🔬 Science and technology · Intermediate · Policy resolution

Resolved: The United States should substantially expand its use of nuclear power.

Nuclear plants make about a fifth of America's electricity with almost no carbon emissions, but new plants have been slow and expensive to build. Should the country build more?

Background

The United States has the world’s largest commercial nuclear fleet: 94 reactors at 54 plants in 2024, with nearly 97 gigawatts of capacity, providing about 19% of the country’s electricity, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Natural gas provided about 43% and coal about 16% in 2023; wind, hydropower and solar together about a fifth. [1][2]

Only a few new reactors have come online since 1996: Watts Bar 2 in Tennessee and two units at Plant Vogtle in Georgia (2023 and 2024). Vogtle’s expansion finished years behind schedule and far over its original budget. Twelve reactors have closed since 2013, though federal programs have since supported keeping California’s Diablo Canyon open and restarting Michigan’s Palisades plant. [2]

Nuclear plants emit almost no carbon dioxide while operating and run most hours of the year. Concerns include building cost and time, the long-term storage of spent fuel (the U.S. has no permanent repository), and the risk of rare but serious accidents such as Chernobyl (1986) and Fukushima (2011). Newer designs, including small modular reactors, aim to cut costs, but few have been built. [3]

Where the facts themselves are disputed

Will new reactors be affordable?

  • Supporters say costs fall as builders repeat designs, as other countries have shown, and that small modular reactors can be factory-built.
  • Critics point to recent U.S. and European projects that ran years late and billions over budget, and note small modular reactors are largely unproven commercially.

Key terms

Capacity factor
How much electricity a plant actually produces compared with running at full power all the time. Nuclear plants have very high capacity factors.
Baseload
Electricity supplied steadily around the clock.
Spent fuel
Used reactor fuel, which stays radioactive for a very long time and must be stored safely.
Small modular reactor (SMR)
A smaller reactor design meant to be built in factories and shipped to sites.

Both sides at their strongest

Each argument is written the way its best advocates would make it, followed by the strongest answer from the other side. Use them to build your case and to prepare for the other one.

Affirmative

Nuclear power gives steady, low-carbon electricity at scale, and the country should build more.

  1. A1 Nuclear provides large amounts of carbon-free electricity around the clock.

    Why Unlike wind and solar, nuclear doesn’t depend on weather, so it can replace fossil-fuel plants that run day and night.

    Evidence EIA data on nuclear’s share of generation and capacity factors; emissions data per unit of electricity from international assessments.

    Best answer The negative answers that batteries, transmission lines and a mix of renewables can provide steady power more cheaply and sooner.

  2. A2 Measured per unit of energy, nuclear’s safety record is strong.

    Why Air pollution from burning fossil fuels harms health continuously, while serious nuclear accidents are rare. Counted per unit of electricity, nuclear causes very few deaths.

    Evidence Studies of deaths per terawatt-hour across energy sources; health research on air pollution from fossil fuels.

    Best answer The negative replies that a single major accident can force evacuations and leave land unusable for decades, a kind of harm averages don’t capture.

  3. A3 Electricity demand is rising.

    Why Data centers, electric vehicles and factories are increasing demand; a reliable source that runs most hours helps keep the grid stable.

    Evidence EIA and utility forecasts of demand growth; grid operator reliability reports.

    Best answer The negative argues new reactors take a decade or more, so they won’t meet near-term demand.

  4. A4 Building more brings costs down.

    Why First-of-a-kind projects are expensive; repeating standard designs builds skilled crews and supply chains that lower later costs.

    Evidence Cost histories of reactor programs abroad; analyses of Vogtle lessons learned; Department of Energy reports on advanced reactors.

    Best answer The negative replies that the U.S. has repeatedly expected learning to cut costs, and recent projects haven’t shown it.

Negative

Nuclear is too slow and costly to be the right investment, and its risks are unresolved.

  1. N1 New nuclear is expensive and slow.

    Why Money spent on a reactor that takes ten or more years could cut more emissions sooner if spent on cheaper, faster options.

    Evidence Vogtle 3 and 4 schedule and cost history; cost estimates comparing new nuclear with wind, solar and storage.

    Best answer The affirmative answers that cheaper sources aren’t steady, and storage at grid scale adds large costs of its own.

  2. N2 The waste problem isn’t solved.

    Why Spent fuel stays dangerous for thousands of years, and the U.S. still has no permanent repository, so waste piles up at plant sites.

    Evidence Department of Energy and Government Accountability Office reports on spent fuel storage; the history of the Yucca Mountain project.

    Best answer The affirmative replies that spent fuel is small in volume, stored safely in dry casks, and that the barrier is political, not technical.

  3. N3 Rare accidents can be very costly.

    Why A serious accident can force evacuations, contaminate land and cost hundreds of billions, a risk that grows with more reactors.

    Evidence Reports on Fukushima’s evacuation and cleanup; Nuclear Regulatory Commission risk assessments.

    Best answer The affirmative argues modern designs are safer, and that fossil-fuel pollution causes far more harm every year.

  4. N4 Security and fuel risks matter.

    Why More reactors mean more fuel to protect and more sites that need security, and some fuel supply has depended on imports from countries such as Russia.

    Evidence Reports on enriched uranium imports; NRC security requirements; international nonproliferation analyses.

    Best answer The affirmative replies that the U.S. can expand domestic enrichment, and plants are among the most secure civilian sites.

Strawman or steelman?

A strawman is a weak copy of the other side’s view, easy to knock down and unfair to the people who hold it. A steelman is that view at its strongest. Answer the steelman, and you’ve answered the real argument. (More on steelmanning.)

Affirmative

Strawman “Nuclear supporters don’t care about accidents.”

Why it’s unfair Supporters argue that per unit of energy nuclear’s safety record is strong compared with fossil fuels.

Steelman Nuclear produces large amounts of steady, low-carbon power, and measured per unit of electricity its health toll is very low.

Negative

Strawman “Nuclear opponents are just afraid of anything new.”

Why it’s unfair Opponents point to cost, construction time and the unresolved waste question.

Steelman New reactors take a decade and cost far more than planned, and the same money may cut emissions faster elsewhere while waste storage remains unsolved.

Weak arguments to avoid

Affirmative

  • “Nuclear power is completely safe.” No energy source is completely safe; claim what the evidence supports.

Negative

  • “A nuclear plant could explode like an atomic bomb.” Reactor fuel can’t explode like a nuclear weapon. Accidents are serious, but this is false and costs credibility.

Questions for cross-examination

Ask the Affirmative

  1. How long did Vogtle 3 and 4 take to build, and at what cost?
  2. Where would the spent fuel go?
  3. How would expansion meet demand in the next five years?

Ask the Negative

  1. What would replace nuclear plants at night when there’s no sun or wind?
  2. How many deaths per unit of energy does nuclear cause compared with coal?
  3. Should existing plants be closed?

Reading on both sides

Read at least one source from each side before you debate. Look up each source’s author and publisher too: who wrote it is part of the evidence.

Background and overviews

Both sides in one place

Practice this topic

Sources for the background

  1. What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source?, U.S. Energy Information Administration (2023 data). Accessed 2026-10-25.
  2. The United States operates the world's largest nuclear power plant fleet, U.S. Energy Information Administration (2025-04-24). Accessed 2026-10-25.
  3. Nuclear power debate, Wikipedia. Accessed 2026-10-25.

Teddy Rook Book doesn’t take a side on this resolution. Updated 2026-10-25.

@teddyrookbook GitHub