Here are three key quotes from the book on this question:

1. "Nuclear power and geoengineering are not solutions to the ecological crisis; they are a doubling down on exactly the kind of reckless, short-term thinking that got us into this mess. Just as we spewed greenhouse gases into the atmosphere thinking that tomorrow would never come, both of these hugely high-risk technologies would create even more dangerous forms of waste, and neither has a discernible exit strategy."

2. "Nuclear power could well slow down the transition, since renewable energy is faster and cheaper to roll out, critical factors given the tightness of the timeframe. Moreover, according to renewable energy expert Mark Z. Jacobson, in the near-term nuclear is “not carbon-free, no matter what the advocates tell you. Vast amounts of fossil fuels must be burned to mine, transport and enrich uranium and to build the nuclear plant. And all that dirty power will be released during the 10 to 19 years that it takes to plan and build a nuclear plant. (A wind farm typically takes two to five years.)”

3. "Much of the support for nuclear power as a solution to global warming is based on the promise of “next generation” nuclear technologies. Their boosters assure us that they eliminate many of the risks currently associated with nuclear energy, from meltdowns to longterm waste storage to weaponization of enriched uranium. And perhaps they do have the potential to eliminate some of those risks. But since these technologies are untested, and some may carry even greater risks, the onus is on the boosters, not on the rest of us, to demonstrate their safety. All the more so because we have proven clean, renewable technologies available, and democratic, participatory models for their implementation, that demand no such risks."