In a recent article for the American Prospect, journalist Alexander Sammon lays out a thoughtful argument against nuclear optimism. The piece seems to have been written mostly in response to presidential hopeful Corey Booker’s embrace of nuclear power in the fight against climate change, although Sammon also lists a number of other politicians and scientists who favor the technology.

Sammon kicks of his essay by attacking the economic viability of nuclear power. He does this using the example of Westinghouse’s plants in South Carolina and Georgia. He writes: “Now, over a decade later, that project managed to bankrupt its construction company, Westinghouse, nearly taking down the entire Toshiba conglomerate, Westinghouse’s parent company, with it. The two reactors in South Carolina were abandoned, while the Southern Nuclear and Georgia Power utility companies assumed control of the remaining two reactors in Georgia, the Vogtle 3 and 4. But even a cash infusion from Georgia ratepayers, who began subsidizing the completion of the project in 2011, was not enough to keep the project close to its budget or timeline. Initially expected to come online in 2016-2017, the Vogtle plant has run some $14 billion over budget. Its completion dates have been deferred to 2021-2022. There’s currently no other active nuclear development in the United States.”

So, given the complications and enormous costs of the Westinghouse project, it’s unreasonable to expect a big nuclear rollout to happen in the next 10-15 years—the time frame we have to mitigate climate change. He acknowledges that proponents of a nuclear future are hopeful that R&D will make the technology cheaper and easier to build, but he says that won’t happen soon enough.

Sammon goes on to attack our current reactors’ green cred. He points out they require a lot of carbon to construct. They consume a ton of water and can heat nearby bodies of water, which sometimes impacts local ecosystems. What’s more, nuclear plants, which rely and nearby water sources (that’s why they’re often found on coasts), are in trouble if shoreline retreats or floods intensify. Also, rising sea levels could threaten waste sites we’ve built near water—he references the Runit Dome.

Finally, Sammon argues that fears that quickly shutting down nuclear plants leads to more carbon emissions are unfounded. He points to Germany and Japan to make his case. Japan saw a brief uptick in emissions after shutting down plants in the wake of Fukushima, but has since brought emissions down thanks to the integration of renewables. He also admits Germany’s emissions initially spiked, but the situation is different now because they have a lot of renewables—although he doesn’t say how emissions themselves are different.

I’ve decided not to challenge any of Sammon’s points, but I’m hoping this will start a good conversation on the issue.