It’s interesting that there isn’t much discussion about this in the mainstream media, but the Biden administration recently pledged to triple US nuclear power capacity by 2050. At COP28 last year the US was among 25 signatories who also pledged to triple world nuclear power capacity by 2050. Last month the Biden administration announced $900 million to support startups of Gen III+ nuclear reactors in the US. This is on top of the nuclear subsidies in the IRA. Earlier this year they announced the creation of the Nuclear Power Project Management and Delivery working group to help streamline the nuclear industry and reduce cost overruns. In July Biden signed the bipartisan ADVANCE act which has sweeping support for the nuclear industry and streamlining of regulations.

What is most encouraging is that all this pro-nuclear action has bipartisan support. In Trump’s first term he was “broadly supportive” of nuclear power, and took some small initial steps. His campaign has again signaled support for “all forms of energy” and there is no reason to suspect that he will undo any of the recent positive steps.

Even environmental groups are split about nuclear power. Some still oppose nuclear, while others have embraced it as a necessary part of the solution to global warming. Regarding the recent pledge to triple nuclear capacity:

Environment America Executive Director Lisa Frank said in a statement that the plan risked “toxic meltdowns, wrecked landscapes and contaminated drinking water.” U.S. PIRG Energy and Utilities Program Director Abe Scarr in a separate statement called nuclear energy “dangerous, expensive and a distraction from cheaper, safer options like solar power” and said its expansion would “[waste] time and resources.”

These responses are not very compelling. Fearmongering about “toxic meltdowns” seems like it was scripted in a 1960s anti-nuclear demonstration. The world has operated hundreds of nuclear power plants (there are currently 440) for decades with only a few mishaps, mostly due to avoidable poor management. The technology is also significantly improving, with some reactor designs being essentially melt-down proof. Nuclear power is actually the second safest (in terms of lives per unit of energy-0.03 deaths per terawatt hour), just slightly behind solar (0.02). Coal, on the other hand, has 1230 times as many deaths per unit energy than solar.

This is the bottom line that even many environmentalists are starting to see clearly – first, you can’t just consider risk, you have to consider risk vs benefit. Second, you can’t just assess one option, you have to compare it to the other options. As should be clear to any frequent reader here, I am a huge advocate of solar power and renewable energy in general and favor steps to maximize these sources of energy. But our goal is to phase out fossil fuels as quickly as possible, while by 2050 the world will likely increase our energy demand by 50% or more. For the next several decades, the more nuclear power we have, the fewer coal and natural gas plants we will have. It is simply implausible that we will fully displace fossil fuel in that time without nuclear.

Bringing up wrecked landscapes and contaminated drinking water is pretty naked fearmongering. One of the advantages of nuclear power is that it has a relatively small land footprint – much less than renewables for the amount of energy produced. It also has much less than fossil fuels, especially when you consider mining and fracking. Coal releases more radioactive material into the environment than nuclear power. It’s simply no contest. Environmentalists who oppose nuclear power will demonstrably hurt the environment.

Nuclear has some advantages over wind and solar, such as less land use. But also, a nuclear power plant can be plugged into existing connections to the grid. The plan should be, in fact, to swap out coal for nuclear one for one. Renewables require distributed connections to the grid and significant grid expansion. While we should are are doing this, applications for new grid connections are backed up by years, more than a decade in some cases. Nuclear also is not an intermittent power source, and the newer reactor designs (such as salt cooled) can more nimbly follow demand than older reactors. Nuclear also has the smallest carbon footprint of all power sources, lower than solar and wind.

Of course there are challenges with nuclear power, cost being one. But it is better to find solutions than to just accept worse options. The Biden administration, with bipartisan support, is finding solutions. Bill Gates is funding a salt-cooled reactor startup, also in the hopes of kickstarting a new reactor design that will be cheaper, safer, and more nimble. Opposition to nuclear is mixed and softening. The looming threat of global warming is simply changing the calculus, even for environmentalists.