Could you imagine being able to walk into a room and stand right next to the sun? In February of this year, a lab in France was able to hold a Nuclear Fusion reaction (the combining of nuclei) for a total time of 22 minutes, marking a moment in human history. This is important because fusion is the proposed solution to all of the problems offered in fission reaction (the splitting of nuclei) like: nuclear waste, possible meltdown, and problematic fuel sources.

Over the past 80+ years nuclear energy has proved time and time again to be the safest and cleanest form of energy. Despite all the evidence to support nuclear energy, people are continually afraid of the accidents that occurred at Fukushima, Chernobyl, and 3-Mile Island, which is a valid concern. Accidents that cause billions in damage and hurt millions of people are extremely rare but can occur, but outside of those three accidents there have been no big reactor meltdowns since Fukushima in 2011. Nuclear reactors have come a long way since Chernobyl (the largest accident).

Nuclear energy produces the least amount of waste compared to coal or fossil fuels. The reason this is lies in the heart of all nuclear plants, where a piece of radioactive rock is surrounded by water, the water is boiled by the rock and the steam from this water turns a turbine which produces electricity. Coal energy works a similar way, burning carbon or fossil fuels to release gasses that turn turbines and generate electricity. The main difference between the two systems is the power source involved. In nuclear energy you use radioactive Isotopes of elements — Uranium 235 (U-235) Thorium 232 (Th 232) and plutonium 239 (Pu-239).

The last argument against nuclear electricity is it doesn’t produce as much electricity as coal or solar plants. According to the EIA (US Energy information Administration), “If a coal plant were to remain online for 365 days at full capacity it will generate 876,000 MWh,” according to EIA 2024.

To put it into perspective, coal could power the city of San Francisco for about two months. An entire years’ worth of effort for two months of energy for a large city.

On the other hand, you have nuclear energy, which a study done by the European Commission said “Reactors with a maximum output of 300-Megawatt electric (MWe) can produce 7.2 million kWh per day” (SMR explained 2023). Since kilowatts are 1/1000 of a megawatt, the total for an entire year would be the equivalent to 2,628,000 MWh.

Nuclear power could power the same city of San Francisco for five months (146 days) off of only one small nuclear reactor which to me is a huge improvement in the performance and sustainability of our electrical system.

In conclusion, I challenge you to do the research, come up with your own conclusion on nuclear energy, remember to compare carbon emissions, fuel efficiency and overall safety when you are making your decisions on if you are pro or anti-nuclear. My opinion on the matter is that nuclear energy is good from an economical and a much cleaner and efficient energy source.

Parker LeDuc is a student at Layton High School.