Thanks, But We Still Don’t Need It

Monbiot thinks that the figures for the amount of concrete needed for a nuke station is not as high as The Ecologist puts it by a factor of about 10, and that there is probably more uranium in the earth's crust than estimated. However, at the end of the day, even if nukes could be shown to be appreciably better at low carbon emissions than oil, gas or coal ...

perhaps the strongest argument against nuclear power is that we do not need it, even to reach the extraordinarily ambitious target the science demands. With similar levels of investment in energy efficiency and carbon capture and storage, and the exploitation of the vast new offshore wind resources the government has now identified(13), we could cut our carbon emissions as swiftly and as effectively as any atomic power programme could.

Which is what I reckon I've pretty much always reckoned: renewables and efficiency are a better use of our money.
Monbiot.com � Thanks, But We Still Don’t Need It:
Filed in: nuclear, power, alternatives, energy, carbon, emissions