Argument: It is simply unethical to invest in an industry that will leave the problems it creates to be dealt with for thousands of years into the future

Were humankind to stop all nuclear energy use tomorrow we, as a species, would have to deal with the repercussions of nuclear power for four times longer than human civilization has so far existed. Polluting our own age is one thing but to bequeath such a heritage to generations as yet unimagined let alone unborn. To give this some context, in the case of just one isotope, plutonium 239 – the most poisonous substance known to mankind – had the Ancient Egyptians used this as an energy source to build the pyramids we would still be dealing with it today and it would still have 235,000 years to go.

Candidate 1: "The nuclear industry around the world has always sought to improve the rights and protections of workers in uranium mines and to lessen the environmental impact of those mining activities [i] .

Compared to the environmental impact of coal and oil withdrawal, uranium is relatively harmless.

Compared to the space taken up by windfarms with their impact on the local environment and the devastation that can be caused by Hydroelectric, this is a low impact industry.

[i] Press Release. “Environmental Aspects of Uranium Mining”. World Nuclear Association. February 2011."
Candidate 2: "The costs of protecting oil supplies are significantly than any externalities created by the nuclear industry. In addition to which most sectors of the renewables industry have yet to even turn a dollar. Solar power, for example would have to compensate the enormous quantities of land it takes up to even cover its own costs [i] .

Of course there are externalities in the production of nuclear power, as there are in any other industry – especially the energy sector. If the oil industry had to carry the cost of wars in the Middle East or the reparations due for climate change it would be bankrupt tomorrow. If tidal power providers had to pay for the long term damage to coastlands, no-one would even think about floating a barrage.

By any standards nuclear is relatively cheaper and runs a much cleaner ship than most parts of the sector.

[i] Simon Grose. “False Dawn of Solar Power”. Cosmos. 25 October 2006."
Candidate 3: "All societies inherit problems from previous generations this age has acquired a global population that has increased seven-fold in the course of two generations and has a desperate need for energy. Nuclear power fills that need and consistently works to ensure that its byproducts are rendered harmless.

No industry has put more work into ensuring that it does not leave a mess behind it – nor is any industry under more scrutiny on the subject.

The Nuclear Industry has routinely accepted its responsibility to future generations in a way that other sectors of the mainstream energy sector have refused to."
Candidate 4: "It is useful to deal with the idea that nuclear is a CO2 free fuel. When the entire fuel cycle is considered then Nuclear power is a direct contributor to climate change emissions [i] .

It is then possible to add in additional carbon footprints such as the emissions caused by building and staffing a large plant.

It is also a question worth asking as to when climate change-related pollution became the only standard. There are plenty of other ways of polluting the environment and belching out irradiated gases into the ocean would seem to meet that standard.

[i] http://www.nirs.org/climate/climate.htm"
Candidate 5: "Nuclear power has, worldwide, received billions, if not trillions, of dollars of investment. By comparison the renewables industry has received tiny grants from central government and, despite a lack of funding and running forty years behind in terms of the attention of governments, it is holding its own with an expanding market share. As of the 8th of July 2011 the US was more reliant on renewable energy than nuclear [i] according to the Energy Information Administration.

All of this was accomplished despite massively disproportionate funding. According to the primary Congressional report on the subject:

“Energy research and development (R&amp;D) intended to advance technology played an important role in the successful outcome of World War II. In the post-war era, the federal government conducted R&amp;D on fossil fuel and nuclear energy sources to support peacetime economic growth. The energy crises of the 1970s spurred the government to broaden the focus to include renewable energy and energy efficiency. Over the 33-year period from the Department of Energy’s inception at the beginning of fiscal Year (FY) 1978 through FY2010, federal spending for renewable energy R&amp;D amounted to about 16% of the energy R&amp;D total, compared with 14% for energy efficiency, 26% for fossil, and 37% for nuclear. For the 63-year period from 1948 through 2010, nearly 12% went to renewables, compared with 9% for efficiency, 25% for fossil, and 50% for nuclear.” [ii] Put simply the renewables industry has been outspent but is still producing more energy in the world’s largest consumer.

[i] “US Renewable Energy Production Now Greater Than Nuclear”. Future of Energy Blog. 8 July 2011.

[ii] Fred Sissine. “Renewable Energy R&amp;D Funding History: A Comparison with Funding for Nuclear Energy, Fossil Energy, and Energy Efficiency R&amp;D”. Congressional Research Service. 26 January 2011."
Candidate 6: "It is interesting to note that the only places where nuclear energy has provided a dominant share of the national energy market are France, Russia, Canada (specifically Ontario) and now, increasingly China. All of which have heavily centralised energy markets.

Indeed the correlation between bureaucracy, the possession or desire for a nuclear arsenal and the use of overpriced nuclear energy appears to go beyond coincidence."

All societies inherit problems from previous generations this age has acquired a global population that has increased seven-fold in the course of two generations and has a desperate need for energy. Nuclear power fills that need and consistently works to ensure that its byproducts are rendered harmless.

No industry has put more work into ensuring that it does not leave a mess behind it – nor is any industry under more scrutiny on the subject.

The Nuclear Industry has routinely accepted its responsibility to future generations in a way that other sectors of the mainstream energy sector have refused to.
