Profiting From a Nuclear-Free Third Millenium

The author contends that nuclear power has suffered a historic industrial collapse due to capital cost escalations and technical failures, making it uncompetitive against cheaper alternatives. The report highlights end-use efficiency as the most potent competitor, noting that well-designed industrial retrofits can save electricity at costs as low as $0.005/kWh. Other viable alternatives mentioned include combined-cycle gas turbines, wind power, and proton-exchange-membrane fuel cells. The author further argues that moving away from civilian nuclear commerce would reduce the risk of nuclear bomb proliferation by making the acquisition of 'bomb-kit ingredients' more conspicuous. Finally, the text asserts that nuclear power exacerbates global warming by displacing more cost-effective energy-saving options, thereby increasing the opportunity cost of climate mitigation.

• Nuclear power has experienced a massive industrial failure, with installed capacity and ordering rates falling far below the lowest IAEA forecasts from 25 years prior, and no vendors making a profit from selling reactors.
• End-use efficiency is the most cost-effective alternative to nuclear power; while the average historic U.S. cost for efficiency is $0.02 per saved kW-h, well-designed business sector retrofits can achieve costs of approximately $0.005/kWh.
• Other competitive energy technologies include combined-cycle gas turbines ($0.027–0.03/kWh), co- and trigeneration ($0.005–0.03/kWh), and well-sited windpower ($0.04–0.05/kWh), with proton-exchange-membrane fuel cells expected to capture much of the building power market.
• The decline of civilian nuclear commerce provides a security opportunity to hinder nuclear proliferation, as the lack of a legitimate commercial cover would make the acquisition of nuclear materials for weapons more obvious and harder to justify.
• Nuclear power is counterproductive for climate goals because its high cost creates a significant opportunity cost; funds spent on nuclear power could instead purchase a greater amount of energy efficiency, which would displace more coal-fired electricity.

APA

LOVINS, A. B. (1999). Profiting From a Nuclear-Free Third Millenium. RMI. https://rmi.org/app/uploads/2017/05/RMI_Document_Repository_Public-Reprts_E00-19_ProfitNukeFree.pdf

Chicago

LOVINS, AMORY B. Profiting From a Nuclear-Free Third Millenium. RMI, 1999. https://rmi.org/app/uploads/2017/05/RMI_Document_Repository_Public-Reprts_E00-19_ProfitNukeFree.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=LOVINS |first1=AMORY B. |title=Profiting From a Nuclear-Free Third Millenium |publisher=RMI |date=November 1999 |url=https://rmi.org/app/uploads/2017/05/RMI_Document_Repository_Public-Reprts_E00-19_ProfitNukeFree.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{lovins1999profiting, author = {LOVINS, AMORY B.}, title = {{Profiting From a Nuclear-Free Third Millenium}}, institution = {RMI}, year = {1999}, month = nov, url = {https://rmi.org/app/uploads/2017/05/RMI_Document_Repository_Public-Reprts_E00-19_ProfitNukeFree.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }