As the energy demand rises, the world heats up, and nonrenewable energy sources appear less fruitful in the eyes of society, nuclear power has been explored by many countries as an option to expand their energy network. The world is divided on this topic though, mainly due to some concerning challenges with implementation of nuclear facilities [1]. This sparks the debate, can nuclear energy solve the climate crisis?
Supporters argue that we can use nuclear energy to solve the climate crisis because it is clean, creates more jobs, and supports many country’s national security [2]. Nuclear energy is also very efficient, beating coal, natural gas, and wind power [3]. The waste produced by nuclear energy creation is also recyclable and gets created in considerably smaller amounts [3]. On the other hand, critics argue that we should not use nuclear energy to solve the climate crisis because we lack critical infrastructure, nuclear plants have high construction and operating costs, and previous incidents have proved they can be hard to avoid and can cause deadly damage [2], [4]. Many parties are also concerned about nuclear proliferation, as they do not want to see more countries creating nuclear weapons [5], [6], [7], [8].
This post examines both sides of the debate, evaluates the scientific evidence, deliberates on the information, and argues that nuclear power is a viable and necessary part of our strategy to fight climate change.
Comparing Energy Efficiency
Measuring a power plants’ efficiency is done by measuring its heat rate, the amount of energy required to produce one kilowatt-hour of electricity [9]. Most nuclear plants average around 33 percent efficiency, with some reaching 40-45 percent [7]. Coal power plants average around 32 percent efficiency, natural gas plants are around 33-43 percent, solar power plants average 22 percent efficiency, hydro power plants average 90 percent, and oil is also around 35 percent [7].
The more meaningful metric is capacity factor. Capacity factor is how often a plant can be running at maximum capacity. Nuclear power plants are the leading energy plants in terms of capacity factor, with 92 percent, which is 2 times more than natural gas and coal plants, and 3 times more than wind or solar plants. This means nuclear plants are producing electricity almost constantly throughout the year, offering unmatched reliability. For instance, to match the annual output of a single 1 GW nuclear plant, one would need multiple solar or wind farms and substantial energy storage to cover gaps.
Moreover, nuclear energy provides base load power that stabilizes the grid, reducing the need for backup fossil fuel systems. While renewable technologies are improving, they remain dependent on intermittent sources. Advanced nuclear designs such as small modular reactors (SMRs) promise even greater efficiency and flexibility, reinforcing nuclear energy’s role as a high-efficiency, low-carbon power source.
Comparing Economic Impact
It is true that nuclear power plants are expensive to build. Construction costs for building a nuclear power plant are around $8-13k per kW, comparing this to natural gas ($600-1300 per kW), coal ($3500-6500 per kW), and geothermal ($4700-6000 per kW) [14].
However, plant lifespan changes the conversation; nuclear plants can last 40-60 years compared to 20-50 years for wind, solar and fossil fuel plants [15]. A study by MIT Technology review [16] details that the lifespans are getting longer, as 40 years used to be a general maximum but now plants are starting to stay operating longer because it is cheaper than building new plants. Policy makers will begin to allow plants to stay open for longer because they understand that keeping plants open longer is cheaper than building new ones, especially when nuclear reactors can last much longer than they are being allowed to operate for.
We can also revisit the fact that nuclear power plants have the highest capacity factor (92 percent) than any other energy production plant type. This means that the plant spreads fixed costs across more megawatt-hours. This makes the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE), a more reasonable comparison metric, significantly lower which brings nuclear energy right back into the economic conversation.
Figure 1: LCOE of different types of power plants (from Lazard [19])
As seen in Figure 1, the LCOE for nuclear energy is relatively similar to that of solar and gas peaking, and slightly above coal. This makes it a reasonable choice to invest in considering the other benefits that it has over the other production methods.
Another option that Ochmann et al. [17] are exploring is to build coal to nuclear conversion as a way to avoid paying large amounts to build nuclear facilities. This strategy outlined 6-10k per kW, a still expensive but cheaper option than building new facilities. There are other strategies currently being explored to make nuclear power cheaper, so combined with its other benefits it is worth investing in.
A Cleaner Energy Source
The most compelling argument for nuclear power is its role in fighting climate change. Nuclear plants emit no greenhouse gases during operation, and life-cycle CO₂ emissions are among the lowest of any energy source.
Figure 2: Levelized CO2 emissions from power plant types (from UT Austin [21])
As shown in Figure 2, nuclear’s carbon footprint is significantly smaller than coal, natural gas, and even solar and wind [21]. If the primary goal is to reduce emissions, nuclear must be part of the solution.
An NIH study [22] estimated that between 1999 and 2020, over 460,000 deaths would not have occurred if it were not for coal power plants. This means that the emissions from these types of plants are considerable enough to be a primary cause of death or cause of a disease that leads to death.
One aspect of nuclear power that many critics cite is the radioactive nuclear waste. A study [23] shows that around 80 percent of people are concerned about nuclear waste management issues. Around 90 percent of the waste generated from nuclear power plants is minimally radioactive. Higher level radioactive waste is generated in small amounts, but it is cooled after the fuel is spent and later disposed of safely or recycled. Unlike CO₂ which disperses globally, nuclear waste is contained and trackable making it an engineering challenge, not an unsolvable threat.
Conclusions
There are many factors that support the idea that nuclear power is a viable energy source and a solution to the climate crisis. Nuclear power combines high reliability with low emissions, long operational lifespans, and increasingly competitive costs. Taking all of this into consideration, policymakers and lawmakers should utilize nuclear energy as a step forward to fixing the biggest problem facing the human race, climate change. According to Lake [24] the fourth generation of nuclear power will be clean, emissions free and efficient, exactly like what was mentioned in this post. The public perception is slowly shifting, and the opportunity for funding in the nuclear field is high.
To meet the world's climate goals, we must move beyond outdated fears and embrace nuclear alongside renewables. Doing so will reduce dependence on fossil fuels, stabilize electricity grids, and support long-term environmental and economic sustainability.
Once we get past these unfair perceptions while preventing accidents and the development of nuclear weapons, we can begin to utilize nuclear power as a core component of the evolving energy network and as a key component in the solution to the climate crisis.
References
[1] E. Akyuz, “The role of political parties in the public perception of nuclear energy,”
The Electricity Journal, vol. 37, no. 7, p. 107429, Aug. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.tej.2024.107429.
[2] “Advantages and challenges of nuclear energy,” Energy.gov. Accessed: Jul. 02, 2025.
[Online]. Available: https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/advantages-and-challenges-nuclear-energy
[3] L. Feng, “Research on nuclear energy and fossil fuels in China,” IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci., vol. 621, no. 1, p. 012068, Jan. 2021, doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/621/1/012068.
[4] V. Hande, K. Prathaban, and M. P. Hande,
“Educational dialogue on public perception of nuclear radiation,”
International Journal of Radiation Biology, vol. 98, no. 2, pp. 158–172, Feb. 2022, doi: 10.1080/09553002.2022.2009147.
[5] “10 cons of nuclear energy | Green America.” Accessed: Jul. 02, 2025. [Online]. Available:
[6] A. Schumann, “Fact Sheet: Nuclear proliferation risks in nuclear energy programs,”
Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. Accessed: Jul. 02, 2025. [Online]. Available:
https://armscontrolcenter.org/nuclear-proliferation-risks-in-nuclear-energy-programs/
[7] D.-J. Jo and E. Gartzke, “Determinants of Nuclear Weapons Proliferation,”
Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 167–194, Feb. 2007, doi: 10.1177/0022002706296158.
[8] A. Ahmed, “The philosophy of nuclear proliferation/non-proliferation:
why states build or forgo nuclear weapons?,” Trames, vol. 21, no. 4, p. 371, 2017, doi: 10.3176/tr.2017.4.05.
[9] B. Feng, “Power plant efficiency: coal, natural gas, nuclear, and more (Updated for 2025!),” PCI.
Accessed: Jul. 02, 2025. [Online]. Available:
[10] “Nuclear power is the most reliable energy source and it’s not even close,” Energy.gov.
Accessed: Jul. 02, 2025. [Online]. Available:
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close
[11] “What is generation capacity?,” Energy.gov. Accessed: Jul. 02, 2025. [Online]. Available:
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/what-generation-capacity
[12] “What are small modular reactors (SMRs)?” Accessed: Jul. 02, 2025. [Online]. Available:
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/what-are-small-modular-reactors-smrs
[13] “Baseload power - Energy Education.” Accessed: Jul. 02, 2025. [Online]. Available:
https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Baseload_power
[14] “OWOE - Electrical power generation - How much does it cost to build a new power plant?”
Accessed: Jul. 02, 2025. [Online]. Available:
https://www.ourworldofenergy.com/vignettes.php?type=electrical-power-generation&id=14
[15] Redway, “What is the lifespan of a power station? | Redway Tech.” Accessed: Jul. 02, 2025. [Online].
Available: https://www.redway-tech.com/what-is-the-lifespan-of-a-power-station/
[16] “Why the lifetime of nuclear plants is getting longer,” MIT Technology Review.
Accessed: Jul. 02, 2025. [Online]. Available:
https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/04/04/1090630/old-nuclear-plants/
[17] J. Ochmann, G. Niewiński, H. Łukowicz, and Ł. Bartela,
“Potential for Repowering Inland Coal-Fired Power Plants Using Nuclear
Reactors According to the Coal-to-Nuclear Concept,” Energies, vol. 17, no. 14, p. 3545, Jul. 2024, doi: 10.3390/en17143545.
[18] “Levelized cost of electricity,” Wikipedia. Jun. 12, 2025. Accessed: Jul. 02, 2025. [Online]. Available:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Levelized_cost_of_electricity&oldid=1295204699
[19] "Lazard LCOE Levelized Cost Of Energy+" (PDF). Lazard. June 2024. p. 16. Archived (PDF) from the original on 28 August 2024.
[20] “Comparing CO₂ emissions from different energy sources,” COWI.
Accessed: Jul. 02, 2025. [Online]. Available:
https://www.cowi.com/news-and-press/news/2023/comparing-co2-emissions-from-different-energy-sources/
[21] “Nuclear and wind power estimated to have lowest levelized CO2 emissions | Energy Institute.”
Accessed: Jul. 02, 2025. [Online]. Available:
https://energy.utexas.edu/news/nuclear-and-wind-power-estimated-have-lowest-levelized-co2-emissions
[22] “Deaths associated with pollution from coal power plants | National Institutes of Health (NIH).”
Accessed: Jul. 02, 2025. [Online]. Available:
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/deaths-associated-pollution-coal-power-plants
[23] J. van der Pligt, J. Richard Eiser, and R. Spears, “Public attitudes to nuclear energy,”
Energy Policy, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 302–305, Sep. 1984, doi: 10.1016/0301-4215(84)90033-8.
No comments:
Post a Comment