Nukes are not the answer to climate change

Why is nuclear power not the answer to climate change?

Should be, shouldn’t it? Zero carbon, 24/7 power, impressive safety. France runs on it.

But, realities:

💰 Expensive . Nuclear is eye-watering to build: the only tech that has gotten considerably more costly over time. UK’s Hinkley Point C: originally £18B, now £46B. Dominion Energy in US saw a $10B plant hit $25 billion before… they just cancelled it.

🐌 Excruciatingly slow. We fret about safety, so the regulatory process takes years. Building requires the highest standards. Meanwhile, the climate clock is ticking and we’re burning gas. Hinkley was promised for 2025, but it’s at least 2031 now.

☀️💨 🔋Other things are better choices. Solar is quicker: a nuke’s worth of power can be running in under a year. That’s 20+ years of avoided emissions. And price: now same or cheaper. IEA analysis shows solar+batteries much cheaper in sunny places today. And every year, costs fall.

Yes, a functioning nuke is golden 🥇. Safe, economical, and churns out juice 24/7. But new ones? Delays, cost overruns, public freak-outs—you name it. 

The big hope is Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). Standardised, built in factories - they might be faster and cheaper. Might. At some point.

☢️ But right now, big nukes won’t solve the climate problem.