The pursuit of clean energy is a worthy goal. Americans want clean air and water and are continuously seeking the next way to energize their economy with the fewest environmental impacts possible. For decades, renewable energy resources such as wind and solar were heralded as the only option, but many Americans have begun to realize that covering thousands of acres with sprawling renewables may not be as environmentally friendly as advocates had originally claimed.

As the impacts of large-scale wind and solar projects have become clearer and the demand for electricity has rapidly increased, Americans have begun to rediscover their historic love for the original clean-energy resource: nuclear. With new, advanced reactors now in development, the opportunity to achieve cleaner energy with a fraction of the environmental footprint may soon be within reach. Let’s explore each environmental metric—from land and wildlife to emissions and pollution—to see how nuclear compares.

On land, nuclear power requires far less than wind and solar. A typical 300-megawatt (MW) wind project uses about 15,000 acres, or roughly 50 acres per MW, while a typical 300-MW solar farm covers about 3,000 acres, or roughly 10 acres per MW. Nuclear, by contrast, requires only about 1.2 to 1.6 acres per MW, including buffers, parking, and support buildings. That means wind uses roughly 30 to 40 times more land than nuclear, while solar uses 6 to 8 times more. Even when full upstream and downstream land impacts are included—such as mining, manufacturing, transmission, and waste—nuclear remains the most land-efficient source.

Wildlife impacts are similar. The issue is not just disturbed acres, but animal deaths. In the United States, wind turbines kill between 1.1 and 1.58 million birds and bats annually, including hawks and eagles—roughly 1,700 to 1,800 per terawatt-hour (TWh) produced—while offshore wind has coincided with unusual marine deaths. Solar facilities kill roughly 140,000 birds annually and have displaced thousands of desert tortoises, averaging around 2,600 to 4,000 deaths per TWh. Nuclear, by contrast, has virtually no wildlife mortality per TWh. In fact, secured nuclear sites often function as de facto wildlife refuges.

The same is true for emissions. All three produce electricity without emissions at the point of generation, but their full carbon footprints differ when their full lifecycle emissions are included. Wind produces 12 to 15 grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour (g CO2/kWh) because of its large demand for steel, concrete, and plastic, while solar averages 40 to 50 g CO2/kWh due to its carbon-intensive manufacturing process, which relies heavily on coal-fired plants abroad. Batteries add another 26 g CO2/kWh over their lifetime, raising the carbon footprint of renewable energy systems even further. Nuclear, on the other hand, generates only 12 g CO2/kWh, slightly below wind and far below solar, because nuclear operates at high capacity factors that spread embedded emissions over vast output.

Nuclear also requires far fewer minerals per unit than wind and solar. Wind requires more than 10,000 kilograms (kg) of minerals per MW, while solar requires about 7,000 kg/MW. Nuclear, by contrast, requires only 5,000 kg/MW—and far less per MWh produced. Because renewables and batteries rely heavily on rare earth elements and minerals such as lithium, cobalt, and nickel, renewables often increase surface disturbances rather than reduce them.

Then there is pollution itself—the original concern of environmentalism, captured in slogans like “reduce, reuse, and recycle.” Per unit of electricity, nuclear wins here as well: both on the amount of waste created and on the way it is managed. Wind generates about 160 tons of waste per TWh produced, and solar produces nearly 1,700 tons. Meanwhile, nuclear produces only about 33 tons. In other words, solar generates roughly 50 times more waste per unit of electricity than nuclear, and wind about five times more.

On management, nuclear waste is securely stored in steel-and-concrete casks that have never released radiation into the environment. Renewables, by contrast, have poorly managed waste streams. Fiberglass wind turbine blades are landfilled by the thousands and do not biodegrade, while abandoned solar panels can leach toxic materials into the environment. Additionally, advanced nuclear designs are actively seeking to reduce and reuse their spent nuclear waste, while renewable energy resources have yet to develop an effective way to recycle theirs.

The evidence is clear: while renewables industrialize vast areas of land, kill millions of animals, and create major waste streams, nuclear energy conserves more land, spares more wildlife, and produces less waste than almost any other energy source by a wide margin.

These advantages help explain why some notable environmental groups openly support nuclear as part of a clean energy mix. The National Audubon Society, for example, has said nuclear must be considered to avoid large-scale habitat loss from renewable development. The Nature Conservancy has concluded that significant nuclear expansion is needed to meet global clean energy goals. And the Clean Air Task Force has recognized that nuclear is a carbon-free resource with a very small land footprint.

The next generation of reactors promises to build on this environmental record. Designs such as X-energy’s Xe-100, TerraPower’s Natrium, and Holtec’s SMR-300 are expected to use smaller footprints, fewer materials, and more efficient fuels, reducing nuclear’s land and waste impacts even further. If we care about real environmental outcomes, then advanced nuclear must be part of the solution.

With advanced nuclear, we can both power a clean energy economy and reduce environmental impacts. It is time to support nuclear energy as part of a cleaner and more environmentally responsible energy future.

Michael Carbone is a Republican member of the Arizona House of Representatives representing Legislative District 25 and serves as House Majority Leader. Follow him on X at @MichaelCarbone. Nick Kupper is a Republican member of the Arizona House of Representatives serving Legislative District 25 which includes portions of Maricopa, Yuma, and La Paz Counties. He also serves as Vice Chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee. Follow him on X at @realnickkupper.