Looking beyond the largely political arguments over why average global temperatures are increasing, the fact remains that greenhouse gases are filling our atmosphere at an unsustainable rate. You might be surprised to learn that electricity production is responsible for only 27 percent of greenhouse gases that humans produce today. Still, solving this one quarter of the problem is pivotal to reducing other major sources of greenhouse gases. “Electrifying” these other gas sources –like autos and cement factories–is necessary in order to achieve net-zero carbon emissions. Given the energy options we have today, the United States would be remiss not to pursue nuclear power as a key next step toward environmentally friendly energy production.

Coal and natural gas now produce 59 percent of the U.S.’s electricity. Nuclear energy accounts for 20 percent. The reasons are myriad, but they mainly involve government subsidies for fossil fuels and the relatively cheap cost of excavating and processing these non-renewable sources. To be clear, similar subsidies exist in countries throughout the developed and developing worlds. These factors make the economic landscape unfavorable for competing clean energy solutions.

Solar and wind, despite our hopes, are not the large-scale answers to our clean electricity deficit. We have largely maximized the efficiency of solar cells, yet solar panels remain a high-cost, low-yield commodity. Windmills are nice, but contingent on regular winds and could never satisfy a large percentage of our national energy appetite either. But the larger problem with these two energy sources pertains to how their energy is stored. If we were to construct the battery facilities needed to store solar or wind energy for entire cities, it would be inefficient and a net detriment to the environment. Just think about the amount of lithium required!

When many in the United States think about nuclear energy, the 2011 Fukushima nuclear plant accident likely comes to mind, generating unease. People are usually not interested in creating new facilities capable of accidentally irradiating their backyards. However, the reason for Fukushima's failure had not so much to do with the plant’s science or intended design, but rather with corruption. Nuclear plants contain an array of emergency backup generators, designed to keep the reactors cool in a plant failure or power outage. But one of the conditions for these generators to operate as intended is that they be located well above sea level. Instead, the builders of Fukushima determined that it was less expensive to place the emergency generators below sea level. Due to this poor decision, a tsunami flooded the generators and caused the nuclear chaos we all remember today.

Bear in mind, though, that Fukushima's construction began in 1971. Since then, scientists and engineers have come a long way in developing nuclear facilities that will not have reactor meltdowns. Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and others have invested considerably in the design of far safer, eco-friendly nuclear plants. Some new plant designs use nuclear waste as an energy source, which makes steam the only notable by-product. In short, safe and environmentally friendly nuclear technology exists today, and it’s pretty neat.

If we look past the public unease about nuclear plants and wish to proceed with adding more nuclear power to our energy sector, how many plants should we be building? The best answer is as many as we can–seriously. The United States cannot possibly build too many, as we would require approximately 306 new reactors to provide 75 percent of our current energy needs. We only have 94 functioning reactors today, all but five of which were operational before 2000. Perhaps even more interesting, every reactor currently operational was contracted by the U.S. government during the 1960s and 70s. Each reactor costs approximately 7.5 billion dollars to build, meaning that the construction costs alone required to nuclear-power 75 percent of today’s American energy production would be between 2 and 2.5 trillion dollars. This is an expensive goal, but demonstrates the cost of edging out fossil fuels in the most cost-efficient way possible.

In 2019 and 2020, the U.S. produced more energy than it consumed for the first time since 1957. We are unfortunately about to reverse this trend in 2021, already importing non-renewable energy predominantly from the Middle East. Maybe the scientific discovery for a quantum leap in energy production technology happens tomorrow, but that remains unlikely. If we are truly interested in a more sustainable future, the American people and government must work toward implementing more attainable energy options, almost inevitably including the one proposed here.