Enthusiasm For Nuclear Power Cooling  

Lest anyone get the impression that the Sydney Morning Herald is running an unjustified propaganda campaign (note there is some background to yesterday's piece here), here are another couple of articles today (from its rival at Rupert Murdoch's "Australian" and the Seattle PI) that also take a dim view of reviving the nuclear beast.

If nuclear energy supplied 75 per cent of the world's electricity, it would result in only a 25 per cent reduction in harmful carbon emissions, the global head of Greenpeace has warned. In Sydney to address the Lowy Institute think tank tonight, Greenpeace International executive director Gerd Leipold told The Australian that he was surprised at the timidity of debate in Australia about energy supply, which has seen Liberal and Labor leaders support a renewed focus on nuclear power as a green-friendly alternative to coal.

Mr Leipold will tell the Lowy Institute that nuclear energy is an expensive, dangerous and finite option that has slowed the development of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power. "It's good that people are taking climate change seriously and understand that we need to take drastic measures," Mr Leipold, 54, said. "But it's simply not the answer that we need at this moment."

Mr Leipold said nuclear power produced by 450 reactors currently supplied about 17 per cent of the world's power. It would take up to 10,000 reactors worldwide to increase supply to 50 to 75 per cent by 2100, he said. But for all the accompanying problems of sourcing uranium, disposing of waste safely and finding new sites for reactors, it would result in only a 25 per cent reduction of carbon emissions.

...

But while Mr Leipold remains optimistic that growing public awareness will help steer governments towards renewable energy sources, he said that finding ways to use our available energy more efficiency would alleviate the need to develop new energy sources in the short term.

"If Australia had the energy efficiency that Japan has, we wouldn't even be talking about nuclear energy," he said. "Our research shows that every $1 spent on energy efficiency is seven times more effective in cutting carbon than nuclear power."

These journals aren't the only ones voices their doubts about the pro-nuclear campaign that's going on - TreeHugger says "Nuclear Energy Unsustainable: Won't Mitigate Climate Impacts", while Grist notes that the British nuclear industry's answer to the thorny problem of what to do with the waste is "Blunderdomes".

This TreeHugger has questions that need to be posed by those who underwrite rebuilt and new nuclear plants to 'save the world' from climate disaster. Ask the designers where the fuel will come from and what it will cost 40 years hence. Inquire as to who will be responsible for cleaning up the uranium mill tailings ponds (graphic above shows existing tailing cleanup sites) that will be dotting the US West once we have to go after the low grade ores? The uranium is there indeed, but in very low concentrations. The fossil fuel needed to benefact it won't be getting any cheaper.

TreeHugger recognizes that different conclusions may be supported with identical or similar data sets. We welcome comments and referencing links from those who see it differently. What's important now is to get the uranium sustainability issue publicly discussed, before some House/Senate markup committee earmarks taxpayer money to support an expansion of nuclear energy on the basis of a claim that it will mitigate climate change.

Technorati tags: peak oil