Home | About | Donate

New Report Shatters Myth of 'Nuclear Renaissance'


New Report Shatters Myth of 'Nuclear Renaissance'

Andrea Germanos, staff writer

If renewable energy advocates need more evidence that solar and wind are better investments than nuclear power, a new report may offer just that.

The findings come from the newly released World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2015, which looks at global nuclear developments over the past year.


“The sole remaining issue is that not everyone sees it that way—as yet.”

Well you could look at it that way, and it’s true as far as it goes, but there are material reasons why so many do “not see it that way yet.”

There are incredibly wealthy and powerful “interested parties” to the proceedings, who on one hand find it in their own material interest to NOT “see it that way,” and also find it in their material interest to invest billions of dollars in think tanks, propaganda and media, to mystify the public consciousness, and in “lobbying” and “campaign contributions” to corrupt the political system.

i hope the authors and analysts understand these elements.


“Marking a first in five decades, Japan went without nuclear power for an entire year, the report states.”

Yes. It instead was generated from coal ans oil

“And three of the world’s largest economies—China, Germany, Japan—as well as Brazil, India, Mexico, the Netherlands, and Spain, now all generate more electricity from non-hydro renewables than from nuclear.”

Germany has replaced all their nuclear generating capacity with coal. The rest of the countries only generate very small to no percentage of their electricity from nuclear - so of course renewable generation is ahead of nuclear.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


It would seem that if anyone was aware of the sources that ‘don’t see it that way’ it would be those in the renewable efforts. They no doubt realize that their presentations are more effective when used with appropriate language. Hit the opposition with the facts in a straight forward yet noncontentious manner. Don’t give the nuclear insdustry’s PR departments something to use to deflect the issues. Though time is getting shorter vis-a-vis the environment, the picture of future energy is on the side of the renewable movement. This includes much more localized, smaller systems that can be independent of large grid network fluctuations and failures.


Thank you, Matt!


“three of the world’s largest economies—China, Germany, Japan… now all generate more electricity from non-hydro renewables than from nuclear.”

And also have a larger per capita carbon footprint than significantly-nuclear France.

“Global generation from solar was up 38 percent, and wind power increased over 10 percent. In contrast, nuclear power generation was up just 2.2 percent.”

And how much of that wind and solar was backed up by fossil? After all, reducing fossil was presumably the point of this exercise. And over the same period, global oil increased 0.8% and coal and gas both increased 0.4 percent–which, because of their much larger share to begin with, means new fossil fuel consumption outstripped new renewable and new nuclear generation combined. Our current trajectory is on track for continued growth in fossil fuels through 2030. If that’s going to change, we need something better than what we have now. That, or we need a global revolution in culture, politics, economics, etc. the likes of which we haven’t seen since… ever.

“Beyond Nuclear, an organization that advocates for a safe, democratic energy future, said the report belies claims of a “nuclear renaissance.””

The countries that have led in nuclear are not entering another major build phase at this time. In that respect, there is no nuclear renaissance. Most of the new nuclear is going to be in countries which have had little to none, so it won’t be a “renaissance” to them. But globally, build orders and new build plans are on the rise. And the real renaissance is taking place in nuclear research–which is currently seeing intense and diverse activity after a long dormancy.

“demonstrating beyond the shadow of a doubt that renewable energy and energy efficiency are a far sounder investment and a much safer choice.”

One of the leaders in investments in nuclear research, reactor manufacturing development, and new reactor builds is China. They seem to think it is a worthwhile investment, even though they also happen to be world leaders in cheap solar and wind power production. Either they don’t know what they are doing, or they are aware of larger and longer-term factors which have been missed by people like Mycle Schneider.

"The impressively resilient hopes that many people still have of a global nuclear renaissance are being trumped by a real‐time revolution in efficiency‐plus‐renewables‐plus‐storage, delivering more and more solutions on the ground every year. Porritt writes that the report “remorselessly lays bare the gap between the promise of innovation in the nuclear industry and its delivered results.”

There are dozens of advanced nuclear research projects underway at this time. That wouldn’t be happening if there weren’t broad recognition that the sort of old-tech nuclear power we have now has major problems and challenges. To everyone who understands that, a report that says old-tech nuclear power has major problems and challenges is hardly going to come as a revelation. It will dash the hopes of exactly zero of the researchers looking to replace old-tech nuclear, it will convince zero of them to hang up their lab coats and do something else, and if it has any effect at all, it will only serve as confirmation that a new path is needed.

"He concludes: “The static, top‐heavy, monstrously expensive world of nuclear power has less and less to deploy against today’s increasingly agile, dynamic, cost‐effective alternatives. The sole remaining issue is that not everyone sees it that way—as yet.”

I’m pretty sure that’s not the sole remaining issue. Smoothing out sporadic production remains a big one. And I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for everyone to come around to seeing nuclear power this way. I’ve seen support for advanced nuclear research grow, and I’ve heard of and from many former anti-nuke converts, but I have yet to hear of a single former supporter of advanced nuclear research who now opposes it. And reports like this one are very unlikely to change anyone’s mind.


Might nuclear not be a dead technology as soon as the people understand it?

Tesla technology is waiting in the wings.

Search the FOUR ELEMENTS OF FREE ENERGY to learn about it.


“Might nuclear not be a dead technology as soon as the people understand it?”

Indeed it might not.

“Tesla technology is waiting in the wings.”

And has been for how long now?

“Search the FOUR ELEMENTS OF FREE ENERGY to learn about it.”

There are many stories about some remarkable way to produce energy which was discovered decades ago, but which was derailed and even suppressed by powerful people for selfish reasons, but which research has now resumed and has the potential to dramatically transform the way we produce energy in the near future. And I can think of one such story which is actually true. But it won’t be energy for free.


One line of my family hails from the border region between Galway and Clare, in an area near Gort. Another line of my family has a surname of a certain troglodyte bird. And then, of course, there’s the backwards spelling.