Nuclear Power

Table of Contents

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in posts
Search in pages

Nuclear Power

History | References

“Every dollar spent on nuclear is one less dollar spent on clean renewable energy and one more dollar spent on making the world a comparatively dirtier and a more dangerous place, because nuclear power and nuclear weapons go hand in hand.” ― Mark Z. Jacobson

The Nuclear Power Dilemma
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2018 special report elicited a large public response concerning global warming and its truly frightening consequences now upon us. This is becoming increasingly visible, despite the continued denial from our governments (video, warning: strong language) and world leaders. There are now almost constant reports of record breaking heat waves, fires, droughts, melting glaciers, bizarre weather, increasingly powerful storms and hurricanes, bomb cyclones, wavy jet streams, sea level rise, ocean dead zones, insect and animal die offs, floods, food shortages, refugees, and much more.

Most people, who are not blinded by profit margins or industry brainwashing, now recognize that there is a strong need to divest from fossil fuels and decarbonize quickly. However, if we are not prudent, this could put our energy future in the hands of madmen. Many analysts in the energy sector have pointed to nuclear power as a means to save us from ramping up on the well-documented devastation of rising carbon dioxide (CO2 ) levels. In fact, the last time CO2 emissions were this high, modern humans didn’t even exist.  It is certain that the US and other nations need to find ways to swiftly decarbonize by mid-century or sooner, with some research giving us less than 12 years.

In order to do this, nuclear energy is often touted as the most readily available solution we have. The IPCC special report even goes so far as to encourage society to take a risky gamble on unproven technologies and to double down on nuclear power despite the enormous risks to human health, the environment, and all life. The unnerving implications of this are largely ignored.  Make no mistake this is a daunting issue with a nasty tendency to get ugly fast. Further, underlying the IPCC report’s claim is the belief that technological solutions can fix the climate problem. Yet these fixes don’t address the root cause of climate change. In the following episode of Just Have a Think, David Borlace discusses “Nuclear Energy in the 21st Century” and brings up some of the key issues that will be discussed here:


Alternatively, renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency measures are now proving that they can help significantly to cut the energy sector’s emissions, and are safe, cost-effective, and commercially available today. Despite this, many continue to argue that renewables won’t be enough and that limiting the worst effects of climate change may also require other low or no-carbon energy solutions, pointing again to nuclear power. Because of this, extremely reputable researchers such as those at the Union of Concerned Scientists and Dr. James Hansen, PhD have said that we have to consider nuclear power as a potential last ditch solution to climate change.

According to these prominent scientists and researchers, society must explore the advantages of nuclear power. They claim that the generation of electricity through nuclear energy reduces the amount of energy generated from fossil fuels (coal and oil). Less use of fossil fuels means lowering greenhouse gas emissions (CO2 and others). A potential list the advantages of nuclear power include the following:

  • Low Greenhouse Gas emissions
  • Low life-cycle carbon emissions
  • High power output
  • Provides a steady base load output
  • Inexpensive electricity
  • Nuclear energy doesn’t rely on fossil fuels
  • Economic impact (provides jobs, etc)

As a global society it is true that we must weigh both sides of this argument and consider the risks and benefits very carefully before making any conclusions. Many argue that the benefits of nuclear power outweigh the risks given our current energy demands and the continued lack of investment in and infrastructure in place for renewables. In the following ScientistsWarning.TV video hosted by Stuart Scott, Michael Shellenberger and Dr. James Hansen discuss this matter further:

This video shows that there are, indeed, many sides to this argument. It also shows that those who side with nuclear power tend to downplay its numerous costs and risks. For example, in this video, Michael Shellenberger significantly under-represents the enormous catastrophe and ongoing unfolding environmental tragedy at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident site as many nuclear supporters do. Shellenberger also outrageously, claims, openly gaslighting his audience, that according to an apples-to-oranges nuclear industry supplied analysis by Environmental Progress, solar panels create about 300 times more toxic waste per unit of electricity generated than nuclear power plants! This will be discussed further below.

Let’s Face it, “Nuclear Safety” is an Oxymoron
Despite the advantages of nuclear power discussed above, nuclear power is fraught with many significant and notorious disadvantages that it has never and will never likely overcome.  This includes:

  • Substantial safety and security risks.
  • An unsolved waste disposal problem.
  • Ongoing containment issues.
  • Increased threat of accidents.
  • Increased probability of use in terrorism.
  • Constant leaks resulting in low level radiation (LLR) in the environment.
  • Disasters.
  • Huge water requirements.
  • Bio-accumulation.
  • Medical risks.
  • Still contributes to CO2 emissions.
  • Land use and habitat destruction.
  • Unprofitable plants that are impossible to maintain in changing climate.

Nuclear energy also produces substantial economic challenges, and carries significant risks. Accidents, leaks, and the nearly complete inability for humans to contain this power have a long and dark track record that includes the Three Mile Island Accident, Chernobyl, The Dome, Novaya Zemlya, Kosmos 1818, The Hanford, Fukushima Daiichi, and many other large scale disasters that are still playing out. In fact, some have called the accident at Japan’s Fukushima Daichii a potential extinction level event. While other experts, like Andrew Glikson, PhD are discussing the “Plutocene Era.” It is also well-known that according to Dr. Peter Ward, PhD (video) and others we likely have 3-9 feet of sea level rise (SLR) already baked in with climate lag which does not bode well for the some 85% of nuclear facilities now lining our sea coasts. With increasing and intensifying tropical storms this concern is a serious threat. Nuclear facilities located on the coasts (and there are about 150 of them) should be decommissioned as soon as possible given events like what just happened to the Bahamas in Dorian. Yet, nuclear industry supporters argue that it’s completely safe and not to worry. They also claim that decommissioning can wait and/or will be too expensive.

Ultimately, mankind has repeatedly failed to fully control or contain nuclear power as the following video with Dr. Kate Brown from MIT appearing on Democracy Now! discusses.

“Chernobyl is considered the worst nuclear accident in history, but Kate Brown, an MIT professor of science, technology and society, says much of what we understand about the disaster is inaccurate. Her new book, “Manual for Survival: A Chernobyl Guide to the Future,” chronicles the devastating and under-reported impact of radiation on tens of thousands in the Soviet Union that went unreported for decades.”

The failure to make nuclear energy safe is an ongoing concern. These caveats also make nuclear power vulnerable to public rejection with good reason as seen in Japan and Germany following the Fukushima disaster of 2011. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) many nuclear plants in the US alone are scheduled for much needed maintenance and are falling behind safety schedules. Additionally, these plants are no longer making a profit and many insurers do not want to cover these plants due to the potential for large unmanageable disasters.

According to the UCS, “More than one-third of US nuclear plants are unprofitable or scheduled to close. On average, it would cost $814 million annually to bring unprofitable plants back to a breakeven point. Plants owned by merchant generators that sell power into competitive wholesale markets face a higher risk of closure than regulated utilities that recover their costs from ratepayers.”

UCS also says that nuclear power’s risks can and must be substantially reduced, regardless of whether new nuclear power plants are built. Recommendations include:

  • Better enforcement of existing regulations
  • Expedited transfer of nuclear waste into dry casks
  • Strengthened reactor security requirements
  • Higher safety standards for new plants.

UCS recommends that all citizens urge Congress to demand the Nuclear Regulatory Commission enforce its safety regulations and establish a clear, realistic timeline for compliance by all nuclear power reactors. In the meantime, nuclear energy is on the decline.

To LNT or Not to LNT: That is The Question?
The trending science and nuclear industry research is pushing for a move away from the long held Linear No-Threshold Theory (LNT) of radiation. LNT says basically the obvious, that there is no safe dose when it comes to industrial level bio-hazard exposures to radiation. What is LNT? The principal basis for the LNT is theoretical, and straightforward. A single particle of radiation hitting a single DNA molecule in a single cell nucleus of a human body can potentially initiate a cancer down the road. The probability of a cancer initiation is therefore proportional to the number of such hits, which is proportional to the number of particles of radiation, which is proportional to the dose. Thus, the risk is linearly dependent on the dose. There’s a lot of room for speculation and argumentation at these low levels.

Still, the importance of this use of the LNT is difficult to exaggerate. It is estimated that in the USA, US $85 billion will be spent in cleaning up the Hanford site to avoid low level radiation (LLR), and comparable sums will be spent on government operating sites at Savannah River, Rocky Flats, Fernald and several others. If the LNT is wrong and low level radiation (LLR) is harmless, all of this money would be wasted. Also, funding for this superfund site clean up might not even happen without this.

Those downplaying the importance of LNT have become even more adamant and vociferous after Fukushima. For example, the Heartland Institute (video), funded by Koch Industries, is a well-known bastion of science denialism and an investor in the nuclear industry. It has proclaimed that LNT is too strict and denied it’s validity altogether.

There are only a handful of widely accepted studies even available about radiation rate increases post-Fukushima. The ones that are considered valid by mainstream science and media typically come from the Woods Hole Institute (WHOI). WHOI presents most of the data and findings on this topic to date. Suspiciously, this institute is also at least partially funded by grants received from the nuclear industry via the Department of Defense.

The WHOI repeatedly reports that the radiation from Fukushima arriving constantly on the West Coast of the USA now is at “low doses” that are what the agency calls safe. In fact, most research and data in this area is coming from the nuclear industry itself or funded by its interests. Of course, they report that all radiation from Fukushima and elsewhere is at safe levels in their ocean radiation reports as well. But what are they calling safe?

“The recent findings as you might expect are being played down and the usual sound-bites are telling us “it’s nothing to worry about,” something the powers that be have been saying for 8 years now.” – The Big Wobble

In short, it boils down to whether you follow LNT or not. Many physicians think there are “safe” doses and are even talking about radiogenerative hormesis as ever (i.e. saying it’s even good for you at low doses just like the tobacco industry once did about smoking), while others still clearly assert that there are no safe doses, like Dr. Arjun Makhijani. The debate rages on.

Part of the problem is there are no “proven” damages at really low levels; except that we know it bio-accumulates in living tissues and is passed from one organism to another in the food chain (plants and animals). This means each time you get a little more at low levels you are already at the beginning of taking a risk which can only increase over time with repeated exposures given a toxic environment like the world in which we live today.  Essentially those who argue against LNT base this argument on a complete lack of evidence since LLR carcinogenosis is unproven. Granted it’s evidence we are never likely to get, but still this approach is pretty close to scientific wishful thinking.

According to, “this brings up the Precautionary Principle. It says that if there is doubt about the safety of a substance, the burden of proof that it is safe lies with those who advocate it, rather than burdening those who question it with the responsibility to prove its harm.” In other words, “Better safe than sorry.” The phrase “Precautionary Principle” is not even included in the index of Energy, much less discussed. [The current nuclear industry] approach suggests a “Throw-caution-to-the-wind Principle.”

Also, don’t let these jargon science manufacturers of consent tell you that getting some sun on you is equivalent to getting some nuclear fallout on you from a nuclear disaster or dirty bomb. Nuclear industry supporters like to make this apples-to-oranges comparison. But all radioactive isotopes are not equal, and you simply don’t get Cesium 137 or Plutonium 239 from sun bathing. Or we would have evacuated Vail, Colorado (a high elevation city) long ago.

Micheal Shellenberger, as mentioned above, is a nuclear industry funded pundit who has repeatedly refuted and devalued the work of doctors such as Helen Caldicott, and has written a Forbes article titled “It Sounds Crazy, But Fukushima, Chernobyl, And Three Mile Island Show Why Nuclear Is Inherently Safe.” It sounds crazy, because it is crazy.  Except in a nation run by gaslighting, i.e. upending objective reality to support an ideation and delusional rationalization of what they call safety for investors, insurers and industrialists and those who seek to profit from this disaster. Therefore, trust but verify, as the Russian proverb goes: доверяй, но проверяй.

Externalities Mean No One’s Taking Responsibility
How could Fukushima be built on an earthquake prone zone many ask (and note that Fukushima is just one example, as many such facilities are built on coastlines now subject to sea level rise (SLR) of at least 3 feet according to climate scientists like Peter Ward, author of Flooded Earth (video), which conversely will also impact fault lines)? The answer is simple. for most nuclear energy corporations (like every other company) melt-downs and natural disasters, even triple melt-downs, are considered externalities which they will never pay for.

They are basically taking huge gamble with your money as the taxpayer or working citizen of your nation, but you never did the risk assessment. And then you are left with the bill, oh and in the case of nuclear melt-downs like Fukushima the radiation exposures, destruction of the natural environment, and possibly the entire Pacific Ocean and the Northern Hemisphere.

“Tokyo Electric built its reactors as it did because it would not pay the full cost of a melt-down anyway. Given the limited liability at the heart of corporate law, it could externalize the cost of running reactors. In most industries, firms rarely risk tort damages so enormous they cannot pay them. In nuclear power, “unpayable” potential liability is routine. Privately owned companies bear the costs of an accident only up to the fire-sale value of their net assets. Beyond that point, they pay nothing — and the damages from a nuclear disaster easily soar past that point.”

What About Safer Alternatives? Thorium Reactors? Fusion? God Parity?
It may be possible to support continued research and development of nuclear power technologies that are safer, more secure, and lower cost. With the need for cleaner energy higher than ever before, could liquid fluoride thorium reactors (LFTR) be the solution? Molten Salt Thorium reactors are being touted as a safer alternative. There are many newer types of reactors. Still these are long shots, and not likely to be the on time to solve the challenges of a climate already getting beyond human control especially considering climate lag.

It is also known that few large corporations will spend the money to update their plants to these types of reactors.  In this video episode of Answers with Joe this option is discussed further. Joe Scott also discusses other experimental technologies like, traveling wave reactors (video), TWR technology, molten salt reactors, and fusion (video).

Some people are still hoping for a “star in a jar” solution (video), but fusion is perpetually acknowledged to be a long way off. Promising but fleeting fusion reactions have been achieved in several experiments. China’s Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (EAST) known as an artificial sun made an important advance by achieving a stable 101.2-second steady-state high confinement plasma, setting a world record. Fusion needs more experimentation and funding to unlock it’s promise. However, some are still asking who killed fusion? If you can’t get fusion, the next best thing might be the god parity.

It is certain, energy sector analysts such as Tony Seba (video) expect the next decades to see major disruptions in the energy sector that could change the horrific reality we now face in dirty energy and dirty money. This is true forward thinking. And it’s not just for futuristic visionaries such as Jacque Fresco (so far ahead of his time that he was often ridiculed for his vision of a demonetized and energy unslaved society) anymore. “Los Angeles Power and Water officials have struck a deal on the largest and cheapest solar + battery-storage project in the world, at prices that leave fossil fuels in the dust and may relegate nuclear power to the dustbin,” – according to Forbes contributor Jeff McMahon.

According to analyst Dave Froman, “this disruption is based in AI and computational power. It will require an open source project (and the 2 world leaders in this technology already on this are open source) that the world and the scientific community are focused on in a collective effort. This will exponentially increase the development of these emerging energy solutions. We would probably be there in less than 5 years. However, unfortunately we cannot create that environment today within our current system. Still, the next 20 years are going to rewrite the entire human narrative. And people have no idea it’s coming.”

Nuclear Power: A False Solution to Climate Change
According to this article, no matter how you look at it, nuclear power is a false solution to climate change. Deploying a dangerous solution to mitigate dangerous climate change seems like doubling down on a bad idea. Ironically, from uranium mines to nuclear waste, including radioactive and chemical pollution from nuclear reactors, every phase of the nuclear cycle brings about more industrial pollution. Further in this video Dr. Kate Brown of MIT, explains why nuclear power won’t stop or curtail climbing global emissions rates or mitigate climate change:


The following long list of disadvantages is enough to make anyone reconsider any commitment to nuclear power besides decomissioning and start thinking about renewables.

  • At best, nuclear power’s contribution would be minor.
  • Nuclear power is too late.
  • Nuclear power is marginal form of energy in decline.
  • Nuclear energy also produces greenhouse gases.
  • Nuclear energy is too expensive.
  • Nuclear energy is not adapted to a deteriorating climate.
  • Radioactivity and nuclear waste: more and more pollution.
  • Major accidents: a disaster is always possible.
  • Proliferation: radiological terrorism, nuclear war.
  • And then, there’s the nuclear waste storage problem…In summary, this article finds that “the typical nuclear power plant has 8.6 cents of damages attached to every kilowatt-hour of electricity it produces, and the industry as a whole has $223.7 billion worth of net damages every year. These costs are so large (and unavoidable) that in most countries investments in nuclear power do not occur, and they raise doubts as to whether a nuclear renaissance will produce net benefits to society.”

Waste Not Want Not
There are many serious, unresolved problems associated with nuclear power that have existed since its introduction. The most significant challenge that nuclear power presents is the high level waste (HLW) storage problem.

HLW is liquid waste taken from spent fuel pools. High-level radioactive wastes are the highly radioactive materials produced as a byproduct of the reactions that occur inside nuclear reactors. High-level wastes take one of two forms: Spent (used) reactor fuel when it is accepted for disposal. Waste materials remaining after spent fuel is reprocessed.

Nuclear fuel remains dangerously radioactive for thousands of years after it is no longer useful in a commercial reactor. The resulting waste disposal problem has become a major challenge for policymakers and the environment. According to a NIRS/WISE report:

“In the last few decades researchers have been working on the technology to reduce radioactivity and the decay time of nuclear waste, the so-called transmutation process. There is no guarantee that this expensive research will be successful, and these techniques can only be applied for future spent fuel and not for the present amount of nuclear waste 300,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel have already been accumulated worldwide.”

In the following video a report on this problem the waste storage issues at just one facility are discussed:

Nuclear countries plan on burying the waste, but the only existing burial sites (Asse in Germany and WIPP in the United States) have turned into incredible fiascos that already contaminate the environment, although they store less radioactive wastes.

For the storage of radioactive nuclear waste there are still no solutions. What’s worse is HLW storage requires nuclear waste dumps for eternity (video) as highly radioactive nuclear wastes will remain deadly for over hundreds of thousands of years. SpaceX is experimenting with the notion of whether or not we can send nuclear waste to the sun (video)? The problem of nuclear waste disposal is now largely recognized as unsolvable (video).

What’s Worse Nuclear v. Solar Waste
Does solar power generate more waste than nuclear power as claimed by Michael Shellenberger in the video above? Shellenberger also makes points about eROI (pronounced Ee-roy). According to Forbes, “also referred to as Energy Returned on Energy Invested (EROEI), EROI is the ratio of energy returned to energy invested in that energy source, along its entire life-cycle.” The energy return on investment (EROI) is a key determinant of the price of energy. Many nuclear industry supporters claim that the return on investment for nuclear power over solar is much more and with less risk.

Nuclear industry supporters like to claim that recycling a solar panel is bad, but recycling a nuclear reactor is good! It is also trendy to claim that the resulting nuclear industry waste products are somehow far less than solar industry waste products. It’s also a somewhat ironic concern from proponents of nuclear power, which has a rather bigger toxic waste problem. Also, if you look at the overall numbers, this isn’t exactly so:

  • Nuclear Waste Totals: 115,000,000 cubic meters of waste, most of it radioactive, deadly, and unmanageable.
  • Solar Waste Totals: 19,500,000 cubic meters of waste, all of it safe and most of it recyclable. Further, according to a spokesman for the Solar Energy Industries Association argues that the study cited by Shellenberger is incorrect, and that in fact solar panels are “mainly made up of easy-to-recycle materials that can be successfully recovered and reused at the end of their useful life.”

And then there are the reactors themselves. The problem here is that you can only recycle concrete a bit, currently about 28%. Crushing it costs energy. Some concrete is used as aggregate for road construction and similar tasks, but that’s about it. In any event, you can’t turn old nuclear reactors into new ones.

But don’t look at the argument, look at the facts. People are recycling solar panels right now, today.  The numbers don’t lie. Meanwhile, the cost of decommissioning nuclear plants is spiraling out of control, and we still have no idea what to do with the nuclear waste as discussed above. In fact, radioactive HLW storage is one of the most significant problems plaguing modern man. All of these factors are just more reasons to look toward real world renewables like hydroelectric dams.

According to Clean Technica “some critics and skeptics incorrectly say too much energy is consumed in the production of solar panels and that the panels don’t generate enough electricity during their lifetimes to make up for it. This criticism has been proven to be false, and may be nothing more than a deliberate form of misinformation intended to persuade people who are interested in solar power to lose that interest. Too often, the critics turn out to be people who are directly or indirectly connected to fossil fuel industries like oil and gas, nuclear, or coal.”

From analyst Dave Froman, as to this argument of recycling solar panels: “There is no such thing as waste when you have the ability to manipulate matter at the atomic scale. If you can manufacture at the atomic scale? You can recycle those atoms as well. I know of 6 different research groups now working on the creation of Nano-replication. We already possess all of the material sciences now, as well as the ancillary technologies necessary for its creation. It is no longer a matter of if, only when.”

The Never-ending Threat of Nuclear Winter
What’s worse than the Anthropocene you might ask? The answer is the Plutocene. We cannot forget the intimate connection between nuclear power and nuclear war. Plutocene is a term coined by author Andrew Glikson to describe the future world we are on course to inhabit, now that it has become clear that we are still busy building nuclear weapons rather than working together to defend our planet. The doomsday clock is already set at two minutes to midnight, the closest it’s ever been in world history. Russia is said to have built a new 100-megaton underwater nuclear doomsday device, and it has threatened the US with it.

“An organism at war with itself is doomed.” – Carl Sagan

According to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, “nuclear weapons and nuclear power share several common features. The long list of links includes their histories, similar technologies, skills, health and safety aspects, regulatory issues and radiological research and development. For example, the process of enriching uranium to make it into fuel for nuclear power stations is also used to make nuclear weapons. Plutonium is a by-product of the nuclear fuel cycle and is still used by some countries to make nuclear weapons.”

Many groups are calling for a plutonium free future and decommissioning as soon as possible to avert these nuclear winter (video) woes that have been with us since the Cold War era.

Governments Unprepared to Manage Nuclear Power in the Long run
Scientists are mathematically predicting a 3 foot sea level rise due to our perturbation of the environment even if we stop burning fossil fuels today due to climate lag – some say as much as 130 feet of sea level rise is coming. This will displace coastal cities around the globe, where many reactors are situated. In the following video Arnie Gundersen, nuclear expert and Director of Fairewinds Energy Education, explains that we have to expect more nuclear disasters like Fukushima and the resulting risks of Fukushima fascism that the world is now taking on because governments and corporations are unprepared and incapable of managing nuclear power in the long run:


The True Solution to Climate Change
Those who are serious about climate and social justice argue that nuclear power is a false solution to climate change and are working toward a 100% renewable energy future. Continue this discussion on SW Wiki Renewables >>

Learn more:

It is clear that the risks often outweigh the benefits of nuclear power, almost on the waste storage issue alone.  Additionally, due to the corruption of our government regulatory bodies by profit and power motivated bad actors, warring entities, and radiological terrorists we, as a society have proven time and again that we are just not equipped to play with the proverbial fire that nuclear power represents. Especially as we move into a warmer world with several feet of sea level rise on the way and more than half of these problematic and already leaking reactor sites located on sea coasts, Rupert Read calls nuclear power a profoundly irresponsible solution (video) for our energy future.

Despite our best intentions, our governing systems all too often allow profit to trump safety forcing us to conclude that we can’t continue considering these technologies without a fundamental ecological shift in these dynamics.

With the daunting cons to nuclear energy there are many factors that will need to change significantly in order to make this type of energy a reasonable option for further consideration.  Many upgrades in this technology have been promised, but not yet delivered. Simply put, this debate is ongoing and there are no definitive answers, just a cautionary tale.

When the full cost of the Nuclear Options are factored in, which need to include the full life cycle cost of:

  • Mining and processing the fuels.
  • Storing the spent fuel.
  • Building and decommissioning power plants which often run over budget.
  • The cost of all the research invested.
  • The environmental and social cost of disasters.

These questions need to be thoroughly answered before truly considering the nuclear option. The Atomic Doomsday Clock  (video) is already at 2 minutes to midnight and simply can’t get any closer.

Visit the SW Blog on this topic: Climate Change and Nuclear Risk: The Forthcoming (Un)Natural Disasters By Frédéric Moreau >>


(Top of Page)

  • 1:00 pm September 6, 2019 – Shani Cairns (Added some more discussion around atomic scale energy disruptions from Dave Froman).
  • 5:15 pm September 5, 2019 – Shani Cairns (Added some more discussion around SLR, safety, new information from Kate Brown at MIT, god parity, and more).
  • 3:00 pm August 25, 2019 – Shani Cairns (Added some more discussion around LNT, safe doses, and risks).
  • 7:00 pm August 21, 2019 – Shani Cairns (Added some more discussion with JHAT video, as well as added further discussion notes and clarified some discussion areas and updated overall content).
  • 7:45 pm Feb. 19, 2019 – Charles Gregoire (Did another review, made lists out of some of the items, split one of the paragraphs, added a comment in the conclusion about the need to provide a full life cycle cost for Nuclear before comparing it to other options. Posted the link in the TOC).
  • 8:00 pm Feb. 14, 2019 – Shani Cairns (Added story of who killed fusion and more on solar eROI).
  • 2:00 pm Feb 11, 2019 – Shani Cairns (Added some more discussion of pros, as well as the video suggested by Charles Gregoire on thorium reactors with Joe Scott, added further discussion notes and questions from Charles, and clarified the discussion on the connection between plutonium in nuclear power used in nuclear war).
  • 11:00 am Feb. 11, 2019 – Charles Gregoire – (Did an initial proof read review and took notes. Watch all the videos. Raised questions.).
  • 7:00 pm Feb. 6, 2019 – Shani Cairns – (Added section content, main page write up as well as several additional resources and video lectures).
  • 10:00 pm Feb. 4, 2019 – Shani Cairns – (Added “Nuclear Power” page with a brief introduction).

(Top of Page)


Note: This page as with many wiki pages is a work in progress. It aims to inform the reader on topics regarding the pros and cons of whether or not nuclear power is a viable solution to energy demands in a changing climate.