Ten reasons climate activists should not support nuclear
June 24, 2021
Green Left Weekly
1. Nuclear is dangerous. Building many new nuclear power plants around the globe means a higher risk of unpredictable Fukushima-type accidents. We know more extreme weather events are locked in due to climate change, adding to the danger as time passes.

What if a nuclear power plant had been in the path of Australia’s huge bushfires in 2020? What nuclear power plant could withstand super typhoons like the one that flattened Tacloban City in the Philippines in 2013? What if a nuclear plant was submerged by unexpectedly massive floods, like those in Mozambique for the past three years in a row?

Planning for a hotter future means switching to safer, resilient technologies. Building more nuclear power plants in this context is reckless.

2. Nuclear wastes water. Nuclear power is an incredibly water-guzzling energy source compared with renewables like solar and wind. We know climate change-induced droughts and floods will make existing freshwater shortages a lot worse. So it’s a bad idea to waste so much water on more nuclear.

Uranium mining can also make nearby groundwater unusable forever. Half of the world’s uranium mines use a process called in-situ leaching. This involves fracking ore deposits then pumping down a cocktail of acids mixed with groundwater to dissolve the uranium for easier extraction. This contaminates aquifers with radioactive elements. There are no examples of successful groundwater restoration.

3. Nuclear is slow. Nuclear power plants take a very long time to build. Since 1981, the median construction time for nuclear reactors has been 7 to 10 years. In 2017, two-thirds of new nuclear power plants being built had long delays.

Science says we need to replace fossil fuels rapidly and completely but nuclear power does not allow for a fast transition. Solar and wind can be deployed much more quickly.

4. Nuclear is not green. The claim that nuclear is emissions-free relies on not telling the whole story. If you measure greenhouse gas emissions over the whole process — mining, refining, construction, decommissioning and waste storage — then nuclear is far worse for the climate than renewables.

A 2017 report by WISE International estimated nuclear lifecycle emissions at 88–146 grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt hour. By contrast, estimates of lifecycle emissions for wind power sit at about 5–12 grams. Carbon emissions from uranium mining will also rise over time as the most easily recoverable ores are mined out.

5. Nuclear is not renewable. There’s not enough high grade uranium available for nuclear power to make a big dent in carbon emissions. If we trebled the number of nuclear plants worldwide recoverable uranium reserves would run out in a few decades.

If we replaced 70% of global energy use with nuclear power we’d run out of uranium in about 6 years. Nuclear reflects very short-term thinking. We need long-term sustainability.

6. Nuclear is expensive. Producing energy with nuclear power is a lot more expensive than renewables. Nuclear power’s already high construction costs routinely blow out, going billions over budget. Britain’s Hinkley Point C reactor cost estimates have risen from £18 billion in 2016 to £22–£23 billion today. It won’t open until June 2026 at the earliest.

Cost does matter, even if part of an emergency climate action plan like a Green New Deal. The higher cost of nuclear power reflects the higher amount of human labour time and natural resources it consumes.

If renewables were built instead of nuclear, the labour and resources saved could be better deployed in the other areas we need to bring about a future based on climate justice, such as housing, healthcare, sustainable farming or climate reparations.

7. Nuclear power means nuclear weapons. A big rollout of nuclear power would mean a big expansion of fissile materials that could be used for nuclear weapons. It would multiply the facilities such as enrichment and reprocessing plants that these weapons need. The spread of civil nuclear programs to more countries would make more states capable of quickly producing nuclear weapons.

In countries such as the United States and Britain, keeping civil nuclear power is a strategic military choice, not a savvy green policy. Consumers pay a higher energy price to maintain nuclear power infrastructure, which subsidises nuclear weapons programs.

whiteknight wrote on Jun 25^th, 2021 at 7:16am:



That's because of regulatory strangulation.

whiteknight wrote on Jun 25^th, 2021 at 7:16am:



They still haven't shown the GHG's generated by mining, refining, construction, decommissioning and waste storage fro renewables. Let us know when they have.

But I see you say "climate activists" not greenies or scientists.

And there is so much claptrap in their reasoning.

BTW- WISE International is wholly anti-nuclear.

According to wiki Solar is between 18 - 180g CO2equivalent /kWh

Offshore wind is 8 - 35 g /kWh That seems unlikely as they have to be serviced by fossil fuelled vessels.

Onshore wind is 7 - 56g /kWh

Nuclear is 3.7 - 100g/kWh

Because most emissions from wind, solar and nuclear are not during operation, if they are operated for longer and generate more electricity over their lifetime then emissions per unit energy will be less. Therefore their lifetimes are relevant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emissions_of_energy_sour...

And they don't even mention solar. Why is that? Especially as they propose it.

Offshore wind arms are not lasting nearly as long as 30 years.

And of course Nuclear is not weather dependent. What are they going to run things when they are not generating.

"Nuclear power is the greenest option, say top scientists"

https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/nuclear-power-is-the-greenest-...

"Almost half (46%) of ‘Greens’ support replacing the UK’s nuclear power stations when they reach the end of their working lives"

https://www.greensfornuclear.energy/2020/11/18/almost-half-46-of-greens-support-...

"Half of left-wing voters support nuclear power"

https://www.afr.com/companies/energy/half-of-left-wing-voters-support-nuclear-po...