Nuclear Nonsense

Stewart Brand's book, Whole Earth Discipline, features a chapter claiming that new nuclear power plants are essential and desirable, and that a global "nuclear renaissance" is booming. Amory Lovins reviews the book and finds fatal flaws in the chapter's facts and logic. Lovins explains why each of Brand's claims are unsupportable.

Four Nuclear Myths: A Commentary on Stewart Brand's Whole Earth Discipline and on Similar Writings

Some nuclear-power advocates claim that wind and solar power can't provide much if any reliable power because they're not "baseload," that they use too much land, that all energy options including new nuclear build are needed to combat climate change, and that nuclear power's economics don't matter because climate change will force governments to dictate energy choices and pay for whatever is necessary. None of these claims can withstand analytic scrutiny.

Nuclear Power: Climate Fix or Folly?

This semi-technical article, summarizing a detailed and documented technical paper (see "The Nuclear Illusion" (2008)), compares the cost, climate protection potential, reliability, financial risk, market success, deployment speed, and energy contribution of new nuclear power with those of its low- or no-carbon competitors. It explains why soaring taxpayer subsidies haven’t attracted investors and how capitalists instead favor climate-protecting competitors with lower cost, construction time, and financial risk. Comparing all options’ ability to protect the earth’s climate and enhance energy security reveals why nuclear power could never deliver these promised benefits even if it could find free-market buyers—while its carbon-free rivals do offer highly effective climate and security solutions, far sooner, with higher confidence.

Nuclear Power and Climate Change

This 2007 e-mail exchange between Steve Berry (University of Chicago), Peter Bradford (former U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissioner and senior utility regulator), and Amory Lovins elucidates the case for and against nuclear power in relation to climate and the environment. Lovins argues that energy efficiency measures is the best approach to powering a climate-safe, prosperous global economy. Lovins also argues for the use of micropower, not nuclear power, as a primary source of global energy. Berry agrees with Lovins on the fundamentals on energy efficiency, but claims that no single method of energy generation will accomplish the goal of providing energy with minimal environmental impact.

Nuclear Power: Competitive Economics and Climate Protection Potential

In this presentation to the Royal Academy of Engineering, Amory Lovins explains the economic and environmental impacts of nuclear power. By showing that companies and governments have cut energy intensity without the use of nuclear power, Lovins shows that nuclear power is not a necessary step in the fight against climate change. Lovins' data shows that distributed and renewable energy provide sufficient energy without the unnecessary costs and risks incured by nuclear power. Lovins concludes that there is nothing that can save nuclear power from its dismal fundamental economics.

Mighty Mice

This article discusses the benefits of decentralized micropower for generating energy, as compared to nuclear power. Amory Lovins argues for decentralized energy systems based on data showing that micropower is more efficient and has already eclipsed nuclear power in the global marketplace. Micropower and its natural partner, efficient end-use, have surpassed and outpaced central stations despite many obstacles. These forms of energy are diverse, ubiquitous, plentiful, widely available, largely benign, and growing in popularity.

Nuclear Power: Economic Fundamentals and Potential Role in Climate Change Mitigation

In this presentation, Amory Lovins provides evidence that low and no-carbon decentralized sources of energy have eclipsed nuclear power as a climate friendly energy option. He argues that new nuclear power plants are unfinanceable in the private capital market and that resource efficiency provides a cheaper, more environmental option. Lovins concludes that efforts to deny this reality of nuclear power's failure will only waste money, and will reduce and retard CO2 reductions and says that since nuclear power is unnecessary and uneconomic, we needn’t debate whether it’s otherwise acceptable. This presentation was given to the California Energy Commission.

Nuclear Power: Economics and Climate-Protection Potential

This paper makes an economic argument against the use of nuclear power. Despite strong governmental support, nuclear power is unfinancible in the private capital market. Nuclear power worldwide has less installed capacity and generates less electricity than its decentralized no- and low-carbon competitors—one-third renewables (excluding big hydroelectric dams), two-thirds fossil-fueled combined-heat-and power. In 2004, these rivals added nearly three times as much output and six times as much capacity as nuclear power added; by 2010, industry forecasts this sixfold ratio to widen to 136–184 as nuclear orders fade, then nuclear capacity gradually disappears as aging reactors retire. These comparisons don’t count more efficient use of electricity, which isn’t being tracked, but efficiency gains plus decentralized sources now add at least ten times as much capacity per year as nuclear power. Empirical data also confirm that these competing technologies not only are being deployed an order of magnitude faster than nuclear power, but ultimately can become far bigger. Full deployment of these very cost-effective competitors could provide ~13–15 times nuclear power’s current 20% share of electric generation—all without significant land-use, reliability, or other constraints. Expanding nuclear power would both reduce and retard the desired decrease in CO2 emissions.

The Nuclear Option Revisited

This article is a response to the resurrected arguments in favor of nuclear power. The authors make their argument against the public relations campaign of the nuclear industry. They claim that nuclear power is not a viable option, mostly due it its high cost. They also argue that scientists still haven't developed reliable ways to handle nuclear wastes and decommissioned plants, which remain dangerously radioactive for far longer than societies last or geological foresight extends. The authors then provide examples of non-nuclear options that are cheaper, safer, and more reliable.

Nuclear Energy Debate

In this debate, Amory and Hunter Lovins argue with the editors of USA Today about nuclear power. The editors argue for the use of nuclear power in the United States, while the Lovins' argue against it. The Lovins' point out that nuclear power is both too costly and too risky. The taxpayer cost for nuclear power is detrimentally high, as are the risks. Faster, safer, and cheaper options for energy exist and should be used in place of traditional energy sources.