The Case for Nuclear Energy: A Pragmatic Path Forward

Stigma vs. Reality

Nuclear energy has been caught in a strange paradox for decades, once thought of as the future of power. A clean, efficient, and nearly limitless energy source. Then came the fear. High profile accidents, Cold War tensions, and anti-nuclear activism came together to stall the development of nuclear reactors in much of the world. Meanwhile, fossil fuels remained dominant and climate change passed at a rate it likely wouldn’t have otherwise. Now, nations scramble for solutions to the energy crisis and the facts about nuclear are (again) making a strong case that it is the way forward.

Public skepticism of nuclear energy is still strong enough for it to impact policy decisions. Chernobyl and Fukushima are usually the first things that come to mind when nuclear is mentioned, with the assumption being that nuclear reactors are especially dangerous and prone to catastrophic failures. Others worry about nuclear waste, imagining huge stores of hazardous material that has no use or safe disposal method. The more economically inclined point out that nuclear is expensive and slow to build compared to renewables like wind and solar. But how much of these fears are based on outdated assumptions and previous iterations of the tech?

We now have decades of data on the safety, efficiency, and environmental impact of nuclear reactors, and the numbers tell a vastly different story. In comparison to fossil fuels, nuclear is one of the safest, cleanest, most efficient energy sources available [1]. Advancements in reactor technology, like small modular reactors (SMRs) and Generation IV designs (six designs fall under this category with gas and lead cooled fast reactors, molten salt reactors, sodium cooled fast reactors, supercritical water cooled reactors, and very high temperature reactors), make modern nuclear plants much safer than their Cold War-era predecessors [2]. Meanwhile, the waste problem is often severely overstated, with practical uses for nuclear waste (covered below) and other solutions like deep geological storage employed by Finland [3].

At the same time as widespread confusion exists surrounding nuclear energy, the world faces an energy crisis. Estimates put global electricity demand on pace to double in the next few decades, driven by population growth, industrialization, and the rise of power-hungry AI and data centers [4]. Many experts in energy consumption demand argue that renewables alone, despite their true value, won’t be able to meet the growing demands, and that nuclear should be our reliable base power source [5].

Nuclear is a peculiar topic, with lovers and haters on both sides of the political aisle. This post will break down why nuclear deserves a second look, wherever you fall politically. We’ll look into the safety and economic statistics, waste management techniques, and the policy hurdles that stifle nuclear growth, particularly in the United States. The choices we make in our energy sources today will define the next century.

The Energy Crisis and the Need for Nuclear

Electricity demands are surging worldwide with suppliers struggling to keep up. We’ve largely relied on cheap fossil fuels to power our industrial expansion, but that model is running into serious problems. Soaring energy costs, supply chain disruptions due to wars (both literal and financial in the form of back and forth Tariffs), and power grid failures have exposed the weaknesses in our energy infrastructure. Energy stability is becoming more of a national security issue. Countries that are dependent on foreign oil and gas are vulnerable to geopolitical crises, like Europe’s energy shock after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Even countries with strong domestic energy production suffer from aging grids and fuel supply instability, leading to blackouts and price spikes. One thing is clear from all of these challenges, the world needs an abundant, reliable power source that will be independent of global conflict. That’s where nuclear comes into play.

According to Our World in Data, global electricity usage has tripled since 1985 and has shown no signs of slowing down [4]. The increase in demand comes from a few key areas:

• Population Growth and Urbanization - as cities expand and become more modernized, this demands more electricity per capita

• Industrialization in Developing Nations - countries like India, China, and Sub-Saharan African countries are rapidly increasing their energy consumption to fuel economic growth.

• Data Centers and AI - the AI explosion, cloud computing centers, and cryptocurrency mining have added new strains to power grids. Estimates suggest that by 2030 these centers could consume 10% of global energy production [1].

