Do we need nuclear power to solve climate change? Amory Lovins says no

In 2017, the V.C. Summer Nuclear Plant expansion - meant to hail the renaissance of nuclear power in the US - came screeching to a halt. The project, to build two new reactors at an existing South Carolina facility, was canceled after being delayed more than a year, costing $9 billion USD, and still being only 40% complete. Now, the only new nuclear project in the works in the U.S. is the Vogtle Plant expansion in Georgia; a project also more than a year behind schedule, and billions of dollars over budget. Still, nuclear projects remain a focus of government and think tank decarbonization strategies. Why?

Dr. Amory Lovins, adjunct professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University, and international authority on the clean energy transition, joins Climate Now to explain why he thinks nuclear should no longer be considered as a source of energy. For Amory, it's not just the chance of environmental catastrophe or nuclear proliferation that make it a non-starter, it's the economics.

00:00 - Introducing Climate Now
00:32 - Introducing Amory Lovins
01:12 - How much energy is supplied from nuclear power
02:02 - Amory explains why he believes that nuclear has no business case
16:25 - If nuclear has no business case, why do governments continue to invest in it?

Follow us on Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, and Instagram.

Contact us at contact@climatenow.com

Visit our website for all of our content and sources for each episode.