Sign up for our newsletters Subscribe
Is nuclear power the best way to get energy while putting less carbon into the atmosphere?
No, but perhaps not for the reason you think. There are probably lower-priced alternatives that will replace more coal. The excellent David Roberts at Gristmill picks up on Mark Clayton's Christian Science Monitor story:
"The question is not whether nuclear power is 'acceptable' or 'good' by some subjective standard -- economic, moral, or otherwise. It's not even whether investments in nuclear power could lead to emission reductions. The question is: what is the maximum amount of climate change mitigation we can get for a given dollar of investment? Nuclear fails that test."
OK, I don't know if it fails the test or not. According to one study quoted by CSM, "Just improving a nation's energy efficiency would produce far less CO2 than a new nuclear plant (5 grams vs. 32 grams per kilowatt-hour), the study found. And it would do so at lower cost (4.8 cents vs. 5.2 cents per kilowatt-hour)."
One study isn't the whole story. But this is surely the standard by which we should judge nukes, and ethanol, and conservation, and sequestration, and solar/wind power.