nuclear-news

Even Switkowski admits that nuclear can’t fight global warming

Climate change: nuclear no answer Green Left 25 October 2009
The big nuclear push is on. The nuclear industry is trying to re-brand yellowcake as “green”
Most people see global warming as the biggest challenge humanity has ever faced. But nuclear industry executives see a business opportunity to arrest their declining fortunes.
Supporters of a radioactive response to climate change tend to run two false arguments at the same time.First, they say a new generation of nuclear reactors is clean, safe and climate friendly.
Second, they say renewable energy can’t do the job.Doubters are cast as technophobes and luddites. Nuclear power is the new “ecological” response we can’t put off any longer because our planet depends on it — or so we’re told.

Mainstream coverage of the controversy does not place enough attention on the businesses that stand to benefit the most. Some of the giant corporations with the biggest ties to the climate-destroying coal industry — such as BHP Billiton — also have big stakes in uranium.

But the arguments for nuclear energy don’t stack up for a safe climate future.Nuclear energy is far from being an emissions-free technology. Except for the power generation itself, every stage in the nuclear-power cycle — uranium mining, ore processing, refining, transport, construction and maintenance — is highly emission-intensive.That aside, nuclear energy still produces three times more carbon pollution than wind power.

Supporters tend to exaggerate the potential emissions cuts that nuclear could deliver. A 2006 government-commissioned report by Ziggy Switkowski admitted that were Australia to build six nuclear reactors, it would cut emissions by only 4% (if it replaced coal-fired power) or just 2% (if it replaced gas).

Green Left – Editorial: Climate change: nuclear no answer

October 25, 2009 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | 1, 2 WORLD, climate change | antinuclear, climate change, nuclear, renewables