Skip to main content

New study: Nuclear power slow starter in race to reduce pollution

Exelon's Braidwood Nuclear Power Station
Exelon's Braidwood Nuclear Power Station
Photo from Exelon website

Nuclear power is a slow starter in the race to reduce pollution, according to a new report by Environment Illinois.

“When it comes to global warming, time and money are of the essence and nuclear power will fail America on both accounts,” said Brian Granahan, Staff Attorney and Clean Energy Advocate with Environment Illinois. “With government dollars more precious than ever, nuclear power is a foolish investment that will set us back in the race against global warming.”

Illinois is a hot spot for the nuclear industry.

The new report, Generating Failure: How Building Nuclear Power Plants Would Set America Back in the Race Against Global Warming, analyzes the role, under a best-case scenario, that nuclear power could play in reducing global warming pollution. Some key findings of the report include:

To avoid the most catastrophic impacts of global warming, America must cut power plant emissions roughly in half over the next 10 years.

Nuclear power is too slow to contribute to this effort. No new reactors are now under construction in the United States. Building a single reactor could take 10 years or longer. As a result, it is quite possible that nuclear power could deliver no progress in the critical next decade, despite spending billions on reactor construction.

Even if the nuclear industry somehow managed to build 100 new nuclear reactors by 2030, nuclear power could reduce total U.S. emissions of global warming pollution over the next 20 years by only 12 percent -- far too little, too late.

In contrast, energy efficiency and renewable energy can immediately reduce global warming pollution. Energy efficiency programs are already cutting electricity consumption by 1-2 percent annually in leading states, and the U.S. wind industry is already building the equivalent of three nuclear reactors per year in wind farms. America has vast potential to do more.

Building 100 new reactors would require an up-front investment on the order of $600 billion dollars – money which could cut at least twice as much carbon pollution by 2030 if invested in clean energy. Taking into account the ongoing costs of running the nuclear plants, clean energy could deliver 5 times more pollution-cutting progress per dollar.

Nuclear power is not necessary to provide clean, carbon-free electricity for the long haul. The need for base-load power is exaggerated and small-scale clean energy solutions can actually enhance the reliability of the electric grid.

“We can spend $600 billion on nuclear power and fail to make a difference until it is too late,” said Granahan. “Or we could spend the same money on energy efficiency and clean energy, and achieve twice the carbon reductions at a much faster pace.”

Granahan cited recently passed Illinois legislation on energy efficiency standards for natural gas utilities and building energy codes as steps in the right direction. In addition, Illinois is gaining a foothold in renewables, with over 1800 megawatts of installed wind power expected online by year’s end—up from only 100 megawatts of installed wind power as recently as 2006.

“Nuclear energy remains as flawed an idea today as it was in the 1980’s -- the last time it was rejected by the American public,” said Dave Hamilton, Director of Energy Programs at the Sierra Club. “Today we have cleaner, cheaper, faster solutions that we should be investing in before we seriously consider reviving the nuclear dinosaur.”

The report, which stresses the need for immediate emissions reductions from existing power resources, comes within days of scheduled U.S. EPA hearings on a proposed rule to curb emissions from large polluters such as oil refineries and coal plants. One of two national hearings on the rule will take place this Thursday in Rosemont, IL.

“As we work to clean up our old, dirty coal plants, the emphasis must be moving forward to a cleaner future, not turning the clock back,” said Granahan. “But by diverting resources away from energy efficiency and renewable energy, investments in a fleet of new nuclear plants would do just that, setting us back many years in the battle against global warming and setting us up to fail.”

“New nuclear power investments would actually worsen climate change because the money spent on nuclear reactors would not be available for solutions that fight it faster and at lower cost,” said Peter Bradford, a former U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissioner. “Counting on new nuclear reactors as a climate change solution is no more sensible than counting on an un-built dam to create a lake to fight a nearby forest fire."

To access the report, visit Environment Illinois online.



  • Phil 5 years ago

    Consider the following
    1. 104 reactors were built in the US from 1960 to 1980. It can be done
    2. Two General Electric ABWR reactors were built in Japan in the late 1990's in less that 4 years each and on budget. It can be done
    3. A reactor built today will last from 60 to 100 years and will be an excellant investment in our energy future

  • Jfarmer9 5 years ago

    I note the article cites Dave Hamilton. I guess Dave now works for the Sierra Club. When I knew him he was working for US PIRG as the national director in charge of gaining grassroots support for the reauthorization of the clean air act under the George Sr. administration. If we were able to get this guy to pick up the phone once a day we considered it a big success. Unless he drastically changed his work ethic I don’t see why the Sierra club would hire this guy unless they could not find anyone else to continue promoting their anti nuclear diatribe of lies and fear mongering. The line of his that made me laugh the most is when he called nuclear power a dinosaur. How does one call the most advanced energy efficient technology a dinosaur without losing all creditability? Oh well, everyone needs a job even those who must rely on telling lies and promoting fear mongering to make their living.

    Viva the Nuclear Renaissance,