The Common-Sense Case for Nuclear Energy

The energy debate in most Western countries has devolved into a binary argument between renewables and fossil fuels. This framing ignores the most obvious solution: nuclear power, which produces zero carbon emissions, runs 24/7 regardless of weather, and has a safety record that is statistically better than every other energy source including solar and wind.

The data is not ambiguous. France generates 70 percent of its electricity from nuclear and has some of the lowest carbon emissions and electricity prices in Europe. Countries that shut down nuclear plants, like Germany, saw their emissions increase as they burned more natural gas to fill the gap.

The objections are well-known: cost, waste, and safety. Modern reactor designs address all three. Small modular reactors reduce construction costs and timelines. Advanced fuel cycles dramatically reduce waste volume. And the safety record of nuclear power, even including Chernobyl and Fukushima, results in fewer deaths per unit of energy than any fossil fuel and fewer than rooftop solar.

The real obstacle is political. Nuclear energy does not fit neatly into either party's platform, so neither champions it. That needs to change if we are serious about decarbonization.