New England’s Anti-Nuke Stance Is Making Global Warming Worse

vermont yankeeNew England’s opposition to nuclear power is actually increasing its carbon dioxide emissions and harming the area’s attempts to fight global warming, according to a Wednesday report by the Institute for Energy Research (IER).

Nuclear power dropped from providing 34 percent to 29.5 percent of New England’s electrical power between 2014 and 2015. This was largely due to the shutdown of the Vermont Yankee reactor. IER calculated that the shutdown of this reactor caused New England to emit an additional 2 million tons of carbon dioxide in 2015.

Environmentalists predicted that when the plant closed, its electrical output would be replaced by wind and solar power. The plants output, however, was almost entirely replaced by natural gas, according to a blog post by the vice president for external affairs of the reactor’s company, Entergy. Vermont was the first state to ban the practice of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, which produces the natural gas that it increasingly used to produce power.

A single nuclear reactor can prevent up to 3.1 million tons of carbon-dioxide emissions annually.  The Economist calls nuclear energy “the most cost-effective zero-emission technology.” The Wall Street Journal agrees that “[if] the world intends to address the threat of global warming and still satisfy its growing appetite for electricity, it needs an ambitious expansion of nuclear power.”

“Nuclear energy is good for the environment because it is the largest source of electricity that doesn’t emit greenhouse gases. In fact, nuclear accounts for 63 percent of the electricity from zero-carbon sources,” Mitchell Singer of the Nuclear Energy Institute told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Carbon dioxide emissions substantially increased when Germany decided to abandon nuclear energy in favor of solar and wind power after a nuclear disaster in Japan galvanized environmentalist opposition. They had to rely more heavily on coal plants to cover the power demand in the evenings when “green” energy doesn’t produce much power.


Comments (3)

  • Avatar



    If nuclear power was suddenly discovered now the global warming hoax would be over . The Greenies are simply against anything that allows society to gradually improve despite many mann made set backs .

    The Greenies industry relies on fear mongering and ideological hatred of anyone that has moved past cave dweller . Well at least in front of the cameras . The big dogs have all the toys .

  • Avatar



    I wouldn’t place a bet on that Amber, you know what they are like!

  • Avatar

    David Lewis


    Even though we have abundant fossil fuels which will probably last decades, despite the efforts of the environmentalists, these fuels will eventually be depleted. At that point we will have no choice but to rely on some form of nuclear energy.

    It is already clear that wind and solar are not feasible. Not only are they too expensive, but with the extreme cost of power storage, they need a fossil fuel plant on standby for when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine. How would that be done if we are out of fossil fuel?

    One advantage of nuclear is it is the safest power out per unit of energy even when the Chernobyl disaster is factored in. Yes, it is safer than wind and solar. Unfortunately nuclear is more expensive than fossil fuels but cheaper than wind and solar. We might improve that if we could eliminate all of the political delays to getting a new plant approved.

    We would all love to see a break through in fusion power but we have been waiting for that for decades. Baring a new break through our best bet is to go to thorium reactors. We have four times the thorium as we have uranium, thorium reactors are safer, and a nuclear bomb can’t be made of thorium.

    If interested check out.–so-why-is-no-one-talking-about-it

Comments are closed