5 Reasons Why Expanding Nuclear is a Terrible Idea

[Caribbeans]

5 Reasons Why Expanding Nuclear is a Terrible Idea

FoodandWaterwatch.org | Natalie Balbuena, Mia DiFelice | Sep 19, 2025

Trump and some Democratic leaders are calling for expanding nuclear energy. But nuclear power is more dangerous and worse for the climate than solar and wind.

Concerns about nuclear energy have often revolved around devastating catastrophes abroad, like those at Chernobyl and Fukushima, and the domestic near-miss tragedy at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania. But fatal meltdowns aside, nuclear power is generally dangerous, dirty, expensive — and it isn’t even climate-friendly. From the uranium mine to the toxic waste pit, nuclear power puts our health, environment, and climate at risk.

While both of the recent Biden and Trump administrations have played the pro-nuclear card, the current Trump administration is going all-in.

Some of Trump’s biggest Big Tech donors aim to make a fortune from expanding artificial intelligence (AI), which requires massive amounts of power for AI data centers. Given that, we should regulate energy demand, particularly within the tech sector, and build more renewables. Instead, Big Tech companies, including Meta (owner of Facebook) and Amazon, are investing in nuclear. At the same time, Trump’s policies are giving the nuclear industry a big boost.

Trump’s Big Ugly Bill rolled back tax credits for renewables while largely maintaining benefits for the nuclear industry. It also added a “bonus” incentive to cover newer, “advanced” nuclear technology. Recently, the Department of Energy (DOE) established a consortium to create partnerships between the government and U.S. nuclear companies. This will pave the way for the Trump administration to take stake in private corporations as part of its quest to build out nuclear...snip

1. Nuclear Energy Poses Radioactive Health Threats, from Uranium Mining to Power Plants

2. U.S. Officials STILL Lack a Safe Plan for Nuclear Waste

3. Nuclear Is Not a Climate Solution

4. Nuclear Energy Is Dependent on Precious Water Resources

5. Nuclear Energy Is Way More Expensive Than Renewables

More
https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/2025/09/19/5-reasons-why-expanding-nuclear-is-a-terrible-idea/



It's becoming more and more difficult to understand the difference between Dump's energy policy and the energy policy of some on this very site. Maybe there isn't any difference. Turns out some here are very much against Solar AND Wind. But remember that while 'Murikans fight and argue, China is building a green future RIGHT NOW and generally is considered the new leader for global sustainable energy for the future. But there's always a new war to fight, even though the last war 'Murikans actually won was 80 years and a few trillion dollars ago. LOL 80 years ago. Soon Washington, the District of Criminals will start trying to convince everyone that China is the New Enemy and must be bombed and invaded like the US has done to Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq and all the others. If you can't beat em, kill em! With any luck at all, I'll be an ex-pat soon.

Obama: 'We've Added Enough New Oil And Gas Pipeline To Encircle The Earth'

3/22/12: In Cushing, Okla., President Barack Obama touts his administration's record of a huge boom in the U.S. oil and gas industry, dismissing concerns about accelerating climate change.

[NNadir]

1. Thanks for the climate denial perspective from the fossil fuel industry trying to rebrand itself as "hydrogen."

Basically, the people called "environmentalists" do not care about the fossil fuel industry's - including those marketeers here attempting to rebrand fossil fuels as "hydrogen," - claim that if anyone anywhere dies from radiation, it's OK for the fossil fuel industry to kill millions of people per year.

: Global burden of 87 risk factors in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019 (Lancet Volume 396, Issue 10258, 17–23 October 2020, Pages 1223-1249). This study is a huge undertaking and the list of authors from around the world is rather long. These studies are always open sourced; and I invite people who want to carry on about Fukushima to open it and search the word "radiation." It appears once. Radon, a side product brought to the surface by fracking while we all wait for the grand so called "renewable energy" nirvana that did not come, is not here and won't come, appears however: Household radon, from the decay of natural uranium, which has been cycling through the environment ever since oxygen appeared in the Earth's atmosphere.

Here is what it says about air pollution deaths in the 2019 Global Burden of Disease Survey, if one is too busy to open it oneself because one is too busy carrying on about Fukushima:

The top five risks for attributable deaths for females were high SBP (5·25 million [95% UI 4·49–6·00] deaths, or 20·3% [17·5–22·9] of all female deaths in 2019), dietary risks (3·48 million [2·78–4·37] deaths, or 13·5% [10·8–16·7] of all female deaths in 2019), high FPG (3·09 million [2·40–3·98] deaths, or 11·9% [9·4–15·3] of all female deaths in 2019), air pollution (2·92 million [2·53–3·33] deaths or 11·3% [10·0–12·6] of all female deaths in 2019), and high BMI (2·54 million [1·68–3·56] deaths or 9·8% [6·5–13·7] of all female deaths in 2019). For males, the top five risks differed slightly. In 2019, the leading Level 2 risk factor for attributable deaths globally in males was tobacco (smoked, second-hand, and chewing), which accounted for 6·56 million (95% UI 6·02–7·10) deaths (21·4% [20·5–22·3] of all male deaths in 2019), followed by high SBP, which accounted for 5·60 million (4·90–6·29) deaths (18·2% [16·2–20·1] of all male deaths in 2019). The third largest Level 2 risk factor for attributable deaths among males in 2019 was dietary risks (4·47 million [3·65–5·45] deaths, or 14·6% [12·0–17·6] of all male deaths in 2019) followed by air pollution (ambient particulate matter and ambient ozone pollution, accounting for 3·75 million [3·31–4·24] deaths (12·2% [11·0–13·4] of all male deaths in 2019), and then high FPG (3·14 million [2·70–4·34] deaths, or 11·1% [8·9–14·1] of all male deaths in 2019).

It is too late, of course, for nuclear energy to do what it might have done, were it not for the contempt for the only form of primary energy invented in the last 500 years - this by the finest minds of the 20th century - as opposed to dumb caterwauling antinukes. Nor is it surprising that the fossil fuel industry is still working here to advance this ignorance.

For instance, we have fossil fuel marketeers here and elsewhere calling "black hydrogen" - hydrogen made from coal in China - "green hydrogen."

Every advocate of fossil fuels is an antinuke. The reason is because nuclear energy was, is, and always will be the only tool to wipe their filthy industry out.

My son is a nuclear engineer, and so is his girlfriend. They don't give a shit what the fossil fuel industry thinks; they're fighting it, because they give a shit about humanity.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

2. Those who mistake transition phases for end states are sadly mistaken. . . . nt

[NNadir]

5. Those who believe in simplistic dogma have blinders on.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

4. Photovoltaic cells were invented in the last 500 years. Same for gas turbines, steam turbines, water turbines

One might say water wheels are older than 500 years, but the Hoover dam is not powered by 500 year old design water wheels.

[NNadir]

6. Um, um, um, turbines, water wheels are not devices to produce primary energy. They are devices that destroy exergy.

The problem we face is the inability for people to understand this very simple concept, the distinction between what is, and is not PRIMARY energy.

It is, in fact, the distinction not made by the hydrogen idiots here, who are working to destroy this planet.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

3. Also, nuclear is capital intensive and has the longest lead times. Decommissioning is a problem.

Nuclear has a place until fusion can take hold, but it has huge problems.

It would only be fair if decommissioning and waste management costs were included and paid for by the utilities / AI data centres.