Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Nuclear power debate" in English language version.
Most experts on nuclear energy agree that nuclear power has no negative health consequences during normal operation, and that even the rare incidents have only caused a limited number of casualties. All experts also concur that nuclear power emits little greenhouse gases and most agree that nuclear power should be part of the solution to fight climate change.
Multiple studies since then suggest that Germany did more harm than good. In the latest of these studies, a working paper recently published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, three economists modeled Germany's electrical system to see what would have happened if it had kept those nuclear plants running. Their conclusion: It would have saved the lives of 1,100 people a year who succumb to air pollution released by coal burning power plants.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link){{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link){{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link){{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link){{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)But now there is an initial, far more comprehensive cost-benefit analysis. The key finding: expressed in 2017 dollar values, the nuclear phase-out costs more than $12 billion a year. Most of it is due to human suffering.
Most experts on nuclear energy agree that nuclear power has no negative health consequences during normal operation, and that even the rare incidents have only caused a limited number of casualties. All experts also concur that nuclear power emits little greenhouse gases and most agree that nuclear power should be part of the solution to fight climate change.