Reports of the death of nuclear power have clearly been exaggerated

…writes Roger Pielke Jr. My guess is that Germany will do a 180 once the population figures out the destructive impact of the Greens scare campaign (5 years max). Similarly Japan – which should happen much sooner as the government is more in contact with reality

A lot has been written about the consequences of the Fukushima nuclear disaster for the future of nuclear power. Much of the discussion has focused on the high-profile cases of Germany and of course Japan. But overall, it seems that the aggregate effects of the disaster on the global prospects for nuclear power are pretty small.

Evidence for this comes from this nugget buried deep in the FT, which I was very surprised to see (I would have thought that the terminated or delayed number would have been much larger):

Of 570 units planned before Fukushima, only 37 have been axed or put on hold since the crisis, according to Arthur D. Little, a consultancy.

And while Germany steps back from nuclear power, it looks like the UK is jumping back in with renewed vigor:

Read the whole thing »

3 thoughts on “Reports of the death of nuclear power have clearly been exaggerated

  1. It is a mordant irony that green fear-mongering is killing more people, statistically, than nuclear power even if we include both of the big accidents to date (Chernobyl and Fukushima). Google the ExternE European study on the all-inclusive risk estimates of the various ways of generating electricity. Nuclear is safest by a significant margin, even if we ignore the savings in C02 emission. For example:

    As somebody once said, facts are stubborn things…

  2. I’ve had time for a quick review of the presentation you linked: “A Rational Environmentalist’s Guide to Nuclear Power”. Thanks, that’s good. Do you know who the author “NukeEngineer” is?

Comments are closed.