Nuclear power plants need plentiful water for cooling so are usually near the sea or on rivers. .......With sea levels likely to rise for at least the next 1,000 years, bolstering the flood defences of the world's many coastal reactors looks set to become a more costly and time-consuming job -- one that could last for centuries...............

Nor are inland river-cooled reactors invulnerable to global warming. Hot weather makes it difficult to keep them cool and operate safely. The hotter it gets, the more frequently they may have to close, just when power demand is highest

Scientists Question Case For Nuclear Power
Red Orbit 2 May 2008 - "Australian researchers are challenging the argument for nuclear power as a replacement for fossil fuels, citing rising greenhouse gas emissions from uranium mining.

The researchers said that over time the availability of high-grade uranium ore would decline, making the fuel less environmentally friendly and more costly to extract.A substantial portion of nuclear power's greenhouse emissions occurs during the fuel supply stage, which includes uranium mining, milling, enrichment and fuel manufacturing. Carbon emissions also take place during the construction and decommissioning of manufacturing plants.

The scientists based their analysis on recent financial and technical reports, historical records and analyses of CO2 emissions. Experts say it is the first analyses to include detailed information on the environmental costs incurred along all points of the nuclear energy chain.

Green Left Jim Green
3 May 2008 - "Nuclear power must be rejected as a climate change abatement strategy for three major reasons: a doubling of nuclear power would reduce global greenhouse emissions by no more than about 5%. A much larger expansion of nuclear power would deplete conventional uranium reserves in a few decades.
In addition, there are the serious hazards of nuclear power, in particular the contribution of "civil" nuclear programs to the proliferation of nuclear weapons - the most destructive weapons ever devised.

Third, the availability of a plethora of clean energy options - renewable energy sources plus energy efficiency and conservation measures - means that we can meet energy demand and sharply reduce greenhouse emissions and therefore obviate any "need" for nuclear power……………………………..The simplistic view that nuclear power alone can "solve" climate change is already out the window. Nuclear power is used almost exclusively for electricity generation..................."

Nuclear power is no simple carbon fix Redding.com news Thomas Elias April 29, 2008 - "………………….Another problem is nuclear waste, for which no answer is in the offing. For decades, spent fuel from most American nuclear power plants went to points in South Carolina and Washington state. But those dumps are at or near capacity and most waste both in this country and around the world is now stored at or near the places where it is produced.

So far, no country has built a deep geological repository for radioactive waste and certainly no American site is in prospect anytime soon..........................radioactivity from Yucca Mountain might trickle into underground water supplies that eventually flow to the Colorado River, and thus pollute much of California's and Arizona's water supply for generations to come.

Yucca Mountain is also highly unpopular in Nevada itself, and every Democratic presidential candidate this year pledged it would not be used for spent fuel. Republican John McCain was less definite about that, even though water earmarked for his home state of Arizona could be affected..........

Questioning nuclear power's ability to forestall global warming Science Centric Source: American Chemical Society 21 April 2008

Rising energy and environmental costs may prevent nuclear power from being a sustainable alternative energy source in the fight against global warming, according to a study in the 1 April issue of ACS' Environmental Science and Technology, a semi-monthly journal.

In the article, Gavin M. Mudd and Mark Diesendorf investigate the 'eco-efficiency' of mining and milling uranium for use as fuel in nuclear power plants. Advocates of nuclear power claim it has the potential to mitigate global warming. Detractors, however, link it to dangers such as proliferation of nuclear weapons and problems such as permanent disposal of nuclear waste.......................

.............'The extent of economically recoverable uranium, although somewhat uncertain, is clearly linked to exploration effort, technology and economics but is inextricably linked to environmental costs, such as energy, water, and chemicals consumption, greenhouse gas emissions and broader social issues,' the authors say. 'These issues are critical to understand in the current debate over nuclear power, greenhouse gas emissions, and climate change, especially with respect to ascribing sustainability to such activities as uranium milling and mining.'

Study - nuclear power no panacea for global warming African Energy News Review 15 April 2008 A study published in a peer-reviewed nuclear journal suggests that nuclear power cannot be used as a replacement for coal in order to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, as the process is a significant source of carbon emissions The study, which was published in the International Journal of Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology, suggests that significant problems that cannot be overcome prevent nuclear power from being used to reduce climate change emissions.

According to physicist Joshua Pearce, each step in the current process contributes to greenhouse gas emissions and unless production increases by more than 10% per year by 2050, new nuclear power plants will feed off of existing plants rather than actually generating energy.

Pierce warns that various technical constraints make this an unsustainable prospect................................"

Earth Hour" goes global By Michael Perry and Jeremy Lovell Mar 29, 2008 SYDNEY/LONDON (Reuters) -" People switched off lights around the world on Saturday, dimming buildings, hotels, restaurants and bars to show concern at global warming. Up to 30 million people were expected to have switched off their lights for 60 minutes by the time "Earth Hour" - which started in Suva in Fiji and Christchurch in New Zealand -- has completed its cycle westwards against the sun.Thousands of towns and cities and 3,500 businesses in 35 countries signed up for the campaign that is in its second year after it began in 2007 in Sydney alone................................................

"Earth Hour shows that everyday people are prepared to pull together to find a solution to climate change. It can be done," said James Leape of WWF International which was running the campaign.
Organisers of Earth Hour said that while switching off a light for one hour would have little impact on carbon emissions, the fact that so many people were taking part showed how much interest and concern at the climate crisis had taken hold........................."

Producing nuclear energy is anything but green
The Buffalo News By Judith Einach
March 23, 2008 - "Government administrators and industry loyalists call nuclear power a green alternative. They fail to admit that the entire fuel cycle, including mining and milling uranium, producing fuel rods, building nuclear power plants and dealing with nuclear wastes is anything but green. These processes use so much fossil fuel that the words describing the amount are outside our common vocabulary.
Nuclear power is the most dangerous way to boil water. Nuclear fission produces heat that boils water that in turn powers generators that produce electricity. Everything leading up to and following that process is fossil fuel intensive or a threat to health and safety.

....................................Nuclear power is neither reliable nor economical. It produces base-load power, lacking the flexibility to meet peak demand. It's dangerous to power up a nuclear plant quickly. Without this flexibility, nuclear power is primarily useful during the night when there is little demand for electricity.

Nuclear plants depend on fresh water to cool reactors. We see water diversions in the South taking water from people and thirsty crops to avoid a nuclear plant meltdown. Nuclear power has huge negatives, yet $150 billion of taxpayer money was given to the nuclear industry. The choice to do this is about power, not about green energy..........................................."

We're doomed Outside the beltway Dave Schuler , March 10, 2008 "…………………..Using advanced computer models to factor in deep-sea warming and other aspects of the carbon cycle that naturally creates and removes carbon dioxide (CO2), the scientists, from countries including the United States, Canada and Germany, are delivering a simple message: The world must bring carbon emissions down to near zero to keep temperatures from rising further. ……………………..Are there any plans on the table that would solve the problem quickly enough? ……………

…………I don't think that nuclear power will provide a solution in the time required. It took 25 years to build the last nuclear power plant to come online in the U. S. I believe that a crash program to build nuclear power plants would meet with opposition so overwhelming it would make the reaction to our invasion of Iraq look miniscule, only with Bechtel playing the part of Halliburton in the anti-nuke protests. …………..Rather than debate whether there's a problem, what do you say that we talk about solving the stated problem in the timeframe required? ....................................."

Nuclear Power Not Efficient Enough To Replace Fossil Fuels, Study Finds
ScienceDaily (Mar. 5, 2008) - "Nuclear energy production must increase by more than 10 percent each year from 2010 to 2050 to meet all future energy demands and replace fossil fuels, but this is an unsustainable prospect. According to a report published in Inderscience's International Journal of Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology such a large growth rate will require a major improvement in nuclear power efficiency otherwise each new power plant will simply cannibalize the energy produced by earlier nuclear power plants. Physicist Joshua Pearce of Clarion University of Pennsylvania has attempted to balance the nuclear books and finds the bottom line simply does not add up. There are several problems that he says cannot be overcome if the nuclear power option is taken in preference to renewable energy sources.

For example, the energy input required from mining and processing uranium ore to its use in a power plant that costs huge amounts of energy to build and operate cannot be offset by power production in a high growth scenario. There are also growth limits set by the grade of uranium ore. "The limit of uranium ore grade to offset greenhouse gas emissions is significantly higher than the purely thermodynamic limit set by the energy payback time," he explains.

In addition, nuclear power produces a lot of heat as a byproduct and this directly heats the Earth. This is only a relatively small effect, but as energy consumption grows it must be taken into consideration when balancing the energy equation

However, it is the whole-of-life cycle analysis that Pearce has investigated that shows nuclear power is far from the "emission-free panacea" claimed by many of its proponents. Each stage of the nuclear-fuel cycle including power plant construction, mining/milling uranium ores, fuel conversion, enrichment (or de-enrichment of nuclear weapons), fabrication, operation, decommissioning, and for short- and long-term waste disposal contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, he explains............................................".

Trail of Nuclear Tears, Exposong Nuclear's Horrid Truths (Part one) OpEd News.com June 18, 2007 - ".................................There is no bigger myth within the nuclear energy than their claim that nuclear energy and commercial reactors are and environmentally friendly CO2 source of electricity. From the very beginning of the uranium fuel cycle, the massive creation of and dumping of CO2 into our environment begins, as well as a trail of far deadly contaminants.

