How many times do we hear the litany about Nuclear Power? All we ever hear about is “safety” or the problems of disposal of radioactive waste. Throw in the threat from “terrorists” and the argument is complete. This view has been beaten into the public and remains a remarkably effective piece of anti-nuclear propaganda. Probably on the basis that it works. It scares the public therefore it is effective. If not entirely true.

Let’s get one thing straight – I am not pro-nuclear in any way. However, I would prefer the truth to be made a little more explicit. In fact the half-truths are a great illumination upon the state of our culture. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl have been great publicity for those who stand against Nuclear Power. Big headlines. Scary numbers. “Thousands Dead” screamed the headlines. Do you know how many people are known to have died of radiation from the Chernobyl disaster? It could be as low as 25 people. Do you know how many people died in the coal mining industry? Or, in fact, how many people die from inhaling wood smoke every year?

As a technology, and in absolute numbers, Nuclear Power historically is rather safer than most people imagine. So, what about disposal? Well, the total amount of really dangerous waste in the world is very small. The number of places to put it is very large. It is just that nobody wants it near them due to the irrational fear that they might grow two heads. There is nothing technically insurmountable about disposal or safety in a world with very few Fast Breeder Reactors.

You want to know the REAL problem? Nuclear Power (putting it really simply) is really, really expensive! All that safety and disposal costs a lot of money. However, given that Carbon is so under-priced we might find the economic arguments against Nuclear fading away. Sure, the reactors take a long time to build. But we have time enough. If we are quick.

So, what is the really, real reason? It isn’t renewable. How easily we forget this. Stocks of Uranium will only last 20 to 100 years. Longer than Fossil Fuels, but only a little. Of course we could build a lot of Fast Breeders and start making more fuel but those Reactors are far, far more dangerous than the regular type.

What should we do? Well, we need a lot of Solar Panels and Wind Turbines. These supply a very turbulent amount of power hence you need a baseline source. To make that low-CO2-baseline Power Source we either scrub the CO2 from conventional Power Stations chimneys and/or go Nuclear. If we go nuclear in the UK we are only going to be replacing the Stations that are in decommissioning. It is not a question of building Nuclear first and then add a few turbines as an afterthought. Nuclear will remain a small part of the MIX. And it is a MIX that is important. Renewables must always be FIRST. Then a mix of low-CO2 technology must follow. Nuclear will outlast Oil and Gas so it will probably be in the mix.

However, if someone can really convince me that Uranium extraction and processing creates more CO2 than it offsets then I would love to know where the baseline will come from in 30 years time…. We have a lot of work to do.