Nuclear is not the solution to Greenhouse

“Nuclear power is clearly not an option for meeting growing energy demand while combating greenhouse gas emissions” says Michaela Stubbs from Friends of the Earth (FoE). “A combination of energy efficiency and renewable energy sources is the cleanest most cost effective way to meet our needs and reducing greenhouse emissions.”

Friends of the Earth have over 30 years of experience of researching and monitoring nuclear activities in Australia and around the world. Nuclear has proved to be unsafe, unclean and unnecessary. Moving to nuclear power generation is extremely costly and would delay the changes needed to make the production of energy greenhouse free.

“There are far greater safety issues involved with nuclear than any other method of generating power”, said Michaela Stubbs, a spokesperson for FoE anti nuclear campaign. “There is the generation of toxic radioactive waste at every step of the nuclear cycle and the possibility of an accident, such as Chernobyl, amounts to completely unacceptable risk.”

“There is near-unanimous opposition among environmentalists to nuclear power, suggestions that we are split over the issue are purely misleading”

Proliferation of nuclear weapons has and continues to occur because weak International Safeguards of fissile materials are ineffective. When Australia exports uranium overseas we inevitably contribute to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, a global threat.

Could nuclear power buy us time as far as climate change?

“A doubling of nuclear power by 2050 would reduce emissions by just 5% ... less than one tenth of the reductions required to stabilise greenhouse” says expert Dr. Jim Green from FoE. “Significant greenhouse gas generation occurs across the nuclear fuel cycle from mining and milling of uranium, construction and decommissioning of rectors, transportation and management of waste including reprocessing and disposal. Even if it were a viable option replacing fossil fuel fired electricity plants with nuclear does very little to address the problem of global warming.”

“If the money invested in nuclear technology and fossil fuel industry subsidies were spent on energy efficiency and developing renewable energy sources we would be a lot closer to meeting our needs at a much lower cost to the environment and consumers.”

What we need to see come out of this discussion is some real solutions to the growing environmental crisis we are in.


Comment
Dr. Jim Green Ph. 0417 318 368
Michaela Stubbs Ph. 0437 757 362