First, you have to get the uranium out of the ground...uranium mining is very equipment intensive, and the large pieces of equipment use MASSIVE amounts of fossil fuels. Further, it takes tons and tons of of ore containing trace amounts of uranium to get enough actual raw uranium to be of any use. This means said materials have to be carted to processing plants...again, said transporting of such vast quantities of these raw start up materials burn up vast amounts of carbon based fuels, adding to nuclear CO2 contributions to Global Warming.

Once the materials have been mined, they then must be milled, or crushed. These milling operations are usually fairly close to the mines. Once the materials are crushed, various impurities are removed (creating vast amounts of waste), and the end product of this segment of the processing creates what is known as yellowcake. This yellow cake is then packaged into 55 gallon drums, and is ready...TO BE SHIPPED AGAIN, thus using even more fossil fuels.........Depending on the country, and enrichment means to be used, the uranium trioxide goes through even more processing at a conversion plant......At this point, the materials are ready...TO BE SHIPPED AGAIN, this time to a fuel fabrication facility

.........................Factor in the building of the nuclear facilities, and the vast amount of fossil fuels that will be burned in decommissioning, and it is obvious who the major contributor to Global Warming really is.

It would be nice if this was the end of nuclear energy's CO2 contributions to the environment, but it is not. It would be nice if these CO2 emissions were the only contaminants and contributions to Global Warming that nuclear reactors created, but sadly, it is but the tip of the iceberg.

The fuel rods as one example still have to be SHIPPED to the reactor sites. Again, additional fossil fuels being burned up, and we have not seen one watt of electrical energy produced as of yet....".

Climate change puts nuclear energy into hot water - Could climate change be the latest jinx on nuclear power? International Herald Tribune By James Kanter May 20, 2007 PARIS:"................there is a less well-known side of nuclear power: It requires great amounts of cool water to keep reactors operating at safe temperatures. That is worrying if the rivers and reservoirs which many power plants rely on for water are hot or depleted because of steadily rising air temperatures.

If temperatures soar above average this summer - let alone steadily increase in years to come, as many scientists predict - many nuclear plants could face a dilemma: Either cut output or break environmental rules, in either case hurting their reputation with customers and the public.

Governments and the energy industry are just starting to grasp the vulnerabilities of water-hungry power plants. If the complications prove serious in countries where inland sources of water are growing scarce, where seafront nuclear stations are unwelcome or impractical and where alternative cooling technologies are too expensive, it could take the bloom off of nuclear as a source of clean energy and leave it more unclear than ever where sizable new power supplies might come from.

We're going to have to solve the climate-change problem if we're going to have nuclear power, not the other way around' said David Lochbaum, a nuclear engineer who is with the Union of Concerned Scientists.'As the climate warms up, nuclear power plants are less able to deliver,' he said.

France relies on nuclear power more than any other country and is held up by advocates of nuclear power as a model for how to generate enough cheap and reliable electricity to sell surpluses abroad while reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

But global warming is exposing France to new risks..................

Officials at Électricité de France have been preparing for a possible rerun of a ferocious heat wave that struck during 2003, the hottest summer on record in France, when temperatures of some rivers rose sharply and a number of reactors had to curtail output or shut down altogether.

In countries like Australia, where the government is considering introducing nuclear power, and the United States, which gets about a fifth of its electricity from nuclear power, some officials and operators warn of similar pitfalls if plants are built in areas where there already are water shortages........."

Nuclear power process contributes to CO2 pollution - USA Today 24 May 07 Mark Donham - Brookport, Ill - "A nuclear plant itself may not generate greenhouse gases, but that distinction is meaningless because the process required to create the fuel - from the mining of the uranium to the waste disposal - does create carbon dioxide pollution, according to a recent report by the Oxford Research Group.

There is no easy way to change the fact that nuclear power is dependent upon fossil fuels. Nuclear power is not the answer to our power problems, but renewable energy is a good solution. We need to get serious about ending wasteful usage and institute an immediate program that uses wind and solar power whenever possible. We can make a huge difference. To see change, we need national dedication equivalent to that of our country during World War II. We need to do it now..............................."

Nuclear power faces stormy seas threat- Alert Net By Daniel Fineren LONDON, Jan 31 (Reuters) - "Dozens of nuclear power reactors around the world could be threatened by rising sea levels and violent storms......

Nuclear power plants need plentiful water for cooling so are usually near the sea or on rivers. All of the UK's operational plants, most of Japan's and many in the United States are on the coast......With sea levels likely to rise for at least the next 1,000 years, according to a United Nations report to be published on Friday, bolstering the flood defences of the world's many coastal reactors looks set to become a more costly and time-consuming job -- one that could last for centuries...............

.Nor are inland river-cooled reactors invulnerable to global warming. Hot weather makes it difficult to keep them cool and operate safely. The hotter it gets, the more frequently they may have to close, just when power demand is highest."