Nuclear Power: Clean Energy Hero or Environmental Headache?

I live near the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. Lately I’ve seen a flood of posts claiming that nuclear power is the cleanest and cheapest form of energy. It sounds promising — after all, we urgently need low-carbon energy sources to tackle climate change. But every technology has trade-offs, and nuclear power is no exception. From its enormous water use and radioactive waste to its reliability and carbon-free output, the truth is far more complex than the headlines suggest. So let’s look at the facts — the real pros and cons of nuclear power.

The Bright Side of Nuclear Power

A photo of long silver tubes filled with nuclear fuel. — Image: Nuclear power fuel rods Credit: NEA

Low carbon emissions: Once a nuclear power plant is running, it produces almost no greenhouse gases. This makes it a powerful ally against climate change.

Reliable energy: Unlike solar or wind, nuclear plants don’t depend on the weather. They can run day and night, providing steady “baseload” power.

High energy density: A small amount of uranium produces a massive amount of energy — millions of times more than coal or gas.

New designs are safer: Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and next-gen reactors are being designed to reduce waste, cut accident risks, and even recycle spent fuel.

Not All That Glows Is Green

Nuclear hazard sign -- a yellow triangle outlined in black and white with the nuclear image inside. The nuclear image is black and looks like three pie-shaped pieces with a small, black circle in the middle. — Image: Nuclear hazard Credit: Clker-Free-Vector-Images

⚠️ Water use: Each nuclear power plant can use around 2.5 million gallons of water every single day for cooling. That water often returns to rivers or oceans much warmer than before, which can harm fish, coral, and other aquatic life.

⚠️ Damage to sea life: At Diablo Canyon, the power plant’s cooling system takes in huge amounts of ocean water every day — and with it, millions of tiny sea creatures. It’s estimated that about 1.5 billion baby fish and other small marine animals die each year during this process. The strong intake flow also damages kelp forests, which are like underwater rainforests that shelter and feed marine life.

⚠️ Over time, scientists have seen big drops in kelp, algae, and cold-water fish populations near the plant. Some species, like the black abalone, didn’t survive in the area at all. The system pulls in tiny fish and crab larvae that can’t make it out alive — leaving fewer fish close to shore.

⚠️ Radioactive waste: Even small amounts of nuclear waste stay dangerous for thousands of years. Storing and guarding it safely is complicated and costly.

⚠️ Accidents can be catastrophic: Disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima remind us that when things go wrong, they can devastate communities and ecosystems for decades.

⚠️ High cost and long delays: Nuclear plants take many years and billions of dollars to build. Renewables like solar and wind can be up and running much faster. In the case of Diablo Canyon, California gave a $1.4 billion state loan to keep its last nuclear power plant open for now.

The Bottom Line

Nuclear power can help reduce greenhouse gases. But it comes with major trade-offs — especially when it comes to water, waste, and long-term safety. The smartest path forward might be a mix of renewables, storage, efficiency, and — where it makes sense — newer, safer nuclear options.

What do you think? Should nuclear power be part of our clean-energy future — or is it too risky for our planet and water?

If you’re interested in more of our fact-check series, click here!