Climate Change
|
|
|
WHY NUCLEAR IS NOT
THE ANSWER TO GLOBAL WARMING/CLIMATE CHANGE |
| |
"The nuclear reactor produces both energy and radioactive waste; we want to use the energy now and leave the radioactive waste for our children and our children's children to take care of. This is against the ecological imperative: Thou shalt not leave a polluted and poisoned world to future generations."
Hans Alfven - 1970 Nobel Prize Winner for Physics |
There is a growing chorus
of calls for Australia and the world to 'go nuclear' in response
to the ever more apparent disaster of global warming caused by burning
of fossil fuels. Even PM John Howard and US President Bush, two long-time
'global warming deniers' have started acknowledging it is real, if
only in order to promote nuclear as the 'clean green' alternative.
But of course nuclear is not the solution, because it is:
|
Too
slow
|
»
|
Hundreds of new reactors would have to be built
to have a significant impact on global warming and it would take
decades for them to be operational. In the meantime global warming
would be completely out of control.
|
»
|
Talk of nuclear is just an excuse for further
delays in taking real and immediate action to reduce fossil
fuel use and reverse climate change. The real solutions
are:
|
|
1.
|
fossil fuel taxes and pollution levies (so
that the full cost of fossil fuel energy is reflected in
the price paid for the energy);
|
2.
|
energy efficiency/demand management; and
|
3.
|
safe renewable energy (e.g. solar, wind etc).
|
|
|
Back
to top |
Too
expensive
|
»
|
It costs billions of dollars to build each new
nuclear reactor, and it would cost trillions of dollars for the
hundreds of reactors required to impact significantly on greenhouse
gases and global warming. This money would be much more
effectively spent on energy efficiency/demand management and
safe renewable energy (e.g. solar, wind etc).
|
»
|
Nuclear power, despite having been subsidised
by governments around the world to the tune of hundreds of billions
of dollars, is still more expensive than wind power. Here are
some recent comparisons:
|
|
»
|
Nuclear: 10-12 c/kwh (cents per kilowatt
hour)
|
»
|
Energy efficiency: 0-5 c/kwh
|
»
|
Wind: 5-8 c/kwh
|
»
|
Solar: 15-20 c/kwh (the cost of solar energy
is declining as technology improves and will soon be less
than nuclear – even without the massive subsidies!)
|
»
|
Coal: 5-6 c/kwh
|
|
|
Since nuclear energy is only 'economical' because of huge subsidies
to reactor operators from governments (i.e. the public), those
subsidies should be redirected to safe, renewable sources of energy. |
|
Too
dirty
|
»
|
Every nuclear reactor produces hundreds of tonnes
of highly dangerous and long-lived radioactive waste. There
are over 250,000 tonnes of this waste in unsafe stockpiles around
the world today with no safe long term disposal or storage
solution in sight. This waste includes some of the most
toxic materials known to humankind, such as plutonium, which
pose a threat to future generations for hundreds of thousands
of years.
|
»
|
Contrary to claims by the nuclear lobby, nuclear
is not a ‘"clean" source of energy. Apart from
the huge quantities of highly toxic radioactive waste produced
by reactors, the nuclear industry also pollutes the environment
through the mining of uranium, and through greenhouse gas emissions.
Nuclear power, including mining, processing, generating and decommissioning,
produces 4-5 times as much COs (greenhouse gases) as equivalent
power generation from renewable energy sources.
|
|
Back
to top |
Too
ineffective
|
»
|
Nuclear power is not an effective or efficient
means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions: Energy efficiency
strategies have been shown to deliver almost seven times greater
reductions in greenhouse emissions as nuclear power per dollar
invested (and none of the high-level waste or weapons-useable
plutonium).
|
|
Too
destructive
|
»
|
All around the world, including Australia, Africa
and North America, uranium mining has been shown to be highly
destructive of the environment and of local communities, especially
Indigenous communities. Where uranium mining companies can get
away with it, environmental and community safeguards are either
non-existent or not complied with. This is one of the reasons
why nuclear power is ‘"economical" because the
environmental and social costs are not accounted for and not
passed on to consumers (just like fossil fuels).
|
|
Too dangerous
|
»
|
In addition to Chernobyl and Three Mile Island,
there have been at least eight nuclear accidents involving damage
to or malfunction of the core of nuclear power or research reactors.
At least five research reactor accidents have resulted in fatalities.