Despite our rapid technological advancements, many countries struggle to meet these. And this isn’t limited to lower income countries. Most summers now in Los Angeles we get rolling blackout warnings, messaging regarding energy rationing, and high electric bills due to the high demand in the region.

Why Renewables Won’t Be Enough

Despite major advancements, the two fundamental weaknesses of solar and wind boil down to intermittency and land usage/material costs. Since wind and solar rely on weather conditions, they require massive battery storage of backup power sources when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing enough. The expansion of renewables to supply the majority of energy needs would require massive amounts of land and raw materials.

To put this into context, a single nuclear plant producing 1 gigawatt (GW) of power requires about 1.3 square miles of land, the same amount of power produced by wind turbines would require about 300 square miles of nothing but turbines [5]. It’s true that solar and wind have achieved significant cost reductions through decades of subsidies and scaling, to the point of being cheaper per kilowatt hour and are quicker to deploy than nuclear, leading some critics argue that nuclear investment could divert funds from renewables, potentially slowing down their deployment. But this framing misses an important point, that further incremental investments in nuclear are not necessarily zero-sum. Instead nuclear complements intermittent renewables through a reliable baseload needed for a resilient and balanced energy grid. Far from diverting resources, this would strengthen the impact of renewables and accelerate the transition to a diverse and resilient energy grid.

Energy Storage Problems

Some have argued that battery based storage can solve the issue of intermittency, but this doesn’t seem to be feasible at scale. Lithium-ion batteries are expensive. They also degrade over time and require massive mining operations to gather the raw materials. Long term grid storage tech is being developed, but researchers don’t se a clear path to widespread deployment being made in the next decade [1].

This is why even Germany, a nation that closed down all 17 of its nuclear plants in favor of a renewable focused program, has had to rely on coal and gas plants when their solar and wind fell short. This aggressively anti-nuclear stance even led to the restarting of coal plants in 2022.

A Nuclear Backbone

Nuclear is unique in that it provides consistent high-output energy without interruption. In terms of reliability of power output, nuclear comes in at 92.5% reliable, coal at 47.5%, natural gas at 54.4%, wind at 35.4%, and solar at 24.9% [6]. Nuclear is by far the most reliable power source we have available. Even the “best alternative” in natural gas is only at 54% due to maintenance and supply chain issues.

France’s Nuclear Success Story

France is a real-world case study of the way nuclear can completely transform an energy grid. After prioritizing nuclear power in the 1970s, France now generates about 70% of its electricity from nuclear plants. In 2021, nuclear power plants in France generated 361 billion kilowatthours of electricity, accounting for 68% of the country's annual electricity generation. This makes it one of the most energy-secure nations in the world [3]. When electricity prices spiked across Europe, France was able to maintain stable electricity costs while neighbors relying on petroleum products saw their bill rise.

Nuclear Safety: Numbers vs. Fears

When people think about nuclear power, Chernobyl and Fukushima, the nuclear accidents from 1986 and 2011, are the first thought. These disasters fueled public fears of meltdowns, radiation, and long-term health risks. But what do the numbers say? How dangerous is nuclear power?

Purely by the numbers, nuclear is one of the safest energy sources in existence. Every energy source carries some level of risk. This comes from accidents, pollution, and other types of environmental damage. This is where the statistic deaths per terawatt-hour (TWh) produced comes into play. For context, one terawatt-hour is about the same as the annual electricity consumption of 150,000 citizens in the European Union. Nuclear emerges as one of the safest sources of energy ever used. Coal comes in at 24.6 deaths/TWh, oil at 18.4, natural gas at 2.8, and nuclear at 0.03 (nestled between wind at 0.04 and solar at 0.02). The 0.03 number assumes death tolls of The difference between renewables and nuclear comes from greenhouse emissions, with nuclear energy being the cleanest source of energy by far!

Even more promising is the fact that nearly all of the deaths due to nuclear radiation come from one event: Chernobyl. This is with the caveat that 40-50 people were injured in Fukushima due to the blast, and there were 2,314 deaths due to the physical and emotional stress accompanying the evacuations. This is to say that very few of the deaths that make up that 0.03 were from radiation [7].

