Quantcast
Article Index |Advertise | Mobile | RSS | Wireless | Newsletter | Archive | Corrections | Syndication | Contact us | About Us
 
Tue, Mar 10, 2009 08:22 AM Philippines      25°C to 33°C
   HOME       NEWS     SPORTS     SHOWBIZ AND STYLE     TECHNOLOGY     BUSINESS     OPINION      GLOBAL NATION    SERVICES
 
  Breaking News :    
Advertisement
Property Guide
INQ GAMES

INQUIRER ALERT
Get the free INQUIRER newsletter
Enter your email address:

 
Inquirer Opinion/ Letters to the Editor Type Size: (+) (-)
You are here: Home > Opinion > Inquirer Opinion > Letters to the Editor

  ARTICLE SERVICES      
     Reprint this article     Print this article  
    Send as an e-mail     Send Feedback  
    Post a comment   Share  

  RELATED STORIES  





imns



Nuclear energy myth


Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 23:23:00 03/09/2009

Filed Under: Nuclear Policies, Nuclear power, Climate Change, Energy & Resources, Environmental Issues

This is in response to the front-page article titled “Nuke energy key to stem climate change” (3/2/09), which is about the nuclear industry’s claim that nuclear power has a role in climate change mitigation.

Nuclear power in fact undermines climate protection and can only make a negligible contribution to carbon dioxide (CO2) reduction.

The nuclear industry would like us to believe that nuclear power offers a much better option for generating electricity because it does not release significant amounts of greenhouse gases or toxic pollution. However, nuclear power plants are not much of an improvement over conventional coal-burning power plants despite claims that nuclear is the “clean air energy.”

Uranium mining, milling, leaching, plant construction and decommissioning are all energy-intensive activities which produce substantial amounts of greenhouse gases. Taking into account the carbon-equivalent emissions associated with the entire nuclear life cycle, nuclear plants contribute significantly to climate change and will contribute even more as stockpiles of high-grade uranium are depleted.

Even assuming that the nuclear industry is the largest carbon-free energy source, as proponents claim, even if the industry quadruples its generating capacity, this would only reduce CO2 emissions from the energy sector by a mere six percent by 2050. Yet to achieve that, 1,300 large reactors would have to be built. That means one reactor every two weeks, starting from today to 2050, with investment costs reaching up to $10 trillion.

Add this to the insurmountable problem of radioactive nuclear waste whose toxicity lasts for 12,000 human generations, and nuclear energy is clearly not the right choice and should definitely not be part of any climate change strategy.

BEAU BACONGUIS, campaigns manager-Philippines, Greenpeace Southeast Asia (via email)



Copyright 2009 Philippine Daily Inquirer. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

To subscribe to the Philippine Daily Inquirer newspaper in the Philippines, call +63 2 896-6000 for Metro Manila and Metro Cebu or email your subscription request here.

Factual errors? Contact the Philippine Daily Inquirer's day desk.
Believe this article violates journalistic ethics? Contact the Inquirer's Reader's Advocate.
Or write The Readers' Advocate:

c/o Philippine Daily Inquirer
Chino Roces Avenue corner Yague and Mascardo Streets,
Makati City, Metro Manila, Philippines
Or fax nos. +63 2 8974793 to 94


Share

RELATED STORIES:

OTHER STORIES:



  ^ Back to top

© Copyright 2001-2009 INQUIRER.net, An INQUIRER Company

The INQUIRER Network: HOME | NEWS | SPORTS | SHOWBIZ & STYLE | TECHNOLOGY | BUSINESS | OPINION | GLOBAL NATION | Site Map
Services: Advertise | Buy Content | Wireless | Newsletter | Low Graphics | Search / Archive | Article Index | Contact us
The INQUIRER Company: About the Inquirer | User Agreement | Link Policy | Privacy Policy

Advertisement
Inquirer Mobile
Jobmarket Online
Inquirer VDO
BizLinq