TL: NUCLEAR POWER -- NO SOLUTION TO CLIMATE CHANGE SO: GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL, (GP) DT: November 24th 1997 Greenpeace Opinion Editorial Having failed to establish itself as a clean, cheap, safe or reliable source of energy, the nuclear industry is currently desperate to find a new rationale to avoid its demise. In the lead up to Kyoto it is now claimed that nuclear energy can somehow provide the answer to the global problem of climate change. During the past two decades the real environmental, economic and security costs of nuclear power have come to light. This has led to a rapid decline in the fortunes of the global nuclear industry. It began in the United States in the 1970's where over 120 nuclear power plant orders were cancelled, and subsequently, orders for nuclear power programmes and reactors were cancelled all around the world. So, what if one takes the nuclear industry's idea of "nuclear power to protect the climate" to its logical conclusion, and asks the question of how many nuclear power stations must be built to achieve internationally-agreed carbon reduction target? Currently, around 440 nuclear reactors provide approximately 5% of the global primary energy mix. To double this figure to 10%, it would be necessary to treble the number of reactors in existence - 1,320 new nuclear reactors, to account for demand growth. Most of these would need to be built in the newly industrialising nations of the world. The amount of nuclear waste and plutonium produced from these reactors would depend on the reactor types and its characteristics, but we can estimate that the annual spent fuel produced would be in the region of 40,000 tonnes containing over 300 tonnes of plutonium. Plutonium is one of the most radiotoxic and dangerous substances in existence: a single microgram smaller than a speck of dust, can cause fatal cancer if inhaled or ingested. A sphere of plutonium, smaller than a tennis ball, can be used to fuel a nuclear bomb able to kill millions of people. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an international body of experts brought together specifically to analyse different scenarios for combating climate change, when referring to the possible expansion of nuclear power, stated that "the security threat that such massive amounts of plutonium would pose would be colossal." Fortunately it seems that nuclear power has already been overtaken by the new breed of renewable energy technologies, which can typically supply energy more cheaply. Greenpeace recently obtained a leaked copy of the European Commission's renewable Energy White Paper which categorically states that a significant switch to renewables and cuts in greenhouse gases are totally feasible. The White Paper - which outlines a specific EU Renewable Energy Action Plan - is set to be adopted by the Commission in the very near future. It proposes to double the use of renewable energies within the EU to 12% of gross inland energy consumption by 2010. The paper states that this would reduce CO2 emissions by 400 million tonnes per year. It would create between 850,000 and 1.25 million new jobs and result in an additional 17 billion ECU (US$19 billion) annual export business for the EU by 2010. The on-going crises in nuclear waste management, in safety, in economic costs and in nuclear proliferation show that nuclear power is not a solution to future energy demand, it is part of the problem. The claims of the nuclear industry are disingenuous, self-serving and politically unrealistic fantasies which would do nothing but promote the life of an outdated and dangerous technology. As we approach the 21st Century, it clear that renewable energy sources, such as those from the wind and the sun have environmental and economic advantages. These technologies coupled with energy efficiency will create a clean, sustainable energy system for future generations. We are at an energy crossroads. The choice of the future path is ours. A Greenpeace International Report entitled 'Nuclear Power - No Solution to Climate Change' is available from Greenpeace.