Nuclear power: economics and climate-protection potential

The paper asserts that nuclear power is a 'market loser' compared to windpower, cogeneration, and energy efficiency. It claims that nuclear power's high costs and long lead times result in a high opportunity cost, where investments in nuclear power displace far more carbon-reducing capacity than they provide. The author argues that a diversified portfolio of decentralized resources is faster, cheaper, and larger in potential than nuclear power, and that government subsidies for nuclear energy retard overall climate protection efforts.

• Nuclear power is being outpaced by decentralized low- and no-carbon competitors in both capacity and output. In 2004, these rivals added nearly three times as much output and six times as much capacity as nuclear power.
• Nuclear power is economically uncompetitive in private capital markets, with current orders coming almost exclusively from centrally planned electricity systems.
• When compared on a consistent accounting basis, new nuclear plants are significantly more expensive than windpower, cogeneration, and energy efficiency. The delivered cost of nuclear electricity is estimated at approximately 9.8¢/kWh, whereas efficiency and some renewables are far cheaper.
• Nuclear power has a high 'opportunity cost' for climate protection. Every $0.10 spent on a new nuclear kilowatt-hour could instead purchase 1.2 to 1.7 kWh of windpower, 2.4 to 8.9 kWh of waste-heat cogeneration, or up to 10+ kWh of electrical savings from efficiency.
• The potential scale of decentralized resources is far larger than that of nuclear power. In the U.S., the full deployment of cost-effective competitors could provide 13 to 15 times nuclear power's current 20% share of electric generation.
• Nuclear power is the slowest option to deploy due to long lead times and complexity, whereas decentralized technologies benefit from modularity and mass production.
• The Energy Policy Act of 2005 provides approximately $13 billion in new subsidies for nuclear expansion, which the author argues diverts investment from cheaper, faster market winners.
• Expanding nuclear power on a global scale to significantly impact climate change would require immense investment and create massive waste. Adding 700 GWe worldwide would require approximately $1 to $2 trillion in investment and 14 Yucca Mountain-sized repositories for spent fuel, while only reducing average temperature rise by 0.2°C.

APA

Lovins, A. B. (2006). Nuclear power: economics and climate-protection potential. RMI. https://rmi.org/app/uploads/2017/05/RMI_Document_Repository_Public-Reprts_E05-14_NukePwrEcon.pdf

Chicago

Lovins, Amory B. Nuclear power: economics and climate-protection potential. RMI, 2006. https://rmi.org/app/uploads/2017/05/RMI_Document_Repository_Public-Reprts_E05-14_NukePwrEcon.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Lovins |first1=Amory B. |title=Nuclear power: economics and climate-protection potential |publisher=RMI |date=6 January 2006 |url=https://rmi.org/app/uploads/2017/05/RMI_Document_Repository_Public-Reprts_E05-14_NukePwrEcon.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{lovins2006nuclear, author = {Lovins, Amory B.}, title = {{Nuclear power: economics and climate-protection potential}}, institution = {RMI}, year = {2006}, month = jan, url = {https://rmi.org/app/uploads/2017/05/RMI_Document_Repository_Public-Reprts_E05-14_NukePwrEcon.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }