nuclear-news

The general public have never been all that keen on nuclear power. They have weighed up the risks and have almost always concluded that it is not for them – when asked that is….I think we can see some rational self-interest at work.

Firstly, there is the question of accidents. We know that all modern industrial processes carry dangers, some more than others. However, when human error or natural disaster causes nuclear accidents, the consequences are significant, and not just for those living in the vicinity of the plant.

Secondly, there is the difficulty of transporting and disposing of nuclear waste. Again, there are similar issues in other industries, but they are not in the same league as those related to the highly radioactive material from a nuclear plant.

Thirdly, there is the potential for nuclear weapons proliferation. Civil nuclear weapons programs can be a cover for making nuclear weapons and there is the potentiality for terrorist organisations (or extremist governments) to turn stolen plutonium into bombs.

We would like to think that nuclear power and nuclear bombs are not linked. Logically it may be true, but practically it isn’t. As Brian Goodwin from the Lawrence Livermore Weapons Laboratory has said: “The opinions of weapons design experts lead to the conclusion that there is no proliferation-proof nuclear power cycle”…

Nuclear power can’t compete when it comes to both economics and the economics of environmental reform.

Amory Lovins from the Rocky Mountain Institute in the USA has estimated that nuclear power “reduces and retards climate protection by saving 2-10 times less carbon per dollar, and 20-40 times slower, than superior low – and no – carbon competitors”.

When it comes to straight economics the story is the same. Even with the enormous subsidies it receives nuclear power can’t compete with its low or no carbon competition – renewables, cogeneration and efficiency. In 2008-2009 renewables provided half of the world’s new generating capacity.

In many ways the advocates of nuclear power today are our modern utopians. For them nuclear power is a wonderful idea and testament to the scientific genius of humankind.

They favour command and control, highly centralised ways of doing things best practiced by authoritarian regimes but inappropriate for our world today. Every time there is a nuclear accident they say the industry will get it right next time around. They assume a world without ideological fanaticism and regulatory failure.

It would be much better for all of us if the industry was allowed to die – hopefully with no disasters along the way. We don’t need it to tackle climate change and we can’t afford it.http://www.watoday.com.au/opinion/politics/why-i-am-against-nuclear-power-20110829-1jhze.html