Schroptschop & Vitalii Petrushenko/Getty
People have been using coal to generate heat and power for centuries, but these days, some see it as an antiquated and dirty means of energy production. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t any coal power plants, as they outnumber nuclear power plants by a lot. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, there are 219 operational coal power plants in the nation, while there are only 57 nuclear power plants with 96 nuclear reactors. That might suggest that coal plants are more efficient at producing energy than nuclear plants, but that’s not the case.
Those 219 coal power plants generate 199,952 megawatts of energy, which is more than the 103,581 megawatts generated by the 57 nuclear power plants. Of course, if the country swapped out its coal plants for nuclear ones, the total energy production would reach almost 400,000 megawatts. Unfortunately, it’s not as simple as demolishing a coal power plant and building a nuclear power plant in its place. Because of their complexity, nuclear power plants take a long time to build, so it can take years before they become operational. So, while nuclear energy production far exceeds the capabilities of coal energy production (and there are several reasons why) right now coal is the leader.
Coal is not an efficient energy source, as we can only harvest around 33% of coal’s stored energy during energy production, while 66% is lost to waste heat. Conversely, clean nuclear energy is remarkably more efficient, as converting fissile materials into electricity uses 92% of the fuel, far exceeding coal’s efficiency as the most efficient energy production method currently in use, including solar and wind.
Nuclear produces far more energy than coal
There are different types of nuclear power plants around the world, but generally, each one produces 1 gigawatt per hour of electricity. That’s enough energy to power 876,000 homes for a year. Coal power plants also vary in size and capacity, but on average, you can expect to produce about 380 megawatts. While it might seem simple to replace a nuclear power plant with three average-sized coal power plants, it’s not that easy. For one, both types of plants require fuel in order to function. This requires mining operations, which are dangerous and expensive.
Coal plants use coal — it’s in the name — while nuclear plants utilize enriched uranium-235 to produce energy. The main difference between coal and U-235 is the amount needed to power each plant. Coal plants in the U.S. burn through 1.1 billion tons of coal annually, and it’s not a renewable energy source. Once humanity uses it up, it’s gone for good.
Nuclear power plants function differently, requiring refueling once every 1.5 to 2 years. U.S. nuclear power plants purchased 21,000 tons of uranium in 2025, so while it’s far below what’s required for coal plants, it’s still a lot of material. Ultimately, determining which is better largely comes down to efficiency, and nuclear energy far surpasses what coal can provide. In comparing the two, it’s really no contest because 92% efficiency far exceeds 33%, not to mention total energy output and the amount of material required, which are also in nuclear energy’s favor.