It's easy to distinguish those activists who take climate change seriously from those who don't.
Nuclear makes no sense economically and it makes no sense because we have better, cheaper and more viable energy alternatives right now.
Nuclear power has a controversial history, but many energy experts say it will play a major role in our energy future. Some are working to make standard fission power safer and cheaper, while others are pursuing the holy grail of energy — nuclear fusion.
Our future will depend on finding every possible source of reliable, carbon-free energy
Many environmentalists have opposed nuclear power, citing its dangers and the difficulty of disposing of its radioactive waste. But a Pulitzer Prize-winning author argues that nuclear is safer than most energy sources and is needed if the world hopes to radically decrease its carbon emissions.
That’s what some are advocating, but the arguments in favor of doing so are flawed
Nuclear power has a track record for being both clean and safe, but the left rejects it as a solution to the problem of carbon emissions. Why?
Nuclear power advocates claim that nuclear power is essential for a low-carbon future, but critics say otherwise.
Many energy experts now agree that building additional nuclear power will be unnecessary to secure a low-carbon energy future. So why are governments so wedded to this 20th century technology?
Supporters say nuclear plants are the best way to transition to a low-carbon future until renewables get cheaper. Others argue the plants are too risky to keep in operation.
Nuclear energy must be a serious option for anyone serious about climate change
The Nuclear Energy Institute responds to a news article about the closing of nuclear plants.
How green is nuclear power and what are the other options?
The power industry is facing a nuclear power dilemma, according to a report published by The Union of Concerned Scientists. UCS assessed the economic viability and performance of nuclear power plants operating in the United States and concluded that the retirement of these plants will likely result in the adoption of coal and natural gas for baseload power generation, two energy sources that contribute to carbon dioxide emissions.
Identical data yield drastically different conclusions about the role nuclear will play in meeting climate goals.
Commercial nuclear reactors currently provide around one-fifth of electricity in the US.
Why are we trying to close nuclear plants that have been relicensed as safe for another 20 yrs? To save a penny to spend on renewables and say that helps climate change? As all climate scientists agree, prematurely closing nuclear plants is bad for the climate. And it doesn’t save any money at all.