespan make it a worthwhile investment in the long run.
Finally, a nuclear power station maintains close control of the radioactive fuel, which is stored safely after use. The energy density of uranium means the total amount of radioactive waste is surprisingly low. All the high-level waste generated since the first nuclear power plant went public in 1956 would fit inside a football field or a large warehouse. The nuclear waste problem has been solved for decades; completely safe, secure storage exists and has been used for years without fail.
AI and the Future of Energy
One of the biggest developments in recent years has been the eruption of artificial intelligence into the mainstream. The exponential growth of AI technology has increased demand for data centres, which may serve as a catalyst for bringing nuclear power into the mainstream. The explosion in demand for processing power and subsequently data centres has drastically increased global energy consumption, and nuclear power may be the solution.
The "magnificent seven" companies investing in AI face an energy crisis of their own. To meet sustainability goals and energy needs arising from increased data centre usage, they have turned to nuclear power as a clean and reliable solution. Microsoft has bought Three Mile Island, expecting to consume 5-6 times as much energy by 2030. Similarly, Amazon purchased a 960-megawatt nuclear-powered data centre from Talen in 2024, and Meta seeks up to 4 gigawatts of nuclear power to meet its AI needs. Google is investing in Kairos Power with plans to develop, build, and operate a fleet of small modular reactors by 2035.
For too long, nuclear power has been sidelined due to public fear and misinformation. Yet, as AI-driven industries push energy demand, it stands as the only clean, efficient, and reliable solution. In the distant future, renewable energy is the solution to our energy needs, but currently, it is not robust or reliable enough to replace fossil fuels. Nuclear power can, and is, the step towards a brighter future. We may finally be on the brink of a nuclear renaissance.
In 2025, the majority of our energy is still generated by fossil fuels. Looking to the future, we aim to reduce emissions by half to prevent catastrophic climate change by 2030 and to reach net zero emissions by 2050. Reflecting on the big picture, the question is not whether we should embrace nuclear energy in the midst of the climate and energy crisis, but whether we can afford not to.
Comments