Part 1 of 2 Parts
     There is a debate raging over whether protecting the climate will require more nuclear power plants. Saving the most carbon per dollar and per years requires not just generators that do not use fossil fuels but also requires those power sources that are deployable with the least cost and time. So nuclear power is not a solution to climate change.
     Nuclear power supplies about ten percent of global electricity and twenty percent of U.S. electricity. Nuclear power has been historically significant, but the industry is now stagnating. In 2020, its global capacity additions minus its global retirements only totaled about four hundred megawatts. In contrast, renewable energy sources added two hundred seventy-eight gigawatts to the global supply. Renewable energy increased supply and displaced carbon as much every thirty-eight hours as nuclear power did all year. As of early December, the score was minus three gigawatts as opposed to plus two hundred and ninety gigawatts.
     Global investment annually in energy efficiency and renewables is about three hundred billion dollars. Most of this is private capital. However, about fifteen billion to three hundred billion dollars a year is invested in nuclear. Most of that money was conscripted because the investors lost money on the investments. Two hundred and fifty-nine U.S. nuclear power reactors were ordered between 1955-2016. Only one hundred and twelve of these were constructed and ninety-three remain operational. By mid-2017, only twenty-eight of these reactors were competitive in the energy market and did not suffer outages of more than a year.
     Renewable energy sources supplied all global electricity growth in 2020. Nuclear power struggles to maintain its tiny marginal share as its vendors, culture and prospects shrivel. World reactors are an average thirty-one years old. In the U.S., the average age is forty-one years old. In a few years, the retirement of old and uncompetitive reactors will eclipse additions which will tip output into permanent decline. World nuclear power capacity has already fallen in five of the last twelve years for a two percent net drop. Performance of the global reactor fleet has become erratic. The average French reactors in 2020 produced no energy one third of the time.
     China is responsible for most current and projected nuclear growth. However, China’s investment in renewables just about matches its cumulative investment in nuclear power from 2008 to 2020. Altogether, in 2020, in China, sun and wind generated twice nuclear’s output per kilowatt hour. 
     Nuclear power has very bleak prospects because it has no solid business case. New plants cost three to eight times or five to thirteen more per kilowatt hour than unsubsidized new solar or wind power. This means that nuclear power produces three to thirteen times fewer kilowatt hours per dollar and displaces three to thirteen times less carbon per dollar than new renewables. Buying nuclear makes climate change worse. End-use efficiency is even cheaper than renewables and even more climate effective.
     Unsubsidized efficiency or renewables even beat most existing reactors’ operating costs causing a dozen reactors to close over the last decade. Congress is trying to rescue the others with a six-billion-dollar lifeline and durable, generous new operating subsidies to replace or augment state generosity. This joins existing federal subsidies that rival or exceed nuclear construction costs.
     But no case for business means no case for climate mitigation. Propping up uncompetitive assets to keep them in the marketplace blocks more climate effective replacements. Efficiency and renewables save more carbon per dollar. Supporters of new subsidies for nuclear power plants to save the climate have been defrauded.
Please read Part 2 next