Last updated on October 1, 2025
Once promised to be the energy of the future, nuclear power has placed itself squarely in the past.
Because of cumbersome regulations and incompetent management, America’s nuclear projects have faced constant delays and rising costs. Even after receiving hundreds of billions of dollars, over half of planned nuclear power plants were deemed unreliable and shut down.
It’s gotten so bad that the U.S now leads the world in permanent nuclear shutdowns.
Thankfully, alternatives are rapidly filling the gap. Renewable energy like wind and solar have stepped up to the plate, providing more energy than ever. Even red states like Texas lead the U.S in renewable investment, driving growth that displaces fossil fuels.
The data is clear: Renewable energy is already on pace to cut emissions by 22 percent. Analysts project that 80 percent of our electricity will be renewable by 2050, with new storage innovations keeping prices low and power constant.
In recent years however, people have called for the U.S to substantially increase its investment in nuclear energy. Many tout it as the energy key to our climate woes. Theoretically it might be, but in practice, if nuclear energy were substantially expanded, it would fill up the limited grid capacity – capacity that renewables are currently dominating. Put simply, nuclear would crowd out the very alternatives we need to scale up.
That’s why in countries like Romania or the Netherlands, government-backed nuclear plants have dangerously flooded the country’s energy supply, forcing renewables into the backseat.
Thus, across the world we have seen that a 1 percent increase in nuclear energy decreases renewable energy consumption by 4 percent.
Unfortunately, when it comes to stopping climate change, solutions must be cheap enough to roll out on a wide scale and be quick to construct – it can’t be too little too late.
However, that nuclear’s two-decade long planning to operation time means it takes 17 times longer to roll out than renewables.
That’s time renewables could’ve spent cutting emissions. Even after nuclear is constructed, it still can’t beat renewables. Studies show that over its entire lifetime, nuclear power is seven times less effective in lowering emissions than renewables.
Other countries warn us of the peril of nuclear energy. France – where two-thirds of energy is nuclear – is off track to meet climate goals and EU renewable targets.
And in China, government investment in nuclear plants instead of the cheaper and faster solar and wind led to 82,000 preventable air pollution deaths.
But nuclear’s harms don’t just stop at the environment.
Because nuclear energy requires waste storage sites, accident safeguards, or anti-terrorism security the cost of nuclear energy is incredibly high. Compare that to renewables, where accidents, waste, and security are a non-factor.
In fact, producing the same amount of energy with nuclear is twice as costly than with wind and solar – and by 2050, it’ll be four times more.
Historically, consumers shoulder the burden. In Georgia, South Carolina and New York, the high cost of nuclear increased yearly energy prices by over $420 per household, a 10% increase
Ultimately, we don’t need another decades-long gamble – we need power that works now.
Be First to Comment