Oliver Stone’s new movie makes the case nuclear power is the obvious solution to climate change
Director Oliver Stone attends the “Nuclear” red carpet at the 79th Venice International Film Festival on September 09, 2022 in Venice, Italy.
Andreas Rentz | Getty Images Entertainment | Getty Images
Oliver Stone’s new movie, “Nuclear Now,” makes an impassioned case that nuclear energy is a necessary and obvious solution to climate change.
Generating electricity with nuclear reactors does not produce any greenhouse gas emissions, and is therefore worth a serious look, Stone’s movie says, because anthropogenic climate change, caused by excessive greenhouse gas emissions largely emitted from the burning of fossil fuels, is getting worse.
People ought to be more afraid of climate change than nuclear energy, the movie argues. The movie had a special screening at the World Economic Forum in Davos earlier in January, opened in New York and Los Angeles this weekend, and is opening in theaters nationally starting Monday.
Stone’s interest in climate change began when he saw Al Gore’s film, “An Inconvenient Truth,” and was disturbed. He started reading about climate change, including a review of the book “A Bright Future: How Some Countries Have Solved Climate Change and the Rest Can Follow” by Joshua S. Goldstein and Staffan A. Qvist. He was struck by both the review and the book.
“This is a simple, practical, understandable argument for how to solve climate change from nuclear energy,” Stone told CNBC on Friday.
“I didn’t realize it was going to be so tough to pull something like this off,” Stone said, because there is no single main character for the documentary. “The story is the logic of it. Follow the history into the present: What went wrong? What could go right?”
In the movie, Stone presents a case that the beneficial potential of nuclear energy has not been reached because society conflated its collective fear of nuclear bombs with nuclear energy. In the film, which Stone narrates, he says he was anti-nuclear because he generally absorbed the environmentalist anti-nuclear agenda that has been spread for generations.
Changing public perception when fear is involved is a slow process, Stone told CNBC.
“State the facts. You have to give the information that you have,” Stone told CNBC. Not everyone is going to believe what you say, “but some people will believe it. You have to trust in the truth ultimately will obliterate the lie. You have to believe that,” Stone said.
Goldstein, who worked with Stone to write the film, says the feeling of being in a movie theater can have a more powerful effect on people’s perceptions than leaving them alone to parse facts that may feel overwhelming or out of context.
“A film is more than information. It’s an experience, and it’s a collective experience. That’s why I’m really happy we’re getting some release in theaters, because you sit in the theater with everybody else, you have this collective experience,” Goldstein told CNBC on Friday.
Oliver Stone (L) is speaking at a question and answer session after the screening of his new documentary, “Nuclear Now,” in New York City on April 29.
Photo courtesy Cat Clifford, CNBC.com
“Everybody thinks everybody else thinks it’s bad,” Goldstein says of people’s perception of nuclear energy. But watching a movie in a collective situation gives people an opportunity to talk to other people about nuclear energy and conversation is critical, Goldstein said.
“The majority of people actually support nuclear energy, but the people who don’t support it are very loud and very scared and it draws a lot of attention,” Goldstein told CNBC.
Americans’ perspective of nuclear energy fluctuates and has been generally increasing in the last decade, according to a recent poll from Gallup showing 55% percent of Americans either strongly or somewhat favor using nuclear energy as a way to provide electricity. That’s the highest percentage since 2012, according to Gallup.
Stone says a goal of his documentary is communicating the scale of energy demand now and how much more electricity will be demanded in the future as climate change mitigation strategies electrify many processes, and as energy demand grows from countries like India and China.
“One of the things this film I hope achieves is to give you a sense of scale. We have to go wide — you have to go to big mass crowd shots — China, India — to give you a sense of what’s coming,” Stone told CNBC. “You can’t just stay in the green backyard in the United States, and do green things, like ovens and cars.”
Stone was working on “Nuclear Now” for about three years, though he was not working exclusively on the movie in that time. Stone’s memoir, “Chasing the Light,” and his controversial second look at the assassination of John F. Kennedy, “JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass,” also came out in the meantime.
Critics cite cost and time as drawbacks
Stone knew the film will be criticized because he’s making a bold statement, and indeed it has been.
“Oliver Stone’s ‘Nuclear Now’ was another disappointing myth creation falsely casting blame for nuclear power’s impotence on radiophobia and baselessly ignoring truths about climate saving alternatives,” Gregory Jaczko, former chair of the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and author of Confessions of a Rogue Nuclear Regulator, told CNBC.
Jaczko says fear of accidents is not the primary reason nuclear energy is not more widespread today. Instead, nuclear energy is expensive and has been managed poorly.
“As with most nuclear fables these days, the film establishes the strawman argument that nuclear is an underutilized technology because people are afraid of nuclear power and confuse it with nuclear bombs: ‘Once we get over our radiation fear, nuclear will thrive and solve climate change.’ This isn’t the main or even a significant problem with nuclear power,” Jaczko told CNBC.
