Issues & Insights
U.S. Energy Department

A Nuclear Meltdown At The New York Times

Even for a news outlet whose analyses of cutting-edge technologies are often flawed, a recent New York Times article by Farhad Manjoo, one of the paper’s in-house columnists, was exceptionally misguided. Titled “Nuclear Power Still Doesn’t Make Sense,” it is, in fact, the article itself that doesn’t make sense.

Manjoo does recognize that nuclear power is important now, citing the aftermath of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine: “Germany, which shut down many of its nuclear plants in the past decade while building natural gas pipelines to Russia, now faces a deep energy crunch. It has had to burn more coal to keep the lights on,” which is also true of other European countries.

But his article’s basic thesis is that renewables have made continuing reliance on nuclear energy unnecessary, given its costs, lead times, and safety issues. That assertion is wrong on two counts: Intermittent sources of energy (wind and solar) cannot adequately provide continuous generation; and nuclear is only too costly and cumbersome because for 50 years, public opinion and policy have essentially shut down all but relatively meager private research and development in the field.

By analogy, if the Food and Drug Administration had decided decades ago to stop approving new drugs, how much would pharmaceutical companies have invested since then? And if the FDA were to resume approvals now, would we say it’s too late, and people who are ill should just get by with herbs and acupuncture?

Let’s consider Manjoo’s misapprehensions one by one.

First, wind and solar are not zero-emission technologies or resource efficient, nor do they offer reliable, continuous generation of power. A single wind turbine needs about 1.5 acres of area and its components require the mining and production of thousands of tons of materials, including some of the elements in short supply due to their use in batteries.

Solar is not much better, and both solar and wind turbines have significant environmental consequences when end-of-life disposal is needed. Solar produces 10,000 times the waste of nuclear, and wind generates 500 times the waste of nuclear, including abandoned infrastructure and all the toxic substances that end up in landfills.

But the primary limitation of wind and solar is intermittency; demand fluctuates but is not intermittent. This was vividly illustrated by the catastrophic West Texas freeze the winter before last, when renewable power sources and natural gas equipment failed. As reliance on intermittent sources increases, we will need to subsidize standby facilities so they can financially tolerate lack of demand when renewables are operative. In effect, intermittency demands supporting two parallel generation infrastructures, one for when nature cooperates and one for when it does not. And the alternative to this is not, at least for the near future, energy storage in batteries.

It is already challenging just to manufacture enough EV batteries. As physicist Mark Mills pointed out in the Wall Street Journal: “The [International Energy Agency] finds that with a global energy transition like the one Biden envisions, demand for key minerals such as lithium, graphite, nickel and rare-earth metals would explode, rising by 4,200%, 2,500%, 1,900% and 700%, respectively, by 2040.” Not only might the planet not have the capacity to meet this demand, but many of these critical materials come from places that are hostile or that we do not control – such as China/Mongolia, the Congo, and Bolivia – leading to an unpredictable supply.

Even without these limitations, the costs of utility backup would boost significantly the effective cost of wind turbines (and solar fields). With battery costs of $100 per kWh and a typical turbine output over four days of 36-72 megawatt-hours, a single wind turbine backup battery would cost $3.6 million to $7.2 million. There are 11,000 West Texas wind turbines, so backup costs are in the tens of billions

Also, the environmental impact of battery production is significant and would offset renewables’ advantages. The production of lithium is either carbon dioxide polluting or wasteful of water — up to 500,000 gallons per ton of the mineral. Cobalt mining produces radioactive contaminants, including uranium. About 80% of the weight of a Tesla battery – 1,200 pounds gross – requires mined materials, and mining emits greenhouse gases in prodigious amounts.

Manjoo’s second assertion is that nuclear cannot be economically deployed, allegedly due to obsolete designs and processes. But even without new designs, nuclear has major advantages. Jacopo Buongiorno, a professor of nuclear-engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, cites findings from the IPCC (Figures 7.6 and 7.7) that over the lifecycle of power plants – which includes construction, mining, transport, operation, decommissioning and disposal of waste — per quantity of energy, the greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power are impressively low — 1/700th those of coal, 1/400th of gas, and one-fourth of solar. According to him, nuclear power also requires 2,000 times less land than wind and nearly 400 times less than solar. 

For any given power output, the amount of raw material used to construct a nuclear plant is a small fraction of an equivalent solar or wind farm. Putting it another way, nuclear power generation is far more efficient.

But far greater benefits could come from new nuclear technologies funded largely up to now by private capital, including molten-salt reactors, liquid-metal reactors, advanced small modular reactors (SMRs), and microreactors, among others. The $10 billion, 10-year planning and implementation cycle for a large nuclear plant can be cut in half with SMRs and halved again with microreactors.

