America is charging toward a power crunch. The country consumed more energy than ever in 2024, and we’re projected to break that record again this year, even as electric bills soar at more than double the rate of inflation. Data centers supporting the rise of artificial intelligence are a major factor, burning more than 4 percent of energy nationwide, on pace to triple in a few years. These facilities are also pinching the global market, projected to double their consumption to 1,000 terawatts by 2026. That’s as much as Japan. Electric vehicles and air conditioning aggravate the problem. The United States remains a net exporter of energy — including petroleum — but the White House declared the first national energy emergency earlier this year. Could a nuclear revival fuel America’s future in this competitive environment?
Impending doom
Nuclear power is not worth the impact or the risk. Nuclear reactors produce toxic waste that can remain radioactive for tens of thousands of years. That waste can leech into the soil, killing entire biomes and spreading through carriers like plants and animals. The U.S. has already accumulated 90,000 metric tons of nuclear waste since the 1950s, all languishing in government-owned storage facilities because we haven’t figured out how to dispose of it with any degree of safety. It’s not time to add more spent fuel.
Nuclear energy also threatens human life. Meltdowns may be rare, but they can be catastrophic for people who live nearby or downwind, tainting air, food and drinking water with particles that cause cancer, cardiovascular disease and reproductive issues. Some will remember televised maps of radioactive clouds spreading across Europe from Chernobyl, Ukraine, in 1986, or photos of the ghost neighborhoods abandoned around Fukushima, Japan, after 2011. Cleanup at Three Mile Island, site of America’s worst nuclear accident in 1979, is expected to take until 2052.
Besides, nuclear plants are far too slow and expensive. Construction can take more than a decade and cost billions of dollars. Coal mines and oil rigs are cheaper to build. Some argue that nuclear energy is worth it because it’s better for the environment, but renewable alternatives have become more efficient in recent years. “Nuclear power has simply been eclipsed,” Tyson Slocum, energy program director at the advocacy group Public Citizen, told The New York Times. “It was an incredible zero-emission resource for its day. But for much of the energy system today, that day has long passed.”
Finally, it’s impossible to completely divorce nuclear energy from nuclear weapons, at least in the public perception. Both rely on similar technology and materials, so increasing the number of nuclear plants means there will be more radioactive materials and a greater chance they could fall into the wrong hands. As recently as January 2025, an alleged member of a Japanese crime syndicate pleaded guilty to trafficking uranium and weapons-grade plutonium for use in Iran’s weapons program. Nuclear weapons are still the most dangerous in the world; even a simple dirty bomb can kill or sicken millions in one fell swoop. Energy, though essential to modern life, should never generate that kind of fear.
The solution we need
Today’s nuclear power is efficient, cost-effective and safe. The arguments against it are often based on outdated technology or scientific fallacies. For example, nuclear weapons don’t use the same material as nuclear power; they require a specific isotope of uranium that is extremely rare and difficult to isolate or plutonium, which must be synthesized for that purpose. Know-how is not what’s limiting the number of nuclear-armed countries to nine while 31 generate nuclear power and at least 53 operate research reactors.
Technology has made nuclear energy safe, while the process offers promise for the environment. “Advanced reactor” designs feature pressurized water mechanisms to cool reactors without human intervention and prevent the overheating that can lead to a meltdown. Nuclear fission emits steam rather than greenhouse gases; even while using older reactors, the U.S. avoided emitting 471 million metric tons of carbon dioxide with nuclear energy in 2020 — equivalent to all renewables put together. Reactors use a fraction of the land required for wind farms, and research is underway to recycle spent nuclear fuel. No wonder France relies on it for 68 percent of its power; allies like Slovakia and Belgium are close behind.
Nuclear energy also happens to be good for the economy. Nuclear plants contribute billions in taxes each year. The industry supplies some half a million jobs, with salaries that are 50 percent higher than those at other energy plants. Unlike renewables, which depend on weather conditions, nuclear reactors can produce energy 24/7, making them the best candidate to meet the skyrocketing needs associated with artificial intelligence and data centers.
Energy independence is key to U.S. national security. It’s not just that nuclear power can help fuel America’s military into the next century. The energy market is seeing a convergence, as allies and adversaries alike compete for dominance in new technologies like chip manufacturing and AI, which will play key roles in the future, both economically and militarily. Power production could become the limiting factor that holds the country back. The U.S. has already lost its competitive advantage in nuclear power to Russia and China. According to the Department of Energy, “This reality threatens American energy security, narrows or eliminates foreign policy options and erodes American international influence to set strong non-proliferation, safety, and security standards.”
This story appears in the October 2025 issue of Deseret Magazine. Learn more about how to subscribe.