Chernobyl: The Exception, Not the Rule

The Chernobyl disaster in 1986 was the result of a severely flawed reactor design in combination with operator errors that led to a meltdown and explosion of the reactor. Unlike modern reactors, Chernobyl lacked a containment structure allowing the radioactive materials to spread widely. However, even with this spread, most of the fatalities were lined to Chernobyl cleanup workers. There seems to have been 31 direct deaths in fire fighters and plant workers exposed to the radiation. Long-term exposure deaths are more debated, with estimates ranging from a few thousand to over 10,000 depending on the model used. One long-term health exposure that was examined is thyroid cancer. From 1991 to 2015 there were 19,233 cases of thyroid cancer across the exposed areas of Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus. Researchers estimated about 25% of these to be due to radiation from Chernobyl.

It’s also important to point out that Chernobyl was a Soviet era RBMK reactor. These designs no longer exist outside of Russia. It had no containment dome, lacked passive safety features, and required worker intervention to shut it down. Each of these issues has been eliminated in modern nuclear reactors.

Fukushima: A Non-Nuclear Disaster

The incident in 2011 in Fukushima is commonly cited as evidence that nuclear power is an unsafe energy source. But no one died from radiation exposure in Fukushima. In reality, a 9.0 earthquake triggered a tsunami that disabled the cooling systems at the plant. That led to hydrogen explosions and a partial meltdown. The Japanese government implemented evacuations of over 100,000 people as a precaution. This led to the deaths mentioned above. In reality, most of the damage came from flooding, not radiation and the containment structures in the reactor prevented Chernobyl 2.0.

Three Mile Island: A Serious Incident with Minimal Impact

The nuclear accident at Three Mile Island (PA) in March of 1979 is the most serious nuclear incident in US history. Yet even that disaster had minimal real world impact. A mechanical failure in the cooling system triggered the incident. Miscommunications and downstream operator errors resulted in a partial meltdown of one of the pressurized water reactor units. Most critically, a relief valve to manage the pressure in the reactor didn’t close properly. Even in this incident, the containment structure functioned as intended and prevented significant radioactive particle release. Some radioactive gases like xenon and krypton were vented to reduce the internal pressure, but these emissions were deemed minimal and had no meaningful impact on public health. Radiation level studies by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and other independent researchers found radiation levels comparable to one chest x-ray per individual [2].

How Modern Reactors are Different

The nuclear reactors of today are almost unrecognizable when compared to the designs of the past and advancements in safety technology significantly diminish the possibility of a meltdown. In the past, reactors required active interventions to shut them down in emergencies. New reactors use passive safety systems to cool the structures, allowing them to be shut down safely without human intervention or using external power. Generation III+ reactors, such as those in France and the US, use water based cooling systems to prevent core overheating. Small modular reactors and molten salt reactors remove the risk of meltdown altogether by operating at a lower pressure level and using a fuel that naturally cools itself [2]. Containment structures have also made vast improvements over previous generations of nuclear reactors. All modern nuclear plants have reinforced containment domes to prevent radiation leaks even in extreme conditions. They also contain automatic shutdown systems. In the event of complete power loss this allows the reactor to cool itself safely.

Comparing Nuclear to Other Energy Risks

Nuclear energy critics tend to focus on worst-case scenarios (a valid concern) while simultaneously ignoring the dangers of coal, oil and natural gas. Air pollution from coal and oil kills an estimated 8 million people per year due to respiratory and cardiovascular impacts [11]. The 1975 Banqiao Dam failure in China killed over 170,000 people. This single hydroelectric disaster dwarfs nuclear’s historical death toll. While fear of catastrophic events is deeply human, policymaking must prioritize statistical reality over perception to achieve energy security.

The Waste Problem: Overblown or Cause for Concern

Simpson’s style nuclear waste.

If you grew up on The Simpsons, an image of nuclear waste is probably a glowing green sludge, oozing from rusting barrels and being dumped into rivers by a cartoonishly evil power plant owner. This image couldn’t be further from the truth though. Nuclear waste is not some toxic liquid goo. It takes the form of solid, almost ceramic-like fuel rods that are carefully stored and contained from the environment. Contrast that with coal ash, oil spills, and common air pollution from fossil fuels. Nuclear waste never escapes into the air or the water supply. Despite that fact, it remains one of the most charged issues in the debate around nuclear. So how dangerous is this waste in reality?

Understanding Nuclear Waste

Nuclear waste falls into three main categories. Low level (LLW), intermediate level (ILW), and high level waste (HLW). LLW consists of things like gloves, tools, mops, clothes, and other materials that have been exposed to low doses of radiation. ILW is made up of the reactor components and other materials that require shielded storage systems. HLW is spent nuclear fuel. The stuff with long-lived radioactive isotopes. About 97% of nuclear waste falls into LLW or ILW, with HLW accounting for only 3% of waste [13].

A common myth persists that nuclear power produces these mountains of deadly waste with nowhere to store it. In reality, every bit of spent nuclear fuel ever produced in the US could fit in a single football field, stacked about 30 feet high [3]. The comparison has to be made to the waste from coal plants, which dump millions of tons of toxic ash into landfills every year. Or oil refineries, which can leak benzene and heavy metals into the ground water. Unlike other energy industries, nuclear waste is fully contained. It does not leak, spill or spread unless we intentionally misuse the stuff (more on that later!).

Deep Geological Storage

Sensible nuclear waste policy would give us no reason to worry about spent fuel. We already have the technology for long term nuclear waste storage in the form of deep geological storage. Finland’s Onkalo repository, set to be up and running this year, is the world’s first permanent nuclear waste storage site. Used fuel will be sealed in copper canisters and buried in stable bedrock hundreds of meters below ground. This ensures it will never pose a threat to people or the environment [14]. Other deep storage projects are in planning stages in Sweden, France, and Canada, all based on decades of research demonstrating their safety profile. The US could have had such a repository at Yucca Mountain, but politics got in the way and it was shut down. The problem isn’t a need for a safe storage method, we already have that! It’s the fact that politicians refuse to implement it.

Reprocessing Waste

Nuclear waste is itself a bit of a misnomer. That’s because in reality it is just fuel we haven’t finished using yet. Countries like France and Russia already reprocess their used fuel rods, recovering up to 96% of the usable uranium and plutionium [13]. New fast reactors and molten salt reactors can burn this spent fuel, allowing for even more energy extraction and reducing waste volumes [15]. US adoption of large-scale reprocessing could reduce nuclear waste by over 80%. So instead of the indefinite storage of used fuel, we should be reusing it to generate more clean energy. Again the problem is politics. Some countries ban fuel reprocessing due to fears of nuclear proliferation despite other nations showing its safety for decades.

The Utter Insanity of Turning Nuclear Waste Into Weapons

While some governments are busy fighting over where to store their spent nuclear fuel, some have already found what I think is an insane way to repurpose it, by turning radioactive material into armor piercing bullets. Depleted uranium, the low-radioactivity byproduct of nuclear fuel production, has been used in military weaponry, in particular armor piercing rounds and tank shells [25]. The bullets themselves aren’t radioactive enough to cause immediate harm but they have an ability to leave behind contaminated dust, raising long-term health concerns for civilians and soldiers in war zones. The US, Russia, and other nations have deployed these rounds in conflict despite criticism from scientists and international watchdog groups.

A Political Problem, Not a Scientific One

The reality is that nuclear waste is a fully manageable problem, we just refuse to be adults and deal with it properly. The biggest problem isn’t the waste, it’s fear mongering from politicians, activists, and those with an interest in the petroleum fuel industry. Treated rationally instead of as a political bargaining chip, the entire debate over nuclear would disappear overnight.

Policy & Public Opinion

Nuclear power has the potential to solve some of the biggest challenges in energy security, but decades of political stagnation, regulatory roadblocks, and public misconceptions have held things back. Even with a growing recognition of the need to a stable, reliable power source, nuclear still is subjected to unnecessary political hurdles.

Regulation: The Biggest Obstacle

Building a nuclear plant in the US is one of the most expensive, time consuming infrastructure projects in existence, and not because of the technology. It’s the bureaucracy. On average, it takes 10 to 15 years to go from approval to an operating nuclear plant. Most of these regulatory standards bogging down the process are based on Cold War era fears as opposed to modern reactor designs that eliminate meltdown risks. Modern reactor designs like SMRs, which are cheaper, safer, and faster to build, are stuck with the same length approval processes as large traditional reactors. Even after meeting, and often exceeding safety standards they have to navigate years of environmental reviews, permitting hurdles, and litigation from anti-nuclear groups. In contrast, China is building new nuclear plants every 5-7 years allowing them to rapidly scale up their energy infrastructure. All while the US is still stuck doing paperwork [17].

Another issue is cost. Though initial costs for advanced nuclear reactors remain speculative, historically, nuclear power plants offer among the lowest operational costs and greatest reliability once constructed. That said, licensing costs alone can exceed $500 million before construction is even allowed to begin [1]. The Vogtle nuclear project in Georgia became the most expensive power plant in US history when it was completed in 2023. Final costs exceeded $35 billion, triple the original estimate. Most of this wasn’t due to the technology itself but bureaucratic delays, excessive regulatory compliance costs, and litigation over construction permits [18]. It’s also undeniable that mismanagement, a lack of specialized labor, and unforeseen challenges were part of these delays.

At the same time, fossil fuel lobbyists have played a major role in stalling nuclear progress. The oil and gas industry push natural gas as a “bridge fuel” despite nuclear being far more reliable. Natural gas has its advantages over oil and coal, but it suffers from supply chain disruptions and price volatility [6].

Public Opinion

Attitudes toward nuclear from the public have experienced some drastic changes in recent years. In 2021 only 43% of Americans supported expanding nuclear power. That number jumped to 57% by 2024 with growing support from both major political parties [19]. A large portion of this shift is driven by a growing recognition of the US’s precarious position with regard to energy stability. Increasing frequencies of rolling blackouts, extreme weather events, and rises in energy costs have all made nuclear look much more attractive, especially in areas that have experienced grid failures.

Recognition of our growing energy needs has increased political support for nuclear expansion. Among Republicans, nuclear is appealing because it reduces dependence on foreign oil, strengthens national security, and creates domestic jobs in the process. For Democrats, nuclear is gaining steam as a carbon-free energy source that can support the expansion of renewables and should help with climate change. Despite the shift in conception, myths still proliferate about nuclear waste and safety. And cost issues are nowhere near out of the picture. Still, nuclear will likely gain more and more support as time goes on as more people experience the reality of unreliable energy grids.

What Needs to Change?

To stay competitive in nuclear energy innovation, the US needs major policy reforms. Some of these should include:

1. Streamlining the NRC Approval Process: Current licensing processes are much too slow and costly to draw major investment. The government should fast-track approval for advanced reactors, particularly SMRs, which have built-in safety features that get rid of many concerns tied to older designs.

2. Incentivize New Nuclear Development: Nuclear incentives were historically much better, with trends favoring renewables. Accounting for lifetime energy production, nuclear's subsidies per unit of energy are lower than wind/solar. With the US having spent billions subsidizing wind, solar, and electric vehicles, nuclear is left in the dust. Even if nuclear received a fraction of the incentives given for renewables, expansion would be much easier due to the increases in costs in comparison to the incentives given.

3. Invest in Next-Generation Reactors: China and Russia lead the way in new fast reactors, molten salt reactors, and fusion research. We risk falling behind if the US doesn’t invest in its own next-gen nuclear development. While SMRs and Gen IV reactors are theoretically more safe and cost-effective, it will take commercial scale employment to test this in reality.

4. Address Public Misinformation: Decades of anti-nuclear messaging has been seared into the memories of much of the US population leading to widespread misconceptions about its safety profile. Public education campaigns and clear communication from government agencies are necessary to deal with these myths about waste and safety.

The alternative to fixing these? We fall behind in energy independence, increase our reliance on foreign fuel imports or on US based fracking, and continue dealing with unreliable patchwork power grids as the rest of the world moves on.

The Uranium Supply Chain

A critical but often overlooked element in the discussions of nuclear power is the uranium supply chain. Nuclear power requires fuel, just like oil and natural gas, in the form of uranium. Given I have talked about issues with the petroleum industry supply chains, it is fair to as how reliable and secure the supply chain for nuclear would be in comparison to the famously volatile fossil fuel markets?

Where We Get Uranium

Uranium mining has some geographic concentration to it, but is diverse enough to offer some stability. Currently about 45% of global uranium production os out of Kazakhstan, followed by Canada, Namibia, Niger, and Russia [26]. Kazakhstan uses a process called in-situ leaching, which significantly reduces environmental impacts compared to traditional mining techniques. Canada and Australia, with some of the richest uranium deposits in the world, use advanced mining practices to minimize ecological risks.

Processing and Enrichment

After it is extracted, uranium is processed and enriched before being used as a fuel in reactors. Raw uranium ore is converted into uranium hexafluoride. which is then enriched to increase the concentration of the uranium-235 isotope. The largest providers of this service are in France, Russia, the US, and China, with some other activity in Europe [1].

Comparing the Nuclear and Oil Supply Chains

The uranium supply chain seems much more stable and less vulnerable to geopolitical disruptions than the crude oil chain. Oil markets experience shocks driven by geopolitical crises, OPEC production decisions, and disruptions of shipping routes like the Strait of Hormuz. Not to be overly optimistic, since both Kazakhstan and Niger have been politically unstable, with Niger experiencing a coup in 2023 that disrupted some uranium exports. Relying heavily on US allies like Canada and Australia remain plausible along with increases in repurposing and enrichment, but are not complete answers to the problem. With that addressed, contrast the fossil fuel pipeline with that of nuclear, which involves long-term contracts and stored reserves, providing a greater resilience against these short-term disruptions. Another advantage is that nuclear plants typically only require refueling every year and a half to two years, compared to a continuous daily dependence on oil and gas supply lines.

Future Mining Needs are Reduced by Reprocessing

A very common concern about expanding nuclear power is a potential strain on the world’s uranium resources. Advanced reactors dramatically reduce this issue through their use of reprocessed nuclear fuel. As mentioned earlier, spent fuel rods that were previously regarded as waste can have up to 96% of the usable uranium and plutonium extracted, significantly reducing the demand for fresh mined uranium [15].

Myths and Misconceptions

Critics will often claim that uranium mining is excessively harmful to the environment, but modern practices have improved the safety significantly. In-situ mining and strict international regulations minimize ecological impacts, especially compared to oil extraction methods like hydraulic fracturing (fracking), offshore drilling, and tar sand extraction, all of which are known to cause substantial environmental damage and water contamination. In reality the uranium supply chain is more secure, less environmentally disruptive, and less susceptible to geopolitical volatility than the fossil fuel industry. Our challenge isn’t resource scarcity or supply issues, it’s leveraging the political will to invest in and use these existing resources and reprocessing technologies in an effective manner.