SMRs and microreactors can be constructed largely in assembly-line facilities according to standardized designs and operated with standardized procedures, a huge advantage. New designs incorporate air-cooling to allow for rapid, safe shutdowns and the ability to bury major portions of prefabricated elements of a power plant for security and safety, the greater ease of managing nuclear waste; and even the possibility of shipping microreactors to a central location for refueling every five to 10 years, rather than dealing with the complex logistics of on-site refueling.

SMRs and microreactors could be especially useful in regions or communities that will need more power to charge the markedly increasing numbers of electric vehicles. (For example, California will ban the sale of all new gasoline-powered cars and light trucks beginning in 2035.) The U.S. Navy figured this out for its own needs over a half-century ago, and nuclear plants now power 166 surface vessels and submarines with a nearly flawless operating history. Even including the Chernobyl disaster, human mortality from coal is 2,000 to 3,000 times that of nuclear, while oil claims 400 times as many lives.

Despite all its promise, the traditional nuclear option has become increasingly costly, while other green technologies have become less expensive, often due to subsidies. An MIT analysis makes several important recommendations that could reverse that trend. A transition to standardized and partially prefabricated designs alone will achieve many of their objectives. But needless to say, government permitting must be streamlined and nuclear must have an equal place at the table when seeking funding.

Manjoo ends his piece with a quote from the head of the energy program at the left-wing advocacy group Public Citizen that he thinks sums up the situation “neatly”: “Nuclear power has simply been eclipsed,” he said. “It was an incredible zero-emission resource for its day. But for much of the energy system today, that day has long passed.”

He couldn’t be more wrong. Nuclear power is continuous, cheap, efficient, extremely reliable, nearly carbon-free, and should have a bright future, if the limitations of outdated designs were removed. New designs, including smaller reactors, are highly versatile and drastically reduce the risk of large-scale radioactive contamination.

The U.S. could set an example for the world with the ultimate infrastructure project: building and deploying advanced nuclear power plants that painlessly accelerate our decarbonization. The path to the future should be based on technological progress instead of the bleating of myopic anti-nuclear activists and journalists who are ignorant of the facts.

Henry I. Miller is a physician and molecular biologist. He was a consulting professor at Stanford University’s Institute for International Studies and a fellow at the Hoover Institution. Andrew Fillat, who trained as an electrical engineer, has worked for technology venture-capital and information-technology companies. They were undergraduates together at MIT.

We Could Use Your Help

Issues & Insights was founded by seasoned journalists of the IBD Editorials page. Our mission is to provide timely, fact-based reporting and deeply informed analysis on the news of the day -- without fear or favor.

We’re doing this on a voluntary basis because we believe in a free press, and because we aren't afraid to tell the truth, even if it means being targeted by the left. Revenue from ads on the site help, but your support will truly make a difference in keeping our mission going. If you like what you see, feel free to visit our Donations Page by clicking here. And be sure to tell your friends!

You can also subscribe to I&I: It's free!

Just enter your email address below to get started.



  • Why is it that virtually no-one touting nuclear energy includes estimates for how much uranium is known, how much is mineable per range of prices, and where? It’s like everyone who writes about it believes the supply is endless… And, that there aren’t already over a hundred plants already built and in service, so supply competition and price competition for uranium is also never discussed. And waste – what are the options for nuclear waste? How long does it take until it’s no longer dangerous? Etc. I’m sick of what looks from all angles to be magical thinking! That just reminds me of the greenies.

  • A single wind turbine requires waaay more than 1.5 acres. Its footprint is 1.5 acres. In order to not interfere with one another wind farms require about 80-100 acres per megawatt of nameplate capacity. A recent approval near where I live needs 75 square miles to develop a 500MW plant. An equivalent coal plant would need less than a square mile, and a gas turbine even less still.

    People have no idea how renewable energy will sprawl, threaten environments, views, quiet countryside, and woldlife.

About Issues & Insights

Issues & Insights is run by the seasoned journalists behind the legendary IBD Editorials page. Our goal is to bring our decades of combined journalism experience to help readers understand the top issues of the day. We’re doing this on a voluntary basis, because we believe the nation needs the kind of cogent, rational, data-driven, fact-based commentary that we can provide. 

We Could Use Your Help

Help us fight for honesty in journalism and against the tyranny of the left. Issues & Insights is published by the editors of what once was Investor's Business Daily's award-winning opinion pages. If you like what you see, leave a donation by clicking on donate button above. You can also set up regular donations if you like. Ad revenue helps, but your support will truly make a difference. (Please note that we are not set up as a charitable organization, so donations aren't tax deductible.) Thank you!
%d bloggers like this: