Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
Union of Concerned Scientists on Nuclear Power and Global Warming
UCS-USA
To address global warming, we need a profound transformation of the ways in which we generate and consume energy. The urgency of this situation demands that we be willing to consider all possible options for coping with climate change. In examining each option we must take into account its impact on public health, safety, and security, the time required for large scale deployment, and its costs. (Read the full position paper.)
While there are currently some global warming emissions associated with the nuclear fuel cycle and plant construction, when nuclear plants operate they do not produce carbon dioxide. This fact is used to support proposals for a large-scale expansion of nuclear power both in the United States and around the world.
It must be borne in mind that a large-scale expansion of nuclear power in the United States or worldwide under existing conditions would be accompanied by an increased risk of catastrophic events-a risk not associated with any of the non-nuclear means for reducing global warming. These catastrophic events include a massive release of radiation due to a power plant meltdown or terrorist attack, or the death of tens of thousands due to the detonation of a nuclear weapon made with materials obtained from a civilian-most likely non-U.S.-nuclear power system. Expansion of nuclear power would also produce large amounts of radioactive waste that would pose a serious hazard as long as there remain no facilities for safe long-term disposal.
In this context, the Union of Concerned Scientists contends that:
1. Prudence dictates that we develop as many options to reduce global warming emissions as possible, and begin by deploying those that achieve the largest reductions most quickly and with the lowest costs and risk. Nuclear power today does not meet these criteria.
2. Nuclear power is not the silver bullet for “solving” the global warming problem. Many other technologies will be needed to address global warming even if a major expansion of nuclear power were to occur.
3. A major expansion of nuclear power in the United States is not feasible in the near term. Even under an ambitious deployment scenario, new plants could not make a substantial contribution to reducing U.S. global warming emissions for at least two decades.
4. Until long-standing problems regarding the security of nuclear plants-from accidents and acts of terrorism-are fixed, the potential of nuclear power to play a significant role in addressing global warming will be held hostage to the industry’s worst performers.
5. An expansion of nuclear power under effective regulations and an appropriate level of oversight should be considered as a longer-term option if other climate-neutral means for producing electricity prove inadequate. Nuclear energy research and development (R&D) should therefore continue, with a focus on enhancing safety, security, and waste dispo
(7 March 2007)
An 8-page PDF from UCS is available at the original: “Position Paper: Nuclear Power and Global Warming”
Decoding nuclear nonsense
Tom Burke, Open Democracy
The argument over nuclear power in relation to Britain’s future energy needs is set to intensify with the government’s announcement of a five-month “consultation” on the issue on 23 May 2007 to accompany the publication of its white paper on energy policy. To avoid this consultation becoming the sort where the conclusions and the practical outcomes are decided by the host in advance, it is essential to begin by clearing away some of the myths that encrust the issue.
Here then is a provisional list of seven elements of the pro-nuclear case, which can be expected to have a full airing in the weeks ahead, along with their antidote: evidence and argument based on economic, political and environmental reality.
The first element in the nuclear myth-complex is the observation that the generators must be allowed to build new nuclear-power stations. This is an intentionally misleading statement. There is nothing to prevent anyone who wishes to build a nuclear-power station from doing so today. Except, that is, the economics. The reason no one is applying to build new nuclear-power stations is that there is no pressing need to do so at the moment. ..
Tom Burke is a visiting professor at Imperial and University Colleges, London and a co-founder of Third Generation Environmentalism (E3G)
(25 May 2007)
