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. That was clear acknowledgment that nuclear power is unclean, dangerous and unnecessary technology.

   The risks from nuclear power - nuclear power plant accidents, radiation, high-level waste, proliferation of nuclear weapons and environmental impacts - are real and long-lasting. Recognition of these problems is the reason why the nuclear industry has been in the doldrums, experiencing research and skill shortages, and restrictive policies, while remaining a risky investment. It also explains why the nuclear lobby is now exploiting the fears of global warming.

    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 United Kingdom have had no new nuclear power plants for 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 per cent of its electricity from renewable resources by 2010 through increased use of wind and bio-energy.

    Germany’s experience shows that nuclear energy is not cheap nor competitive despite huge subsidies. Nuclear energy is up to 50 per cent more costly to produce than existing methods, without penalties imposed for greenhouse gas emissions. In this climate of being better informed and recognising the problems inherent in the nuclear industry, it is reasonable to assume that most Australians would prefer this level of subsidy to go into development of renewable energy without the toxic outcomes from nuclear energy.

    As Australia is being urged to embrace nuclear energy, it is interesting to note the International Energy Agency predicts that the share of electric power generated by nuclear plants will drop significantly by 2030. If it was the answer to our energy needs and output was doubled by 2050 (a logistical impossibility) greenhouse gas emissions would only be reduced by about five per cent, less than one tenth of the reductions required to stabilise atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. Why? Because over two thirds of greenhouse emissions 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.

    Clean affordable energy solutions are available now. They can deliver major greenhouse gas emission reductions. Already renewable energy supplies more of the world’s electricity (19 per cent) than nuclear (16 per cent).

    Let us learn from the experience of the European Union countries and seek renewable energy solutions now.

    Sources:

www.cana.net.au

Reinhard Loske, Nuclear power without perspective, 27 February 2006.

Greenpeace Background Briefing, 19 November 2006