Introduction
We’re pleased to offer this overview of the enormous benefits of nuclear power for those seeking to learn more. Our goal is to show the breadth of benefits, while allowing those who want to drill down more deeply to the authoritative sources from which the data comes. Nuclear is one of just a handful of carbon-free options humanity has for powering itself. Thus, its benefits must be evaluated on a comparative lifecycle basis. When this is done, nuclear power shines.
[Note: We will be continuing to improve and add to this page. We welcome recommendations for further references.]
Nuclear is . . .
Clean and Carbon-Free (low-greenhouse gas emissions)
Nuclear fission does not involve combustion and so is considered a carbon-free power source that does not emit carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gas in the process of generating energy. The way that uranium is mined and nuclear fuel fabricated generates small amounts of carbon emission. These are comparable to the emissions from wind and solar and these associated emission can decline as cleaner sources become available to remote mines and for electric power grids.
Sources: UNECE Figures 1 (p.8) and 37 (p. 50).
Firm, Reliable power (high “capacity factor”)
Most all nuclear power plants operate around the clock, generating power at full capacity and output most all of the time. These power plants only slow or stop generation during refuelings or for other types of maintenance outages, when necessary. The nuclear industry has made refueling faster and more efficient, bringing up average annual capacity factors into the low to mid-90s. Nuclear plants are able to reduce their output but making these changes puts stress on the plant’s normal operations and so is not a cost-effective way to operate a nuclear power plant.
Sources: The Department of Energy, What is Generation Capacity?
No Toxic Emissions, Saves Lives (no NOx, SOx, particulates, etc.)
Nuclear power produces no particulates and releases no SOx, NOx, mercury, arsenic, cobalt or other toxins like what is emitted from oil, gas and especially coal plants, which contribute to an estimated 4 million premature deaths, according the World Health Organization. When nuclear power plant is built and a coal plant is retired, lives are saved.
Sources: UNECE Figures 41 and 42 (p.53 and 54); Nature, Nuclear Power Saves Lives
Resilient (runs even in bad weather)
Nuclear runs pretty much all the time. It doesn’t require that the sun be shining or the wind blow in order to generate power, the way solar and wind do. Nuclear power is built to withstand tornados, hurricanes, floods, heat waves and droughts, and even record-breaking winter snow and ice. Natural gas can have problems moving through pipelines in cold weather. Remote areas which are reliant on deliveries of diesel can find that extended bad weather can prevent those deliveries. Nuclear can be relied upon to keep generating power under nearly all weather circumstance. This is especially important in the context of a climate crisis which means that even normal weather patterns that existed when a plant was built could change and be dramatically different.
Sources: Constellation, Nuclear Reliability; IAEA, Nuclear Energy in Climate Resilient Power Systems, p. 7.
Low Ecologic Impacts
Nuclear has been found to have the lowest lifecycle impact on ecosystems per unit of energy produced, including on human and animal impacts. All energy sources affect health, environment, climate, and economy to different extents. These are important factors that must be considered when assessing the energy mix of the future. In the attached chart, Dr. former geology and geophysics professor at the University in Bergen, has created a widget that allows you to set the level of importance of the various factors. Click here to evaluate these factors for yourself.
Sources: UNECE Figure 48-53 (pgs. 57 to 60), Glex, Global Energy Footprint.
Low Materials Burden
Nuclear’s material burden, namely its requirements for minerals and metals for plant construction is comparable to that used by fossil fuels plants but considerably lower than that used by wind or solar. But fossil fuel plants also require constant deliveries of coal, oil or gas. In contrast, the amount of uranium needed is extremely small. One uranium fuel pellet, about the size of the tip of an adult’s pinkie finger, produces the same amount of energy as 126 gallons of oil, 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas, or one ton of coal.
Sources: UNECE Figure 45 and 46 (p.56), Constellation, Nuclear Reliability
Most dense source of energy
The amount of energy that is released through a fission event is literally off the charts, when compared to that of the next-most dense type of energy, kerosene oil. We’ve learned that one fission releases 200,000,000 electron volts (EVs), compared to 2 EVs released when a hydrocarbon bond is broken by being burned. The difference is difficult to portray without using a logarithmic chart, which is, apparently, for quitters. It may be easier to mentally compare these quantities by comparing your roundtrip to and from a store 1 mile away with the roundtrip you’d need to make to the sun and back (90 million miles away from the earth), which totals 180 million miles, leaving you with enough excess to make a dozen roundtrips to the moon (250,000 miles away) and back, as well.
Sources: World Nuclear Association, The Physics of Uranium and Nuclear Energy
Low Land Use
As one of the most dense sources of carbon-free power, nuclear power plants get far more power per square foot of plant than any other type of clean energy energy. Environmental Progress produced a well-researched “slide deck” on the amount of land required by different types of low-carbon plants in different countries, spanning The Netherlands, Belgium, South Korea, Taiwan, Peru, U.K., Japan, Argentina, Philippines, Germany, France and Spain.
Sources: UNECE Figure 43 (p.54). Environmental Progress, Power Density Slide Deck
Not vulnerable to extreme and changing weather patterns
Nuclear does not need the weather to cooperate in order to generation power. Neither is it vulnerable to types of extreme weather that have become increasingly severe and shown up in places where they never previously appeared—such as hurricanes, tornadoes and even hail storms—which can damage or destroy solar panels and wind turbines. Thus, as a component of our clean energy system, nuclear power provides greater energy security by not sharing the same weather vulnerability as wind and solar. Nuclear’s primary weather-related vulnerability comes from changing attributes of its source of water cooling. Plants built near oceans and lakes have very few issues but plants built near rivers can experience issues from loss of river flow or higher water temperatures.
Sources: IAEA, Nuclear Energy in Climate Resilient Power Systems, p. 8.
A source of grid ancillary services, including voltage control and reactive power management
Ancillary services ensure a proper operation of the power grid. Grid operators are responsible for ancillary services and to ensure reliable power supply, it is necessary that frequency, voltage, and power load remain within certain limits. This does not happen automatically, but through continuous corrections: namely, ancillary services. Ancillary services can be divided into four areas: Frequency measure, voltage measure, supply reconstruction, and operational management.Voltage control and reactive power management are two facets of an ancillary service provided by nuclear power (as well as other types of thermal energy) that improve reliability of the transmission networks and facilitates the electricity market on these networks. These activities are intertwined (voltage change in an alternating current (AC) network is effected through production or absorption of reactive power). Nuclear plants can contribute substantially to the provision of ancillary services such as flexible operation to aid frequency control and provision of grid inertia. Nuclear can also help assimilate variable renewable energy on the grid, which are incapable of providing ancillary services, without increasing need to use coal or natural gas for such services.
Sources: NEXT, What are Ancillary Services?, iEnergy, Nuclear Energy and Security of Supply.
Provides robust local jobs and economy
A groundbreaking study, The Economic Impact of the Nuclear Industry in the Southeast United States, released by the Southeast Nuclear Advisory Council, shows the impact of the nuclear energy industry in the Southeast, a region encompassing Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. The study found that that nuclear energy industry generates an impressive annual economic impact of $42.9 billion, supporting 152,598 jobs and generating $13.7 billion in labor income, significantly contributing to state and local economies, with $3.7 billion in annual tax revenues across the five-state region. Nuclear’s employment multiplier of 2.8 means that for every 10 jobs in nuclear another 18 jobs were generated elsewhere. Average wages outpaced regional averages by 65.5%, showing that nuclear provides high-qualify employment opportunities. Other reports from groups like the Energy Community Alliance support the idea that local communities benefit broadly from having a nuclear power plant and are thus strongly supported by those communities.
Sources: Southeast Nuclear Advisory Council, The Economic Impact of the Nuclear Industry in the Southeast United States, Energy Community Alliance, Why Local Governments and Communities Support New Nuclear Development
GDP Return Multipliers from Energy Investments
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) studied the issue of overall GDP multiplier effects from building energy. In 2021, they published a Working Paper titled Building Back Better: How BIg are Green Spending Multipliers? Using an international dataset, they found that every dollar spent on key carbon-neutral or carbon-sink activities could generate more than a dollar’s worth of economic activity. Specially, Nuclear’s GDP multiplier was found to be 4.11, when looking at combined local, state and federal GDP impacts. Which means that Nuclear energy is a powerhouse for economic growth, contributing a staggering $4.11 to the GDP for every dollar invested. In stark contrast, solar and wind contribute a mere $1.19, and fossil fuels lag even further behind at just 65 cents per dollar. This means nuclear energy is approximately 3.5 times more beneficial for society than solar and wind, and about 6.5 times more than fossil fuels. These impacts are what help increase wealth and prosperity and account, to a large extent, to differences between nations. Countries that have strategically invested in reliable clean energy sources, such as nuclear and hydroelectric power, have witnessed substantial economic growth, outpacing their neighboring nations. For instance, the United States, France, Sweden, South Korea, and Japan have all experienced accelerated GDP growth during and following the deployment of nuclear energy.
Source: IMF Working Paper, Building Back Better: How BIg are Green Spending Multipliers? Published March, 2021. (Reference credit to Oscar L. Martin.)
Strong safety culture and safe work environment
Nuclear energy industry has developed for itself one of the strongest safety cultures of any industry. The safest industrial job in America is in the commercial nuclear industry, with less than 1 fatal injury per 100,000 workers. Nuclear’s profound safety culture and the revised assessments about the exaggerated claims of the risks associated with low levels of radiation exposure, make working in nuclear one of the safest energy jobs available anywhere.
In stark contrast, nuclear energy’s primary competitor, the fossil fuel industry, is one of the most dangerous and lethal industries on the planet. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the fossil fuel industry caused well over 500 deaths between 2018 and 2022 from mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction. These numbers do not reflect other injuries, damage or deaths within the broader fossil fuel ecosystem. When there are explosions and fires from train derailments, shipping accidents, or accidents at refineries, storage facilities, at shipping terminals, chemical plants, or pipeline leaks in industrial, business or residential areas, those injuries and deaths are not counted. Also not included: 4 million premature deaths from air pollution tied to burning fossil fuels, deaths of environmental defenders who’ve died for opposing fossil fuel developments, or any of the costs, damage, injuries and deaths from climate change, which is being directly caused by burning fossil fuels.
Sources: Visual Capitalist, Charted: The Safest and Deadliest Energy Sources, Forbes, Which Industry Offers The Safest Jobs In America: Nuclear Or Logging?; Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, Cancer risk assessment, its wretched history and what it means for public health, Grist, Fossil fuel industries kill and injure an awful lot of their workers, YaleEnvironment 360, Close to 2,000 Environmental Activists Killed Over Last Decade
Highest EROEI of all types of energy
The EROEI is an analysis of energy returned on energy invested. Finding a fuel’s EROEI means working out how much energy it takes to generate a useable unit of power. In the case of oil, you need to find the oil, drill the well, pump oil out, ship it to where it is refined, refine it and then ship it to where it will be used by the customer. Given that each type of energy is very different, it’s not always a simple equation as to what should or should not be included. In the case of oil, should the entire distribution network of gas stations be included? What should be considered the payback period? There are no clear guidelines and biases can impact the calculations but, in general, a high EROEI means you get a lot of useable energy out for very little energy expended. This is a measure of productivity leverage, which is what modern societies need to thrive and maintain high-quality lives. Goehring & Rozencwajg have written a fairly exhaustive analyses, starting with the EROEI of food and horses as sources of energy, moving through time to the use of biomass, wind mills, coal, oil, gas, nuclear energy and solar panels. Their analysis pairs economic growth and technological advancements to the uses of higher EROEI types of energy, specifically fossil fuels. They found that the EROEI of nuclear power far exceeds all other types of energy.
Sources: Stanford, Energy and Dystopia: Energy Returned on Invested; Goehring & Rozencwajg, The Distortions of Cheap Energy Authoritative Sources
- United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Carbon Neutrality in the UNECE Region: Integrated Life-cycle Assessment of Electricity Sources, 2021.
- Nature, Nuclear Power Saves Lives, May 29, 2013, by Drs. James E. Hansen and Pushker Kharecha.
- Glex, Global Energy Footprint, by Dr.
- Environmental Progress, Power Density Slide Deck, on land footprint required by wind and solar vs. nuclear power in different countries.
- World Nuclear Association, The Physics of Uranium and Nuclear Energy
- The Department of Energy, What is Generation Capacity?
- Constellation, Nuclear Reliability
- IAEA, Nuclear Energy in Climate Resilient Power Systems
- Southeast Nuclear Advisory Council, The Economic Impact of the Nuclear Industry in the Southeast United States
- Energy Community Alliance, Why Local Governments and Communities Support New Nuclear Development
- Visual Capitalist, Charted: The Safest and Deadliest Energy Sources
- Forbes, Which Industry Offers The Safest Jobs In America: Nuclear Or Logging?
- Grist, Fossil fuel industries kill and injure an awful lot of their workers
- Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, Cancer risk assessment, its wretched history and what it means for public health
- YaleEnvironment 360, Close to 2,000 Environmental Activists Killed Over Last Decade
- Energy and Dystopia: Energy Returned on Invested
- Goehring & Rozencwajg, The Distortions of Cheap Energy