Do Candidates Know that Nuclear Power is a Climate Dead End?

By Russell Lowes, Research Director, SafeEnergyAnalyst.org

As the climate crisis accelerates, some policymakers are dusting off an old idea they claim is new: nuclear power.

With headlines touting “advanced reactors” and “small modular reactors” designs, nuclear is being rebranded as a climate solution. But behind the shiny packaging lies the same flawed technology: nuclear remains too slow, too expensive, and too risky to meet today’s urgent energy needs. Bottom line: Nuclear is a costly distraction. Renewables are cheaper, faster, and safer — and they’re ready now.

►We must start asking candidates running for Congress or the Arizona Legislature: Do you support the false promise of nuclear power?

Nuclear Is a Budget-Buster

The cost of new nuclear is eye-popping.

Take the Vogtle reactors in Georgia — the only new U.S. nuclear build in decades. They cost more than $20 billion over budget and ran seven years behind schedule.

Final cost? Over $35 billion for just two reactors.

►That’s three to five times more expensive per kilowatt than wind or solar (even when paired with batteries), and they produce less electricity per dollar.

It’s Far Too Slow

We need climate action this decade, not someday.

But nuclear plants take 10 to 20 years to plan, permit, and build — and that’s assuming everything goes perfectly (it usually doesn’t).

Meanwhile, solar farms can be built in 18 months. Wind farms? Often even faster. Every year spent waiting on a nuclear plant is a year we’re not cutting emissions.

►Time matters. Nuclear doesn’t deliver fast enough to meet the climate deadlines scientists have set.

Safety Risks Are Still Real

Disasters like Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island are etched into public memory for good reason. Even so-called “advanced” designs carry serious risks of meltdown, mechanical failure, or human error.

And now, climate change is making reactors even more vulnerable — rising seas, stronger storms, and extended heat waves threaten the very systems nuclear plants rely on to stay safe.

►Reactors are also high-value targets in war or terrorism scenarios — not exactly the kind of infrastructure we want more of.

The Waste Problem Isn’t Going Away

Every nuclear reactor produces waste that stays lethally radioactive for millions of years.

Yet the U.S. still has no permanent storage solution. Instead, waste is piling up in temporary containers at reactor sites — some of which are located near fault lines, rivers, or coastlines.

Meanwhile, uranium mining continues to harm Indigenous lands, leaving radioactive tailings that pollute air, soil, and water for generations.

►No energy source should produce waste that outlives every human institution on Earth.

It’s Not As Clean As It Claims

Nuclear is often sold as “zero emissions.” But that’s only part of the story.

Uranium mining, fuel processing, construction, and decommissioning all produce carbon emissions. Reactors also need huge amounts of steel, concrete, and water — all of which have environmental costs.

►And let’s not forget: uranium is a finite resource. It’s not renewable.

Nuclear Doesn’t Help Renewables — It Hinders Them

Some claim we need nuclear to “back up” renewables when the sun doesn’t shine or the wind doesn’t blow. But the truth is:

• Nuclear can’t ramp up or down quickly
• It doesn’t pair well with smart grids or flexible energy storage
• And countries with lots of nuclear power still rely heavily on fossil gas for peaking power

►If you want to support renewables, invest in storage, efficiency, and grid upgrades — not inflexible, slow-moving reactors.

You’re Paying the Bill — Again

Nuclear energy survives on massive public subsidies:

• Government loan guarantees
• Tax breaks
• Liability shields for accidents (via the Price-Anderson Act)
• Publicly funded research & development

If even a fraction of this money went to solar, wind, energy efficiency, and storage, we’d already be well on our way to a sustainable, affordable energy future.

►We’re socializing the risks and privatizing the profits — again.

Nuclear Can’t Fix the Climate in Time

Even if nuclear plants were cheaper and safer — which they’re not — they still wouldn’t solve the climate crisis.

By 2050, even the most optimistic projections show nuclear providing only 10–15% of global carbon reductions — and that’s assuming a massive global buildout, which is highly unlikely.

►Meanwhile, solar and wind are scaling rapidly, already supplying more new electricity capacity than any other source — and doing it without waste, without meltdown risk, and without waiting until 2040 and beyond.

It’s Time to Move On

Nuclear energy is not our future. It’s an outdated, expensive technology that distracts us from real solutions.

We don’t need one big “silver bullet” to solve the climate crisis. We need millions of clean, fast, modular, local solutions — and that’s exactly what solar, wind, storage, and efficiency offer.

►Let’s stop throwing good money after bad reactors and instead invest in what works.

---

Russell Lowes is Research Director at SafeEnergyAnalyst.org and has studied nuclear energy economics for over 30 years. He was the primary author of the book on the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station in Arizona, which resulted in the cancellation of two additional reactors at Palo Verde.