Nuclear power is not the answer to tackling climate change (UK SDC report)

http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/060306.html

In response to the Government’s current Energy Review, the SDC nuclear report draws together the most comprehensive evidence base available, to find that there is no justification for bringing forward a new nuclear power programme at present. The report, Nuclear power in a low carbon economy, has been agreed by all 16 SDC commissioners.

Based on eight new research papers, the SDC report gives a balanced examination of the pros and cons of nuclear power. Its research recognizes that nuclear is a low carbon technology, with an impressive safety record in the UK. Nuclear could generate large quantities of electricity, contribute to stabilising CO2 emissions and add to the diversity of the UK’s energy supply.

However, the research establishes that even if the UK’s existing nuclear capacity was doubled, it would only give an 8% cut on CO2 emissions by 2035 (and nothing before 2010). This must be set against the risks.

The report identifies five major disadvantages to nuclear power:

<and much much more>

:popcorn:

(by 2035?)

Can you?????

I know that recent versions of PDF aren't backward compatible with older versions of Acrobat Reader, which has caused me several headaches in my secret identity as a mild mannered software engineer.

:)

No spittle spewing rants????

I'm shocked! Shocked I say...

:)

I take issue with their five bullet points, but they are arguments I've already made. I doubt that repeating myself is going to change anybody's mind. I suppose that I should advocate tirelessly for the nuclear energy cause, but I lack the stamina.

Anti-Nuclear is Pro-Coal.

We also support the recent interest from Government in carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies, which could effectively remove the CO2 emissions that come from burning fossil fuels such as gas and coal. These could provide a bridge to a more sustainable energy future whilst providing the UK with significant export potential in another area of expertise. Of course we must recognise that CCS is as yet an unproven technology, and its development could allow a future role for coal, about which we have concerns both for reasons of sustainability and human health.

And from the Q&A:
Our evidence shows that it is possible for us to meet our energy needs from a combination of much greater energy efficiency, renewable energy, the more efficient use of fossil fuels (e.g. combined heat & power), and carbon capture & storage technologies.

In other words, their position is based on an unsustainable, unhealthy, and currently non-existent technology. Doesn't seem like a great leap forward to me.

I do love this line, though:
"Of course we must recognise that CCS... could allow a future role for coal" (emph. mine)
One wonders where they will be capturing carbon from if they're not using coal. Noses? Barbecues? The mind boggles.

:rofl: