Climate Change and Nuclear Power

Introduction

Nuclear power is neither needed nor useful in addressing climate change. In fact, in almost every facet of the nuclear chain, nuclear power is counterproductive to efforts to address climate change effectively and in time. Read our fact sheets about the detriments of nuclear power in addressing climate change:

Why Nuclear Power Cannot Address Climate Change:
Beyond Nuclear Fact Sheets

The unresolved waste problem; The failed French model; climate chaos and weather impacts; security; safety; health; proliferation risks; cost; sustainable energy alternatives;

Ten key reasons why nuclear power is not an answer to climate change

Read our Ten Reasons to Say No to Nuclear and Ten Brighter Ideas here.

• Nuclear power has not solved its waste problem.

• Nuclear power is not necessary to address climate change. A diversified portfolio of conservation, energy efficiency and a variety of renewable energy choices can do the job more cheaply and safely.

• Nuclear power is vulnerable to accident with potentially catastrophic consequences.

• Nuclear power costs are prohibitive and the debt will burden taxpayers.

• Nuclear power provides the route to acquisition of nuclear weapons capability that increase the chances of nuclear war.

• Nuclear power cannot be built in time and in enough quantity to address climate change.

• Nuclear power represents an inviting and vulnerable terrorist target, an unacceptable and unnecessary risk.

• Uranium is a finite, not a sustainable resource. Breeder reactors would be the next step, leading inevitably to proliferation of plutonium and increased risk of nuclear war.

• Nuclear power does emit C02 when the entire fuel chain is considered.

• Nuclear power emits radioactivity through routine operation and when leaks and spills occur.

A zero-CO2 U.S. economy can be achieved without use of nuclear power

• Available wind energy resources in 12 Midwestern and Rocky Mountain states equal about 2.5 times the entire electricity production of the United States.*

• North Dakota, Texas, Kansas, South Dakota, Montana and Nebraska each have wind energy potential greater than the electricity produced by all 104 operating U.S. nuclear reactors.*

• Solar energy resources on just one percent of the area of the United States are about three times as large as wind energy, if production is focused in the Southwest and West.*

• Intermittency of solar and wind power can be reduced by integrating wind and solar energy together into the grid, and through geographic diversity.*

• Baseload power can be provided by geothermal and biomass-fueled generating stations.*

• Intermediate loads in the evening can be powered by solar thermal power plants which have a few hours of thermal energy storage built in.*

• US offshore wind resources harvested from 20 to 50 miles out could provide 70% of the total U.S. electricity generated in 2005.*

• Germany, Spain and Denmark integrate 20% of their electricity from wind while the U.S. stands at 0.7%.

• The conversion of just 15% of U.S. parking lot acreage to photovoltaic rooftop systems would equal more electricity than the entire United States generates today.*

• Solar, wind and electrical generators do not divert, consume and pollute massive quantities of water resources for cooling like coal and nuclear power plants.

• Existing technologies for more efficient end-use can save three-fourths of U.S. electricity at an average cost of 1 cent per kilowatt-hour—cheaper than running a coal or nuclear plant, let alone building a new one.**

*source: Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy. Dr. Arjun Makhijani,
Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER). A joint report of IEER and NPRI.

** source: Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute, from The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists Roundtable (see over for Web link.)