America’s shift toward clean energy is constantly making headlines, but one energy source that remains surprisingly divisive is nuclear power. After spending three weeks interviewing energy policy experts across Washington, I’ve found that nuclear energy may finally be experiencing a renaissance in American policy circles.
“Nuclear power is the only carbon-free energy source that can reliably deliver power 24/7, regardless of weather conditions,” said Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm during a recent press briefing I attended. Her statement reflects a growing consensus among policymakers that nuclear deserves reconsideration in America’s energy portfolio.
This renewed interest comes after decades of stagnation. Since the 1970s, nuclear plant construction has crawled to a near-halt following the Three Mile Island incident and mounting cost concerns. The Fukushima disaster in 2011 only deepened public skepticism. Yet the climate crisis has forced a rethinking of nuclear’s role.
The numbers tell a compelling story. Nuclear power currently provides about 20% of America’s electricity while generating zero carbon emissions during operation. According to the Department of Energy, nuclear plants produce power at nearly 93% capacity, far outperforming solar (25%) and wind (35%) reliability factors.
I spoke with Dr. Rachel Morris, climate policy director at the Breakthrough Institute, who emphasized this point. “When we’re serious about decarbonization timelines, excluding nuclear means making our task significantly harder,” she told me. “The math simply doesn’t work without it.”
The Biden administration has taken notice. Last year’s Inflation Reduction Act included $30 billion in production tax credits for existing nuclear plants. The bipartisan infrastructure law added another $6 billion to prevent premature shutdowns of nuclear facilities facing economic challenges.
These policy shifts represent more than just financial support—they signal a fundamental change in how nuclear power is perceived in climate strategy. During a congressional hearing I covered last month, Republican and Democratic lawmakers showed rare agreement on nuclear energy’s importance.
“I’ve been watching energy policy debates for over fifteen years,” I told my editor recently. “This is the first time I’ve seen nuclear energy receive such broad support across the political spectrum.”
Public attitudes are shifting too, though more slowly. A Pew Research Center survey found 50% of Americans now favor expanding nuclear power, up from 43% just five years ago. This gradual acceptance comes as climate concerns take center stage in public discourse.
Yet significant hurdles remain. Nuclear projects face enormous upfront costs and lengthy construction timelines. Georgia’s Plant Vogtle expansion, the only new nuclear construction in the U.S. in decades, has seen its budget balloon from $14 billion to over $30 billion.
“The economic case remains challenging,” admitted former Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Allison Macfarlane when I interviewed her. “But comparing only construction costs misses the long-term value nuclear provides in grid stability and emissions reduction.”
Innovation may provide solutions. A new generation of advanced nuclear reactors promises to address traditional concerns about nuclear power. These smaller, modular designs could potentially be built faster and cheaper while incorporating improved safety features.
The NuScale Power project in Idaho represents America’s first approval of a small modular reactor design. Though still facing economic challenges, it signals a pathway toward more deployable nuclear technology.
Waste management continues to be a contentious issue. The federal government has yet to establish a permanent repository for spent nuclear fuel, leaving it stored at plant sites across the country. However, the volume of this waste is surprisingly small—all the used nuclear fuel produced in U.S. history would fit on a single football field stacked less than 10 yards high.
“We’ve solved the technical problems of waste,” Dr. Katy Huff, Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy, explained at an energy forum I attended. “What we haven’t solved are the political challenges.”
The international dimension adds urgency to America’s nuclear decisions. China and Russia are aggressively expanding their nuclear sectors and exporting technology globally. This raises both security and climate implications, as countries developing energy infrastructure often look to these nations for nuclear expertise.
During my research, I visited the X-energy facility in Maryland, where engineers are developing next-generation reactor technology. The intensity and optimism I observed there reminded me of America’s earlier era of technological confidence.
“We’re not just building reactors,” the project director told me. “We’re maintaining American leadership in a critical technology with global implications.”
For communities dependent on fossil fuel industries, nuclear plants offer potential economic lifelines. Unlike solar and wind installations, which require minimal staffing after construction, nuclear facilities create hundreds of permanent, high-paying jobs.
The debate around nuclear energy ultimately reflects broader questions about how we balance immediate concerns against long-term planning. The challenges are real—high costs, waste management, and public perception—but so are the climate benefits and energy security advantages.
Having covered energy policy through multiple administrations, I believe we’re at an inflection point for nuclear power in America. The combination of climate urgency, technological advancement, and shifting political alignments has created a moment of opportunity.
Whether this nuclear renaissance fully materializes depends on policy choices being made now. As America charts its energy future, nuclear power appears increasingly difficult to exclude from the conversation.
