Concerns about nuclear energy have often revolved around devastating catastrophes abroad, like those at Chernobyl and Fukushima, and the domestic near-miss tragedy at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania. But fatal meltdowns aside, nuclear power is generally dangerous, dirty, expensive — and it isn’t even climate-friendly. From the uranium mine to the toxic waste pit, nuclear power puts our health, environment, and climate at risk.

While both of the recent Biden and Trump administrations have played the pro-nuclear card, the current Trump administration is going all-in.

Some of Trump’s biggest Big Tech donors aim to make a fortune from expanding artificial intelligence (AI), which requires massive amounts of power for AI data centers. Given that, we should regulate energy demand, particularly within the tech sector, and build more renewables. Instead, Big Tech companies, including Meta (owner of Facebook) and Amazon, are investing in nuclear. At the same time, Trump’s policies are giving the nuclear industry a big boost.

Trump’s Big Ugly Bill rolled back tax credits for renewables while largely maintaining benefits for the nuclear industry. It also added a “bonus” incentive to cover newer, “advanced” nuclear technology. Recently, the Department of Energy (DOE) established a consortium to create partnerships between the government and U.S. nuclear companies. This will pave the way for the Trump administration to take stake in private corporations as part of its quest to build out nuclear.  

Meanwhile, nuclear power is also gaining steam at the state level, embraced by Democratic governors including Kathy Hochul (NY), Gavin Newsom (CA), and Josh Shapiro (PA). Hochul, for instance, is pushing a collaborative agenda with tech companies and nuclear developers, especially for small modular reactors (SMRs). These smaller reactors pose many of the same issues and threats as larger, traditional nuclear power plants. Our leaders are working to deploy untested systems like SMRs for corporate benefit.

We can’t allow nuclear energy to expand — and especially not at the expense of real renewables like solar and wind. Here are 5 reasons why:

1. Nuclear Energy Poses Radioactive Health Threats, from Uranium Mining to Power Plants

Nuclear energy comes from the toxic, radioactive element uranium, which must be mined from the ground. As you can imagine, mining, enriching, generating energy from, and disposing of this radioactive material present a host of risks to human health. 

For example, mining can emit naturally occurring radon from underground into the air, increasing the risk of lung cancer for miners. 

Mining and its waste also endanger those nearby; many Native American communities have historically born the brunt. Researchers warn that uranium mining will contaminate the precious southwestern groundwater aquifer that the Havasupai Tribe relies on for drinking water.

A massive pile of uranium waste in northwest New Mexico has left a legacy of cancer and loss. Navajo communities are still dealing with the consequences of a devastating 1979 spill at a uranium mill, which released millions of gallons of radioactive wastewater and 1,100 tons of uranium waste.

Nuclear power plants also threaten nearby communities. One 2011 investigation found that radioactive materials have leaked from at least 48 out of 65 reactor sites studied, with some materials even contaminating drinking water wells. 

The risks to community health and safety are not spread equally. One study found that communities within the emergency planning zones of nuclear power plants had higher percentages of people of color compared to those living outside of them. If disaster strikes, these folks will be the first to be impacted by nuclear plants placed miles from their homes.

In the event of such a disaster, federal lawmakers have protected the nuclear industry from accountability. The Price-Anderson Act limits how much any corporation would have to pay the public in case of an accident — essentially functioning as a subsidy without which the industry wouldn’t stay afloat.

2. U.S. Officials STILL Lack a Safe Plan for Nuclear Waste

Spent fuel, the waste of nuclear energy, remains highly radioactive for thousands of years after it’s used to generate power. And even decades into U.S. nuclear development, we still don’t have a safe system for storage and disposal. 

Globally, experts agree that this waste should be stored deep underground. But the U.S. has zero storage sites like this, and instead uses short-term on-site measures at nuclear reactors. As of 2022, roughly 90,000 metric tons of waste are being stored at reactor sites across 35 states. 

About three-quarters of spent fuel is stored in pools never meant for long-term storage. As a result, these pools hold more than five times more reactivity than nuclear reactors — yet, they lack the same level of containment and protection as reactors. An accident at one of these facilities would be catastrophic. 

Expanding nuclear power when we already have 90,000 metric tons of highly radioactive waste with no safe, long-term storage alternative is unfathomable.

3. Nuclear Is Not a Climate Solution

Nuclear power generation itself doesn’t pollute our climate, sure, but its full life cycle tells a different story. Mining, milling, and enriching uranium to create nuclear fuel, as well as power plant construction, all emit climate pollution. 

At this dire moment of the climate crisis, we need to reduce these emissions, fast. Nuclear power is not up to the task. 

From initial planning to electricity generation, nuclear power plants take anywhere from 10 to 19 years to come online, compared to just two to five years for utility solar and wind. Construction times and costs for nuclear have only increased in the last decade. 

All the funds currently propping up nuclear plants could be used for wind and solar instead, reducing climate pollution faster and more efficiently. This speed is crucial to avoid the worst consequences of climate change. 

4. Nuclear Energy Is Dependent on Precious Water Resources

At a time when many places across the country face more drought and water scarcity, nuclear power demands too much. Nuclear power plants require massive amounts of water to produce electricity and cool systems. It’s among the energy sources that require the most water, in some cases using more water than fossil fuels.

Nuclear, on average, consumes 2,000 cubic meters of water throughout its lifecycle for each megawatt-hour of electricity produced. Solar consumes just 0.02, and wind even less at 0.001 cubic meters.

5. Nuclear Energy Is Way More Expensive Than Renewables

Right now, energy bills are already skyrocketing. Nuclear will make matters worse. It’s much more expensive than solar and wind, which are now the most cost-effective sources of new energy even without subsidies. Per kilowatt-hour of energy produced, nuclear power plants cost three times more than onshore wind or utility-scale solar.

Over the past 15 years, the costs of nuclear power have steadily risen. The final construction costs of nuclear reactors regularly overshoot initial estimates by billions of dollars. One study of over 400 electrical projects found that nuclear projects overshot their cost estimates most frequently out of all energy sources. 

Nuclear power’s capital costs, or one-time costs related to construction, make up a large portion of overall costs that currently play a role in rising prices for nuclear energy.

We don’t just pay for nuclear’s costs through higher energy bills; we’re also left holding the bag when plants go bust. For example, in 2016, New Yorkers were presented with the tab for an $8 billion bailout for three aging nuclear plants. Even now, residents who didn’t even use any energy from the plants are covering the costs through higher energy bills.

One 2018 study shows that supporting nuclear with subsidies funded by New York taxpayers would cost over $32 billion by 2050, while replacing the plants with wind would save $7.9 billion.

Taxpayers across the country are also paying for nuclear through subsidies passed in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, for instance, created a $6 billion subsidy to extend the life of dying nuclear plants.

Wind and solar subsidies aim to level the playing field for an increasingly inexpensive, competitive technology. Meanwhile, nuclear subsidies will only prop up a dangerous, consistently costly industry that should have died long ago. 

Say No to Nuclear, Say Yes to Solar and Wind

Right now, Trump is making nuclear even more dangerous than it already is, by clawing at existing guardrails. His Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) infiltrated the Nuclear Energy Commission under orders to fast-track nuclear expansion. This was prefaced by a series of executive orders signed in May that tightened the administration’s control over the watchdog agency. 

NRC regulations are now being entirely revised and reviewed by “executive departments” deemed appropriate by DOGE. Deadlines for licensing have been shortened, and the widely accepted threshold for radiation exposure is being called into question. 

Meanwhile, supporters are pushing small modular reactors (SMRs). The size of these smaller reactors is tempting developers to place them right in our neighborhoods. But SMRs face many of the same issues conventional reactors face. They may produce more toxic waste per kilowatt of energy produced, and they’re incredibly expensive in practice. To date, the only commercially attempted SMR project in the U.S. was scrapped as construction costs ballooned.

Democratic Governors like Hochul are pushing this unproven technology at the cost of a truly 100% renewable, clean energy future. Instead of rallying around this expensive, dangerous energy source, our leaders should divert support to renewables and energy efficiency, halt expansion (including SMRs), and start decommissioning existing power plants. They need to take seriously our climate, public health, and shared environment — and reject nuclear power. 

The bottom line is clear: we cannot waste more time, energy, or money on propping up dangerous nuclear power when real, safe solutions exist in wind and solar.