Should nuclear power be expanded
What this question is about
Nuclear power produces about a tenth of the world’s electricity with very low lifecycle emissions, and it runs regardless of weather. It is also slow and expensive to build: several recent European projects, such as Olkiluoto 3 in Finland and Flamanville 3 in France, came online more than a decade late and far over budget. Countries have gone in opposite directions. Germany shut down its last three reactors in April 2023, while more than twenty countries pledged at COP28 to triple global nuclear capacity by 2050.
The disagreement is less about whether nuclear is low-carbon and more about trade-offs. Is it worth its cost and build time compared to wind, solar and storage? How much does a grid need power that runs regardless of weather? How should risks such as accidents, long-lived waste and proliferation be weighed? Is it better to keep existing plants running, to build new ones, or to wait for smaller modular designs?
Positions
3 positions on this question, listed in no order of merit. Skim the summaries, then open one to see its reasons and evidence.
Keep existing plants, but don’t build new large ones
Run current reactors as long as regulators judge them safe; put new investment into renewables, storage and grids.
1 reason0 sources
Best-sourced reason
Extending an existing plant’s life is one of the cheapest sources of low-carbon electricity, while new large reactors have repeatedly come in years late and far over budget.
Yes: build new reactors at scale
Governments back a sustained programme of new large reactors alongside renewables, with state financing or guaranteed prices to lower capital costs.
2 reasons0 sources
Best-sourced reason
A grid running mostly on wind and solar still needs low-carbon power that works on calm, dark winter days, and nuclear provides that without fossil fuels.
No: phase it out and invest in renewables
Close nuclear plants on a fixed timetable and use the money for wind, solar, storage, grid expansion and flexible demand.
2 reasons0 sources1 objection from another position
Best-sourced reason
Every euro spent on new nuclear buys less emission reduction per year than the same euro spent on wind and solar, because those are cheaper and faster to build.
Where they clash
Objections one position raises against another’s reasons, most first.
Yes: build new reactors at scale objects to No: phase it out and invest in renewables
1 objection
Open questions
Where this page still needs help. Each one takes a few minutes.
- Add a source
Source requested · Yes: build new reactors at scale
Over a full lifecycle, nuclear causes about as few deaths and as little CO₂ per unit of electricity as wind and solar.
- Add a source
No source yet · Keep existing plants, but don’t build new large ones
Extending an existing plant’s life is one of the cheapest sources of low-carbon electricity, while new large reactors have repeatedly come in years late and far over budget.
- Add a source
No source yet · Yes: build new reactors at scale
A grid running mostly on wind and solar still needs low-carbon power that works on calm, dark winter days, and nuclear provides that without fossil fuels.
- Add a source
No source yet · No: phase it out and invest in renewables
Every euro spent on new nuclear buys less emission reduction per year than the same euro spent on wind and solar, because those are cheaper and faster to build.
- Add a source
No source yet · No: phase it out and invest in renewables
No country has yet put a permanent repository for high-level nuclear waste into operation.
Is a position missing?
Propose a position
Source trail
No sources yet. To add the first one, open a position and choose Source → Add a source under any reason.
Log in to propose a position, add evidence, or object to a weak point.