Answering “Scientific” Attacks on Ethical Imperatives: Wind and Solar Versus Nuclear Solutions to Climate Change

Using illegitimate scientific, especially economic, claims to trump ethical demands for renewable energy, many government/industry leaders say nuclear fission is needed to address climate change. They allege that because fission is (1) low-carbon; (2) inexpensive; (3) currently available (whereas renewables like wind and solar-photovoltaic are not); (4) a non-intermittent electricity source (whereas wind and solar-photovoltaic provide only intermittent energy); and (5) an electricity source without energy-storage needs (whereas renewables have impossible-to-meet energy-storage needs), nuclear power is a necessary solution to climate change. This article shows why the arguments for fission err, answers two objections, and concludes that correcting the above claims removes key roadblocks to following renewable-energy imperatives.