Nuclear power?

Not today, thank you

Dig the earth to kill the earth

Green fields, green valleys, green life, green money

Nuclear power?

No thanks.

-- Chumbawumba lyrics

Energy costs are soaring, global warming is heating up and the U.S. nuclear power industry is hungry for funding to get going again.

Is a revival of nuclear power an answer? No, for many reasons. Here are two of them.

Nuclear power is not democratic. The entire nuclear cycle, from uranium mining, to nuclear power or weapons production damages the health of communities. It's all lethal.

The New York Times recently noted that in the case of New Mexico, where the nuclear power industry is seeking to restart uranium mining near a Dine (Navajo) reservation, "mining companies walked away from their cleanup responsibilities" of a thousand open mines after the Cold War ended. The Times stated "among the horrors" that resulted were "shifting mountains of uranium tailings; open mines leaching contaminated rain into drinking-water tables; wind-blown radioactive dust; home construction from uranium mine slabs; and even the grim spectacle of children playing in radioactive swimming holes and ground pits."

Historically, because it has always been tightly intertwined with nuclear weapons production, nuclear power has always been shrouded in secrecy, not transparent or open to public comment and shared decision-making.

Nuclear power is too costly. The world's largest economy has slowed to a crawl. To consider nuclear power without understanding the extraordinary costs, from mining to electricity, would be a grave mistake.

To replace coal power in the U.S. and stay at roughly equal electricity levels would require at least 200 new reactors over the next 30 years. Two hundred reactors would cost from $1.2 to $2.4 TRILLION. Decommissioning and managing spent fuel typically costs twice as much as construction, which means roughly $2.4 to $4.8 trillion more for the 200 reactors. Nuclear power has long been touted as "too cheap to meter;" the Economist quipped in 2001 "and it's now too costly to matter."

Wouldn't energy efficiency and use of renewables make a lot more sense?