NUCLEAR POWER AND CLIMATE CHANGE:
WHY NUKES CAN’T SAVE THE PLANET
TOO MANY REACTORS; NOT ENOUGH CARBON REDUCTIONS
Major studies (from MIT, Commission on Energy Policy, and International Atomic Energy Agency, for example) agree that about 1,500-2,000 large new atomic reactors would have to be built for nuclear power to make any meaningful dent in greenhouse emissions. Operation of that many new reactors (currently about 440 exist worldwide) would cause known uranium reserves to run out in just a few decades and force mining of lower-grade uranium, which itself would lead to higher greenhouse emissions. If used entirely as new capacity, in the place of sustainable technologies like wind power, solar power, energy efficiency, etc., carbon emissions actually would increase.
TOO MUCH MONEY
Construction of 1,500 new reactors would cost trillions of dollars (U.S. reactors going online in the 1980s and 90s averaged about $4 billion apiece). Energy efficiency improvements, for example, are seven times more effective at reducing greenhouse gases, per dollar spent, than nuclear power. Yearly costs per 1000 kg avoided CO2 emissions are $68.9 for wind and $132.5 for nuclear power.
TOO MUCH TIME
Construction of 1,500 new reactors means opening a new reactor about once every two weeks, beginning today, for the next 60 years—an impossible schedule. Addressing the climate crisis cannot wait for nuclear power.
TOO MUCH WASTE
Operation of 1,500 or more new reactors would create the need for a new Yucca Mountain-sized radioactive waste dump somewhere in the world every 3-4 years. Yucca Mountain has been under study for nearly 20 years, has been vigorously opposed by the State of Nevada for just as long, and remains at least a decade from completion.
For this reason, the U.S. and other countries are attempting to increase reprocessing of nuclear
fuel as a waste management tool—a dangerous and failed technology that increases worldwide nuclear proliferation risks.
TOO LITTLE SAFETY
Odds of a major nuclear accident are on the order of 1 in 10,000 reactor-years. Operation of some 2,000 reactors (1500 new plus 440 existing) could result in a Chernobyl-scale nuclear accident as frequently as every five years—a price the world is not likely to be willing to pay.
TOO MUCH PLUTONIUM
Operation of 1,500 or more new reactors would require a dozen or more new uranium enrichment plants, and would result in the production of thousands of tons of plutonium (each reactor produces about 500 pounds of plutonium per year), posing untenable nuclear proliferation threats.
NUKES EMIT CARBON TOO!
While atomic reactors themselves are not major emitters of greenhouse gases, the nuclear fuel chain produces significant greenhouse emissions. Besides reactor operation, the chain includes uranium mining, milling, processing, enrichment,
fuel fabrication, and long-term radioactive waste storage, all of which are essential components of nuclear power. The uranium enrichment plant at Paducah, Kentucky, for example, is the largest U.S. emitter of ozone-destroying ChloroFluoroCarbons (CFCs)—banned by the Montreal Protocol (the Paducah plant was grandfathered by this treaty).
CAN’T TAKE US TO THE MALL
Nuclear power, which can only produce electricity, does not address emissions from automobiles and other components of the transportation sector —probably the largest source of carbon emissions.