You don’t need nuclear to get to net zero,’ says climate professor Jeffrey Sachs
You don’t need nuclear to get to net zero,’ says climate professor Jeffrey Sachs, https://www.euronews.com/green/2021/11/01/most-scenarios-today-show-you-don-t-need-nuclear-to-get-to-net-zero-jeffrey-sachsBy Euronews • Updated: 01/11/2021
Jeffrey Sachs, the Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, is known throughout the world for his effective strategies that address complex challenges.
He has dealt with debt crises, the control of AIDS, malaria and other diseases, the escape from extreme poverty and the battle against human-induced climate change.
Sachs is also a bestselling author, innovative educator, and global leader in sustainable development.
Euronews caught up with him to discuss the global climate crisis ahead of the COP26.
Whether nuclear energy is green or not is a hot debate in Europe. But can we actually afford to rely only on renewables?
Jeffrey Sachs, Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University:
“Well, the sun isn’t always shining, and it’s expensive to store energy, but now we’re seeing that the cost of storage is coming down so sharply. Technologies are improving for the flexibility and the resilience of renewable-based energy systems. There’s a good line of sight to a non-nuclear all-green future by mid-century. By the way, in the second half of the 21st century, maybe fusion power, which is quite different from how we produce nuclear now with fission.
“Maybe that will come. Maybe we will have nuclear energy in a different and safer way that doesn’t lead to the risk of nuclear proliferation, for example, or accidents or long-lasting nuclear wastes. And of course, always, you say there may be particular places with special challenges. But by and large, most scenarios today show you don’t need nuclear to get to net-zero.”
What are the expectations from COP26? Is it too late?
Jeffrey Sachs, Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University:
“We have already reached 1.2 degrees Celsius warming. Shocking. The studies show this is warmer than any time in the last 100,000 years. We are continuing to get warmer because Earth has not even caught up yet with the human emissions of greenhouse gases. In other words, the planet is still warming just to catch up with the emissions that we’ve made so far.
“We’re turning a corner. We need to do a lot better. COP26 is set up for the moment when we say sanity. We have leaders around the world that get it. They had better deliver.”
Greenpeace is set for a confrontation with security officials at COP26
Greenpeace is set for a confrontation with security officials at COP26
after revealing plans to dock a ship outside the venue without permission.
The climate group’s Rainbow Warrior yacht set sail from Liverpool on
Saturday night, seeking to sail up the Clyde and dock next to the COP26
venue in Glasgow. Port authorities declined the Rainbow Warrior’s request
to berth, with the area under a tight lockdown as world leaders arrive, but
Greenpeace said that the captain has “decided to ignore the warnings”
and will attempt to dock on Monday morning.
iNews 31st Oct 2021
Hidden agenda: Will COP26 let nuclear power in the door and, if so, why?
Hidden agenda — Beyond Nuclear International October 31, 2021 https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2021/10/31/hidden-agenda/
— The unspoken argument for more nuclear power, By Linda Pentz Gunter
Not that the two things are unconnected. The civilian nuclear power industry is desperately scrambling to find a way into the COP climate solutions. It has rebranded itself as “zero-carbon”, which is a lie. And this lie goes unchallenged by our willing politicians who blithely repeat it. Are they really that lazy and stupid? Possibly not. Read on.
Nuclear power isn’t a climate solution of course. It can make no plausible financial case, compared with renewables and energy efficiency, nor can it deliver nearly enough electricity in time to stay the inexorable onrush of climate catastrophe. It is too slow, too expensive, too dangerous, hasn’t solved its lethal waste problem and presents a potentially disastrous security and proliferation risk.
New, small, fast reactors will make plutonium, essential to the nuclear weapons industry as Henry Sokolski and Victor Gilinsky of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center continue to point out. Some of these so-called micro-reactors would be used to power the military battlefield. The Tennessee Valley Authority is already using two of its civilian nuclear reactors to produce tritium, another key “ingredient” for nuclear weapons and a dangerous blurring of the military and civil nuclear lines.
So here we are again at another COP (Conference of the Parties). Well, some of us are in Glasgow, Scotland at the COP itself, and some of us, this writer included, are sitting at a distance, trying to feel hopeful.
But this is COP 26. That means there have already been 25 tries at dealing with the once impending and now upon us climate crisis. Twenty five rounds of “blah, blah, blah” as youth climate activist, Greta Thunberg, so aptly put it.
So if some of us do not feel the blush of optimism on our cheeks, we can be forgiven. I mean, even the Queen of England has had enough of the all-talk-and-no-action of our world leaders, who have been, by and large, thoroughly useless. Even, this time, absent. Some of them have been worse than that.
Not doing anything radical on climate at this stage is fundamentally a crime against humanity. And everything else living on Earth. It should be grounds for an appearance at the International Criminal Court. In the dock.
But what are the world’s greatest greenhouse gas emitters consumed with right now? Upgrading and expanding their nuclear weapons arsenals. Another crime against humanity. It’s as if they haven’t even noticed that our planet is already going quite rapidly to hell in a handbasket. They’d just like to hasten things along a bit by inflicting a nuclear armageddon on us as well.
Not that the two things are unconnected. The civilian nuclear power industry is desperately scrambling to find a way into the COP climate solutions. It has rebranded itself as “zero-carbon”, which is a lie. And this lie goes unchallenged by our willing politicians who blithely repeat it. Are they really that lazy and stupid? Possibly not. Read on.
Nuclear power isn’t a climate solution of course. It can make no plausible financial case, compared with renewables and energy efficiency, nor can it deliver nearly enough electricity in time to stay the inexorable onrush of climate catastrophe. It is too slow, too expensive, too dangerous, hasn’t solved its lethal waste problem and presents a potentially disastrous security and proliferation risk.
Nuclear power is so slow and expensive that it doesn’t even matter whether or not it is ‘low-carbon’ (let alone ‘zero-carbon’). As the economist, Amory Lovins, says, “ Being carbon-free does not establish climate-effectiveness.” If an energy source is too slow and too costly, it will “reduce and retard achievable climate protection,” no matter how ‘low-carbon’ it is.
New, small, fast reactors will make plutonium, essential to the nuclear weapons industry as Henry Sokolski and Victor Gilinsky of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center continue to point out. Some of these so-called micro-reactors would be used to power the military battlefield. The Tennessee Valley Authority is already using two of its civilian nuclear reactors to produce tritium, another key “ingredient” for nuclear weapons and a dangerous blurring of the military and civil nuclear lines.
Keeping existing reactors going, and building new ones, maintains the lifeline of personnel and know-how needed by the nuclear weapons sector. Dire warnings are being sounded in the halls of power about the threat to national security should the civil nuclear sector fade away.
This is more than a hypothesis. It is all spelled out in numerous documents from bodies such as The Atlantic Council to The Energy Futures Initiative. It has been well researched by two stellar academics at the University of Sussex in the UK — Andy Stirling and Phil Johnstone. It’s just almost never talked about. Including by those of us in the anti-nuclear power movement, much to Stirling and Johnstone’s consternation.
But in a way it’s just glaringly obvious. As we in the anti-nuclear movement wrack our brains to understand why our perfectly empirical and compelling arguments against using nuclear power for climate fall perpetually on deaf ears, we are maybe missing the fact that the nuclear-is-essential-for-climate arguments we hear are just one big smokescreen.
At least, let’s hope so. Because the alternative means that our politicians really are that lazy and stupid, and also gullible, or in the pockets of the big polluters, whether nuclear or fossil fuel, or possibly all of the above. And if that’s the case, we must brace ourselves for more “blah, blah, blah” at COP 26 and a truly horrible outlook for present and future generations.
We are grateful, therefore, to our colleagues attending COP 26, who will be promoting— rather than tilting at —windmills as they make their case, one more time, that nuclear power has no place in, and in fact hinders, climate solutions.
And I hope they will also point out that expensive and obsolete nuclear power should never be promoted — under the false guise of a climate solution — as an excuse to perpetuate the nuclear weapons industry.
Linda Pentz Gunter is the International specialist at Beyond Nuclear and writes for and edits Beyond Nuclear International.
If COP26 fails, it could mean mass migrations and food shortages – Boris Johnson
A failure by world leaders to commit to tackling the climate emergency at
the Cop26 summit in Glasgow could prompt “very difficult geopolitical
events” including mass migration and global competition for food and
water, Boris Johnson has said. Speaking before the start of a gathering of
leaders from the G20 industrialised nations in Rome, where he will push for
countries to arrive in Glasgow with fixed plans to cut emissions, Johnson
said the chances of success hung in the balance.
Guardian 30th Oct 2021
Another example of climate change damaging the nuclear industry -jellyfish increase clogging up cooling systems of reactors
human-induced climate change has raised ocean water temperatures, setting conditions for larger-than-usual jellyfish populations. Further, the relatively warm water near nuclear power plant discharge outlets may attract jellyfish swarms, according to one study. Also, pollution has lowered oxygen levels in sea water, which jellyfish tolerate more than other marine animals, leading to their proliferation.
Jellyfish attack nuclear power plant. Again. Bulletin, By Susan D’Agostino | October 28, 2021Scotland’s only working nuclear power plant at Torness shut down in an emergency procedure when jellyfish clogged the sea water-cooling intake pipes at the plant, according to the Scotland Herald. Without access to cool water, a nuclear power plant risks overheating, with potentially disastrous results (see: Fukushima). The intake pipes can also be damaged, which disrupts power generation. And ocean life that gets sucked into a power plant’s intake pipes risks death.
The threat these gelatinous, pulsating, umbrella-shaped marine animals pose to nuclear power plants is neither new nor unknown. (Indeed, the Bulletin reported on this threat in 2015.) Nuclear power plant closures—even temporary ones—are expensive. To protect marine life and avert power plant closures, scientists are exploring early warning system options. …………
The clash between gelatinous jellyfish and hulking nuclear power plants has a long history. These spineless, brainless, bloodless creatures shut down the Torness nuclear power plant in 2011 at a cost of approximately $1.5 million per day, according to one estimate. Swarms of these invertebrates have also been responsible for nuclear power plant shutdowns in Israel, Japan, the United States, the Philippines, South Korea, and Sweden.
Humans have unwittingly nurtured the adversarial relationship between jellyfish and nuclear power plants. That is, human-induced climate change has raised ocean water temperatures, setting conditions for larger-than-usual jellyfish populations. Further, the relatively warm water near nuclear power plant discharge outlets may attract jellyfish swarms, according to one study. Also, pollution has lowered oxygen levels in sea water, which jellyfish tolerate more than other marine animals, leading to their proliferation.
Some look at jellyfish and see elegant ballerinas of the sea, while others view them as pests. Either way, they are nothing if not resilient. Jellyfish are 95 percent water, drift in topical waters and the Arctic Ocean, and thrive in the ocean’s bottom as well as on its surface. Nuclear power plant operators might take note: Older-than-dinosaur jellyfish are likely here to stay. https://thebulletin.org/2021/10/jellyfish-attack-nuclear-power-plant-again/
EU countries ramp up pressure to grant nuclear a ‘green’ investment label
EU countries ramp up pressure to grant nuclear a ‘green’ investment label, By Kira Taylor | EURACTIV.com, 29 Oct 21,
A group of ten European countries have heaped pressure on the European Commission to grant nuclear energy a ‘green’ label under the EU’s sustainable finance taxonomy, which acts as a guide to climate-friendly investments.
Energy ministers from the group of ten supported nuclear’s inclusion in the taxonomy during an extraordinary meeting of the EU’s Energy Council on Tuesday (26 October), convened hastily last week in response to rising energy prices.
A proposal from the European Commission is now expected “by the end of the year,” said Kadri Simson, the EU’s energy commissioner………
Earlier this month, a group of ministers from ten EU countries signed a joint opinion article saying “nuclear power must be part of the solution” to the climate crisis and included in the taxonomy.
The article was signed by the economy and energy ministers from Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Finland, France, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia.
At this week’s ministerial meeting, the Netherlands offered their support while Sweden also spoke favourably about nuclear………..
Anti-nuclear lobby
By far the smallest group of countries in this debate is those who have spoken out against the inclusion of nuclear energy in the taxonomy. Austria and Luxembourg are the most vocal countries here, with Denmark also cautioning against nuclear.
“We think that it would be wrong to raise nuclear energy as the alternative – it’s not cheap and it’s not secure. The prices for the production of nuclear energy are much higher than that for photovoltaic solar production,” said Gregor Schusterschitz from Austria.
Meanwhile, Luxembourg’s energy minister, Claude Turmes, highlighted the length of time it would take to build new nuclear power plants, saying these would not come online until around 2035, making them useless as a solution to this year’s energy crisis.
He added that “extending nuclear reactors beyond 40 years only represents 10 billion tonnes oil equivalent, so you can see it’s a highly risky, low impact strategy”.
“With taxonomy, I think we have to be extremely cautious. Because look at the financial markets, look at the investors, look at what’s happening already with manipulation,” he told ministers.
Germany – a long-standing opponent of nuclear power – was much more neutral at the meeting, perhaps owing to its yet-to-be-formed government.
“We need to decrease our energy dependency – people are seeing this as a reason for nuclear power. Obviously we can’t achieve consensus at an EU level on the role of nuclear power,” said Andreas Feicht, German energy and economy minister.
The environmental NGO WWF has also warned against including nuclear energy and fossil gas.
“Nothing would do more to undermine the European Green Deal than to include fossil gas and nuclear in the green taxonomy. At the time of the COP26 summit, institutionalised European greenwashing of this sort would send a totally counterproductive global signal,” said Henry Eviston, spokesperson on sustainable finance for WWF European Policy Office………
At some point, the Commission will have to side with either the pro- or anti-nuclear camp. Ministers at the meeting called on the European Commission to publish the delegated act as soon as possible and the executive is beginning to run out of road to kick the can down. https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/eu-countries-ramp-up-pressure-to-grant-nuclear-a-green-investment-label/
World is failing to make changes needed to avoid climate breakdown, report finds
Every corner of society is failing to take the “transformational change” needed to avert the most disastrous consequences of the climate crisis, with trends either too slow or in some cases even regressing, according to a major new global analysis.
Across 40 different areasspanning the power sector, heavy industry, agriculture, transportation, finance and technology, not one is changing quickly enough to avoid 1.5C in global heating beyond pre-industrial times, a critical target of the Paris climate agreement, according to the new Systems Change Lab report.
The dangerously sluggish pace of decarbonization, made plain just days before the start of crucial UN climate talks in Scotland, further highlights how the world is badly off track in its attempts to curb climate breakdown.
Guardian 28th Oct 2021
The European Commission struggles with push to have nuclear power included as clean and sustainable
The Green Brief: Gas, nuclear and the EU taxonomy saga
By Frédéric Simon and Kira Taylor | EURACTIV.com 27 Oct 21, ……………………………..The EU taxonomy regulation has created three categories for sustainable investments: “green”, “enabling” and “transition”. In an interview with the FT, McGuiness said a possible compromise could be to create a new “amber” category for activities that are not “green” as such but are still helpful for the green transition. The Commission is also looking at redefining the “transition” category to prevent the taxonomy from becoming too “binary”, McGuiness said.
With the creation of a new intermediate category, and the definition of clear sustainability thresholds for nuclear and gas, the European Union may just have found the answer to a question that has been bogging down the taxonomy for years.
Some will denounce it as a fudge and an assault on the EU’s green objectives. Others will call it a pragmatic answer to one of the trickiest questions posed by the energy transition.
Ireland European Commissioner considers joining the push to classify nuclear as acceptable in the energy transition to sustainability.
McGuinness moves towards including gas and nuclear in green transition
Irish commissioner in eye of storm as member states row amid energy crisis
Irish Times, Oct 26, 2021, Naomi O’Leary Europe Correspondent . Ireland’s European Commissioner Maireád McGuinness is moving closer to classifying nuclear energy and gas as having a role to play in the transition to climate neutrality as an energy price crisis consumes the European Union.
Soaring electricity bills have made the issue politically explosive as the European Commission prepares to release the second part of its so-called taxonomy, which determines what activities are eligible for funding by green bonds, and therefore billions of euro in budget and Covid-19 stimulus cash directed towards the EU’s goal of reaching carbon neutrality by 2050.
France has lobbied intensely for nuclear energy to be classified as green, and plans to invest massively in the sector. But the inclusion of nuclear has been fiercely resisted by other countries, including Italy and Germany, which has almost completed a planned phase-out of the fuel begun in response to the 2011 Fukushima accident.
Other member states, including Greece, have demanded that natural gas be acknowledged as a good replacement for dirtier fuels though this is abhorred as “greenwashing” by climate groups……..
The deep divisions between member states over the energy issue were evident as they met in Luxembourg for an extraordinary summit on Tuesday dedicated to addressing the electricity cost crisis, which has been spurred by dramatic increases in the price of gas due to a combination of factors including demand in Asia and tight supplies from Russia.
Ireland was among a group of nine northern member states to back a quicker shift to renewable energy, and to reject a call led by Spain and France for EU-level intervention to change how the energy market works to counter price rises.
“We’re coming into the winter and the big concern not just in Ireland but across Europe. was how do we protect people from the rising price of energy, how do we keep vulnerable people warm in their homes this winter,” Minister of State Ossian Smyth said as he left the meeting.
“In the medium term, we also need to think about what we need to do to prevent this kind of crisis from happening again. How do we avoid dependence on foreign powers or unstable areas for our supply of gas, and how can we move faster towards energy independence in clean energy sources like renewables.” https://www.irishtimes.com/business/innovation/mcguinness-moves-towards-including-gas-and-nuclear-in-green-transition-1.4711205
World heading for catastrophe without bolder climate plans, UN warns.
World heading for catastrophe without bolder climate plans, UN warns. The world is way off course from averting climate disaster, and countries’ new commitments to cutting greenhouse gas emissions – unveiled ahead of the Cop26 climate summit – “fall far short” of what is required to reach net zero by 2050, the UN has warned. With just days to go before the critical summit, the UN Environment Programme has found countries’ updated “nationally determined contributions” or NDCs – which set out the level of carbon emissions cuts they are planning – only take a further 7.5 per cent off projected global emissions for 2030, while cuts of 55 per cent are needed to meet the 1.5C Paris goal. That means the current plans would need to have seven times the level of ambition to remain under that limit. Independent 26th Oct 2021 https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/unep-emissions-gap-cop26-catastrophe-b1945011.html |
Renewable not radioactive – Joint organizational statement prior to the COP26 Climate Summit
Urgent global energy shift must not include nuclear power
Renewable not radioactive — Beyond Nuclear International Our shared energy future should serve human needs
Joint organizational statement released prior to the COP26 Climate Summit
The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report highlights the growing climate crisis and the energy challenges we face. We need an urgent global shift to clean and renewable energy and national governments need to actively facilitate and manage the transition from reliance on fossil fuels and nuclear to renewable energy.
This global transition to clean, safe, nature-friendly renewable energy is already underway and is generating employment and opportunity. Growing this based on principles of environmental and social justice, equity, diversity, resilience and the rights and interests of communities and our environment will provide skilled and sustainable jobs, economic activity and reliable electricity access around the world. Every dollar invested in nuclear power makes the climate crisis worse by diverting investment from renewable energy technology. Nuclear is increasingly unsafe and unreliable in a warming world with more frequent shutdowns and an inability to operate safely under changed climate conditions. From nuclear weapons tests to radioactive waste facilities the nuclear industry has a history of displacing, disrupting and damaging the health and rights of workers and communities. Indigenous peoples face a disproportionate burden and risk from the nuclear industry as mining and waste storage primarily affects their lands and they are often not consulted, compensated or respected.
Nuclear is slow, expensive and dangerous. It is not carbon neutral and poses unique security and waste management risks. We do not have the time to wait for the industry to recover from its own economic failures, overcome construction delays or to fulfil the false promise of new technology.
The legacy of contaminated mining zones, nuclear weapons fallout and the unresolved issue of nuclear waste demonstrate the profound risks of nuclear power. These risks are amplified by the changing climate and are in fundamental conflict with the foundation principles of sustainability and intergenerational equity.
Renewables give us the ability to make a just transition for energy sector workers, their families and communities and to provide secure global access to sustainable low carbon electricity. Renewable energy is real, affordable, low risk and clean. Nuclear simply cannot meet our future energy needs.
Globally, we have multiple renewable energy options which, unlike nuclear, enjoy broad social license. Our organisations, representing a broad cross section of the global community, maintain that nuclear power is not a credible or effective climate response.
We support a renewable energy future and view nuclear power as a dangerous distraction from the real movement on the climate policies and actions that we urgently need.
Our organisations maintain that nuclear power is:
Dirty & Dangerous: …………
Unsustainable:………
Unjust: …….
Expensive:……
A Security Risk:…….
Aging or Unproven: Existing nuclear reactors are highly centralised and inflexible. They lack the capacity to respond to changes in demand and usage, are slow to deploy and are poorly suited to modern energy grids and markets. Many existing reactors are old and due for decommissioning and any move to extend their life would raise serious safety concerns. Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and other ‘new generation’ nuclear projects are not in commercial production or use and remain unproven and uncertain. Neither the failed current reactors nor the non-existent promised reactors are a credible basis for a national energy system.
Not Carbon Neutral: …… https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2021/10/24/renewable-not-radioactive/
See more at www.dont-nuke-the-climate.org
The very great risk that sea level rise poses to UK’s nuclear reactors
The UK nuclear military complex is on the front-line of climate breakdown – and not in a good way. As if we already didn’t know, climate change is here, now. Widespread wild-fire and flooding has focused minds on the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) report which, perhaps unsurprisingly, confirms that as the world heats, ice stored at thepoles and in glaciers melt and sea levels rise.
In short, sea-level rise is significantly faster than previously thought. Meanwhile, predicted changes to storm patterns affecting ‘storm surge’ and river flow will drive ‘combined hazards’, making flood mitigation efforts increasingly
obsolete. Because all UK nuclear military installations began operationwell before global heating was considered in design or construction, near-term climate change risk to nuclear is very great.
Ecologist 22nd Oct 2021
https://theecologist.org/2021/oct/22/things-fall-apart
There are no real climate leaders yet – who will step up at Cop26? – Greta Thunberg
Greta Thunberg Like other rich nations, the UK is more talk than action on the climate crisis. Something needs to change in Glasgow.
The UN secretary general, António Guterres, called the recent IPCC report on the climate crisis a “code red” for humanity.
“We are at the verge of the abyss,” he said. You might think those words would sound some kind of alarm in our society. But, like so many times before, this didn’t happen. The denial of the climate and ecological crisis runs so deep that hardly anyone takes real notice any more.
Since no one treats the crisis like a crisis, the existential warnings keep on drowning in a steady tide of greenwash and everyday media news flow. And yet there is still hope, but hope all starts with honesty. Because science doesn’t lie. The facts are crystal clear, but we just refuse to accept them. We refuse to acknowledge that we now have to choose between saving the living planet or saving our unsustainable way of life. Because we want both. We demand both.
Guardian 21st Oct 2021
l’association négaWatt reports on planned closure of nuclear reactors, and carbon neutrality to be achieved by reducing energy consumption and by renewables.
Caution, efficiency and renewables: the negaWatt scenario for achieving carbon neutrality. The association presents the broad outlines of the 5th edition of its prospective work, which provides for the closure of the last nuclear reactor in 2045. No construction of a new nuclear reactor, energy consumption halved, electricity production 100% from renewable energies …
The fifth edition of the scenario of the negaWatt association will undoubtedly contribute to fueling the debate, more and more lively in the context of the presidential campaign, on the contours of the energy transition. Although the association, led by independent experts, will not publish its detailed report until October 26, it unveiled its broad outlines
on Wednesday October 20.
Le Monde 20th Oct 2021
Nuclear power has no place in a green energy future-because of – time delay, success of renewables, huge costs, dangers, weapons connection, and wastes
from Yahoo News, 21 Oct 21, ”…….Practical concerns also temper enthusiasm for a nuclear future. The next generation of reactors, heralded as a game changer by supporters, still haven’t been proven in the real world. Even if those technologies are as revolutionary as advertised, skeptics say it could take decades before they make a real difference in the global energy grid — too long if the worst outcomes of climate change are to be avoided.
Renewable energy technologies can be enough on their own
“The drawbacks to nuclear are compounded by the burgeoning success of renewables — both solar and wind are getting cheaper and more efficient, year after year. There is also a growing realisation that a combination of renewables, smart storage, energy efficiency and more flexible grids can now be delivered at scale and at speed — anywhere in the world.” — Jonathon Porritt, Guardian
The world doesn’t have time to wait for next-gen nuclear
“When it comes to averting the imminent effects of climate change, even the cutting edge of nuclear technology will prove to be too little, too late. Put simply, given the economic trends in existing plants and those under construction, nuclear power cannot positively impact climate change in the next ten years or more.” — Allison Macfarlane, Foreign Affairs
A major ramp-up in nuclear technologies isn’t economically feasible
“While nuclear power may have once been cheaper than wind or solar, the economics have since changed dramatically. Nuclear power plants are very expensive to build and the economics of nuclear power are getting steadily worse. By contrast, renewables continue to come down in price.” — Ian Lowe, Conversation
There’s no way to guarantee that nuclear plants will be safe
“People around the world have witnessed the Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents. It is more than enough to believe that a safe nuclear power plant is nothing but a myth.” — Jang Daul, Korea Times
More nuclear power could lead to more nuclear weapons
“Some nations — India and Pakistan, and in all probability Israel — became nuclear powers after originally seeking nuclear technology for research or to develop nuclear power. … This is important: The technology used to turn on lights or charge mobile phones shouldn’t need to involve national or international defence apparatus.” — Editorial, Nature
Nuclear waste is still a major problem
“Nuclear waste lasts for hundreds of thousands of years before they are half-decayed. Our United States government — perhaps the longest continuous government in the world — is only 232 years old. Who will be around to manage uranium wastes?” — David Ross, Courier-Journal
1 This Month
19 February – VIRTUAL EVENT-Decision Time: AI and Our Nuclear Arsenal
12:45 p.m. Central / 1:45 p.m. Eastern
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- February 2026 (170)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 