GREENHOUSE WARMING: EFFICIENT SOLUTION OR NUCLEAR NEMESIS?

The briefing assesses the viability of nuclear power as a solution to global warming, concluding that it is an ineffective strategy compared to energy efficiency. Analysis shows that even under highly optimistic assumptions—such as reduced construction times and costs—massive nuclear investment cannot prevent CO2 growth in high or medium energy demand scenarios. In the United States, the author asserts that investment in electrical efficiency displaces nearly seven times more carbon per dollar than investment in nuclear power. The document emphasizes that the primary driver of future emissions is the level of energy demand, and that efficiency improvements in the commercial, industrial, and transportation sectors offer vast, low-cost opportunities to reduce carbon output.

• Under optimistic assumptions, massive nuclear investment cannot stop CO2 emissions from growing in high and medium energy growth scenarios because emissions from oil and natural gas would continue.
• To displace coal in a high energy growth scenario, the world would need to build one 1000 MW nuclear plant every 1.6 days for 38 years, a rate the author describes as staggering and infeasible in the Third World.
• The most critical factor for future CO2 emissions is the level of energy demand and investment in energy efficiency, rather than the choice between nuclear and coal supply.
• A comparison of equal investments shows that an efficiency scenario displaces 17.3 Gt more carbon than a scenario involving a sixfold expansion of global nuclear power by 2025.
• In the United States, every dollar invested in electrical efficiency displaces nearly seven times more carbon than a dollar invested in nuclear power.
• The environmental opportunity cost of nuclear power in the U.S. is estimated such that for every $100 invested in new nuclear power, approximately one tonne of carbon is released that could have been avoided via efficiency investments.
• Energy efficiency opportunities extend beyond the electricity sector into commercial buildings; adopting these improvements in the U.S. could avoid 85 power plants and two Alaskan pipelines over fifty years.

APA

Keepin, B. (1988). GREENHOUSE WARMING: EFFICIENT SOLUTION OR NUCLEAR NEMESIS? RMI. https://rmi.org/app/uploads/2017/05/RMI_Document_Repository_Public-Reprts_E88-28_GreenhouseWmg.pdf

Chicago

Keepin, Bill. GREENHOUSE WARMING: EFFICIENT SOLUTION OR NUCLEAR NEMESIS? RMI, 1988. https://rmi.org/app/uploads/2017/05/RMI_Document_Repository_Public-Reprts_E88-28_GreenhouseWmg.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Keepin |first1=Bill |title=GREENHOUSE WARMING: EFFICIENT SOLUTION OR NUCLEAR NEMESIS? |publisher=RMI |date=29 June 1988 |url=https://rmi.org/app/uploads/2017/05/RMI_Document_Repository_Public-Reprts_E88-28_GreenhouseWmg.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{keepin1988greenhouse, author = {Keepin, Bill}, title = {{GREENHOUSE WARMING: EFFICIENT SOLUTION OR NUCLEAR NEMESIS?}}, institution = {RMI}, year = {1988}, month = jun, url = {https://rmi.org/app/uploads/2017/05/RMI_Document_Repository_Public-Reprts_E88-28_GreenhouseWmg.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }