Imagine a city with half a million people, about the size of Sacramento, Oslo, or Kyoto. Picture that city running smoothly—lights on, homes heated, schools buzzing, and life moving forward.
Now, zoom out. Somewhere in the background, people are dying—not from crime or war, but from electricity.
When we talk about energy, we often focus on megawatts, climate targets, and percentages of the grid. However, we rarely discuss the lives lost due to energy production. We should.
In our average-sized city powered by coal, 81 people die each year from pollution and accidents. If powered by oil, that number drops to 61. Even natural gas, often labeled as “clean,” still leads to nine deaths annually.
These aren't catastrophic events that make the news; they're slow, invisible tragedies buried in cancer registries and emergency room statistics.
Now consider nuclear energy. It results in just 0.2 deaths per year—essentially one life lost every 500 years in a city of 500,000 people. For comparison, wind energy accounts for 0.1 deaths, and solar energy accounts for 0.07.
Nuclear energy isn't just clean; it's remarkably safe.
So, why don’t we feel that sense of safety? Our emotional responses tend toward dramatic stories, and nuclear energy has been tainted by a legacy of fear and panic.
Figure 1 - A comparison of estimated annual deaths per energy source for a city of 500,000 people.
Malcolm Gladwell once remarked that “little things can make a big difference.” Here, that little thing is fear—fear that associates nuclear energy with atomic warfare while forgetting the 7 million annual deaths caused by air pollution.
Policy should not be driven by fear, but rather by facts. The facts are clear: nuclear energy saves lives, while fossil fuels take them.
If we genuinely care about public health, clean air, climate stability, and thriving cities, we must ask ourselves why nuclear energy isn’t already central to our energy future.
This issue transcends political ideology; it is about mathematics, and the math ultimately impacts human lives.
We're building the future—electrifying everything and powering AI, vehicles, homes, and infrastructure. If we refuse to embrace nuclear energy, we will likely revert to fossil fuels, leading to continued, invisible deaths.
We have a choice. We can create a world driven by courage, rather than fear, and powered by clean energy, not compromise. We should rely on data, not dogma.
Let's make that choice. This is why nuclear energy needs a second look.
Nuclear energy has the potential to be a cornerstone of a clean, safe, and reliable energy future, but expanding its production requires thoughtful action in engineering, policy, and public engagement.
- Invest in next-generation reactor designs, such as Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), which enhance safety and reduce waste.
- Streamline regulatory frameworks while maintaining strict safety standards by modernizing agencies like the NRC.
- Improve public transparency and disaster readiness protocols to build local confidence.
- Establish secure, long-term waste storage strategies with community involvement and international cooperation.
- Train a new generation of nuclear engineers and operators through targeted education and apprenticeship programs.
- Nuclear energy emits near-zero greenhouse gases during operation, while coal and gas remain leading contributors to global CO₂ levels.
- It requires significantly less land and water per unit of energy produced than renewables or fossil fuels.
- Nuclear waste is toxic but minimal, contained, and technologically manageable, unlike fossil fuel waste, which disperses into the atmosphere and oceans.
- Fossil fuel extraction methods (mining, drilling, and fracking) disrupt ecosystems and contribute to long-term environmental degradation.
Thank you for reading, and please share with the people you love!
Text within this block will maintain its original spacing when published
“Truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.” Flannery O’Connor· Our World in Data – https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
· Wikipedia – Renewable Energy – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy
· Wikipedia – Low-Carbon Electricity – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-carbon_electricity
· Wikipedia – Sustainable Energy – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_energy
· Destatis – https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Countries-Regions/International-Statistics/Data-Topic/Population-Labour-Social-Issues/DemographyMigration/UrbanPopulation.html
· Demographia – https://www.demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf
· Science Focus – https://www.sciencefocus.com/planet-earth/in-pictures-the-largest-cities-in-the-world
Powered by: NLT143 | Warpcast | YouTube Podcast
David T Phung
The Power to Save Lives: Why Nuclear Deserves a Second Look 🔗 paragraph.com/@davidtphung/the-power-to-save-lives i used to think energy was just about power grids. then i learned last year: a city of 500k loses about 81 lives/yr to coal. nuclear? just 0.2. it’s not just clean — it’s the quiet life-saver we’ve overlooked and it deserves a second look. i’m excited to help build the next generation of nuclear reactors — not just for clean energy, but for a future where humanity has all the power it needs to thrive.⚛️ /keepgoing
https://farcaster.xyz/davidtphung/0x5a508ebc
cc @julia
Nice piece David! It definitely seems like we need to give nuclear another shot in the US