Nuclear power generation does undoubtedly contribute to global warming
This is a gross oversimplification.
Nuclear fuels must be mined and transported across the globe to reactors. The power plant itself would have a massive embodied energy.
In 21st-century Ireland, it is fair to assume most plant workers would drive to work, probably from far away, out of concern for their families.
How much energy does it take to safely store and guard radioactive waste for thousands of years?
Without our own uranium reserves, nuclear power would do nothing to improve our security of supply. Even if we had deposits, they would be given away to multinational mining corporations, judging by the terms we’ve set for oil and gas.
Fossil fuels and uranium are finite resources, so simply switching between them does nothing towards creating a sustainable future — it wouldn’t even push the energy crisis onto the next generation.
Most uranium is spread so thinly across the earth that it is prohibitively energy-intensive to mine and refine to usable concentrations. Estimates of uranium reserves vary.
The International Atomic Energy Agency estimated two years ago that conventional uranium reserves would last for 85 years, based on 2004 consumption, yet in 2005 nuclear only provided 6.3% of the world’s primary energy and 16% of our electricity.
A nuclear revival would use up the uranium faster. If the French level of nuclear dependence were achieved across the globe, these reserves would only last for about 16 years.
After reducing our unreasonable energy demands, a worthy discussion would be the potential of solar power. With similar solar irradiation to Ireland, Germany has developed the largest solar capacity in the world. A premium available for small-scale solar-produced electricity has encouraged quality grid-connected installations.
Countries across Europe have followed suit, implementing their own versions of the system. Surely this would be a far wiser trend to follow?
Paul Lynch
Middle Square
Macroom
Co Cork




