Is Nuclear Energy an Answer?
Nuclear Energy is often mentioned as the saviour of the climate. It is not.
In this website we avoid the issue mostly, since in our opinion the nuclear debate distracts from the real issue: we need less carbon and more renewables, of all types. Nuclear is not renewable, but we reckon since a new nuclear plant will take around 15 years to build: once we've got the energy transition complete we can still stop nuclear from destroying our future. But firt we need to swap carbon for something better.
It has been called:
Carbon free - yet the amount of energy required for construction, excavation of fuel, "disposal" of waste and dismantling of the plants is calculated similar to the total amount of power a nuclear plant ever generates as electricity.
Renewable - even though uranium stocks are already not what they were 50 years ago, and more expensive to excavate, just like oil. Thorium reactors are no different
Safe - especially the "new" reactors - ignoring the fact that not only have we not yet cleared away or covered up Chernobyl, but Fukushima is not even under control and has just been permitted to spill its radioactive waste into the ocean - while across the pacific fish is becoming too radioactive to eat in places.. and there are many more nuclear wastelands, including Sellafield of course. The nuclear industry is not capable of clearing up their own mess; not in the last 50 years, so why should that be different n the near future?
Waste-free - specifically of "new" design reactors (e.g. Thorium). Not only do these reactors not yet exist, but the are most definitely not waste free no matter how you cook the facts. In fact, neither waste nor proliferation risk are effectively addressed by the new reactors. Even if we ever get them to work.
BUT some of the most important reasons why nuclear is NO SOLUTION:
1) The time it takes to get a nuclear plant up and running is well beyond the climate change window we have for converting our energy model. By the time (if ever) we get the first plants working the climate is already cooked beyond recovery. Construction time of a nuclear plant is currently (e.g. Finland) estimated at 15-20 years), set this against 2 years for a wind or solar farmincluding planning and design.
2) It is expensive! In fact, were we to give similar price guarantees to renewables as are offered to nuclear, we'd have sufficient renewables for everything well before the first new nuclear plant could be operational.
3) We're realistically only talking about 5-10% of our energy consumption, but pretending that if we go nuclear we can continue dong what we're doing now...
WHY is the nuclear lobby so effective?
There are multiple reasons, as always with complex issues, but an important point is: nuclear power stations are built by large energy companies, financed by banks, guaranteed by governments (i.e. the people). So it's a fail-safe way for the current establishment to maintain control, make money, and at no risk (remember: the worlds 20 largest companies are energy/carbon and banks). And because it's an industry which has a long track record of promises but has yet to deliver cheap energy or a solution for the radioactive waste. It has been looking for both for more than 50 years, and meanwhile has established a powerful and wealthy (paid for by us all) network of government influence.
There's a wide range of sources about nuclear energy issues and the mix of lies, broken promises, cost overruns and uncontrollable health hazards, many verified by (nuclear) physicists. Wise International is a start.
In this website we avoid the issue mostly, since in our opinion the nuclear debate distracts from the real issue: we need less carbon and more renewables, of all types. Nuclear is not renewable, but we reckon since a new nuclear plant will take around 15 years to build: once we've got the energy transition complete we can still stop nuclear from destroying our future. But firt we need to swap carbon for something better.
It has been called:
Carbon free - yet the amount of energy required for construction, excavation of fuel, "disposal" of waste and dismantling of the plants is calculated similar to the total amount of power a nuclear plant ever generates as electricity.
Renewable - even though uranium stocks are already not what they were 50 years ago, and more expensive to excavate, just like oil. Thorium reactors are no different
Safe - especially the "new" reactors - ignoring the fact that not only have we not yet cleared away or covered up Chernobyl, but Fukushima is not even under control and has just been permitted to spill its radioactive waste into the ocean - while across the pacific fish is becoming too radioactive to eat in places.. and there are many more nuclear wastelands, including Sellafield of course. The nuclear industry is not capable of clearing up their own mess; not in the last 50 years, so why should that be different n the near future?
Waste-free - specifically of "new" design reactors (e.g. Thorium). Not only do these reactors not yet exist, but the are most definitely not waste free no matter how you cook the facts. In fact, neither waste nor proliferation risk are effectively addressed by the new reactors. Even if we ever get them to work.
BUT some of the most important reasons why nuclear is NO SOLUTION:
1) The time it takes to get a nuclear plant up and running is well beyond the climate change window we have for converting our energy model. By the time (if ever) we get the first plants working the climate is already cooked beyond recovery. Construction time of a nuclear plant is currently (e.g. Finland) estimated at 15-20 years), set this against 2 years for a wind or solar farmincluding planning and design.
2) It is expensive! In fact, were we to give similar price guarantees to renewables as are offered to nuclear, we'd have sufficient renewables for everything well before the first new nuclear plant could be operational.
3) We're realistically only talking about 5-10% of our energy consumption, but pretending that if we go nuclear we can continue dong what we're doing now...
WHY is the nuclear lobby so effective?
There are multiple reasons, as always with complex issues, but an important point is: nuclear power stations are built by large energy companies, financed by banks, guaranteed by governments (i.e. the people). So it's a fail-safe way for the current establishment to maintain control, make money, and at no risk (remember: the worlds 20 largest companies are energy/carbon and banks). And because it's an industry which has a long track record of promises but has yet to deliver cheap energy or a solution for the radioactive waste. It has been looking for both for more than 50 years, and meanwhile has established a powerful and wealthy (paid for by us all) network of government influence.
There's a wide range of sources about nuclear energy issues and the mix of lies, broken promises, cost overruns and uncontrollable health hazards, many verified by (nuclear) physicists. Wise International is a start.
