Pages above:
The nuclear fallacy
Why nuclear power is part of the problem
Renewable energies, on the other hand, have truly limitless sources,
can be more easily deployed in remote, underdeveloped regions, present
absolutely no risk to global security and are environmently friendly.
Wind power, as an example, is the fastest growing energy source in the world, and is now far cheaper than nuclear. For the same investment, wind generates more electricity, and offers more jobs. In recent years, over 6,000 megawatts of wind generation have been installed every year in Europe, the equivalent of two or three large nuclear power plants. By comparison, only one nuclear reactor has been built in the past six years, and it will take at least another five to build the next. In the US, the last new reactor was ordered in 1978.
Furthermore, nuclear is not a renewable energy source, as it needs scarce uranium to fuel its reactors. If we would replace all fossil fuels with nuclear power, the world would run out of uranium in less than four years. Currently, nuclear is a marginal energy source, supplying only two percent of the world energy demand, and there is no realistic scenario in which this could be significantly increased.
Because there is only a finite amount of investment available for new energy, any investment in nuclear power is effectively money denied to renewables and energy efficiency. Nuclear power, with fifty years of failure as its track record and still no solutions to its fundamental problems, remains a shockingly poor investment choice. The wise decision then, is to say no to nuclear, yes to renewables and energy efficiency.
Read more:
Briefing - Nuclear not the answer to climate change
Report - Economics of nuclear power
Wind power, as an example, is the fastest growing energy source in the world, and is now far cheaper than nuclear. For the same investment, wind generates more electricity, and offers more jobs. In recent years, over 6,000 megawatts of wind generation have been installed every year in Europe, the equivalent of two or three large nuclear power plants. By comparison, only one nuclear reactor has been built in the past six years, and it will take at least another five to build the next. In the US, the last new reactor was ordered in 1978.
Furthermore, nuclear is not a renewable energy source, as it needs scarce uranium to fuel its reactors. If we would replace all fossil fuels with nuclear power, the world would run out of uranium in less than four years. Currently, nuclear is a marginal energy source, supplying only two percent of the world energy demand, and there is no realistic scenario in which this could be significantly increased.
Because there is only a finite amount of investment available for new energy, any investment in nuclear power is effectively money denied to renewables and energy efficiency. Nuclear power, with fifty years of failure as its track record and still no solutions to its fundamental problems, remains a shockingly poor investment choice. The wise decision then, is to say no to nuclear, yes to renewables and energy efficiency.
Read more:
Briefing - Nuclear not the answer to climate change
Report - Economics of nuclear power
