During the Cold War, the ques­tion of the century was: Com­munism or capitalism? Now, in times of climate change, the millennial question is: Cli­mate protection or climate disaster? Is nuclear energy a way out of the climate catastrophe? Wouldn't it be much simpler, safer and cheaper to use renewable energy sources?

First, the facts.  At the moment, 18 percent of the world’s electricity comes from renewable energy sources, 12 percent from nuclear power. The trend is toward more and more ecological and less and less nuclear-generated electricity. Worldwide, two new nuclear power plants went online in 2006 but eight others were mothballed. In the same year, global renewable energy generation increased by 25 percent.

The talk of a renaissance of nuclear power is, of course, a well-honed myth that is far from reality. Nuclear power plants are a dying breed; their energy is running out. The question is only whether they will have to be shut down in 40 or 60 or 80 years, or already after the next major accident. The sun, by contrast, will shine for another 4.5 billion years. For free.

All the arguments lobbyists made in favor of nuclear power dissipated after Chernobyl. Now climate protection, once a subject of ridicule, has unexpectedly come to their aid.

It is true that all the old fossil and nuclear fuels have been overestimated and that renewable energy remains underestimated. Yet we cannot solve the problems of tomorrow with the methods of yesterday. Only the endless, ubiquitous, environmentally friendly, and safe renewable energy sources promise a path to a better future.

• Abandoning nuclear power is a precondition for genuine climate protection.  Nuclear energy demands large power plants situated far from the users of that energy. They are inflexible, over-dimensioned and of limited efficiency.  They emerged from the philosophy of the 20th century and waste large amounts of energy. Not only that, but uranium needs to be imported in order to run them, and that always means dependence.
  Modern energy supply is only compatible with climate protection if it can be generated near to its consumers and organized by local producers. That only works with local sun, local wind, local bioenergy, local hydropower and local geothermal power. These energy sources are available and decentralized, as well as being climate-friendly, safe, economic and “forever” available. The sun and the wind send no bills.
• We can be energy efficient in economic terms and protect the climate only if we can achieve higher efficiency than nuclear power plants can. Yet they use only about 30 percent of their primary energy while modern cogeneration plants, by contrast, use 90 percent. Chancellor Merkel has launched an initiative for more energy efficiency but this will only be possible if there are millions of small, decentralized plants. Germany and Europe do not need any nuclear power plants to help protect the climate. Instead, they need the political conditions that will permit a decentralized, efficient energy supply supported by millions: home­owners, craftspeople, farmers to produce bioenergy, small and mid-size companies.
  Most of the necessary infrastructure already exists: the houses, roofs and walls of more than 20 million buildings. What are we still waiting for? All the necessary technology already exists, too. It would create millions of new workplaces. The barriers are exclusively in our heads, stuck in old ways of thinking.
• But if cogeneration is so efficient, why hasn’t it been more quickly adopted?  Because the nuclear plants are still running. One can see this in France: Energy from nuclear power plants saturates the electricity market, providing no reason to save electricity or encourage energy efficiency. We will not make a full and complete transition to renewable energy sources as long as nuclear power plants still run, and will never have an energy efficient economy, let alone a decentralized, efficient energy supply system. In addition, there is not a single inherently safe nuclear power plant in the world. And no one knows what to do with the nuclear waste. We only know that it is radioactive for a hundred thousand years. Those who still promote nuclear power act like a pilot who takes off into the air even though he knows he will find no place to land.
• The 440 nuclear plants that exist around the globe are 440 invitations to terrorists. Those who do not understand this connection have learned nothing from the Sept. 11 attacks and cannot craft any responsible policies.
• Nuclear power or climate disaster? That is an illusory contrast. Nuclear power cannot save the climate. For that to be true, it would have had to play a much larger role than it has to date. To effectively reduce carbon-dioxide emissions through nuclear energy, we would have to build tens of thousands of new nuclear power plants. I know of no politician who believes this could be the solution.
• It is often objected that China and India are building new nuclear power plants. Currently, China generates 1 percent of its electricity from nuclear power, and wants to expand this to about 4 percent by 2020; by then, 20 percent of its electricity is to come from renewable sources. This, too, is not a real argument in favor of nuclear energy but rather one more against it.
• Would extending the useful life of nuclear plants in Germany be the lesser evil, to gain time for the renewables, as some argue? Not really. I don’t have to be in favor of the plague if I’m fighting cholera. The solution reads: renewable energy instead of nuclear energy.
• The sun alone sends us as much energy in 8 minutes as all of humanity uses in an entire year. To that comes the entire symphony of other renewable sources: wind, water power, bioenergy, geothermal, the tides, the energy from ocean waves and currents. Nature offers us all that we need. We no longer need to work against nature; instead, we could learn to live with nature, work with it, profit from it. In the next decades, the current fossil fuel-atomic energy mix can be completely replaced without using nuclear power. After the next Chernobyl, perhaps we will learn an 11th Commandment: Thou shalt not split the atom.

Source:
Franz Alt 2007
The German Times | March 2007