Why Nuclear Power is Not the
Solution to Global WarmingThe Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER),
Worldwatch Institute, and Sen. George Mitchell in his book,
World on Fire have all spoken to the potential scale and cost
of Carbon Dioxide offset through the use of nuclear.“Slowing Global Warming: A Worldwide Strategy”
by Christopher Flavin,
World Watch Paper # 91
published by the Worldwatch Institute, October 1989“. …for nuclear power to offset even 5 percent of global carbon emissions would require that worldwide nuclear capacity be nearly doubled from today’s level. That means that nuclear is simply not a medium term option for slowing global warming.”
World on Fire
by Senator George Mitchell 1991“…If nuclear plants replaced all coal-fired plants in the world, global warming could be cut by 20 to 30 percent by the middle of the next century (2050). But it would require bringing a nuclear power plant on line somewhere in the world every one to three days for the next forty years. The cost would be $9 trillion; the pace of construction would be ten times larger (greater?) than any the world has ever seen. Both figures are unthinkable. A totally safe reactor, a totally safe place to dispose of its deadly wastes, and a totally safe way to keep the wrong kind of nuclear materials from falling into the wrong hands none of these things have been resolved. By the time they are resolved, if they ever can be, it will be too late. The projected global warming will be full upon us.”
Greenhouse Warming: Comparative Analysis of
Nuclear and Efficiency Abatement Strategies
by Bill Keepin and Gregory Katz, Energy Policy,
December 1988The authors posit a conservative scenario in which one-half of non-fossil energy is supplied by nuclear power with a construction program beginning in 1988.
“…This results in a total nuclear installed capacity of 8,180 GW by the year 2025, equivalent to some 8000 large nuclear power plants. This represents a 20-fold increase in world nuclear capacity, requiring that nuclear plants be built at an average rate of one new 1000 MW plant every 1.61 days for the next 37 years. At an assumed cost of $1.0 billion/1000MW installed, this results in a total capitol cost of 8.39 trillion (1987) dollars, an average of $227 billion each year for 37 years to build the required nuclear plants. Total electricity generation cost is $31.48 trillion, or an average of $787 billion/year. The required capitol investment is economically infeasible for the developing world…”
The authors point out that even with a massive nuclear construction program, the use of fossil fuels will continue to grow.
“ Thus, in this scenario, even bringing a new nuclear plant on line every day and a half for nearly four decades does not prevent annual CO2 emissions from steadily increasing to a value 60% greater than they are today.”
Mothers' Alert Home | More Information | Actions | News | Email | Search