Nuclear power – a very poor investment to address climate change, a waste of money

Nuclear damages attempts to tackle climate change nuClear News Dec 14 “………Nuclear’s contribution is too small. Too much of the energy debate focuses on electricity. To read some of the media you might be

left with the impression that energy and electricity are two words which are interchangeable.

But electricity actually only supplies 18% of our energy needs, so nuclear power is an even

smaller proportion – about 3.6%.

To tackle climate change we need to deal with emissions from all sectors including transport

and heat, as well as electricity.

For instance if we look at energy consumption in buildings – and almost half of the UK’s carbon

emissions are caused by buildings – we can see that more than two thirds of the energy used is

for heating. We could, of course, convert all our heating to electric heating systems, but

whatever way you look at it this argues for a much greater effort to be directed at energy

efficiency.

Every pound spent needs to be spent on the most cost effective carbon abatement

measures.

Clearly, even if we were in the middle of an economic boom, we don’t have unlimited supplies of

money. So we have to spend what we do have in a way which maximises the carbon savings

achieved for every pound spent. Although nuclear might appear to be cheaper than some of the

other forms of low carbon energy, experience tells us that nuclear costs are likely to rise,

whereas renewable costs are falling rapidly.

The New York Times reports (3) that the cost ofproviding electricity from wind and solar power plants has plummeted over the last five years, so much so that in some markets renewable generation is now cheaper than coal or natural gas.

Utility executives say the trend has accelerated this year, with several companies signing

contracts for solar or wind at prices below that of natural gas.

In the UK nuclear is expecting to continue receiving subsidies, under the new Contracts for

Difference system, for 35 years after reactors open, whereas renewables will only receive

subsidies for ten years.

Offshore wind is one of the most expensive renewables at the moment, but its costs are

predicted to fall quite quickly over the next decade. Onshore wind costs are falling rapidly too,

and solar will be cheaper than nuclear before Hinkley Point C opens.

But if the Government continues to attack onshore wind and continues to reduce support for

offshore wind then we will fail to capitalise on the gains already made and costs won’t be able to

continue falling

The cheapest low carbon option is not to use the energy in the first place. In fact many efficiency

measures can be installed at negative cost. And efficiency is not just about loft insulation.

Investment in LED lighting for instance can generate returns of up to 10%………….

.http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/nuclearnews/NuClearNewsNo69.pdf

December 17, 2014 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | 2 WORLD, business and costs

No comments yet.

nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope