Other countries have proved that over the long term, nuclear power is actually cheaper than other sources of electric generation.

On a level playing field nuclear power would be cost-competitive

  • Nuclear power is not as heavily subsidized as wind and solar.

  • Nuclear power should get the same support as wind and solar do by being included in state renewable portfolio standards because it is carbon free.

On a total dollar basis, wind has received the greatest amount of federal subsidies. Solar is second. Wind and solar together get more than all other energy sources combined.”

– James Conca, 2017

The benefits of nuclear power
vastly outweigh the costs.

Nuclear Energy Debate in Madison, WI

On Monday, November 25th, a public debate was held at Oakwood Village University Woods. Rethinking Nuclear’s very own Richard Steeves was a participant, arguing that nuclear energy is stronger and more reliable than solar or wind energy, and that it should not be excluded by those arguing for “100% renewables”.

Click here to read more about the debate!

Links We Like

“Between state and federal programs, the case is overwhelmingly clear; some forms of clean energy get vastly more support to help them compete in the energy marketplace than others. And nuclear, which could supply huge amounts of zero emission energy that could help the United States reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, is being significantly disadvantaged by government policy.”

Clean Energy Mind Games

“A strategy that seeks to improve and expand the portfolio of available low-carbon resources, rather than restrict it, offers a greater likelihood of affordably achieving deep decarbonization.”

Getting to Zero Carbon Emissions in the Electric Power Sector

“Nuclear energy could be very useful even if its cost per kilowatt-hour is higher than solar or wind, because it will deliver that energy at times when renewables are not available.”

Too much wind and solar raises power system costs. Deep decarbonization requires nuclear