The United States faces a pivotal choice of energy sources for the future. While some advocate for increased nuclear power to meet commercial energy demands, historical and economic challenges raise doubts about its viability. Nuclear energy, once seen as a solution to America’s energy needs, has repeatedly proven unsustainable and financially draining. As Ahmed Abdulla of the Center for Energy Research notes, U.S. nuclear power is “on the verge of collapse” due to mounting profitability challenges and operational costs. Instead of relying on nuclear power, the U.S. should focus on investing in more sustainable and economically feasible alternatives like renewable energy.
The Track Record of Nuclear Power Failures
Nuclear energy in the U.S. has been marked by high costs and failed projects, with billions lost on stalled or canceled ventures. In the 1970s, nuclear power was touted as a game-changer, projected to save billions of dollars. However, just a decade later, the industry’s rapid expansion led to what Diane Cardwell of The New York Times describes as a “managerial disaster.” Despite decades of government subsidies, nuclear projects have consistently faced delays and budget overruns. Lisa Zyga of the Institute of International Energy Economics (IIEE) concludes that, given the high costs and complexity, nuclear power will never be capable of meeting large-scale energy demands sustainably. She argues that investment in alternative energy sources would yield more stable and cost-effective outcomes.
Renewable Energy: The Path to a Sustainable Future
The decline of nuclear energy has opened the door to a new era of renewable energy in the U.S. Eric Gimon of Forbes points out that states are increasingly adopting renewables, with wind and solar prices dropping substantially. Renewable sources accounted for 64% of all new electricity-generating capacity in the U.S., signaling a shift toward a greener future. A 2019 report by The Freedonia Group projects that U.S. renewable energy consumption will rise by 4% annually, driven by government incentives and falling costs. According to these projections, renewables have the potential to replace fossil fuels entirely within the next two decades.
Lobbying Conflicts and Investment Diversion
Increasing nuclear power would disrupt this shift toward renewables in two significant ways. First, it fuels lobbying conflicts that drain government resources and hinder renewable energy growth. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists reported that nuclear and renewable energy lobbyists compete for government funding, with nuclear lobbyists often targeting renewable incentives. Kari Lyderson of Energy News Network notes that nuclear advocates have influenced policy to favor nuclear power, even securing changes in regional energy markets that disadvantage renewables.
This conflict over resources has historically hindered progress in green energy. Stephanie Cook of The New York Times reported that during the Obama administration, clean energy goals were sidelined as the Department of Energy faced pressure from the nuclear sector. Investing in nuclear power today could repeat this pattern, diverting critical support away from renewable energy initiatives.
Crowding Out Private Investment in Green Technology
Second, government support for nuclear power could discourage private investment in renewables. While government funding for renewable energy has decreased, private investors have increasingly financed the sector. Bioenergy International reports that private sources now provide up to 90% of renewable energy investments. However, Mary Hall of Investopedia explains that when the government backs an industry, it incentivizes private investors to direct more capital toward it, thus reducing the funds available for competing sectors. This phenomenon would place renewable energy at a disadvantage, as investors would funnel more capital into nuclear projects rather than into wind, solar, and other clean technologies.
Rachel Cleetus, director of the Union of Concerned Scientists, points out that investments directed toward nuclear power divert critical capital needed to expand renewable energy infrastructure. With sufficient investment, renewables can avoid slower growth, delaying the transition to a sustainable, low-carbon economy.
The Unsustainability of Nuclear Power
The drawbacks of nuclear energy extend beyond economics. Countries that have increased nuclear energy at the expense of renewables often see unsustainable environmental impacts. Mark Jacobson of Stanford University found that China’s focus on nuclear over renewables led to a 1.3% increase in carbon emissions. In contrast, renewables present a clear path to sustainability. The Union of Concerned Scientists projects that achieving just 25% renewable electricity could lower CO₂ emissions by 277 million tons annually, with even more substantial reductions possible with broader deployment.
Moreover, reducing emissions has a profound public health impact. According to Oliver Milman of The Guardian, reducing greenhouse gas emissions could prevent up to 295,000 premature deaths in the U.S. by 2030, underscoring the urgent need to prioritize sustainable energy sources.
Renewable Energy as the True Path to Sustainability
Nuclear energy’s history of economic setbacks and environmental risks suggests that it is not the optimal choice for America’s future energy needs. Increasing nuclear power use would redirect essential funds from renewable energy, slow progress toward sustainable energy, and add unnecessary costs. Renewables, on the other hand, offer a clear, economically viable, and sustainable path forward. By focusing on renewables, the U.S. can achieve a long-term, low-carbon future that meets its energy needs without compromising environmental and public health.
For these reasons, we argue that increasing nuclear energy use is not the answer. Instead, a future powered by renewables is the most effective solution to combating climate change.