...bad for your health

Nuclear energy endangers health and the environment through the daily operation of nuclear reactors and also poses a risk of a nuclear catastrophe such as happened in Chernobyl (1986) or Fukushima (2011). During the normal running of nuclear power plants, studies show that people living nearby or who work at the plant have an increased risk of developing cancer. Added to this is the unsolved problem of what to do with the nuclear waste from both normal operation as well as after the decommissioning of nuclear reactors.

...blocking renewables

Originally, nuclear energy was sold as a way of providing „electricity too cheap to meter“. Instead, it turned out to be one of the most heavily subsidised technologies of all. It is dependent on massive direct and indirect subsidies from governments and consumers. If nuclear energy was to be cost competitive, those subsidies that are now drained by nuclear technology could instead be put towards further developing newer technologies such as solar and wind, thus helping to establish them. Subsidies for research and development in the nuclear sector, education of nuclear scientists and engineers, construction of nuclear power plants, hidden price subsidies for electricity, reduced insurance liabilities, clean-up and decommissioning costs, waste management, etc., are all drawing money away from the renewable sector.

Excess capacity from nuclear plants literally flood the electric grids so that cheaper and cleaner renewables are either not developed or are not fully used. Sometimes wind turbines have to be turned off because nuclear plants are blocking the grid. Adjusting nuclear power plants to match demand is not possible, as reactors are not as flexible and cannot safely be turned on and off on short notice.

...not carbon-free

It is often claimed that nuclear power has the same carbon emissions as renewable energies. This claim is disputed by some scientists as being false. One study showed that nuclear power generates about 6 times more CO2 than wind energy does. Also estimates usually exclude carbon emissions from the rest of the nuclear chain which is necessary for producing materials for nuclear power, such as processing of fissile materials and treating, storing and safeguarding of nuclear waste, for hundreds of thousands of years. In the future, uranium extraction is likely to become even more CO2 intensive as uranium becomes more scarce.

...not a solution to climate change

Nuclear power is not a solution to greenhouse gas emissions. It is irrelevant when it comes to global energy strategies because it only produces about 10% of world electricity and 5% of global energy. Electricity generation only accounts for 25% of greenhouse gas emissions. That means that nuclear power currently only prevents 1.25% of global greenhouse emissions from energy production. Even if nuclear power generation worldwide were to be tripled it would only reduce greenhouse gas emissions by less than 5%. In 2003, MIT concluded that 1,000 to 1,500 new reactors would be needed to displace a significant amount of carbon-emitting fossil fuel generation in the coming 50 years. That would mean having to build two new reactors every month – a feat that the stagnant nuclear industry has not and could not possibly accomplish.

With very long lead times for construction of new nuclear power plants, they do not pose a useful remedy for the very acute problems of global warming. The nuclear
industry does not have the capacity to rapidly expand production as a result of 20 years of stagnation.

...not a global solution

Nuclear power generation is mainly restricted to countries with nuclear weapons programmes and their close allies: The US produces 33% of all nuclear power worldwide with France coming in second at 17%. Together, these two countries account for a total of 50% of all nuclear power generation in the world. The other 50% of nuclear energy generation is distributed mainly among 13 further countries including the other three official nuclear weapon states, Russia, the UK and China.

The majority of countries worldwide do not have nuclear power and lack the basic prerequisites for it, such as a stable political situation, the financial means of undertaking such expensive ventures, the scientific know-how to operate nuclear programmes or the necessary safety standards to minimize the risk of another nuclear catastrophe. Many countries have even actively decided to ban nuclear
energy in their countries, have phased out or are in the process of doing so.

...symbiotic with nuclear weapons

Countries that have both a civilian and military nuclear programme were and still are under considerable influence from the military and the central government. There is a large amount of cross-over between these programmes. In the US, for instance, nuclear weapons are mostly under the auspices of the Department of Energy. In France, plutonium for use in nuclear power or in bombs is stored together. In addition, there is a large overlap of investments in research and development and training of scientists and engineers for the nuclear industry that is used in both the civilian and military programmes.