The moment the first and second atomic bombs were dropped on Japan in 1945, the world changed forever. From then on, concerns over nuclear bombs would pervade culture, media, and policy. Nuclear armageddon was at the forefront of the public’s view, and close calls such as the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis verified those concerns.
Despite these fears, this new technology flourished during the Cold War period. On Dec. 20, 1951, nuclear energy breathed life into four lightbulbs in the Experimental Breeder Reactor in Arco, Idaho. Since then, over a hundred nuclear plants have been brought to life in the United States alone. As the world grows ever more in need of energy, the United States needs to address the economic, regulatory, and public issues behind an energy source that may come to define our future.
The History of Nuclear Power
Since its inception in 1951, nuclear power has seen immense growth and innovation, with the technology proliferating across the nation. After a rapid period of expansion throughout the ‘70s and ‘80s, driven by energy crises and Cold War pressures, American nuclear production peaked in 1991 with 112 active reactors.
However, this short-term boom did not indicate that nuclear energy was without its issues. In fact, notable plant events across the world defined not only the industry but a generation of culture and policy.
In 1979, the Three Mile Island incident in Pennsylvania devastated American confidence in nuclear power when a loss of power caused a partial nuclear meltdown. Later, in 1986, the Chernobyl disaster in northern Ukraine resulted in the evacuation of over 350,000 people from the area due to the fallout from faulty design and poor staffing. Most recently, in 2011, the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident caused the evacuation of 160,000 citizens, where a magnitude 9.0 earthquake shut down the core functions of the reactor.
Understandably, many remain cautious about returning to these areas and expanding nuclear energy.
Public Perception and Reception
These ever-present realities of nuclear energy have perpetuated concerns about waste, radiation, and meltdown within the public.
The release of this groundbreaking technology, along with sensationalism about radiation, brought about many now-popular pieces of media, including “The Incredible Hulk #1,” “Godzilla,” and countless others. Even seemingly innocent portrayals of nuclear waste or radiation have had significant impacts on perception. The novelty of nuclear energy informed mass concerns about the growth of nuclear arsenals and plants worldwide.
However, with much of that initial fervor dying down, sentiment has shifted in favor of nuclear energy once more. Although American support for nuclear energy finds itself at a historic high — with only 23% of Americans expressing disapproval — public opinion still carries an immense weight in modern-day nuclear development at a local level.
Though many generally support the return of nuclear energy, it can be difficult to find zoning approval in adequate sites due to features of American local politics like the Not-In-My-Backyard (NIMBY) lobbies. Essentially, many citizens are in favor of nuclear power with one small caveat: just not in their neighborhoods.
The Yucca Mountain fiasco demonstrates the consequences of NIMBY taking hold. Under a 1987 amendment to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, Congress targeted Yucca Mountain as the primary storage facility for nationwide nuclear waste. This decision triggered intense local opposition, and despite the $15 billion that the U.S. spent, the project was officially discontinued in 2012.
However, time has passed, and the aforementioned tragedies have somewhat faded into distant memory. In their place are concerns over climate change and renewables. A 2026 Gallup Poll shows that at least 66% of Americans are concerned about climate change. Matthew McKinzie, senior director and policy expert at the Natural Resources Defense Council, explains that the nature of nuclear energy as a “source of carbon-free generation” in the context of climate change has been a key shift. The industry backing of renewables has also blossomed, and carbon-free energy generation has become a staple of political life.
Put simply, nuclear has immense potential when it comes to weighing its footprint and volume. With a high energy capacity that triples that of weather-dependent sources like wind and solar, it has the proven ability to be spread around the world. An average nuclear reactor can produce a gigawatt of energy, which can power roughly 700,000 homes, all in an area smaller than Central Park. The currently active 96 reactors account for about 19% of total U.S. energy generation, and 40% of total renewable generation. In some states like New Hampshire, over 60% of electricity generation is sourced from nuclear power plants.
Public-Private Partnership Policy
Balancing public and political concerns has been a challenge in beginning the so-called nuclear renaissance. Reaching a critical mass of public-private partnerships to help foster a healthy environment for new technologies is coming to define public energy policy.
Experts, such as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Department of Energy’s Office of Nuclear Energy (PDAS) Michael Goff, concur with this sentiment. While Goff claims the current administration is ready and willing to support new developments, he ultimately states that “this [transition] needs to be a collaborative process with community buy-in.”
This cooperation has recently started, with MIT Professor Jacopo Buongiorn confirming that many states across the nation are indeed making earnest attempts to expand into nuclear energy. He notes that legislation regarding nuclear has been remarkably bipartisan and supportive of growth, and that government policy is satisfactory.
Currently, the Department of Energy (DOE) is looking to host innovation campuses across the country to foster a holistic understanding of nuclear energy management. With 26 states marked as interested and six confirmed to begin, the DOE is confident that it can craft a positive view of nuclear energy as part of this initiative. Some notable examples include Utah, Tennessee, and Louisiana, all of which have agreed to short-term commitments with the government. These states have had their governors voice strong support for this program and are set to be the largest hosts of these campuses.
These recent efforts are in part a culmination of years-long efforts to bring nuclear power to America, accelerated by the growing electricity cost of AI data centers. Some projections predict a doubling in data center energy consumption from 400 Terawatt-hours to 800 Terawatt-hours by 2030. McKinzie explained to the HPR that AI consumption has had a “strong impact so far” on energy demand, but whether or not this trend will carry on is to be seen. That being said, energy demand from AI remains at an all-time high and is predicted to continue along this current path.
This rise in demand and strain on grids, alongside a slower-than-desirable renewable transition, has resulted in rising prices for consumers everywhere. America needs more energy than ever, and the current trajectory of AI growth has resulted in a 50% increase in ratepayer costs since 2021. In a grid economy where clean energy has the potential to slow the growth of rates, additional energy via a source like nuclear can assist in driving down costs.
Across the board, the conditions seem to be set for a nuclear renaissance. Demand surges due to rising costs and grid pressure, public support at an all-time high, current administration support for nuclear, and technological limitations becoming obsolete. By all means, it seems that America is missing out on a huge expansion of an already-proven technology. Then why hasn’t it happened yet?
The Dangers of Nuclear
One of the biggest caveats to nuclear power has been nuclear waste. Much of the conversation in today’s sphere is based on what happens to radioactive spent fuel. Spent fuel, which is the main source of radioactive waste, is cooled, then stored in secure concrete facilities designed to manage the radiation levels to a safe level.
As confident as many technical leaders may be, nuclear energy still has a long way to go before earning full confidence from those who control whether or not projects happen: the public, capitalists, and industry players. Issues like cost, waste, and reliability remain at the forefront for nuclear advocates. Nuclear expert and Harvard Kennedy School Professor Matthew Bunn explained to the HPR, “Sometimes the industry claims it’s a solved problem,” showing the industry’s confidence despite the real limitations involved.
Of these issues, waste seems to be the most significant hurdle the industry must face. Due to the tangible and political costs of nuclear meltdown or system failure, safety remains relevant even today. Cases of mismanagement worldwide are common, and enforcing regulations is the key to developing confidence in atomic energy.
For example, starting in the 1960s and continuing until at least 2021, radiation from the Hanford Site in Washington state has steadily leaked into the surrounding environment, with a portion of the 53 million gallons of radioactive waste making its way into local groundwater and soil. Stemming from storage containers well past their expiration date, the Hanford Site is set to cost over $100 billion in cleanup.
Cases can also extend to hostile conflicts, like Russia seizing the Ukrainian Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant in 2022. With the instability of the grid and supporting infrastructure during times of war, it is unclear what the fate of this plant will be. The toll of a nuclear disaster due to a takeover could result in a Chernobyl-esque nuclear catastrophe as core safety features lose power.
It All Comes Down to Money
While waste is the primary concern of legislators, funding remains the utmost problem that the industry must contend with in the face of soaring costs. Nuclear power plants can be quite expensive, with most ranging between $6 and $9 billion. Naturally, this situation calls for instilling confidence in investors regarding the security of their investment.
The Black Fox Nuclear Power Plant incident between 1973 and 1981 resulted in a $230 million financial loss for the Public Service Company of Oklahoma due to fierce local opposition to the construction of the plant. The 1979 protests against this plant were inspired by the Three Mile Island incident in Pennsylvania, once again showing the impact of public perception.
Utilities companies prefer less risky investments, and the possibility of operational shutdown can turn many companies away. As Bunn describes, the rise of solar and wind energy sources has made competition much stiffer for nuclear energy, and the funding of new nuclear plants is not yet a safe investment. Finding funding for a new plant is a difficult task given the uncertain history of nuclear energy ventures in America.
Additionally, passing regulations and acquiring speciality materials, human capital, and specialized labor can add costs as a project is in operation. Due to these high costs, each power plant necessitates large capital investment during the construction duration. Because the age of rapid nuclear expansion has long since passed, the number of construction workers and individuals with specialized expertise has waned, making planning more difficult.
Buongiorno clarifies that rather than technological limitations being the driver of high costs, it is largely the construction process itself. Stringent safety regulations call for a special type of steel and concrete, both of which require heavy capital investment. Whereas natural gas, the United States’ main source of energy, has 70% of its electricity cost coming from fuel costs, nuclear energy has 60-80% of its electricity cost coming from the construction process itself. This significant disparity is why many investors and utilities prefer to invest in the less costly, but more environmentally destructive alternatives like natural gas or oil.
Despite the apparent benefits of nuclear energy, in its generation, footprint, capacity, and longevity, there are too many costs to consider. Regulation, construction, public approval, and safety concerns have defined nuclear energy and continue to do so.
Regardless, public support for nuclear energy development is at an all-time high and should be a positive sign. The problem of feasibility, however, has yet to be solved. Actual methods of procuring siting from local, state, and federal regulatory bodies remain difficult despite recent developments speeding up the process. Though Yucca Mountain remains an unsolved issue, recent buzz around nuclear energy may help turn the tide to solve NIMBYism.
What Happens To Nuclear Next?
How can we create more specialized labor? How can we improve regulation standards? How can we fix our nuclear fuel supply cycle? Each of these questions and more must be answered carefully, with the public, waste, and funding in mind.
The discourse within the nuclear community is currently dominated by engineers and scientists. However, the fight for change is broad and spans every discipline: policymakers, educators, investors, councilmembers, and ratepayers. We can bridge this gap by bringing nuclear energy firmly into public discourse, involving all stakeholders.
Nuclear energy was once the hallmark of civilization, proof that humanity prevailed over nature. Times have changed, and we have made mistakes that have shattered our confidence in atomic energy. It is time we learn from them.
