The nuclear industry is once again trying to exploit concern about climate change. One positive aspect of this renewed nuclear debate in Australia is that it has highlighted and reinforced the need for action to avert the social and environmental impacts associated with climate change.
But nuclear power is at best a very partial and problematic 'solution' to climate change and should be rejected for three reasons:
- A significant expansion of nuclear power would do little to reduce greenhouse emissions. Nuclear power is limited because it is used almost exclusively for electricity generation, which is responsible for about 30% of global greenhouse emissions. A doubling of global nuclear power output at the expense of coal would reduce emissions by no more than 5%. Compared to most renewable energy sources and to energy efficiency measures, nuclear power produces more greenhouse emissions per unit energy produced or saved, in addition to its legacy of nuclear waste and the weapons proliferation risks. For example, the 2006 Switkowski report states that wind power is three times more greenhouse-friendly than nuclear power.
- Nuclear power is the one and only energy source with a direct and repeatedly-demonstrated connection to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
- A clean energy future is viable and affordable, involving a reduction in the usage of fossil fuels, no use of nuclear power in Australia, and the increased use of renewable energy sources and energy conservation measures.
More information:
