TOEFL 2026 Speaking Practice — Level Hard (for score 100+) #18

Listen to each question and give a spoken response. Aim to speak for 20–30 seconds per answer.

Score 100 — Perfect

I remember when I first heard about nuclear energy in a university environmental science seminar a few years ago. We were discussing carbon-neutral alternatives, and the professor brought up the concept of baseload power. What really caught my attention was the sheer scale of the energy output—like, one single plant could potentially displace millions of tons of carbon emissions annually. It was honestly a bit counterintuitive for me because I’d always associated nuclear power with those dramatic, scary accidents from the movies. But seeing the data made me realize it’s actually a pretty pivotal piece of the puzzle if we’re serious about reaching net-zero goals. That moment completely shifted my perspective; I went from being inherently skeptical to viewing nuclear energy as a necessary, pragmatic tool for a sustainable future.

130 words

Score 80 — Good

I remember when I first heard about nuclear energy in a high school science class. My teacher was talking about how it produces electricity without releasing carbon dioxide, and that really surprised me because I always thought nuclear power was just dangerous. I mean, I used to be scared of it, but learning that it could actually help stop climate change made me change my mind. It was interesting to hear that it can provide a lot of power 24/7, unlike solar or wind. So, that classroom discussion made me feel much more positive about nuclear energy, and I started reading more news reports about it because I wanted to understand the topic better.

114 words

Score 100 — Perfect

In my case, I tend to view nuclear energy as a pivotal, if somewhat complex, tool for addressing our climate crisis. I mean, while the concerns about waste are valid, I find the reliance on fossil fuels far more alarming. I remember watching a documentary on the Fukushima disaster back in high school; it was terrifying, honestly. But that experience actually pushed me to research the modern safety advancements in modular reactors, which are inherently much safer than those older plants. I think my perspective is shaped by the realization that we can’t just rely on wind or solar alone to meet our massive energy demands. So, I’d say I’m cautiously optimistic. For me, it’s not about ignoring the risks, but about weighing them against the systemic damage of carbon emissions.

131 words

Score 80 — Good

In my case, I tend to feel pretty optimistic about nuclear energy, honestly. I mean, when I hear people talk about it, I see it as a really important tool for fighting climate change. We need a way to generate a lot of power without burning coal or gas, and nuclear plants can do that. I know some people are worried about safety or waste, and that’s fair, but I think the technology has improved a lot. So, it seems like a necessary step for our future because we have to reduce carbon emissions quickly. It’s definitely a better option than relying on fossil fuels, so I support it.

109 words

Score 100 — Perfect

Personally, I strongly believe that nuclear energy should definitely be a cornerstone of our future energy strategy. I mean, while wind and solar are great, they’re inherently intermittent, right? You can’t always rely on the sun shining or the wind blowing. Nuclear, on the other hand, provides a consistent, carbon-free baseload power that’s pretty much essential for modern grids. For instance, look at France; they’ve successfully maintained a low-carbon grid for decades precisely because they leaned into nuclear technology. It’s a pragmatic approach to a systemic problem. Of course, safety is a concern, but modern modular reactors are way more secure than the older ones. So, I’d say that by integrating nuclear, we can actually ensure energy stability while we transition away from fossil fuels. It’s just the most logical path forward.

132 words

Score 80 — Good

Personally, I strongly believe that nuclear energy should play a central role in our future energy mix. I mean, wind and solar are great, but they aren’t always available because the sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow. So, we really need a reliable source of power that’s working all the time. Nuclear energy is perfect for that because it provides a constant supply of electricity without creating carbon emissions. It’s a very practical solution to replace fossil fuels. I think if we want to reach our climate goals, we have to include nuclear power, otherwise, it’s just going to be really hard to keep up with our energy needs.

113 words

Score 100 — Perfect

I believe that it would be a mistake for governments to focus exclusively on renewables, so I’d argue they should definitely subsidize advanced nuclear power as well. Look, climate change is such a systemic issue that we really need a diverse energy portfolio to address it. While solar and wind are great, they’re inherently intermittent, right? I mean, you can’t exactly rely on them when the sun isn’t shining. For instance, I read about the SMR—small modular reactor—technology being developed in places like Idaho, which seems like a much safer and more efficient path forward. By backing nuclear, we get a reliable, carbon-free baseload that renewables just can’t provide on their own. As a result, I think a balanced approach is the only way to effectively decarbonize our grid and ensure long-term energy security.

134 words

Score 80 — Good

I believe that it would be better for governments to support both options instead of choosing just one. I mean, climate change is such a huge problem, so we really need to use every tool we have. Nuclear energy is great because it provides power all the time, even when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing. But, building these plants is very expensive and takes a long time. So, I think we should also keep putting money into renewable projects like wind and solar because they are getting cheaper and faster to install. If we only pick one, we might not reach our goals in time. It’s definitely a better idea to diversify our energy strategy.

119 words