Should Nuclear Power Be Expanded in the US?

Image by Janiecbros on GettyImages

The Earth is on the brink of disaster. Populations are soaring, tensions are rising, climates are shifting, innovation is accelerating, and power demands are exploding across the world. Humanity is looking for answers, and many people are turning toward nuclear energy. The revolutionary science seems to solve many of these modern problems at first glance, such as reducing greenhouse gases and producing dependable energy. However, there are many critics who are concerned with the fledgling science, pointing to disasters such as Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island. Ever since the Cold War, there has been a controversy whether the US should expand its nuclear power, and it seems the argument is flaring up again. 

Perspective 1: Nuclear Energy Should Expand in the US

Many Americans are now leaning pro nuclear energy, citing how it produces dependable, carbon-free energy. In his article, “Powering The Future: Why America Must Double Down On Nuclear Energy,” Bill Frist offers statistics showing how nuclear energy is cleaner and more dependable than other energy sources. He points out that the recent ADVANCE Act (Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy) was supported by both political parties, showing just how important nuclear energy has become across the political board.

Image by Lee Lawson on Unsplash

Frist explains how Tennessee is leading the country’s research in redesigning nuclear reactors and developing safer policies. He uses Tennessee as an example of how carbon emissions in the state have significantly dropped since implementing nuclear power. He praises the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) for becoming “the first utility company in the United States to request a permit to construct a small modular reactor” (Frist). He also notes that major tech companies such as Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and Oracle soon followed in order to support their booming energy requirements.

Frist argues that the US must ramp up nuclear research because the country has fallen behind rivals such as China and Finland. However, he admits that the most important thing to focus on is safety. He explains several safety regulations that have been enforced, including “passive cooling, redundant safety measures, and real-time monitoring” (Frist). Another challenge he addresses is nuclear waste. Frist explains how nuclear waste is currently stored, and stresses that better methods are under development for future use.

Frist closes his argument discussing his view for the path forward. He claims that “the ADVANCE Act was… just the beginning” (Frist). He stresses that progress with nuclear energy requires collaboration between international leaders, private companies, and the public. Only then, could humanity “secure a healthier, safer, and… resilient” world (Frist).

Perspective 2: Nuclear Power Needs More Research Before Widespread Implementation

Even as popular opinion shifts towards nuclear energy, there are scientists that warn against the inefficiencies of nuclear energy. In his article, “Limitations of Nuclear Power as a Sustainable Energy Source,” Joshua M. Pierce argues that nuclear energy isn’t sustainable after all. He points out that, contrary to popular belief, nuclear energy does produce CO2, mainly during production, recycling, and disposal. Although he acknowledges that these emissions are still far lower than fossil fuels, he claims that in order to replace fossil fuel emissions swiftly, energy from existing nuclear plants must first be diverted to building more plants rather than decreasing CO2 emissions.

Image by Getty on Unsplash

Pierce continues his argument stating that “[m]uch like the mining and processing of other materials, uranium mining, processing and enrichment can leave substantial damage to the nearby ecosystems and waterways.” Similarly, he points out that nuclear power plants require vast amounts of water to cool down the reactor and produce energy. This heated water then is returned to rivers and lakes, further damaging local ecosystems. Pierce also argues that fear of nuclear disasters such as Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island could prevent support of nuclear plants built near population centers. Another point Pierce offers is that nuclear waste disposal is a much larger problem than most realize, as nuclear waste doesn’t only include spent fuel, but also decommissioned power plants and the land around them. 

Pierce’s final main argument is that one of the major challenges for widespread nuclear power is economics. He claims that “[n]uclear power plants have become notorious for high construction costs . . . followed by frequent and expensive repairs.” He also claims that nuclear energy is vastly more expensive than other alternative power sources such as wind and solar. Finally, he argues that no insurance company has ever insured a nuclear plant for fear of an accident. 

Pierce closes his argument by summarizing the main changes that the nuclear industry must make before widespread implementation. First, nuclear plants must reduce the energy used across the fuel’s entire life cycle. Second, nuclear power plants must be much safer from catastrophe – safe enough that they can be placed in population centers. Third, radioactive waste must be recycled, reducing future nuclear waste and reducing future fuel mining. Lastly, the nuclear industry must gain public trust, sharing the truth with the public rather than hiding it. Only with these changes would nuclear energy be safe for humanity.

Similarities and Differences

Reading through both articles, it seems that they do have at least some common ground. Firstly, neither author can deny the power of popular opinion. They both admit that “[t]he nuclear industry must gain public trust” if it’s going to expand (Pierce). However, Frist claims that popular opinion is gradually rising for nuclear energy, while Pierce claims that popular opinion still doesn’t support more reactors. They both agree that in order to gain popular opinion, there must be an increase in “transparency, shared responsibility, and collaboration between government, industry, and communities” (Frist). Both authors also agree that in order to meet rising power demands and combat climate change, drastic action is needed now. However, while Frist claims that “nuclear energy stands as the most scalable, carbon-free solution to meet these growing needs” (Frist), Pierce points out that nuclear energy is nowhere near impact-neutral enough to be safe and isn’t nearly as scalable as most think. Finally, the most obvious agreement between the two is that “[s]afety must remain paramount” (Frist). While Frist believes that safety measures are already mostly sufficient and that scientists will continue to improve nuclear safety, Pierce dives deep into what safety means and explains why he believes that nuclear energy not only isn’t safe currently, but that the industry should be much safer before expansion. 

Of course, there are still more differences. Frist believes that nuclear energy is emission-neutral and the ideal solution to climate change. He cites that “[n]uclear energy. . . produces zero emissions during operation.” However, Pierce expands his view to include the mining, processing, and storage of nuclear materials. Using this expanded scope, he argues that “[greenhouse gas] emissions from nuclear power are normally much lower than fossil fuel plants. . ., however, life cycle nuclear GHG emissions can be substantial.” Meanwhile, Pierce claims that popular opinion would get in the way of producing more nuclear reactors close to population centers, yet Frist claims that several companies are already working on that. Similarly, Pierce claims that nuclear power plants are far too risky for insurance companies to invest in. However, Frist argues that “[m]ajor financial institutions such as Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and Bank of America, have also begun financing nuclear projects, a significant reversal from previous hesitations.” 

Strengths and Weaknesses

Image by Tingey Injury Law Firm on Unsplash

Both articles, while effectively arguing their cases, hold their own strengths and weaknesses. One of Frist’s strengths is delivering his case in language that common civilians can understand. This is something that Pierce lacks in, since his main audience is engineers and leaders. However, this could be flipped the other way, too. Pierce excels at convincing those who have closer ties to the industry – the businessmen and engineers who make the big decisions, while Frist’s vague terminology is less convincing for that audience. Another strength that Pierce holds is that he seems to be more impartial than Frist. Frist is a former senator from Tennessee, and is a supporter of President Trump. Both of these positions could suggest Frist’s bias. Meanwhile, Pierce is a professor at Michigan Technological University and “declares no conflict of interest” (Pierce). However, a major advantage Frist’s paper has on Pierce’s is that Frist wrote his paper in 2025, while Pierce wrote his in 2012, thirteen years previous. This gives Frist the advantage of updated information.

In Frist’s article, he makes several strong arguments over Pierce – the first of which is that nuclear energy offers consistent energy unlike other alternative sources. He argues that this consistency could support major tech companies when other sources fail. Another main facet of Frist’s argument is that several major tech and insurance companies are investing in nuclear power, undermining a major argument of Pierce’s. Yet another major argument of Frist’s is that nuclear energy is gaining support from both sides of the political system, building credibility across the board. He appeals to the reader’s emotions by stressing that global warming is drastically affecting the planet, and that nuclear energy could reduce climate change’s effects. Another way he appeals to readers’ emotions is by stirring national pride by claiming rival nations are beating the USA in nuclear progress. He admits that nuclear safety is always a concern, but refutes concerns by claiming that the American nuclear program has “operated with an exceptional safety record.” Frist offers many arguments for nuclear power. However, he fails to include much yang for his yin. By failing to acknowledge many opposing views, his argument seems rather flimsy and naive.

In Pierce’s article, he makes several strong points, starting with the fact that nuclear power isn’t, in fact, carbon-neutral when including the acquisition and disposal of materials. This undermines Frist’s arguments rather strongly. Another strong point that Pierce makes is that mining nuclear ore and operating nuclear power plants directly harms local ecosystems. He also argues that a major concern is “nuclear insecurity.” He references the disasters of Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island, as well as the threat of terrorism. His final strong argument is focused on the dangers of nuclear waste and the effects it can have on future generations. Pierce shares an in-depth overview about why nuclear power is not sustainable like many officials claim. However, his ultra-technical writing style and condensed format makes his article feel extremely intimidating for a casual reader.

Compromise

I believe that the Earth is at a tipping point. Energy consumption is skyrocketing alongside greenhouse gas emissions while fuel reservoirs are nearing depletion. While Pierce makes a great argument that nuclear energy is nowhere near the perfect solution some people claim, I agree with Frist that, with continued testing and research, nuclear energy can support efforts to improve. For example, nuclear energy could be paired with other alternative energy sources such as wind, hydro, and solar to reduce fossil fuel consumption. In certain areas, nuclear energy could even be supplanted by other energy forms as other methods are experimented on. For example, scientists are testing hydro generators that can be used to harness the changing tides and solar plants that use thousands of mirrors to superheat salt and generate power in the desert. Developing solutions such as these could balance our needs for nuclear power expansion and satisfy Pierce’s concerns about widespread nuclear power plants before they are fully safe. Of course, I believe that there should be reformations to how transparent the nuclear industry should be. Both Frist and Pierce made it abundantly clear that this energy revolution needs public support to grow, and it seems that the easiest way to gain the public’s trust is to be honest. Ultimately, both articles convinced me that humanity must tread lightly as we continue into the nuclear age.

Image by Stephanie Hau on Unsplash

 

Works Cited

Frist, Bill. “Powering the Future: Why America Must Double down on Nuclear Energy.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 29 May 2025, www.forbes.com/sites/billfrist/2025/05/29/powering-the-future-why-america-must-double-down-on-nuclear-energy/. 

Pearce, Joshua M. “Limitations of Nuclear Power as a Sustainable Energy Source.” MDPI, Molecular Diversity Preservation International, 7 June 2012, www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/4/6/1173.