Nuclear is Not the Answer to the Climate Crisis ? - 2015

Nuclear Power Industry

Dorfman, et al., published a letter to the Editor of The Giardian newspaper in London suggesting that contrary to the article by James Hansen, Kerry Emanuel, Ken Caldeira and Tom Wigley (Nuclear Power Paves the Only Viable Path Forward on Climate Change, 3 December, 2015), many scientists around the world remain sceptical that nuclear is the answer, or even part of the answer, to climate change [Who? No references here] The academic authors have a fine record in identifying the causes and consequences of climate change, but their proposed solution simply doesn’t make sense.

The main problem is that, contrary what many think, nuclear power is a poor method of reducing carbon emissions: its uranium ore and fuel processes have heavy carbon footprints [This is mis-information and is untrue]. Indeed, of the ways to reduce carbon emissions in the energy sphere, nuclear is by far the most expensive in terms of pound per tonne of carbon saved. [This claims depends on financial metric one applies and whether costs are amortized over the 50 year lifetime of the nuclear project]

Renewables, especially wind and solar, are now less expensive, quicker to install, and much safer: with them one does not have to worry about the spectres of Chernobyl and Fukushima.[Mostly untrue claims, better see: (Here)]

But perhaps most important of all is the moral dimension [The What?]. Given the technical and political obstacles to dangerous spent nuclear fuel, should we be passing these problems to future generations? [The premise to this question is not true, and a gross exaggeration]. What about the Irish Sea, still the most radioactively contaminated sea in the world due to Sellafield’s discharges? [Another instance of spreading misinformation and exaggeration]. What about the sheep farms in north Wales still subject to food controls due to radioactive contamination from Chernobyl almost 30 years ago? [Another instance of spreading misinformation and exaggeration ... levels are far below dangerous]

The climate change negotiators in Paris should think hard before recommending nuclear as a solution. It isn’t. [Ask them now (2021) what their positions are ....?].

[Best see the rest of the story about:

Chernobyl: See https://i2mportal.com/search_resource.php?search_value=Chernobyl%3A%C2%A0&sort=relevance#page=1

Fukushima: See https://i2mportal.com/search_resource.php?search_value=Fukushima#page=1 

Spent Nuclear Fuel: See https://i2mportal.com/search_resource.php?search_value=Spent+nuclear+fuel#page=1 

and https://i2mconsultants.com/downloads/corp/UCOM-MidYearReport2020.pdf