Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Background Information

In April 2001, the United Nations Sustainable Development Conference denied nuclear
technology the label of "sustainable technology". In November 2002 nuclear energy
failed to gain greenhouse gas credits during the UN Climate Change talks in The Hague.
Nuclear power is acknowledged as unclean, dangerous and unnecessary technology.
The risks from nuclear power accidents, radiation, high-level waste, proliferation of
nuclear weapons and environmental impacts are real and long-lasting. Recognition of
these problems is the reason the nuclear industry has been in the doldrums,
experiencing research and skill shortages and restrictive policies while remaining a risky
investment.
However, the nuclear lobby is now trying to exploit the fears of global warming to overcome its problems. The recent report, Uranium Mining, Processing and Nuclear Energy Review (UMPNER) commissioned by the Australian Government said that "nuclear power is the least-cost, low-emission technology that can provide base load power", but the Government's scientific peer review of this report concludes that "Renewable energy and energy efficiency could slash Australia's greenhouse gases by far more... and in a much shorter time frame."
The European Union has targets to lower energy demand dramatically and improve energy efficiency by 2020. These measures are more cost effective than expanding the nuclear industry. Germany and the UK have had no new nuclear power plants for the past 20 years and have no plans to construct more. Sweden and Germany plan to phase out nuclear power and place greater reliance on renewable energies. Sweden expects to provide 60% of its electricity from renewable resources by 2010, through increased use of wind and bio-energy.
The nuclear industry is a very expensive way to produce energy. For example, Germany's experience shows that nuclear energy is neither cheap nor competitive despite huge subsidies. In the United States the 50 year history of the nuclear industry shows the price tag for nuclear reactors (billions of dollars) has sometimes run 10 times higher than expected and the costs of cleaning up the environmental mess at dozens of nuclear, mining and processing sites in the US alone have run into the tens of billions of dollars. That is why Wall Street still maintains its almost 30 year moratorium on financing new nuclear power plants and the nuclear lobby has turned its attention to other countries - like Australia. (Alvarez, 2006).
Note: nuclear energy is up to 50% more costly to produce than existing methods, without penalties imposed for greenhouse gas emissions. Knowing this it is reasonable to assume that most Australians would prefer this level of subsidy to go into development of renewable energy not nuclear.
Even if nuclear energy was safe - which it is not - it is too slow. Currently the world's 430 nuclear reactors produce less than 5% of total world energy use, and 15% of world electricity. To have a significant impact on global greenhouse emissions, literally hundreds would have to be built worldwide. This is unlikely to eventuate. The army of experts required simply does not exist. In theory it takes a minimum of 10 years to plan and construct a nuclear power plant. In reality it takes much longer. If the rest of the world were to turn nuclear, known uranium resources would be quickly exhausted and global warming will be out of control.
As Australia is being urged to embrace nuclear energy, the International Energy Agency predicts that the share of electric power generated by nuclear plants will drop significantly by 2030. We are looking at decades (by 2050) to achieve a nuclear power capacity to provide Australia with 18-22% of total electricity generation for a mere 6-10% abatement of greenhouse gases. This seems a very small outcome or so much effort and cost. Nuclear power cannot meet our needs even in the unlikely event output was doubled by 2050. Greenhouse gas emissions would only be reduced by about 5% - less than one tenth of the reductions required to stabilise atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.
Nuclear power will have no impact on over 2/3 of greenhouse emissions, which arise from sectors such as transport, agriculture, land clearing, industry and residential. Nuclear power is used almost exclusively for electricity which is less than one third of (human) greenhouse gas emissions. Energy efficiency measures deliver seven times greater reductions in greenhouse emissions per dollar spent compared to nuclear power at relatively little cost.
However, clean affordable energy solutions are available now. They can deliver major greenhouse gas emission reductions, more energy and more jobs, without the high risks and dangers. Already renewable energy supplies more of the world's electricity (19%) than nuclear (16%). Australians would do well to learn from the experience of the EU countries and seek renewable energy solutions now.
We all want quick and effective solutions to reduce greenhouse gas pollution and stop global warming, but nuclear is NOT the answer. The most effective, timely, safe and affordable way to reduce greenhouse emissions and halt global warming is a mix of:
(1) increasing the cost of fossil fuels to reflect the harm they cause, e.g. a carbon tax;
(2) dramatic and achievable improvements in energy efficiency;
(3) increased investment in a range of renewable energy technologies especially solar and wind; and,
(4) use of gas as a 'bridging fuel' where necessary.
Sources:    www.cana.net.au; Nuclear power without perspective 27 February 2006 by Reinhard Loske; Greenpeace Background Briefing 19 November 2006;
www.energyscience.org.au; Government's own review damns Switkowski on greenhouse 9 December 2006 Greenpeace Australia Pacific, Canberra.
Gecko Nuclear-Free Campaign