“The primary problems are cost competitiveness, operational ineffectiveness, engineering weakness, managerial incompetence, and design mistakes. These are well documented deficiencies. For example, after the Fukushima accident, as NRC Chairman I was under no pressure to shut down nuclear reactors due to radiophobia,” Jaczko told CNBC.
Another problem is the length of time it takes to build nuclear reactors.
Stone “cites in several places IPCC’s reference of a 2050 goal for decarbonization, which implies there is time for nuclear to contribute, notably sidestepping the inability of nuclear to deploy quickly,” Jaczko told CNBC. “But this ignores that most experts believes these IPCC estimates require decarbonization in the electricity sector, the easiest area to decarbonize, to happen by 2035, an unrealistic timeline for significant nuclear power contribution. The remaining 15 years would be for decarbonizing other sectors, which nuclear may or may not contribute to,” Jaczko told CNBC.
Gordon Edwards, president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, echoed similar concerns. Renewable energy, like wind and solar, are cheaper and faster to build than nuclear, Edwards told CNBC. (Edwards has not seen the full documentary yet, but is responding based on what he has seen and heard about the documentary.)
“If you believe the climate crisis is a real emergency demanding immediate action to reduce carbon emissions quickly, then the fastest, cheapest, and most proven technologies should be employed first,” Edwards told CNBC. That means that energy efficiency measures and renewable energy should be the top priorities, Edwards says.
But Stone also felt compelled to make the documentary because he sees nuclear energy as an underappreciated and misunderstood climate solution.
“The film is a warning, a dramatic warning, of a major distortion in history, and a need to return to the using nuclear in any possible way,” Stone said.
In the US in 2024, wind and solar accounted for 17% of total electricity generation, surpassing coal, which fell to a record low of 15%, according to a new report from global energy think tank Ember.
Since US coal power peaked in 2007, wind and solar have overtaken coal in 24 states, with Illinois the latest to join the ranks in 2024, following Arizona, Colorado, Florida, and Maryland in 2023, the report finds. It’s the first analysis of full-year US electricity data, which was published by the EIA on February 26.
After being stagnant for 14 years, electricity demand started rising in recent years and saw a 3% increase in 2024, marking the fifth-highest level of rise this century. The increase in demand and fall in coal was met with higher solar, wind, and gas generation. Natural gas grew three times more than the decline in coal, increasing power sector CO2 emissions slightly (0.7%). Coal fell by the second smallest amount since 2014, as gas and clean energy growth met rising electricity demand, whereas historically, they have replaced coal.
Despite growing emissions, the carbon intensity of electricity continued to decline. The rise in power demand was much faster than the rise in power sector CO2 emissions, making each unit of electricity likely the cleanest it has ever been.
Solar grew faster than natural gas
Solar generation rose by 64 TWh in 2024, compared to natural gas, which rose 59 TWh. It remained the fastest-growing source of electricity, with its generation rising by 27% in 2024, surpassing hydropower generation for the time. It made up 81% of all new annual power capacity additions in the US. Gas added no net capacity, as new plants were offset with closures.
California and Nevada both surpassed 30% annual share of solar in their electricity mix for the first time (32% and 30%, respectively). California’s battery growth was key to its solar success. It installed 20% more battery capacity than it did solar capacity, which helped it transfer a significant share of its daytime solar to the evening. Texas installed more solar (7.4 GW) and battery capacity (3.9 GW) than even California. Yet the growth of solar was uneven – 28 states generated less than 5% of their electricity from solar in 2024, highlighting significant untapped potential – even before adding battery storage.
As solar grew massively, wind saw a modest 7% increase in generation, adding the least capacity in 10 years. However, it still generated 50% more power than solar in 2024, making 10% of the US electricity mix.
Solar and wind can meet rising demand
With the adoption of EVs, air conditioning, heat pumps, and rapid expansion of data centers, demand for electricity is guaranteed to grow in the coming years.
To meet the rise in demand, clean generation needs to grow faster. Unlike solar, wind’s growth has been slow. Clean energy is able to meet rising electricity demand alone – without raising bills, sacrificing security of supply, or further relying on gas.
“As the demand remained unchanged for years, solar, wind, and gas together worked to replace coal, transforming the US electricity system,” Dave Jones, chief analyst at Ember, said. “But now that electricity demand is rising fast, the battle is between solar and gas to meet this. And solar is winning – it added more generation than gas in 2024, and batteries will ensure that solar can grow more cheaply and quickly than gas.”
Daan Walter, principal at Ember, said, “Electricity demand is rising as new uses emerge across the US economy, from data centers to transportation and heating. This makes the case for solar and wind today even stronger – they are not only fast to deploy and cheap but also help stabilize energy costs in the long run.”
To limit power outages and make your home more resilient, consider going solar with a battery storage system. In order to find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. They have hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and you share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisers to help you every step of the way. Get started here. –trusted affiliate link*
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Elon Musk said today that Tesla will double its electric vehicle production in the US in the next two years.
What would that look like? Let’s do the math.
Today, during a press conference to promote Tesla at the White House, Tesla CEO Elon Musk said the following:
“As a function of the great policies of President Trump and his administration, and as an act of faith in America, Tesla is going to double vehicle output in the United States within the next two years.”
