If Nuclear Power is the Answer, It Must Have Been a Pretty Stupid Question!
by Professor lan Lowe
Nuclear is not the answer because:
• Nuclear power emits large amounts of greenhouse gases through mining, milling and transport
• Nuclear power is highly dangerous, unsafe and has considerable health risks
• Nuclear energy uses lots of water
• The cost of nuclear energy is significantly higher than that of renewable energy
Since the mid-twentieth century the nuclear industry has engaged in a continuing campaign to promote nuclear power as the solution to climate change. The industry claims that nuclear power does not emit greenhouse gases. Changing from fossil fuels to nuclear power would allow a reduction in Carbon Dioxide without affecting energy consumption.
However research has proved these broad claims are incorrect, raising a number of serious issues relating to the impact of nuclear energy upon climate change. These issues force the need to consider alternate sources of energy that are sustainable, cost-efficient and which have minimal impact on the environment.
Currently, there are 442 working nuclear power plants throughout the world. These provide 16% of the world's electricity and only 2.5% of global energy demand. A number of environmental problems are evident in the usage of nuclear power. These include:
Although the nuclear industry claims that nuclear power stations do not emit greenhouse gases, huge amounts of energy are required during the construction process. Much of this is derived from fossil fuels, emitting greenhouse gases. This period is between 7-11 years to pay back the energy used in construction.
Nuclear energy is not sustainable: Uranium reserves, the main fuel of nuclear power, are highly limited. Nuclear power requires high-grade uranium ores, which are rapidly diminishing. It is estimated that these resources will last only another 30-50 years. Most uranium is found in poor-grade ores, but the use of these ores in nuclear power will increase greenhouse gas emissions, due to mining and milling processes. For example, uranium is found in ocean water, at a concentration of 0.0000002%. Extracting and enriching this uranium would require more energy than could be produced by it. Fast Breeder technology is unlikely to solve this problem, as it requires plutonium, which is highly dangerous and the basis for nuclear weapons. Plutonium has a half-life of 24 100 years, and a single microgram of plutonium can cause cancer. Nuclear power has produced approximately 1600 tonnes of plutonium - enough to build around 160 000 nuclear weapons.
Currently the 442 nuclear plants provide only 2.5% of global energy. In order to even double this contribution, a corresponding number of power plants would need to be constructed. However -if this were achieved, the nuclear industry's contribution to global energy would still decrease, as energy demand is expected to increase by 50% within the next twenty five years. Therefore, in order to increase the industry's share to 5%, the number of nuclear power plants would need to be tripled.
In order to meet the targets stated within the Kyoto Protocol, 72 new nuclear plants would be required within the 15 European nations by 2012. This is a highly impractical goal, as only 15 plants have been constructed within the last twenty years. Even if this number were achieved, uranium reserves would run out very quickly.
There is no permanent solution to dealing with the extremely dangerous radioactive waste, which is produced at every stage of production. The majority of this waste remains hazardous for thousands of years and is often released into the environment. Although research is currently exploring techniques to reduce the radioactivity half-life of this waste, this could only provide a solution to new waste, not the existing waste. The waste produced from nuclear power has an extremely long half-life, sometimes longer than 100 000 years. It is expected that the amount of waste will increase from 145 000 tonnes in 1994, to 322 000 tonnes by 2010.
Production of nuclear produced energy costs considerably more than electricity produced by wind power. In the 2003 MIT report The Future of Nuclear Power', it was estimated that electricity from a hypothetical new nuclear power plant in the US would cost approximately 9 Australian cents pe kWh. In comparison, large scale win< power would cost around 6 Australian cents per kWh. This cost margin will increase further, as the cost of wind power continues to decrease.
There are alternate energy sources. While the cost of nuclear power increases, the cost of renewable energy sources decreases. Wind power and solar power grow by 20-30% each year and with other renewable such as biomass geothermal and hydro, already supply 19% of the world's electricity, in comparison to nuclear power's 16%. Renewable energy sources are sustainable because they use the sun or the earth's geological forces to produce energy. The short term life of nuclear power proves that it is not.
Wind power is a relatively new technology that is undergoing rapid development, the cost of which will continue to decrease as the scale of production is increased. It is estimated that it will be competitive with coal in Australia within twenty years, if given the government support and subsidies that the nuclear industry already receives.
Professor Ian Lowe AO (President of the Australian Conservation Foundation) is emeritus professor of science, technology and society at Griffith University in Brisbane, an adjunct professor at Sunshine Coast University and QUT, an honorary research fellow at the University of Adelaide and a consultant to the CSIRO Division of Sustainable Ecosystems.
Websites that will help further Investigation:
Published in Quantum Knowledge January 2007
| 