A Pragmatists Path to Nuclear Energy

Throughout this post we’ve looked at the considerable benefits nuclear power offers in the form of a stable, reliable energy source. Increasing energy demands of the modern world of data-driven AI and tech make nuclear energy a much needed component of our future energy infrastructure. Major tech companies like Google, Microsoft, Meta, and Amazon already recognize this need and are investing in nuclear power to ensure stability and scalability, pledging support for the tripling of global nuclear capacity by 2050. Google entered an agreement with kairos Power to use SMRs to power its AI data centers with the first reactors anticipated in 2030. Microsoft is entering a 20 year agreement to get energy from Three Mile Island’s Unit one (renamed the Christopher M Crane Clean Energy Center) to support expanding AI data centers.

Yet, despite the clear advantages, nuclear power isn’t a silver bullet. The perspective of renowned energy scientist Vaclav Smil gives some valuable insight. He emphasizes that a transition to nuclear as a primary energy source won’t be quick or inexpensive. He points out that nuclear energy has been an example of “successful failure” in technology, with a demonstration of tremendous potential but constantly running up against roadblocks to completion. Any type of substantial nuclear expansion is going to require massive infrastructure investments, sustained political will, and significantly more public acceptance, none of which can be guaranteed or achieved overnight.

This more nuanced viewpoint doesn’t negate the case I’ve laid out for nuclear; I see it as enhancing it. Advocating for nuclear power doesn’t mean ignoring the challenges, it means confronting them as directly as possible. Nuclear energy alone is unlikely to completely fix our energy issues in the short term, and acknowledging that reality can strengthen our energy strategy. Diversifying our energy infrastructure, including renewables, hydroelectric, and improving the grid are essential accompaniments to nuclear expansion. Embracing this pragmatic realism guards against what Smil calls “magical thinking”, the seductive but unrealistic belief in effortless solutions. Instead, the process to sustainable nuclear power will involve incremental progress and careful planning combined with honest science communication to the public.

References

1. MIT Energy Initiative. The Future of Nuclear Energy in a Carbon-Constrained World. 2018.

2. PMC. Nuclear Power in the 21st Century: Challenges and Possibilities. 2015.

3. World Nuclear Association. Nuclear Power in the World Today. 2024.

4. Our World in Data. Nuclear Energy Statistics. 2024.

5. Liberty University. A New Day for Nuclear: The Impact of Nuclear Energy and Its Effects. 2023.

6. U.S. Department of Energy. Nuclear Power: The Most Reliable Energy Source. 2023.

7. Our World in Data. What was the death toll from Chernobyl and Fukushima?

8. Our World in Data. Energy Safety Comparisons (Deaths per TWh). 2024.

9. MIT Energy Initiative. Future Nuclear Reactor Safety Models. 2018.

10. PMC. Advanced Reactor Designs and Safety Mechanisms. 2015.

11. MDPI. Health Impacts of Fossil Fuel Pollution. 2023.

12. World Nuclear Association. Nuclear Waste Management and Volume Estimates. 2024.

13. MDPI. Global Review of International Nuclear Waste Management. 2023.

14. Nature Scientific Reports. Long-Term Sustainable Solutions to Radioactive Waste Management. 2024.

15. Frontiers in Nuclear Engineering. Reprocessing Spent Nuclear Fuel and Advanced Reactors. 2023.

16. MIT Energy Initiative. Regulatory Barriers to Nuclear Development. 2018.

17. World Nuclear Association. China’s Nuclear Expansion Timeline. 2024.

18. MDPI. Cost Overruns in Nuclear Energy Projects. 2023.

19. Our World in Data. Public Opinion Shifts on Nuclear Energy. 2024.

20. Investopedia. Amazon, Google, and Meta Support Nuclear Expansion. 2024.

21. Wikipedia. Kairos Power and Google’s SMR Initiative. 2024.

22. Wikipedia. Three Mile Island’s Restart for AI Power Needs. 2024.

23. Wikipedia. Small Modular Reactor Development and Industry Trends. 2024.

24. Wikipedia. Oklo Inc. and Advanced Reactor Technologies. 2024.

25. Harvard. Depleted Uranium Devastated Health.

26. World Nuclear Association. World Uranium Mining Production.