The Price of Nuclear Energy

The author graduated from Plainfield High School in Illinois in May 2025, after serving for a year as a YEPT Director.

Nuclear energy has been a part of America for decades: 18.6% of the electricity we use is nuclear, and depictions of nuclear disasters run rampant in popular media, from documentaries to The Simpsons.

Braidwood, a small town in Illinois, is the location of one of Illinois' biggest power plants, and just like the rest of America, Braidwood has a lot to say about nuclear energy.

In 2017, the Braidwood plant leaked 35,000 gallons of tritium (a radioactive isotope of hydrogen) laced water over two weeks in May. Since the 1990s, Exelon has had more than six million gallons of tritium-laden water leak. Since 2007, Exelon has had 35 reported leaks, spills, and other releases of water contaminated with radioactive substances in Illinois alone. This was what the company self-reported, for which they received no fines.

Exelon, their parent company, eventually admitted to the leaks in 2006 after being sued, paying $1.2 million in 2010 to settle state and resident complaints. Exelon also agreed to provide bottled water to some nearby residents, those in Godley and within 1500 feet of the blowdown line to the Kankakee River.

However, the tritium releases were relatively minor enough to be unlikely to harm human health or safety.

“The Tritium water contamination that happened in December 2005 was less than a natural occurrence in other areas and never even reached the city water supply. The elevated amount of tritium returned to normal shortly after the leak happened, but the public still thought of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, so the perception never left,” Rich Bell, local Braidwood science teacher, said.                     

Despite the alleged lack of risk, many residents still believe the plant affects health, depending on which water supply is consumed. Many people remark upon being told “Not to trust the water,” or “do not drink the tap water” by residents after moving in, the majority of residents refuse to drink water.                                                               

“Three out of four of my dogs had cancer. The three dogs that had cancer were only given tap water, but when I switched to only bottled water, my fourth dog was fine,” Angie Mitchell, resident, said.

The tritium is unlikely to cause serious issues in residents, radiation is also unlikely.

“The radiation received from the nuke plant is less than that received from one smoke detector in your house. The effects of living near the plant are negligible,” Bell said.   

However, these residents still may be right about the risk of harm.

Photo courtesy of the author.

From a poll of 133 Braidwood and nearby residents, which could be negligible due to its small size, the average rate of intellectual disability in children living near the plant was 7.8%, which is significantly more than the average rate of intellectual disability, which is around 1-3% globally. Moreover, Illinois has an average rate of 8.7% of the population diagnosed with asthma. The area near the plant has rates of 18.6%, with 27.5% having other respiratory issues.       

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission ran a study on the risk of cancer for those living near nuclear plants, looking to Braidwood and nearby residents as participants. The study was canceled halfway through under the claim that it was too costly and time consuming.

Cancer seems to be only slightly above average in the area, but data on the change for workers or those who live in closer proximity is unknown due to the canceled study.

“Many residents in Comet Estates [a subdivision three miles from the generating station] have had cancer, including five people on my street having breast cancer, my mother who has breast cancer and a non-genetic cervical cancer, and my dad who has had bladder cancer,” an anonymous resident stated.

Cancer is so prominent in this area that two separate residents dubbed it “the cancer cluster of Comet Park.”

Although many of these health issues are merely speculative and lack enough data, nuclear power plants are proven to be harmful to human health by the way in which they harm the environment. 

Historically, the uranium mining industry has polluted groundwater, surface water, and soil with its tailings of radioactive waste and heavy metals. This radioactive waste, usually as small as dust, can be carried away by wind or water and impact large areas. This pollution often accumulates through the food chain until it eventually grows large enough to be harmful to health. This accumulated material can remain in human and animal populations for generations.

A prominent example of uranium contamination in human populations is the harm to the Navajo Nation. In 1944, up until 1986, over 30 million tons of uranium ore were extracted from Navajo lands. This uranium extraction contaminated water sources and people with elevated levels of radiation.

Today, the Navajo people suffer from elevated cancer rates and birth defects in children. As of 2019, 85% of Navajo people were still forced to reside in uranium-contaminated homes. 

The Navajo Nation and the EPA are still working today to clean up their land from the contaminated mines left abandoned.

Many uranium mines have recently switched to In-situ leaching (ISL), also known as solution mining. ISL offers a less disruptive mining method compared to conventional techniques, as it minimizes surface disturbance and reduces tailings (waste rock). However, ISL still has a large possibility of groundwater contamination. 

Power plants harm surface water too, the Braidwood plant periodically pumps water from the nearby Kankakee River for its cooling pond. Nuclear cooling ponds are a major source of thermal pollution as the water used is at high temperatures, and usually released back into natural sources, which raises the natural water temperature and can harm aquatic life.

The 2021 World Nuclear Industry Status Report estimated the capacities of different energy types. It estimated the average cost per megawatt-hour for wind, solar, and nuclear. Accounting for the total lifetime cost of building and running each energy source: solar dropped by 88%, wind dropped by 69%, while nuclear costs have increased by 23%. 

The report also estimated the cost of generating power: solar ranges from $36 to $44 per megawatt-hour, onshore wind from $29–$56 per megawatt-hour, but nuclear energy costs between $112 and $189 per MWh.

The average construction time for reactors is about 10 years, each reactor costing between $6-9 billion. 

So if nuclear reactors are more expensive to build and run, with higher upfront costs than any other renewable energy, why do we want to build more of them instead of focusing on natural energy?

The one thing nuclear energy excels at is payback generation. Studies have shown that the direct energy used by uranium procurement only uses 3% of the energy produced. In comparison, it takes between 1-3 years for a solar panel to generate enough energy to offset the energy used in its manufacturing and installation. It takes a turbine less, at 3-6 months.

The problem is that, unlike wind and solar, uranium is one-use only. Although it takes longer, solar and wind last much longer and can be fixed and reused even after the end of their lifespans. On average, a solar panel will last 20-30 years before needing repairs, and a wind turbine 20-25. The uranium fuel assemblies that power nuclear plants typically last for only 3 years before needing to be removed as the uranium fuel becomes less efficient over time due to its accumulation of fission products. Although this waste can be repurposed, the U.S. does not currently do so, as it is expensive and dangerous. Uranium still remains single-use despite its ability not to be.

If we want to build more clean energy, then let's create clean energy that's clean and can be done now, not ten years from now. The climate crisis won’t wait for us to catch up; we have to make a change now.