There have been other serious reactor accidents which did not
involve core damage or malfunction. There have been a number
of 'near misses' with power reactors found to be in a serious
state of disrepair. One such incident was discovered in 2002
at the Davis-Besse reactor in the US. There have been many accidents
involving reprocessing plants and waste stores and other nuclear
fuel cycle facilities. Commercial pressures and inadequate regulation
have clearly played some part in the flawed safety standards
in Japan. Those pressures are by no means unique to Japan, and
they will intensify if fast-tracking of reactors and privatisation
and liberalisation of electricity markets proceeds.
|
»
|
All stages of the nuclear cycle provide opportunities
for terrorism. Terrorists can target reactors and other nuclear
facilities to cause a nuclear catastrophe, or target various
stages of the nuclear cycle in order to acquire radioactive material
for nuclear weapons and ‘"dirty bombs". Highly
centralised energy generation is highly vulnerable to a wide
range of accidents and attacks.
|
»
|
Ever since they were invented, nuclear reactors
have played an essential role in creating ‘"legitimate" and ‘"illegitimate" nuclear
weapons. Of the 60 countries which have built nuclear reactors,
over 20 are known to have used their "peaceful" nuclear
facilities for covert weapons research and/or production. The
planet is now awash with nuclear weapons, including hundreds
held by ‘"rogue states" and by countries in the
midst of long running wars and conflicts (e.g. Israel, and possibly
North Korea and Iran).
|
|
Back to top |
To build and commission
one 1000 MW nuclear power station costs about $2 billion and
take at least ten years, ignoring the issue of what to do with the
waste. In contrast, strong energy efficiency measures would save the
same amount of money in that time, while saving more than twice the
amount of power the station would eventually deliver. Converting
80% of Australia's household electric water heaters to solar or heat
pump systems would deliver the same amount of power –"and
cost $7.7 billion" but would pay for itself in electricity savings
before the nuclear power station was even finished.
|
The
nuclear ‘"solution" to global warming is no solution
at all. In fact the nuclear industry, from mining to reactors to
nuclear weapons and radioactive waste, is already a huge global
environmental, political and economic problem which would get much
worse if many more reactors are constructed. The nuclear lobby
is pushing for an escalation of nuclear power for narrow commercial
and political reasons which have nothing to do with concern for
the planet, its people, or future generations. The nuclear lobby
is made up of technocrats, politicians and corporate executives
who want to safeguard and extend their power and wealth and will
use any opportunistic avenue to do so. |
 |
Clean energy - renewables plus efficiency! |
|
Renewable energy and energy efficiency can deliver the power we need – without the problems. Renewable energy (mostly hydroelectricity) already supplies 19% of world electricity, compared to nuclear’s 16%. Worldwide, the share of renewables is increasing while nuclear’s share is decreasing. |
Australia already gets 8% of our electricity from renewable energy – down from 10% in 1999. We have the lousy Federal government Mandatory Renewable Energy Target (MRET) which requires Australian energy producers to provide a total of at least 2% of their energy from renewable sources. Compare that to the following:
-
Europe is planning to get 22% of it’s electricity from renewables by 2010, while nuclear is being phased out.
-
Germany is on track to supply 13% of it’s energy from renewables by 2010, while nuclear power is being phased out.
-
Spain expects to get 26% of electricity from renewable energy by 2010.
-
Sweden already supplies 48% of its electricity from renewable sources (mostly hydroelectricity).
-
Denmark already supplies 13% of it’s electricity from wind, and will supply 29% of electricity from renewables by 2010.
|
The biggest gains are made in the field of energy efficiency. The Australian Ministerial Council on Energy has identified that energy consumption in the manufacturing, commercial and residential sectors could be reduced by 20–30% with the adoption of current commercially available technologies with an average payback of four years. To achieve the same reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by introducing nuclear power would require a capital investment of some tens of billions of dollars and generate a horrendous legacy of high level nuclear waste. |
Energy efficiency measures are shown in an American study to deliver almost seven times the greenhouse gas emissions reductions as nuclear power per dollar invested. |
The argument that nuclear power could be a “bridging” energy source while renewables are further developed is erroneous. Nuclear expansion would require such vast expenditure that renewables would fall by the wayside. Of the funds spend by 26 OECD member states between 1991 and 2001 on energy research and development, 50% was spent on nuclear power and only 8% on renewable energy. |
To effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions we need a MIX of:
-
Fluctuating renewable energy sources such as solar and wind energy
-
Non-fluctuating renewable sources such as small scale hydro, bioenergy and potentially geothermal hot rocks (bioenergy is energy from organic matter, including non-native forest wood, energy crops, sewage or wastes which can be used in various forms for energy generation and transportation)
-
Concerted efforts to reduce energy demands by conservation and energy efficient programs
|
The Environment Centre NT works as part of a national coalition of organisations to promote safe, clean, renewable energy as an alternative to the dirty, dangerous and vastly expensive fossil fuel and nuclear energy currently promoted by the Federal government. To find out more about this issue, see www.cana.net.au. |
|
MORE
INFORMATION
|
|
| |
Back to top
|
Major
Campaign
