Nuclear energy – enormous downsides

Time, money and waste

A chara, – Nuclear energy is often touted (Letters, December 4th) as a solution to the climate crisis, always ignoring the enormous downsides. The problem of waste storage has never really been solved, as recent revelations at Sellafield remind us (“Sellafield nuclear site has leak that could have ‘potentially significant consequences’, Guardian reports”, News, December 5th).

Even if we chose to ignore the safety concerns, the simple fact is that nuclear is far too slow and far too expensive to deal with the urgent issues of climate breakdown and households’ high bills. Europe’s most recent nuclear plant, Olkiluoto 3 in Finland, took 18 years to build and cost €11 billion. France’s Flamanville 3 has been under construction for 16 years and has cost over €13 billion, the UK’s Hinkley Point C could cost over €38 billion and is optimistically scheduled to start producing power in 2027.

How many homes could we insulate with that sort of time and money? How much wind and solar could we install? How much wasted energy, wasted money and pollution could we start cutting next year, not in a decade or two? – Is mise,



Greenpeace EU,