This raises many questions, as Musk’s phrasing of the statement suggests that Tesla is planning to add previously unannounced production capacity in response to Trump’s policies.
However, the reality could be different.
What is Tesla’s current production capacity in the US?
We only know Tesla’s installed capacity, which is much different than its actual production rate.
This is Tesla’s latest disclosed global production capacity at the end of 2024:
| Region | Model | Capacity | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| California | Model S / Model X | 100,000 | Production |
| Model 3 / Model Y | >550,000 | Production | |
| Shanghai | Model 3 / Model Y | >950,000 | Production |
| Berlin | Model Y | >375,000 | Production |
| Texas | Model Y | >250,000 | Production |
| Cybertruck | >125,000 | Production | |
| Cybercab | — | In development | |
| Nevada | Tesla Semi | — | Pilot production |
| TBD | Roadster | — | In development |
In the US, it adds up to 1,025,000 vehicles per year.
In reality, Tesla’s factories are operating at a much lower capacity.
Based on sales and inventory from 2024, Tesla is currently building fewer than 50,000 Model S/X vehicles per year compared to an installed capacity of 100,000 units.
As for Model 3 and Model Y, Tesla is currently building them in the US at a rate of about 600,000 units per year compared to claimed installed capacity of over 800,000 units.
Finally, the Cybertruck is being produced at a rate of less than 50,000 units per year compared to an installed capacity of over 125,000 units.
This adds up to Tesla producing 700,000 units per year in the US in 2024.
What will be Tesla’s new capacity?
Considering Musk mentioned that it will happen “within the next two years”, it is unlikely that he is referring to installed capacity.
The CEO is most likely talking about Tesla’s actual production, which would also make sense, especially considering he mentioned “output.”
Tesla currently outputs roughly 700,000 vehicles per year in the US.
Doubling that would mean bringing the total to 1.4 million units per year, which would be an incredible feat, but it’s not entirely a new plan for Tesla.
First off, Tesla has already announced plans to unveil two new, more affordable models this year. These models are going to be built on the same production lines as Model 3/Y, which would potentially enable Tesla to fully utilize its installed capacity for those vehicles.
That’s another 200,000 units already.
As already mentioned in Tesla’s installed capacity table, the company is currently developing its production facility for the Tesla Semi electric truck in Nevada.
Production is expected to start later this year and ramp up next year. Tesla has previously mentioned a goal of 50,000 units per year. It would leave Tesla roughly a year and half to ramp up to this capacity, which is ambitious, but not impossible.
Then there’s the “Cybercab”, which was unveiled last year.
The Cybercab is going to use Tesla’s next-gen vehicle platform and new manufacturing system, which is already being deployed at Gigafactory Texas.
Production is expected to start in 2026, and Musk has mentioned a production capacity of “at least 2 million units per year”. However, he said that this would likely come from more than one factory and it’s unclear if the other factory would be in the US.
Either way, Tesla would need to ramp up Cybercab production in the US to 450,000 units to make Musk’s announcement correct.
It’s fair to note that all of this was part of Tesla’s plans before the US elections, Trump’s coming into power, or the implementation of any policies whatsoever.
Electrek’s Take
Based on my analysis, this announcement is nothing new. It’s just a reiteration of Elon’s plans for Tesla in the US, which were established long before Trump came to power or even before Elon officially backed Trump.
It’s just more “corporate puffery” as Elon’s lawyers would say.
Also, if I wasn’t clear, we are only talking about production here. I doubt Tesla will have the demand for that, especially if Elon remains involved with the company.
The Cybercab doesn’t even have a steering wheel, and if Tesla doesn’t solve self-driving, it will be hard to justify producing 450,000 units per year.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
The average incentive package for a new EV was 14.8% of the average transaction price (ATP), or approximately $8,162, the highest level in more than five years, according to the latest monthly new-vehicle ATP report from Cox Automotive’s Kelley Blue Book.
Incentives for EVs are more than twice the overall market. A year ago, EV incentives were 10.2%. EV incentives, as a percentage of ATP, have increased by 44% in the past year.
In February, at $55,273, new EV prices were lower by 1.2% from January – generally aligned with the industry – and higher by 3.7% year-over-year. The January EV ATP was revised higher by 0.06% to $55,929.
Compared to the overall industry ATP of $48,039, EV ATPs in February were higher by 15.1%, an increase from the 14.9% gap recorded in January.
EV market leader Tesla increased ATPs by 1.8% year-over-year in February to $53,248 but decreased by 3.7% month-over-month from $55,315. Model 3, Model Y, and Cybertruck posted price declines in February compared to January; Model S and Model X saw month-over-month increases.
As sales cooled, the Cybertruck ATP in February dropped by more than 10% from January to an estimated $87,554.
Read more: You can lease a 2025 Polestar 3 for the same price as a Polestar 2 right now
To limit power outages and make your home more resilient, consider going solar with a battery storage system. In order to find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. They have hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and you share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisers to help you every step of the way. Get started here. –trusted affiliate link*
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports11 months agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports3 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business2 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway