Why we need nuclear power (for now)

One of my first campaigns as an environmentalist was to put up posters one night with a friend in Switzerland against nuclear power. I am still not a fan of the risks it poses or the fact that we pass the nuclear waste to generations coming after us to look after. But I have changed my mind and here's why:

To me the absolutely scariest thing we can pass on to our children and subsequent generations is the changing climate we are causing by CO2 emissions. That takes absolute priority #1 for me. Reducing CO2 emissions must happen in many ways one of which HAS to include switching from CO2 producing energy generation to NON CO2 emitting sources. There are some realities I have to face as an environmentalist - as much as I don't like some of them. Here they are:

1. Replacing traditional power sources is a daunting task. Solar, wind, geothermal, etc might eventually do it but it will take time (decades) even if get working on it at a whole new level compared to now.

2. We only have so much political will and economic incentives to play with. That's just a reality we have to face. Globally leaders are now taking action to phase out nuclear power. But look at what's happening - more coal and natural gas will be burnt to make up for it. Even in Germany and Switzerland! (see here for example).

3. It is not realistic to expect to phase out nuclear AND all the other CO2 producing energy sources. We may wish it was but it isn't.

4. In places where hydro is not an option on a large scale you're left with wind and solar (mainly) as alternatives. Those are not adequate to totally replace coal and gas (what would happen on a windless night?). There always has to be a stable predictable component as part of the energy mix. Wind and solar don't provide that.

It makes me really mad actually that around the world we are now seeing a growing move away from nuclear because of Fukushima. Not because I believe that nuclear is without risks but because I believe the risk of climate change is far greater. Now instead of putting our meager resources towards fighting the global rise in CO2 we are fighting nuclear power. Nuclear power is scary in a spectacular sort of way - Chernobyl, Fukushima - but has in fact killed few people compared to what the predictions for climate change are. Even compared to how many people die from respiratory diseases caused by coal fired power plants probably. The fact is (for me anyways) that on balance I would much rather take the risks and potential for radioactive pollution over what climate change promises to bring... I really do. I am not alone either - the prominent environmentalist George Monbiot makes a very good argument too.

We need nuclear power. For now. Imagining that the world will actually switch of fossil fuel burning and nuclear at the same time is simply not realistic and it's dividing our resources that we need to fight climate change. That is the only issue that needs to be solve IMMEDIATELY. I know I am not winning this fight - nuclear is now clearly on the way out - environmentalists are rejoicing - but they are hoping for something that won't happen - the replacement of nuclear with an almost unimaginable investment in renewables.

Let me say this in conclusion though: I believe that the real future is not nuclear, but a mix of renewables produced much more locally (to reduce loss in transmission). Imagine every roof with solar panels, small wind turbines in many locations, all houses heated by geothermal energy, wave generators on oceans, and small dams on many rivers and creeks (with fish ladders of course). It will take time to get there though and until we're there we will need nuclear as well.