Patrick Moore has it wrong: Renewable energy is the answer

Not surprisingly, as a member of the Nuclear Energy Institute front group, the so-called ‘Clean and Safe Energy Coalition’, Moore proposes nuclear as the answer, claiming it is the only viable technology to replace coal. However economics, urgency and common sense all suggest otherwise.

Even if you don’t take into account the problem of nuclear proliferation, the threat of terrorism or the unsolved problem of nuclear waste, renewable energy and efficiency are the clear winners on both economic and practical grounds.

Firstly, the potential of renewable energy is far greater than that of nuclear power. Not to mention energy efficiency which is safe, pays for itself and reduces rather than increases waste. While the International Solar Energy Society (ISES) clearly demonstrates how today’s renewable technology alone can generate six times the current global demand, nuclear power currently accounts for only 6% of the world’s energy. And while Moore claims that as the world’s 442 nuclear reactors (in actuality there are now only 439) produce 16% of our electricity, 1000 could produce 36%, he fails to acknowledge that the proportion of energy provided by nuclear power is actually in decline. The private sector has come to its senses, with potential private investors scared off by high costs, waste problems and the threat of nuclear proliferation.

Nuclear power is not cheap. In country after country, we have seen nuclear construction programs go considerably over budget. In the United States an assessment of 75 of the country’s reactors showed predicted costs to have been $45 billion but the actual costs were $145 billion. Similarly in India, the country with the most recent and current experience, completion costs of the last ten reactors have averaged at least 300% over budget. Wind power is now cheaper than nuclear power even without considering the costs of nuclear waste disposal.

Patrick Moore uses the climate change deniers and delayers favourite tactic: belittling renewable energy. But in reality the renewable energy industry is leaving the nuclear industry in its wake. A report released in Bali over the weekend “Renewables 2007 Global Status Report’ shows that renewables are thriving. In 2007 global investment in renewable energy will top $100 billion US. Furthermore the renewable energy industry now employs over 2.5 million people globally.

Timewise, renewable energy and energy efficiency are also streets ahead. Last month the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a dire warning of what would happen to the planet if we did not act to see emissions declining in the next eight years. Nuclear power just can’t make it. Analysis undertaken by the World Energy council has shown the average construction time for nuclear plants has increased from 66 months in the mid-70s to 116 months (or nearly ten years) between 1995 and 2000. And MIT and other studies estimate that for nuclear power to have any effect on global warming, we would need to build a minimum of 1,000 reactors worldwide. This is not possible in the next decade, particularly as the nuclear industry has lost most of its engineers to the renewable energy sector. We don’t have time to wait, and there’s no reason to.

Renewable energy is ready now. A wind turbine takes 3 days to erect. The first offshore wind farm in the UK at North Hoyle in North Wales took only eight months to build. And while solar and wind are variable, they are highly predictable. Meanwhile other renewable energy technologies like solar thermal, tidal, geothermal and bioenergy are more reliable than coal-fired or nuclear power stations, with none of the hazards.

While the IPCC lists nuclear on a long list of abatement technologies it highlights “safety, weapons proliferation and waste remain as constraints.” Cheaper, faster and safer energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies are being favoured globally and this momentum is unlikely to, and shouldn’t change.

But even if power plants were safe, even if we had a solution to radioactive waste, even if we had an endless supply of uranium at zero cost, nuclear power plants could not be built in time to make the smallest contribution to avoiding dangerous climate change.

Nuclear power does not have the power. Nuclear power is nothing more than a dangerous and unnecessary distraction, which diverts time and money away from the practical solutions of renewable energy and energy efficiency.