Mark Clayton at the Christian Science Monitor looks into it. This describes my position quite well: But for those energy experts who have done life-cycle analysis of nuclear power, the big concern is that policymakers may be misled into believing that just because nuclear CO2 emissions are low, the cost of nuclear as an option to address climate change would be a bargain. Better, they say, to take the huge amounts of money needed for nuclear plants and use it to build lower-cost solutions that will displace more coal. "It's easy to show that building more reactors makes climate change …
Get Grist in Your Inbox
This little fox loves transit. Should we tell him he just missed his stop?
Millions alive today would have to die before the paleo diet could take over
Washington state just lopped up to $2,500 off the cost of solar panels. Here’s how.
Goodbye, everyone! A massive hole has opened at the End of the World
Lay off the almond milk, you ignorant hipsters