A nuclear solution? It just doesn't add up

Later this week the UN panel on climate change will tell the world what they think we should do to stop climate change.

Already this year the panel reported that climate change is happening faster than previously thought. They also said that the impacts of these changes will include decreasing animal and plant life, melting glaciers, increasing desertification, increasing crop pests and disease, and the changes will have a severe impact on people, particularly those with the least resources.

But that is where the science ends and politics take over. Delegates from 130 countries are meeting in Bangkok this week to talk about climate change mitigation, and already the nukes industry is spinning the yarn that the straightest, safest route to carbon reductions is to build more brand new shiny nuclear power stations.

Are we really ready to exchange one problem for another? Do we even have a choice?

Let's set aside the fact that nuclear power is not safe or green and that there is still no solution for dealing with the huge stockpiles of hazardous waste.

Will nuclear power deliver the emission cuts we need to make?

Nuclear power currently supplies about one fifth of our electricity in the UK. Since we don't get heat from nuclear power, that's only 3.6 per cent of our total energy needs. That's just a small part of a large and diverse energy network.

The government is planning to replace our aging nuclear reactors, but this will only reduce carbon dioxide emissions by about four per cent. That's woefully inadequate if we are serious about taking action on climate change. But worst still is that this is the most costly and time consuming way to tackle the problem.

What will it cost us?

This government backed 'nuclear renaissance' assumes that new nuclear power plants can be built cheaper than the alternatives and on time. That they will operate reliably and that the costs of dealing with long-term issues like waste and decommissioning sites will stabilise.

And pigs will fly.

We've published a new independent report that reveals country after country has seen nuclear construction programmes go considerably over budget.

The nuclear industry, despite assertions to the contrary, is facing spiralling costs, construction delays, safety failings and a falling global demand for nuclear technology. Just look at Europe's newest reactor in Finland. It's just being built but has already run into a spot of bother. After 18 months the construction project is 18 months behind schedule and a whopping €700 million over budget. And this is the same type of reactor the industry wants to build in the UK.

By supporting aging and inefficient nuclear technologies, the government is diverting money away from renewable energy and new energy efficiency technology which is needed in the long term. It also means we'd be putting all our eggs in one basket, when what we really need for a secure energy supply is a diversity of clean, safe and effective technologies.

And when will this new nuclear era likely to kick in?

It's unlikely to have any impact on climate change in the next 10 to 20 years. The average construction time for nuclear plants has increased from 66 months when they were first introduced, to 116 months - that's nearly a decade.

The longer construction times are due to increasingly complex reactor designs, and this new generation of untested reactors are already experiencing serious safety problems, which are likely to lead to further delays and higher costs.

In the next decade our emissions need to plateau and begin to fall if we are to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. We don't have time to waste on nukes.

What is the alternative then?

The technology already exists, and is being used in many cities around the world, as well as in the UK - it's called decentralised energy. With the right policies at national and local levels, we would be able to deploy them on a large scale.

By maximizing energy efficiency, producing heat and electricity close to where it is used and increasing our use of renewable energy, we could double the efficiency of our power stations, slash our carbon emissions and reduce our reliance on foreign gas.

This new model of energy production is already being used in Copenhagen, Rotterdam, Turin and Woking, while construction of similar networks is underway in Plymouth and exist on a small scale in Reading.

To find our more about decentralised energy - watch our film.

And next time you hear the desperate nuclear industry talking about stopping climate change, be sure to tell your friends - there is another way. Forward them this article.