All solar/wind subsidies to nuclear subsidies.

The American people have been deceived under the notion that volatile and intermittent energy that lacks stability is a feasible source of power. Almost every nation that has implemented solar and wind technologies in excess of 20% overall capacity has seen dramatic electricity price increases and grid instability. Solar/wind lacks the ability to fully replace stable base load power that is derived from nuclear, coal, oil, or natural gas. To do so would require massive storage which no energy storage method to date could economically satisfy. Solar and wind are a waste of time and space.

Nuclear offers a clean, base load power solution that does not require storage and can save the climate with much less money, land, and time invested. ALL government programs that use monetary funds to support solar or wind should begin devoting that money instead to nuclear, increasing by increments of 20% of the original solar/wind funding per year until reaching 100% in the fifth year. This should continue until the grid is 80% nuclear.

By: Chase D. Scott, February 19, 2023

  • Government funding has been strongly biased towards solar/wind infrastructure on the basis of it being a more "clean" and "long term" solution.
  • Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and other environmental groups have loudly asserted that their competition can't reprocess waste.
  • Despite their hypocritical claims, Nuclear energy continues to be the only energy source that is held accountable for all of its wastes and even reused a third of high level waste as fuel.
  • Rare earth reprocessing, which is needed to support solar/wind long term, is negligible in the face of China's dwindling supply and limited global reserves, accounting for well under 5% of supply.
  • Despite the limited reserves of Uranium, there are multiple avenues to extend its fuel viability, including reprocessing, breeder reactors, and ocean extraction.

The World Nuclear Association projects Uranium reserves to last well over 200 years already, with breeder reactors able to extend fuel viability by magnitudes. Attempts to extend the viability of rare earths pale in comparison.

About one third of all nuclear waste ever produced has been recycled (World Nuclear ,2022); yet less than 5 percent of rare-earth materials harvested have been recycled (Kinch 2021). This statement alone should be alarming enough. After all, rare earth metals, Praseodymium, Europium, Neodymium, Lanthanum, among other metals with unfamiliar names, are required to make components of solar and wind projects like magnets and semiconductors (Hongquiao, 2016.) 

China asserts that it has about 23% of global reserves; according to analysis from the Chinese State Council, the state owned media which has every reason to be biased in favor of China. 

The country should only be able to supply 90% of the world's rare earth materials at a low cost for 15 years (Mancheri et al., 2012.) Since the report was made in 2012, this is quite alarming as it points to two realities. 

  • One, rare earths from China will become increasingly difficult to extract, and therefore more expensive, in the next five years. 
  • Two, even if the rest of the world rose to match Chinese production capacity, it's likely that global reserves would be depleted to a similar extent within 60-100 years; this is in contrast to the Uranium industry, which the NEA projects has about 230 years worth of supply (Fetter, 2009.)

For an industry as insistent on sustainability and reliability as the solar/wind conglomerate, one would think, wouldn't they recycle more, perhaps be more considerate of the depletion of these rare earths? 

Fortunately, the alternative, nuclear energy, has multiple avenues to extend its viability. There is a 60,000 year supply of uranium within Earth's oceans; the Uranium's usable life can be extended by a factor of 100 or more using fast breeder reactors (Fetter, 2009.) 

Fast breeders can use the U-238 in nuclear fuel in addition to the U-235 by converting it into plutonium. The result is an astounding 30,000 years to 7.8 million years of fuel, depending on if we use land based reserves or ocean based reserves in the fast breeders. 

Either way, that's between 300 times longer and 78,000 times longer than we'd expect rare earths to keep with current extraction rates.

In conclusion, one may assess that when it comes to energy and it being sustainable, one must consider the entire energy system. In wind and solar, the inputs are perceptively infinite, these infinite inputs are however constrained by the size of the infrastructure. In essence, if you run out of resources to build your solar/wind power plants, it matters not how endless the supply of sun and wind are, you simply cannot harvest them effectively. 

In contrast, though the supply of global Uranium is finite, it is in fact far larger than many would expect, and from ocean extraction to fast breeder reactors, there are multiple ways to extend nuclear fuel lifespan magnitudes beyond what rare earth reprocessing could ever hope to accomplish. 

If nuclear energy is "unsustainable", then solar and wind are by definition at least hundreds, perhaps thousands of times more unsustainable. 

A proposed solution is to redistribute the funds which have been wrongfully stolen from the sustainable clean energy source, nuclear energy, by dirty, inefficient, and unsustainable solar and wind, correcting the flaw in the grid system, granting authority to the industry that knows how to handle its wastes.





























Hongqiao, L. (2016, August 25). The Dark Side of Renewable Energy. Earth Journalism Network. Retrieved February 9, 2023, from https://earthjournalism.net/stories/the-dark-side-of-renewable-energy 

Radioactive Wastes - Myths and Realities . Radioactive Wastes - Myths and Realities : World Nuclear Association - World Nuclear Association. (2022, January). Retrieved February 9, 2023, from https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-wastes-myths-and-realities.aspx 

Kinch, D. (2021, November 3). Recycling could account for 25% of rare earths market in 10 years: Mkango CEO. S&P Global Commodity Insights. Retrieved February 9, 2023, from https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/latest-news/metals/110321-recycling-could-account-for-25-of-rare-earths-market-in-10-years-mkango-ceo#:~:text=%22Less%20than%205%25%20of%20rare,Global%20Platts%20in%20an%20interview. 

Mancheri, N., Vekasi, K., Klinger, J., Park, S. R., Blaxland, J., Hufbauer, G., Armstrong, S., Takahashi, T., Arao, D. A., editors, E. A. F., Weerakoon, D., Tsuya, N., Poling, G., Yaacob, A. R., *, N., & Alfredo. (2012, August 16). China's White Paper on rare earths. East Asia Forum. Retrieved February 9, 2023, from https://www.eastasiaforum.org/2012/08/16/chinas-white-paper-on-rare-earths/ 

Fetter, S. (2009, January 26). How long will the world's uranium supplies last? Scientific American. Retrieved February 9, 2023, from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/ 

Update #24 years ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1i8XVQ2pswg
Update #15 years ago
Greetings all. I want you to know that in spite of lack of progress, this petition is not over. In fact, the stagnation is a sign to me that the corruption of the energy sector is far worse than I thought. Only together can we unite to bring change, so even if it is only with one friend or family member, please share with them this petition, as well as the dangers, wastes and costs of solar and wind that are so often overlooked. We have been complacent with those subsidies for far too long.
Sign Petition
Sign Petition
You have JavaScript disabled. Without it, our site might not function properly.

Privacy Policy

By signing, you accept Care2's Terms of Service.
You can unsub at any time here.

Having problems signing this? Let us know.