Is Nuclear Better Than Solar?

Is nuclear better than solar?

This content aims to compare and contrast solar and nuclear energy in terms of costs, safety, waste, environmental impact, reliability, scalability, and public opinion. The thesis is that while nuclear energy has advantages in terms of reliability and scalability, solar energy is generally safer, cleaner, and more cost-effective overall.

The main points will include that nuclear energy has high upfront costs but low operating costs, whereas solar is becoming increasingly affordable. Nuclear disasters are catastrophic, but solar has negligible safety risks. Nuclear waste is extremely hazardous for thousands of years, while solar creates no fuel waste. Solar has minimal environmental impact, but nuclear accidents contaminate entire regions. Solar output depends on weather conditions, but nuclear provides steady baseload power. Both can scale to meet rising energy demands. Public support is growing for solar, while nuclear fears linger.

Basic Principles

Nuclear energy works through fission, the process by which a neutron collides with an atom’s nucleus and splits it into smaller parts. This splitting leads to a chain reaction, releasing heat energy that is then captured to boil water into steam and spin a generator to produce electricity. Nuclear fusion, which powers the sun, combines light atomic nuclei into heavier elements, releasing massive amounts of energy. However, fusion technology is still experimental and not yet used commercially.

Solar energy works through the photovoltaic effect, where photons from sunlight knock electrons free from a solar cell material like silicon, causing an electric current. Solar thermal technologies use mirrors or lenses to concentrate solar energy to boil water and drive a steam turbine. Photovoltaics convert sunlight directly into electricity through solar panels while solar thermal indirectly generates electricity.



The costs of nuclear power and solar power can be compared using a metric called the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE), which factors in capital costs, fuel costs, and operating costs over the lifetime of a power plant. According to analysis by Lazard, the LCOE for utility-scale solar power ranges from $36-44 per MWh, while the LCOE for nuclear power ranges from $118-192 per MWh [1]. This suggests solar power is the cheaper option currently.

However, others have argued that LCOE analysis tends to underestimate the value of nuclear power [2]. Nuclear power plants have very high upfront capital costs, but very low fuel costs over decades of operation. The capital cost per kilowatt of capacity for nuclear ranges from $8,475-$13,925, compared to just $700-$1,400 for solar [3]. But once built, nuclear plants can generate reliable, low-cost power for 60+ years.

Solar costs have dropped dramatically in the last decade, while nuclear costs have risen due to increased safety regulations. But new nuclear reactor designs aim to be simpler and cheaper to construct. So the cost equation may shift again in the future as new technologies emerge.

Human: Is nuclear better than solar?


Nuclear power plants have multiple layers of safety measures that make them exceptionally safe to operate with very little possibility for large-scale accidents that harm public health. The risk of large-scale accidents is estimated to be less than 1 in 1 million reactor-years (1). In contrast, solar energy has minimal risks for the general public. The main risks are electric shocks or falls during rooftop solar panel installation. Properly installed solar panels are very safe for residential use (2). Overall, both nuclear and solar energy have excellent safety records, with nuclear energy being tightly regulated for safety, while rooftop solar relies on proper installation for residential safety.


Nuclear power generation produces radioactive waste that requires careful management and storage for long periods of time. According to the World Nuclear Organization, radioactive waste needs to be contained and some types require permanent burial. The U.S. Government Accountability Office reports that the Department of Energy oversees disposal of nuclear weapons and power plant waste, highlighting the complexities of nuclear waste disposal. There are risks associated with long-term underground storage of used nuclear fuel, as outlined by the World Nuclear Organization’s overview of nuclear waste management strategies.

In comparison, solar power generates minimal nuclear waste during manufacturing. Solar panels can last for decades, and most components are recyclable. While solar creates no fuel waste, there are some toxic materials like lead and cadmium that require responsible disposal at end of life. Overall, the waste stream from solar power is exponentially smaller than nuclear.

Environmental Impact

Both nuclear and solar provide low carbon electricity, helping reduce greenhouse gas emissions compared to fossil fuel sources like coal or natural gas. According to the IPCC, the lifecycle emissions per kWh for solar PV are between 18-48 g CO2/kWh, while nuclear lifecycle emissions range from 4-110 g CO2/kWh (1). So in terms of carbon emissions, solar and nuclear can be comparable.

However, there are some other environmental considerations. Nuclear plants require large amounts of water for cooling, upwards of 15,000-60,000 gallons per MWh (2). Solar PV on the other hand has very low water requirements once operational. In terms of land use, solar farms require around 7 acres per MW capacity, compared to nuclear which needs 0.6 acres per MW (3). Both have mining requirements for materials, but solar panel recycling can offset mining demand over time.

Overall, while both nuclear and solar play an important role in low-carbon electricity, solar has advantages when it comes to water use, land use, and recycling potential. Nuclear’s lifecycle emissions may be slightly lower, but its high water dependency could be a limitation in drought-prone regions.






Nuclear power plants have very high capacity factors, typically over 90%1. This means they generate close to their maximum potential electricity over long periods of time. In contrast, solar power plants have capacity factors around 25%2. This is because solar energy relies on consistent sunlight, and its generation drops off at night and on cloudy days.

The intermittency of solar power makes it less reliable than nuclear. Nuclear power plants operate continuously day and night, regardless of weather conditions. While solar power output can fluctuate greatly from minute to minute as clouds pass by, nuclear provides a constant baseload electricity supply.

Some grid systems have trouble accommodating large amounts of intermittent solar and wind energy. The reliable baseload power of nuclear complements renewable sources. Nuclear helps provide grid stability and meet electricity demand when renewable generation is low.


There are significant differences in scalability between nuclear and solar power. Nuclear power plants require enormous upfront investments, with new plants costing billions of dollars and taking 5-10 years to build. This makes rapidly scaling up nuclear power generation difficult and expensive [1]. In contrast, solar power is highly modular and can be deployed incrementally in a distributed fashion. Small-scale solar installations can be set up rapidly to match growing energy demand. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the average capacity factor for utility-scale solar over 2016-2020 was 25%, while nuclear capacity averaged 93% [2]. This demonstrates solar’s advantage in scalability and rapid deployment.

The modular nature of solar power means capacity can be added incrementally in a short timeframe to meet demand. In contrast, nuclear plants require huge upfront investments and space, limiting how quickly new capacity can be added. With solar power, small-scale systems can be distributed across rooftops and in local communities to match energy needs without complex central planning. This gives solar an advantage in scaling up rapidly to transition away from fossil fuels.

Public Opinion

When it comes to public opinion, solar energy enjoys a high level of favorability among Americans while nuclear power faces concerns. According to Pew Research, 82% of Americans favor expanding solar power, compared to only 49% who support more nuclear power plants. There are concerns over past nuclear disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima that make the public wary of nuclear energy.

Concerns over safety and radioactive waste have hurt public opinion of nuclear power. According to Pew Research, only 31% of Americans consider nuclear power plants safe. On the other hand, solar energy enjoys strong favorability as an environmentally friendly renewable source of energy. The public views solar as a clean alternative without the risks associated with nuclear disasters.


After reviewing the costs, safety, waste, environmental impact, reliability, scalability, and public opinion surrounding nuclear and solar power, it’s clear that both energy sources have advantages and disadvantages. Nuclear power provides steady, reliable baseload power but comes with risks like meltdowns and radioactive waste. Solar power is clean and renewable but depends on the sun shining and storage technology to provide constant electricity.

The best energy mix likely includes both nuclear and solar, alongside other renewables like wind and hydropower. Nuclear can provide baseload power to meet constant energy demands, while solar contributes emissions-free energy during daylight hours. The optimal mix depends on each region’s resources and energy needs. Continued innovation to improve safety and lower costs will benefit both technologies going forward.

Overall, a diverse energy portfolio is recommended, with nuclear and solar complementing each other’s strengths and weaknesses. Policymakers should aim for this balanced approach as we transition toward a low-carbon future.

Similar Posts