We need a rapid and substantial decrease in our carbon emissions to deal with climate change. Nuclear power cannot deliver that. Our existing nuclear power stations provide just 20% of the electricity that we use and that is only 8% of our overall energy needs (a lot of the rest of our demand for energy comes from transport and industry). Currently, there is an unrealistic focus on nuclear power as a magical solution to climate change. Even if we doubled the UK’s nuclear power production, our carbon emissions would only be reduced by 8%. In reality, nuclear power production is dirty, expensive and a uniquely risky business with the potential for catastrophic consequences.

Nuclear power stations produce lower carbon emissions than coal or gas-fired power stations. But, when the whole nuclear power cycle is taken into account (including uranium mining, processing, transportation, power station construction and decommissioning), renewable sources of energy and energy efficiency measures and technologies produce far less carbon emissions. Moreover, the world only has a limited amount of high quality uranium ore – maybe not more than 50 years’ worth and less if there is a big global increase in nuclear power. Mining lower quality ore will increase carbon emissions because it is more difficult to extract and so requires more energy.

No other technology in common use has as great a destructive potential as nuclear power. Reactor accidents such as at Chernobyl can pollute whole continents for decades – hundreds of British farms still have to still be monitored due to the fallout 20 years on. Those wishing to cause maximum loss of life and disruption would see attacking a nuclear power station as an attractive option. Risks can be minimised, but whilst a disastrous incident at any other type of power station would be very localised, the scale of devastation due to a nuclear accident could make a large area uninhabitable for generations.

Despite over 50 years of nuclear power in the world there is still no safe storage solution for the enormous amount of nuclear waste that has already been produced. Britain has not even begun detailed planning of a waste store, which will take decades to construct. Large volumes of highly radioactive – and lethally toxic waste will remain a danger for hundreds of thousands of years – many times longer than the whole of human history. Having even more new nuclear power stations will mean leaving an even greater legacy of this poisonous waste for future generations to deal with.
Trying to predict a realistic cost for nuclear waste storage is extremely difficult. Plans in the UK for an underground site are still just on paper – no location has yet been found. There is no knowing if an underground store would retain its structural integrity over the extremely long timescale that is needed – hundreds of thousands of years – especially when you take into account any future geological events like earthquakes.

Nuclear power stations have only ever been built with huge subsidies of taxpayers’ money. Our nuclear power industry has cost us tens of billions of pounds over the last 50 years. Decommissioning old nuclear power stations is costing us over £70 billion and rising fast. This means that economic benefits may only ever be gained by the shareholders of the nuclear power companies. There is not a big pot of money to pay for nuclear power and renewable energy and efficiency technologies, so having nuclear power in the mix means that money cannot be spent elsewhere.
Government promises that new nuclear power stations will not be subsidised are hollow. The taxpayer will pay for insurance in case of accidents and security measures such as armed nuclear police to secure the sites from terrorist attacks. The taxpayer will also probably have to pay for increased coastal defences because new nuclear power stations are likely to be built on old coastal sites identified as being at increased risk of flooding – especially as the effects of climate change take hold.

Nuclear weapons and nuclear power share a common technological basis. Skilled workers and continuing research are beneficial for both industries. The process of enriching uranium to make it into fuel for nuclear power stations can be a step towards further enriching it to make nuclear weapons. Used fuel (spent nuclear fuel) from nuclear power stations can be separated out to recover any usable elements such as uranium and plutonium through a method called reprocessing. Plutonium is a by-product of the nuclear fuel cycle and can also be used to make nuclear weapons.
Whilst the UK has enough plutonium to produce over 13,000 bombs from the civil stockpile alone, other countries now being encouraged to develop nuclear power may build-up reserves and use it for weapons at some future point.