While wind and solar power have long been featured in discussions about renewable and green energy, nuclear energy is emerging as a front-runner to usher in a wave of more clean power in the United States. 

Nuclear energy is not traditionally viewed as a renewable energy source, and for years, it has been debated, even among environmentalists, whether the power could be considered “green.” While many environmentalists fault nuclear power for using water and creating environmental waste, others champion nuclear for being carbon-free. 

As the public and private sectors have renewed support for nuclear energy in the last year, there has been an overwhelming agreement that it is a leading source of clean power. Here’s a closer look as to why. 

Where’s the carbon? 

Unlike traditional power sources, such as oil, natural gas, and coal, nuclear power releases zero carbon emissions when producing energy.

Power is generated through a process called fission, which splits uranium atoms and creates heat. The heat is then used to create steam, which is then released in turbines that spin, generating electricity. 

The U.S. began consuming electricity generated by nuclear power facilities in 1958, avoiding millions of tons of toxic carbon dioxide emissions each year. In 2021, the Nuclear Energy Institute estimated the U.S. avoided more than 476 million metric tons of CO2 emissions thanks to nuclear. 

Use of land 

Nuclear power isn’t the only source of carbon-free energy, with solar and wind facilities often dominating the conversation. However, these renewable energies are known for taking up large plots of land, meaning they have a larger effect on the immediate environment and ecosystem. 

“I always emphasize that when you’re comparing between your nuclear, and wind, and solar, and hydro, it’s not really a competition within the clean energy sources because they’re all significantly cleaner than gas, oil, and coal,” Seaver Wang, the co-director of the climate and energy team for the Breakthrough Institute, told the Washington Examiner. 

For Wang, one huge advantage of nuclear power is its smaller land footprint. 

“I actually just drove across the entire U.S. … and you can see it. You’ll pass a 200-megawatt solar farm, and it just takes up vast swaths of the desert south of Las Vegas,” Wang said. “But you could fit a nuclear power plant on an eighth of the land while generating five times the amount of electricity.” 

NEI estimated that nuclear facilities need 31 times less land than solar facilities and 173 times less than wind farms. Specifically, a nuclear power plant in the U.S. only needs 1.3 square miles per 1,000 megawatts of energy produced on average. 

Lifespan and reliability 

Nuclear power again comes out on top in terms of reliability and longevity.

The Energy Information Administration estimated that nuclear facilities in the U.S. have a capacity factor of 93%, meaning these plants operate at full capacity around 93% of the time. Comparatively, solar and wind have respective capacity factors of 23% and 33%, while coal has a capacity factor of 42%, and a combined cycle for natural gas is at 58.8%.

At the same time, these facilities last decades at a time, reducing the amount of manufacturing needed over time. As of 2023, the U.S. had 93 operating commercial nuclear reactors at 54 nuclear power plants across the country. The oldest operating reactor is roughly 55 years old, with the average being around 42 years old. 

“It’s very long-lasting infrastructure and also generates around the clock,” Wang said. “So per unit of clean electricity generation, it ends up bringing the material footprint of nuclear down relative to solar and wind. Again, all of these being cleaner, especially on CO2 terms, significantly than fossil fuels.” 

Combined with the lack of carbon emissions and physical footprint, supporters of nuclear power point to its reliability as another reason why the source of power is such a clean alternative to fossil fuels.  

“Many of us get caught up in the renewable and clean marketing labels,” Paris Ortiz-Wines, the coordinator of public relations for advocacy group Mothers for Nuclear, told the Washington Examiner, adding that nuclear energy is the second largest source of clean energy worldwide (behind hydropower). 

“It is an essential part to stabilizing energy and fighting climate change,” she said. 

Environmental concerns 

Nuclear energy has primarily been criticized for its extensive use of water, high upfront costs and time to build, toxic waste, and risk of meltdown. 

In October, longtime environmentalist and actress Jane Fonda rallied against the efforts to revive the Three Mile Island nuclear facility in Pennsylvania that closed in 2019 and was the site of the worst nuclear accident in U.S. history. 

She said she worried about costs, waste, and the time required to invest in the technology, writing in an opinion piece for the Philadelphia Inquirer, “That radioactivity, by the way, is one reason why it’s simply inaccurate to call nuclear power ‘clean energy.’ It may be non-carbon energy, but anything that stays fatally poisonous for millennia is not clean.” 

Yet nuclear advocates argue these concerns don’t outweigh the good the power source can bring, particularly as some of these problems, especially waste, have become more manageable. 

Wang explained that nuclear fuel from a power facility is typically stored in large concrete flasks with meter-thick walls that can withstand extensive damage. Additionally, he pointed to increased efforts to recycle nuclear fuel. The U.S. does not currently recycle or process this waste. 

“It’s also a very small amount of waste if you compare it to things like coal ash or drilling residues from oil and gas drilling,” Wang said. 

He said there is often too much comparison and “infighting” within the clean energy industry, as these technologies are overwhelmingly better for the environment compared to fossil fuels. 

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Still, if compared to waste streams from the manufacturing processes or lifespan cycles of solar and wind projects, Wang insisted, nuclear power generates less waste.

“All energy sources, regardless if they’re clean or dirty, have pros and cons,” Ortiz-Wines said. “With nuclear there are other factors to consider.”