President Obama please take note - the clear case against nuclear
Jonathon Porritt, who chaired the Sustainable Develoment Commission in Britain that argued against nuclear expansion, makes a clear case in The Guardian as to why nuclear will derail meaningful efforts to employ conservation, energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies. After making the case for the renewable route, Porritt concludes that making the nuclear choice instead will:
"undoubtedly slow investment in new renewables. It will reassure politicians that they don't have to do the heavy lifting required to put energy efficiency at the heart of any strategy. It will weaken efforts to move towards localised distributed energy solutions (why else do you think the industry and pro-nuclear civil servants fought so hard against feed-in tariffs for so many years?), and it will "lock us in" to today's hugely inefficient generation and transmission system for the next 40 years or so.
"And the tragedy is it won't make much difference anyway – even if the reactors do eventually get built after inevitable delay. If every OECD country follows this route, instead of pursuing the alternative mapped out above, then emissions of greenhouse gases will keep rising at a dangerously fast level, average temperatures will soar, the Greenland ice cap will melt far faster than anticipated – and all those shiny new reactors will be several metres under water. Oh, for a little bit of realism."