Responding to a report today by the IEA calling for a programme of new nuclear power stations, Sarah North of Greenpeace said:
"The IEA's thinking on energy has lacked imagination for as long as it has existed and its analysis perpetuates antiquated thinking. Investing in nuclear power is a sure way to lose the battle against climate change. It costs up to ten times as much as energy efficiency measures to get the same carbon savings and creates huge security and environmental threats that will last for tens of thousands of years."
She added:
"Nuclear sucks crucial investment from genuine solutions, like decentralised energy, renewables and energy efficiency. Global warming needs a global solution, but unless we want every dictator in the world to have access to enriched uranium, nuclear power can't be that solution."
The IEA report is flawed because:
- Nuclear power only produces electricity, and thus only marginally deals with our need for services such as hot water and central heating, and doesn't meet our energy needs for transport at all. Instead of focusing solely on electricity production, governments need to address the energy system as a whole.
- US researchers from the respected Rocky Mountain Institute have estimated that for the same investment, energy efficiency can achieve up to ten times more carbon savings than nuclear power.
- Climate scientists warn we have ten years to act. A new build programme is not a timely response to the immediate need to act on implementing the energy systems required to reduce CO2 emissions. A new build programme would come on-line in 2025-2030.
