Nuclear Energy is Relatively Clean and Safe

Superfact 96: Nuclear power is a relatively clean and safe energy source that produces no atmospheric emissions during operation. However, there are some problems with nuclear power, but they are often overblown.

The photo shows the three mile island nuclear plant from the across the shore of Susquehanna River in Londonderry Township.
The Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant south of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. March 28, 1979, a nuclear accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant sent shockwaves across the world, raising fears about nuclear power. However, no one died, and no one was hurt. Shutterstock Asset id: 2512612545 by Aubrie K

Clean energy sources are often defamed by disinformation and misunderstandings. For example, wind power turbines are not bird killing machines. Contrary to what you often hear wind power is indeed a very clean, cheap and sustainable energy source. Nuclear power is another misunderstood energy source. Wind power, solar power, hydro, and nuclear power are all considered clean energy because they produce no greenhouse gases or air pollution during operation and they also have very low life-cycle emissions.

The graph below from Our World in Data depicting lifetime greenhouse gas emissions (construction, operation, disposal) and safety data for the European Union, show that the lifetime greenhouse gas emissions of coal power is 162 times higher than those of nuclear power and coal kill 820 times as many people as nuclear power. The lifetime greenhouse gas emissions of natural gas are 120 times higher than those of nuclear power and kill 613 times as many people as nuclear power. The difference is staggering.

The graph depicts death rates and greenhouse gas emissions per unit for different energy sources including coal, oil, natural gas, biomass, hydropower, wind, nuclear power, and solar. | Nuclear Energy is Relatively Clean and Safe
Death rates from fossil fuels and biomass are based on state-of-the art plants with pollution control in Europe and are based on older models of the impacts of air pollution on health. This means that these death rates are likely to be very conservative. For further discussion see our article: OurWorldinData.org/safest-sources-of-energy. Electricity shares are given for 2021. Data sources: Markandya & Wilkinson (2007); UNSCEAR (2008: 2018); Sovacol et al. (2016); IPCC AR5 (2014); UNECE (2022); Ember Energy (2001). OurWorldinData.org – Research and data to make progress against the world’s largest problems. Licensed under CC-BY by the authors Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser. Citation : Hannah Ritchie (2020) – “What are the safest and cleanest sources of energy?” Published online at OurWorldinData.org. Retrieved from: ‘https://archive.ourworldindata.org/20260202-100556/safest-sources-of-energy.html’ [Online Resource] (archived on February 2, 2026).

In the graph above, greenhouse gas emissions are measured of CO2 equivalents per Gigawatt-hour of electricity over the lifecycle of the power plant. 1 Gigawatt-hour is the annual electricity consumption of 150 people in the EU. Death rate from accidents and air pollution is measured as deaths per Terawatt hour of electricity production. 1 terawatt hour is the annual electricity consumption of 150,000 people in the EU.

I should mention that there are problems with nuclear power that are not entirely covered by the graph above, including radioactive waste, a history of spectacular accidents, and a perceived connection to nuclear arms. However, as you will see later in this post, even though these problems get a lot of media attention, they are not as scary as one might think. However, it should be noted that nuclear power in its current form is not a cheap source of energy, but that is a different topic.

I consider this a super fact because nuclear power is often thought of as an extremely dangerous and dirty source of energy, which is not the case.

How Does Nuclear Power Work ?

From left to right : a neutron strikes a uranium nucleus, and it breaks apart into a Krypton and Barium isotope and release three neutrons, which strike three uranium nucleuses, causing three fission events and releasing nine neutrons in total, etc.
Illustration of nuclear chain reaction. Uranium-235 fission. Shutterstock asset id: 73714504 by Mpanchenko. Note I corrected an error in the picture.

The fuel (fuel rods) in a nuclear power station consists primarily of stacked ceramic pellets made of low enriched uranium dioxide housed inside sealed metal tubes. The uranium consists primarily of two uranium isotopes U-238, which has 92 protons and 146 neutrons and U-235, which has 92 protons and 143 neutrons. Uranium always has 92 protons. The isotope that is used for fission is U-235. Natural Uranium consists of 0.7% U-235, trace amounts of U-236 and the rest (99.3%) is U-238. The uranium in nuclear fuel rods is either natural (0.7% U-235) or a few percent of U-235 (low enriched uranium). This should be contrasted with a uranium atomic bomb which has at least 80% U-235 (highly enriched).

A nuclear power plant generates electricity using heat from nuclear reactions. Inside the reactor, atoms of fuel (uranium) undergo nuclear fission, where they split apart and release a large amount of heat. The fuel rods (see picture below) in a nuclear power station consist primarily of stacked ceramic pellets made of low enriched uranium dioxide housed inside sealed metal tubes. There are also control rods in a nuclear power station, which consist of materials with a high neutron absorption cross-section. The control rods are used to regulate the reaction. If they are fully inserted the reaction will stop. Also note that nuclear reactors have a containment shield (at least in western countries).

How a nuclear reactor generates electricity using fuel rods, control rods, steam, turbines, and generators diagram hand drawn schematic vector.
Fission generates heat, which generates high pressure steam, which pushes a turbine around, which turns a generator, which generates electricity, which is transformed to the right voltage and delivered to customers. Science educational illustration Shutterstock Asset id: 2658971563 by Alexander_P

Below is an alternative illustration.

Fission generates heat, which generates high pressure steam, which pushes a turbine around, which turns a generator, which generates electricity, which is transformed to the right voltage and delivered to customers. The picture also shows a cooling tower and illustrates how a nuclear plant uses water.
A nuclear power plant generates electricity by using heat from nuclear fission to produce steam, which drives turbines connected to electrical generators. This illustration also depicts the nuclear power plant’s use of water for cooling. Don’t worry, the water will not turn radioactive. It is a separate isolated loop. Shutterstock Asset id: 2525528665 by Papia Majumder.
The photo is taken in 2024 and shows the Three Mile Island Nuclear Plant with a nuclear reactor building and the associated coolant tower. | Nuclear Energy is Relatively Clean and Safe
Three Mile Island Nuclear Plant, located in Pennsylvania, is known for a partial meltdown in 1979 Shutterstock. This photo shows the reactor as well as the cooling tower. Asset id: 2520903273 by Amy Lutz.

What about Chernobyl ?

The Chernobyl disaster, which occurred on April 26, 1986, was the worst nuclear disaster in history. 50 people died as a direct result of the disaster and an estimated 4,000, perhaps 10,000 future cancer deaths are predicted from the disaster. However, it should be noted that an estimated half million people died from coal pollution in the United States over the first two decades of the 21st century. You have to compare.

Another, thing to keep in mind is that the Chernobyl reactors were RBMK reactors (Reaktor Bolshoy Moshchnosti Kanalnyy), an extremely flawed, old and dangerous design that only exists in Russia (or the former Soviet Union). Above I mentioned that the control rods slow down the nuclear reaction when inserted between the fuel rods and stop the reaction when fully inserted. In an RBMK reactor, it is the other way around. The control rods speed up the reaction when inserted. Add the fact that the Chernobyl reactor did not have a containment shield designed to contain a major release of radioactivity, unlike Western reactors and that the Soviet Union was an authoritarian and secretive regime that made things much worse. A nuclear disaster similar to Chernobyl is highly unlikely to happen in the West.

The Fukushima nuclear disaster was caused by a severe earthquake and a 15 meter tsunami. Around 2,300 died from the evacuation, and 15,000 people died from the Earthquake, but it is estimated that no one, or perhaps one person died as a direct result from the nuclear disaster itself. As mentioned no one died from the Three Mile Island accident.

What about Radioactive Waste?

Radioactive waste stored on-site at nuclear power stations (spent fuel) is often millions of times more radioactive than long-term disposal waste. It is important to remember that highly radioactive isotopes decay fast (that’s why they are dangerous), which means that long-term disposal waste is not very dangerous. We are surrounded by radioactivity and our by far largest exposure to ionizing radiation comes from the radon in our basements.

Does nuclear power for energy generation increase the risk for nuclear weapons proliferation?

While commercial nuclear energy and weapons programs share technology, they are distinct processes. The historical data and studies show that national nuclear energy programs in general don’t lead to the development of nuclear weapons. No country officially developed nuclear weapons based on a pre-existing commercial nuclear power industry. Typically, nuclear-armed nations developed dedicated, military-focused, and often secret reactors to produce plutonium or facilities to enrich uranium for weapons.  Also, the issue is mostly moot for countries that already have nuclear weapons, such as the United States.

Conclusion

Nuclear power is clean and safe. It might be our cleanest energy source that can provide baseload power. However, there are other concerns including the possibility of spectacular accidents, radioactive waste and the possibility that nuclear power for energy might aid nuclear weapons proliferation. Luckily, it appears that these concerns are overblown. It should be noted that nuclear power, as implemented today, is not cheap energy, but that is a different topic.




To see the Other Super Facts click here

Wind Energy is Indeed Clean Energy

Superfact 87: Wind energy is a clean, renewable, and sustainable power source that produces no atmospheric emissions or water pollution during operation. Manufacturing and installation have a small carbon footprint that is much smaller than the carbon footprint of the fossil fuels they potentially replace.

Wind turbines with a background of mountains, clouds and a blue sky. | Wind Energy is Indeed Clean Energy
Photo from pexels.com

There is a lot of disinformation being spread about wind power. One recent example is the TV series Landman which presents demonstrably false claims as facts. In Texas where I live the problem with deceitful anti-renewable propaganda is especially severe. It is important to check with reputable sources before you believe what you come across. Wind energy is not 100% clean and not without issues but it is much safer and cleaner than the fossil fuels they potentially replace. Below is a two minute video that explains this.

The graph below from Our World in Data depicting lifetime greenhouse gas emissions (construction, operation, disposal) show that the lifetime greenhouse gas emissions of coal power are 88 times higher than those of wind power and kill 615 times as many people as wind power. The lifetime greenhouse gas emissions of natural gas are 40 times higher than those of wind power and kill 460 times as many people as wind power. The difference is staggering. When someone tells you that there’s nothing clean about wind power, they are not just lying to you, they are lying very big.

In the graph below, greenhouse gas emissions is measured of CO2 equivalents per Gigawatt-hour of electricity over the lifecycle of the power plant. 1 Gigawatt-hour is the annual electricity consumption of 150 people in the EU. Death rate from accidents and air pollution is measured as deaths per Terawatt hour of electricity production. 1 terawatt hour is the annual electricity consumption of 150,000 people in the EU.

The graph depicts death rates and greenhouse gas emissions per unit for different energy sources including coal, oil, natural gas, biomass, hydropower, wind, nuclear power, and solar.
Death rates from fossil fuels and biomass are based on state-of-the art plants with pollution control in Europe and are based on older models of the impacts of air pollution on health. This means these death rates are likely to be very conservative. For further discussion see our article: OurWorldinData.org/safest-sources-of-energy. Electricity shares are given for 2021. Data sources: Markandya & Wilkinson (2007); UNSCEAR (2008: 2018); Sovacol et al. (2016); IPCC AR5 (2014); UNECE (2022); Ember Energy (2001). OurWorldinData.org – Research and data to make progress against the world’s largest problems. Licensed under CC-BY by the authors Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser. Citation : Hannah Ritchie (2020) – “What are the safest and cleanest sources of energy?” Published online at OurWorldinData.org. Retrieved from: ‘https://archive.ourworldindata.org/20260202-100556/safest-sources-of-energy.html’ [Online Resource] (archived on February 2, 2026).

As you can see wind power is safe and emits very little greenhouse gases over its lifetime. In addition, there is no water impact associated with the operation of wind turbines, but a relatively small amount is used in manufacturing. There are other issues with land use, sounds, rare earth mining, waste, and effects on wildlife particularly birds.

However, these issues are in general smaller than depicted must be compared to issues with the fossil fuels they replace. For example, 15 billion tons of fossil fuels (including 9 billion tons of coal) are mined every year and burned whilst the annual mining for all clean energy technologies is around 7 million tons (2,000 times less). More about birds in the next section. Overall wind energy is a clean, renewable, and a sustainable power source. You can read more about this here, here, here, or here.

I am referring to this fact as a super fact because, it is true, an important topic, and yet it’s a fact that is difficult for many people to believe. Too much misinformation has been spread about wind power. I expect some people to dismiss this fact out of hand. But that is the point of super facts, they are true but hard to believe for many, or surprising, and perhaps even shocking.

Wind power saves a lot more birds than it kills

It may come as a surprise to some, but wind power is not a major cause of bird death. Wind farms are estimated to be responsible for losing less than 0.4 birds per gigawatt-hour (GWh) of electricity generated, compared to over 5 birds per GWh for fossil fueled power stations. This means that replacing fossil fuels with wind power saves a lot more birds than wind power turbines take. In addition, cats, windows, cars, poison and powerlines are examples of things that kill a lot more birds than wind power does. Cats kill thousands of times more birds than wind power does, and this usually does not bother us. Note I love both dogs and cats.

It is difficult to make exact estimates of bird deaths but below are some interesting graphs from reputable sources, confirmed by many other studies and analysis, such as this overview from MIT and this analysis by Hannah Richie. The numbers aren’t the same, but they make the same point. You can read more about this here.

The graph shows that Wind Turbines kill 328,000 birds per year in the US, Electrocutions kill 6,250,000 birds, Collisions with powerlines kill 32,500,000 birds, Poison kills 72,000,000 birds, Vehicle collisions kill 214,500,000 birds, Collisions with glass kill 676,500,000 birds, and cats kill 1,850,700,000 birds per year in the US.
From Wikipedia: Universiteit van Nederland, CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Bar graph showing cats killing an estimated 2,400 million birds per year, buildings killing an estimated 599 million birds per year, automobiles killing an estimated 200 million birds per year, pesticides killing an estimated 67 million birds per year, powerlines killing an estimated 28 million birds per year, communication towers killing an estimated 6.6 million birds per year, and wind turbines killing an estimated 1.2 million birds per year. | Wind Energy is Indeed Clean Energy
An alternative graph taken from Hannah Richie / Our World in Data, using alternative sources essentially showing the same thing. Sources: Loss et al. (2015), (2013), US Fish and Wildlife Service; Subramnayan et al. (2012), American Bird Conservancy (2021).

That does not mean we shouldn’t do our best to reduce bird deaths from wind power stations. However, don’t fall for the misinformation that is trying to paint it is a big problem specifically for wind power.

Wind power turbines by the seashore. The sun is setting. | Wind Energy is Indeed Clean Energy
Photo from pexels.com

Wind Power is Inexpensive

Finally, a bit of a deviation from the main topic. In addition to being a relatively clean, renewable, and sustainable power source, wind power is now relatively cheap, which explains its recent success around the world. I am bringing this up because another widespread myth about wind power is that it is expensive and wouldn’t survive without subsidies.

Practically all energy sources are subsidized, and fossil fuels have a long history of government subsidies. Below is the average unsubsidized levelized cost of energy according to Lazard. Levelized means that construction costs, land rent, and other costs not directly caused by electricity generation are taken into consideration. Notice how cheap wind is (blue line). This graph is for the United States.

The image shows 8 graphs representing the price of Nuclear, Gas (peaker), Thermal Solar, Coal, Geothermal, Natural Gas, Solar Panels, and Wind. Today Wind is the cheapest.
Average unsubsidized levelized cost of energy. Notice that the light blue line indicates that wind power is pretty cheap. Mir-445511, CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

Windpower is not only relatively cheap. Wind power is one of the most efficient and sustainable energy sources available. The energy required to manufacture, install, and maintain wind turbines is small compared to the energy they produce over their lifespan. This is known as their energy return on investment (EROI), which is quite favorable for wind energy. The Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) states that the average wind farm will pay back the energy that was used in its manufacture within 3-5 months of operation. This article in the journal Renewable Energy found that the average windfarm produces 20-25 times more energy during its operational life than was used to construct and install its turbines. It included data from 119 turbines across 50 sites going back 30 years.

It is important to be aware that there are many false claims floating around about wind power. The sound from wind power stations does not cause cancer, it does not use any other energy sources while operating; it solely harnesses the kinetic energy from the wind to generate electricity, meaning it only relies on wind to function as its primary energy source. Windpower is not a major cause if bird deaths. To read more about false claims about wind power click here.

Conclusion

There are positive and negative aspects of wind power, like any other source of energy. One issue with wind power (and solar) is that it is an intermittent source of energy. When the wind is not blowing you need other sources of energy (until there is sufficient energy storage). This is less of a problem when you have a mix of energy sources and in practice it has not been a big problem so far. However, what we know is that Wind Energy is indeed clean energy, much cleaner than the fossil fuels they potentially replace, and also relatively cheap, even without subsidies.

Other Posts by Me Related to Wind Power




To see the Other Super Facts click here

Wind power is not a major cause of bird death

Superfact 17: Fossil fuels kill a lot more birds per gigawatt hour than wind power does. Cats, windows, cars, poison and powerlines are examples of things that kill a lot more birds than wind power does. Wind power killing birds is not the huge environmental problem it is often made out to be.

Wind power killing birds is often mentioned as a slam dunk environmentally based argument against wind power and evidence for the hypocrisy of environmentalists. This is misguided. Wind power killing birds is a real problem and it should be addressed, and it is being addressed. No energy source comes without environmental problems. However, wind turbines account for only a small fraction of overall bird deaths compared to other human causes. It is not a good argument against wind power, and it does not demonstrate any hypocrisy by environmentalists. In fact, a study made in 2012 (overview here) concluded that fossil fuels killed 24 million birds per year in the US, which correspond to 35 times more birds per GWh than wind power kills according to this study. Even though this study and other similar studies are estimates based on assumptions that are far from perfect, they are good indicators that replacing fossil fuels with wind power likely saves birds rather than kills them.

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

In any case, as this Wikipedia article states, collisions with wind turbines are a minor source of bird mortality compared to other human causes. According to the graph below cats kill 5,600 times more birds than wind power and collisions with powerlines kills 99 times more birds than wind power, and yet we rarely discuss these problems. Even though these numbers are estimates they are mostly confirmed by other studies and analysis, as this overview from MIT and this analysis by Hannah Richie shows. The numbers aren’t the same, but they make the same point. FYI Hannah Richie is the deputy editor and lead researcher at Our World in Data. Our World in Data is a scientific online publication that focuses on large global problems. They are associated with Oxford University and is one of the most respected statistics, analysis and research organizations in the world.

The graph shows that Wind Turbines kill 328,000 birds per year in the US, Electrocutions kill 6,250,000 birds, Collisions with powerlines kill 32,500,000 birds, Poison kills 72,000,000 birds, Vehicle collisions kill 214,500,000 birds, Collisions with glass kill 676,500,000 birds, and cats kill 1,850,700,000 birds per year in the US.
From Wikipedia: Universiteit van Nederland, CC BY 3.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0&gt;, via Wikimedia Commons
Bar graph showing cats killing an estimated 2,400 million birds per year, buildings killing an estimated 599 million birds per year, automobiles killing an estimated 200 million birds per year, pesticides killing an estimated 67 million birds per year, powerlines killing an estimated 28 million birds per year, communication towers killing an estimated 6.6 million birds per year, and wind turbines killing an estimated 1.2 million birds per year.
An alternative graph taken from Hannah Richie / Our World in Data, using alternative sources essentially showing the same thing. Sources: Loss et al. (2015), (2013), US Fish and Wildlife Service; Subramnayan et al. (2012), American Bird Conservancy (2021).

Wind power has been on the receiving end of false claims, nonsense, and strange rumors for quite some time. It is not the only energy source maligned by false information, but it is an interesting case study in misinformation regarding energy sources. To read about nonsense and rumors about wind power click here.

Photo by Athena Sandrini on Pexels.com


To see the other Super Facts click here


Wind power is providing more than a quarter of Texas Power

Superfact 16: Wind power is providing more than a quarter of Texas Power. In 2023, wind represented 28.6 percent  of Texas energy generation. In 2022, wind power accounted for about 25 percent  of Texas’ energy generation.

I am referring to this fact as a super fact because, it is true, important, and yet it’s a fact that is difficult to believe for many people. That wind power, allegedly a marginal energy source, is successful in fossil fuel loving Texas is hard to believe. I have come across what appears to be well informed people who were certain it was nonsense. However, as you can see from the Texas government links above, it is true, something they could not dispute.

The reason for the success of wind power in Texas is economics, which is another fact that may be surprising to some. Fossil fuels are a major source of income for us in Texas, but everyone also wants to save money. Texas has its own electric grid, it’s deregulated, and organized along free market principles.  

When companies sell their energy (to ERCOT) it works like a continuous auction. The one with the lowest price is picked first and allowed to contribute with whatever they are able to and also, of course, considering what the grid-powerlines can carry safely. Naturally, the price of wind in Texas includes federal subsidies, which make it even cheaper.

However, all energy sources are subsidized, and fossil fuels have a long history of government subsidies. Below is the average unsubsidized levelized cost of energy according to Lazard. Levelized means that construction costs, land rent, and other costs not directly caused by electricity generation are taken into consideration. Notice how cheap wind is (blue line). This is for the United States not just Texas. I don’t have any numbers, but I’ve heard that for Texas solar is the cheapest .

The image shows 8 graphs representing the price of Nuclear, Gas (peaker), Thermal Solar, Coal, Geothermal, Natural Gas, Solar Panels, and Wind. Today Wind is the cheapest.
Average unsubsidized levelized cost of energy. Notice that the light blue line indicates that wind power is pretty cheap. Mir-445511, CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

Affordability

Windpower is not only relatively cheap. Wind power is one of the most efficient and sustainable energy sources available. The energy required to manufacture, install, and maintain wind turbines is small compared to the energy they produce over their lifespan. This is known as their energy return on investment (EROI), which is quite favorable for wind energy.

The Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) states that the average wind farm will pay back the energy that was used in its manufacture within 3-5 months of operation. This article in the journal Renewable Energy found that the average windfarm produces 20-25 times more energy during its operational life than was used to construct and install its turbines. It included data from 119 turbines across 50 sites going back 30 years.

Wind power is providing more than a quarter of Texas Power
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

False Claims

It is important to be aware that there are many false claims floating around about wind power. The sound from wind power stations does not cause cancer, it does not use any other energy sources while operating; it solely harnesses the kinetic energy from the wind to generate electricity, meaning it only relies on wind to function as its primary energy source. Windpower is not a major cause if bird deaths. To read more about false claims about wind power click here.

Wind power is providing more than a quarter of Texas Power
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

There are positive and negative aspects of wind power, like any other source of energy. One issue with wind power (and solar) is that it is an intermittent source of energy. When the wind is not blowing you need other sources of energy (until there is sufficient energy storage). This is less of a problem when you have a mix of energy sources as Texas does.


To see the other Super Facts click here