Nuclear is no solution to climate change!
Jim Green
(This article is from the new issue of Chain Reaction, the magazine of Friends of the Earth, Australia. This issue of Chain Reaction has a special supplement on nuclear issues. Subscription enquiries: ph (03) 9419 8700, <chainreaction@green.net.au>.
The nuclear industry and its supporters have suddenly discovered an environmental consciousness. No - they're not planning to close their dangerous, polluting reactors nor to begin dealing responsibly with their legacy of toxic radioactive wastes. But they do profess deep concern about climate change - and argue that nuclear power is the only 'solution'.
Proponents of nuclear power downplay or ignore altogether the problems that would be exacerbated by an expansion of nuclear power globally or the introduction of nuclear power into Australia:
* Nuclear Weapons Proliferation. Supposedly 'peaceful' nuclear facilities can be used in various ways for weapons production: reactor production of fissile plutonium; reactor production of radionuclides other than plutonium for use in weapons (e.g. tritium to initiate or boost fission weapons); use of enrichment plants to produce fissile highly-enriched uranium (HEU); diversion of fresh HEU reactor fuel or extraction of HEU from spent fuel; and weapons-related research. There are many examples of each of these problems - 'peaceful' nuclear facilities have been used in covert weapons programs in well over 20 countries, including Australia.
* Radioactive Waste. As the Australian government has acknowledged, there is just one site in the world for permanent disposal of high-level radioactive waste - the experimental Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, USA.
* Safety. In addition to the perennial problems of plant malfunction and human error, terrorism looms large as a threat to nuclear plants and everyone working and living in their vicinity.
Nuclear power is impractical as a 'solution' to climate change. A report released by the European Commission in 2000 found that 85 nuclear power reactors would have to be built in Europe over the next 20 years just to meet Europe's modest Kyoto targets. Far more reactors would need to be built - replacing fossil fuel fired power plants - to go further towards the 60% reductions required to stabilise atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. United States' Senator George Mitchell, in his 1991 book 'World on Fire', argued that " ... for nuclear power to offset even 5 percent of global carbon emissions would require that worldwide nuclear capacity be nearly doubled from today's level. That means that nuclear is simply not a medium term option for slowing global warming."
Moreover, electricity production is just one source of greenhouse gases. Thirty-seven percent of Australia's greenhouse emissions come from the electricity sector - the only sector in which nuclear power could make a difference (discounting speculative and problematic suggestions of using nuclear power plants to produce hydrogen for transportation).
Construction of a single nuclear power plant in Australia would most likely take over a decade, and more years would pass before it became a net energy producer - producing more energy than was consumed during its construction. A single nuclear power reactor would cost several billion dollars, money which would be much more effectively spent on energy efficiency and renewable energy sources.
In Australia, building nuclear power plants would not only be irresponsible and impractical as a means of addressing climate change, it would also be illegal because the Howard government made the construction of nuclear power plants illegal in the 1998 Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act. Even if a future nuclear government attempted to push ahead with construction of a nuclear power reactor, the public opposition would be immense. The only serious proposal to build a nuclear power plant in Australia - at Jervis Bay in NSW in the late 1960s - was defeated by public and political opposition.
Claims that nuclear power is 'greenhouse free' are nonsense. Substantial greenhouse gas generation occurs across the nuclear fuel cycle from the mining, conversion and enrichment of uranium; the construction and decommissioning of power reactors; extensive transportation of nuclear materials (hardly any countries have independent nuclear fuel cycle capabilities); and waste management, including reprocessing and disposal. Sure, fossil fuels are significantly worse than nuclear power with respect to greenhouse gas production, but on the other hand, renewable energy sources typically generate far less greenhouse gases per unit of energy than nuclear power.
According to the Critical Mass Energy Project, every dollar invested in energy efficiency is up to seven times more effective in reducing carbon dioxide emissions than nuclear power. Likewise, in 1995, following a detailed review, the British government concluded that nuclear power is one of the least cost-effective ways to cut greenhouse gas emissions. The Australian government recently hosted an OECD conference on eco-efficiency - covering a range of areas such as housing, manufacturing and agriculture - which concluded that in every area, efficiencies of between a factor of two to four could be achieved in the short term using existing technologies.
The extent to which renewable energy sources - such as wind, solar, geothermal and bio-mass - can replace fossil fuels and nuclear power depends to a significant extent on investment in research and development programs. The Howard government provides fossil fuel industries with $9 billion of subsidies annually, according to a 2003 report from the UTS Institute for Sustainable Futures. By contrast, the Howard government:
* Closed the Energy Research and Development Corporation in 1997-98. The ERDC had invested almost $100 million in 350 energy innovation ventures since it was created in 1990. The government then reneged on a commitment to meet existing ERDC funding commitments.
* Withdrew funding from the Co-operative Research Centre for Renewable Energy in December, 2002.
* Introduced the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target but set the target at a measly 2% (closer to 1% when non-renewable interlopers and creative accounting are factored in).
* Appointed a Rio Tinto employee as the government's Chief Scientist.
* Allowed fossil fuel companies to buy their way onto the Australian Bureau of Agricultural Resource Economics panel dealing with climate change issues.
Small wonder that the Australian Bureau of Statistics reported in 2004 that the proportion of Australia's overall energy consumption from renewable resources declined from 1991-2001, from 6% to 5.7%.
Jim Green
(This article is from the new issue of Chain Reaction, the magazine of Friends of the Earth, Australia. This issue of Chain Reaction has a special supplement on nuclear issues. Subscription enquiries: ph (03) 9419 8700, <chainreaction@green.net.au>.
The nuclear industry and its supporters have suddenly discovered an environmental consciousness. No - they're not planning to close their dangerous, polluting reactors nor to begin dealing responsibly with their legacy of toxic radioactive wastes. But they do profess deep concern about climate change - and argue that nuclear power is the only 'solution'.
Proponents of nuclear power downplay or ignore altogether the problems that would be exacerbated by an expansion of nuclear power globally or the introduction of nuclear power into Australia:
* Nuclear Weapons Proliferation. Supposedly 'peaceful' nuclear facilities can be used in various ways for weapons production: reactor production of fissile plutonium; reactor production of radionuclides other than plutonium for use in weapons (e.g. tritium to initiate or boost fission weapons); use of enrichment plants to produce fissile highly-enriched uranium (HEU); diversion of fresh HEU reactor fuel or extraction of HEU from spent fuel; and weapons-related research. There are many examples of each of these problems - 'peaceful' nuclear facilities have been used in covert weapons programs in well over 20 countries, including Australia.
* Radioactive Waste. As the Australian government has acknowledged, there is just one site in the world for permanent disposal of high-level radioactive waste - the experimental Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, USA.
* Safety. In addition to the perennial problems of plant malfunction and human error, terrorism looms large as a threat to nuclear plants and everyone working and living in their vicinity.
Nuclear power is impractical as a 'solution' to climate change. A report released by the European Commission in 2000 found that 85 nuclear power reactors would have to be built in Europe over the next 20 years just to meet Europe's modest Kyoto targets. Far more reactors would need to be built - replacing fossil fuel fired power plants - to go further towards the 60% reductions required to stabilise atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. United States' Senator George Mitchell, in his 1991 book 'World on Fire', argued that " ... for nuclear power to offset even 5 percent of global carbon emissions would require that worldwide nuclear capacity be nearly doubled from today's level. That means that nuclear is simply not a medium term option for slowing global warming."
Moreover, electricity production is just one source of greenhouse gases. Thirty-seven percent of Australia's greenhouse emissions come from the electricity sector - the only sector in which nuclear power could make a difference (discounting speculative and problematic suggestions of using nuclear power plants to produce hydrogen for transportation).
Construction of a single nuclear power plant in Australia would most likely take over a decade, and more years would pass before it became a net energy producer - producing more energy than was consumed during its construction. A single nuclear power reactor would cost several billion dollars, money which would be much more effectively spent on energy efficiency and renewable energy sources.
In Australia, building nuclear power plants would not only be irresponsible and impractical as a means of addressing climate change, it would also be illegal because the Howard government made the construction of nuclear power plants illegal in the 1998 Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act. Even if a future nuclear government attempted to push ahead with construction of a nuclear power reactor, the public opposition would be immense. The only serious proposal to build a nuclear power plant in Australia - at Jervis Bay in NSW in the late 1960s - was defeated by public and political opposition.
Claims that nuclear power is 'greenhouse free' are nonsense. Substantial greenhouse gas generation occurs across the nuclear fuel cycle from the mining, conversion and enrichment of uranium; the construction and decommissioning of power reactors; extensive transportation of nuclear materials (hardly any countries have independent nuclear fuel cycle capabilities); and waste management, including reprocessing and disposal. Sure, fossil fuels are significantly worse than nuclear power with respect to greenhouse gas production, but on the other hand, renewable energy sources typically generate far less greenhouse gases per unit of energy than nuclear power.
According to the Critical Mass Energy Project, every dollar invested in energy efficiency is up to seven times more effective in reducing carbon dioxide emissions than nuclear power. Likewise, in 1995, following a detailed review, the British government concluded that nuclear power is one of the least cost-effective ways to cut greenhouse gas emissions. The Australian government recently hosted an OECD conference on eco-efficiency - covering a range of areas such as housing, manufacturing and agriculture - which concluded that in every area, efficiencies of between a factor of two to four could be achieved in the short term using existing technologies.
The extent to which renewable energy sources - such as wind, solar, geothermal and bio-mass - can replace fossil fuels and nuclear power depends to a significant extent on investment in research and development programs. The Howard government provides fossil fuel industries with $9 billion of subsidies annually, according to a 2003 report from the UTS Institute for Sustainable Futures. By contrast, the Howard government:
* Closed the Energy Research and Development Corporation in 1997-98. The ERDC had invested almost $100 million in 350 energy innovation ventures since it was created in 1990. The government then reneged on a commitment to meet existing ERDC funding commitments.
* Withdrew funding from the Co-operative Research Centre for Renewable Energy in December, 2002.
* Introduced the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target but set the target at a measly 2% (closer to 1% when non-renewable interlopers and creative accounting are factored in).
* Appointed a Rio Tinto employee as the government's Chief Scientist.
* Allowed fossil fuel companies to buy their way onto the Australian Bureau of Agricultural Resource Economics panel dealing with climate change issues.
Small wonder that the Australian Bureau of Statistics reported in 2004 that the proportion of Australia's overall energy consumption from renewable resources declined from 1991-2001, from 6% to 5.7%.