| Nuclear Energy |
| Saturday, 24 January 2009 22:52 |
|
Although for decades the arguments against nuclear power have been –and still are- strong and valid, there is an increasing group of nuclear companies supported by scientists and politicians, who say we need nuclear power to fight climate change and to be independent. They also claim that all the problems associated with nuclear power are almost solved or solved. Why do they say this? Because for them, nuclear power means profits, power and politics. Europe must stop wasting taxpayers’ money to protect a dangerous and financially insane technology. Nuclear energy can not survive in a liberalised energy market, especially if the sensational costs of decommissioning and long-term waste storage for thousands of years are taken into account. Above all, 20 years after the Chernobyl disaster, nuclear power remains the most dangerous mechanism of generating electricity. And, globalised terrorism makes nuclear power stations and the uncontrolled proliferation of nuclear material a serious security hazard. The nuclear industry hopes to trigger a revival of its dangerous technology, arguing that nuclear power is cheap, emission-free and thus has a role to play in securing the supply of energy. But nuclear power accounts for significant emissions if uranium mining, transportation, plant construction and decommissioning and waste storage are included in the calculation. Thankfully, Malta does not use nuclear energy for power generation and has no plans to develop nuclear energy in the future. On the other hand other European countries like the UK with its 23 nuclear reactors, would be required to double its capacity to cut emissions by no more than 8%. Globally, tripling nuclear capacity by 2050 might contribute 12.5%-20% to the necessary emission reductions. But such scenarios -- one plant every two weeks -- have no link to political reality, and the costs would be astronomic. Compare this to the 20% reduction of energy consumption the European Union can achieve by 2020 (30 years earlier) at zero net costs, as the European Commission has pointed out. Nuclear power is horrendously expensive and comes with high opportunity costs: Every Euro spent on new nuclear power could save ten times more emissions if it was invested in energy conservation measures -- thus also securing energy supply ten times cheaper. Also, experience indicates that nuclear power will not be able to compete with renewable energies without huge amounts of state aid. That nuclear power today produces on third of Europe’s electricity is due to political that created favourable market conditions: Since 1974, the EU’s governments spent more than €46.2 billion for nuclear research. Most of the costs of a (however likely) serious nuclear accident will be borne by society and not by the plant operator’s insurance. There is a huge gap between the expected costs of decommissioning and waste storage of the currently operating plants in the EU and the money set aside for that purpose by the operators. Friends of the Earth Malta welcomes the EU’s commitment to ensure “that the real costs, advantages and drawbacks of nuclear power are identified for a well-informed, objective and transparent debateâ€. If such an assessment will include all aspects of nuclear power, including the costs of waste storage for thousands of years and the potential impacts of a serious nuclear accident, common economic sense will send nuclear power finally into the museum. |
