Nuclear Power: Climate Fix or Folly?

This report by RMI argues that nuclear power is an uncompetitive and inefficient solution for climate change compared to decentralized alternatives. The authors contend that nuclear power suffers from escalating capital costs, high financial risk, and slow deployment speeds, making it unattractive to private investors. They suggest that 'micropower'—including wind, solar, and cogeneration—along with end-use efficiency, provides a more cost-effective, reliable, and secure path to reducing carbon emissions.

• Nuclear power is significantly more expensive than its low-carbon competitors, with capital costs rising due to the atrophy of global infrastructure for reactor construction and operation. In the United States, new nuclear electricity is estimated to cost between 15–21¢/kWh, whereas firmed windpower costs approximately 7.4¢/kWh.
• Nuclear power is less cost-effective at displacing CO2 emissions than other carbon-free resources. Because it is the costliest option, it delivers less electrical service per dollar spent; firmed windpower and cogeneration are at least 1.5 times more cost-effective than nuclear at displacing CO2, while end-use efficiency can be 10–20 times more effective.
• The reliability of nuclear power is questioned due to unexpected failures and the necessity of long shutdowns for refueling and maintenance. Additionally, nuclear plants must shut down instantly during power failures and cannot be quickly restarted, as evidenced by the August 2003 Northeast blackout where nine U.S. units shut down and took twelve days to restart.
• Private capital markets avoid new nuclear projects due to high and uncertain costs, leaving the industry dependent on massive taxpayer subsidies and government loan guarantees. In 2005, U.S. subsidies for new plants were raised to approximately 60–90 percent of their projected power cost, yet Wall Street remained reluctant to invest.
• A 'micropower revolution' is occurring, where distributed turbines, generators, and renewables are outperforming nuclear power in growth and capacity. Micropower surpassed nuclear's global capacity in 2002 and its electric output in 2006, accounting for 28 percent of worldwide electric capacity additions between 2004 and 2007, compared to 2 percent for nuclear.
• The expansion of civilian nuclear power facilitates the proliferation of nuclear weapons by providing the necessary materials, equipment, and knowledge. The authors argue that moving toward non-nuclear energy alternatives would make the acquisition of bomb ingredients more difficult and conspicuous.

APA

Lovins, A. B., Sheikh, I., & Markevich, A. (2009). Nuclear Power: Climate Fix or Folly? RMI. https://rmi.org/app/uploads/2017/05/RMI_Document_Repository_Public-Reprts_E09-01_NuclPwrClimFixFolly1i09.pdf

Chicago

Lovins, Amory B., Imran Sheikh, and Alex Markevich. Nuclear Power: Climate Fix or Folly? RMI, 2009. https://rmi.org/app/uploads/2017/05/RMI_Document_Repository_Public-Reprts_E09-01_NuclPwrClimFixFolly1i09.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Lovins |first1=Amory B. |last2=Sheikh |first2=Imran |last3=Markevich |first3=Alex |title=Nuclear Power: Climate Fix or Folly? |publisher=RMI |date=2009 |url=https://rmi.org/app/uploads/2017/05/RMI_Document_Repository_Public-Reprts_E09-01_NuclPwrClimFixFolly1i09.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{lovins2009nuclear, author = {Lovins, Amory B. and Sheikh, Imran and Markevich, Alex}, title = {{Nuclear Power: Climate Fix or Folly?}}, institution = {RMI}, year = {2009}, url = {https://rmi.org/app/uploads/2017/05/RMI_Document_Repository_Public-Reprts_E09-01_NuclPwrClimFixFolly1i09.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }