Nuclear debate

This is of course highly subjective so for those of you who have counter-arguments please post them below and I will try to answer to the best of my ability.


Long-term storing
In 2003 the United States had already accumulated 49 000 tons of nuclear waste. There is yet no policy regarding the final storage of this waste that will cease to pose a threat to public health and safety no sooner than after 10 000 years (United States Environmental Protection Agency). There is no way to guarantee what will happen in such a large timescale and what costs that will be inflicted upon future generations for the disposal of this waste (http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications/downloads/SDC-NuclearPosition-2006.pdf). In other words we produce radioactive waste that future generations will have to safeguard for thousands of years without being certain of the consequences on health and environment that this might involve.


Uranium
Just as coal, oil and natural gas uranium is a finite resource. According to IAEA the easily accessible uranium will be sufficient for another 40 or 50 years at the consumption rate that we are at right now. Thus, if uranium use increases the number of years that it will be available decreases.

International Security
Nuclear power plants in Sweden are required to follow numerous safety policies and are constantly inspected and kept under strict vigilance. The probability for an accident here is therefore very small even though the possibility can never be completely excluded. However, by using nuclear power ourselves we legitimize it. As long as Sweden is hosting nuclear power plants we have no right to tell other countries they cannot. These other countries might not have the political stability, the economical means or the corruption free administrative system that is required to keep the power plants in perfect condition. With fewer safety policies the risk of accidents naturally increases.

As it is now, nuclear power accidents are very unusual. However no one can say that there is not a risk and, taken into account the enormous environmental and social consequences of a possible accident, that risk is unacceptable.


Economy
“It is disquieting that a government in crisis isn’t capable of making an economically reasonable decision. According to the international energy agency a terawatt hour from nuclear is twice as expensive as a terawatt hour from wind power”.
http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/miljororelsen-kritisk-om-karnkraften-1.793562
It is commonly believed that nuclear is a cheap energy resource. However these positive estimations frequently contain hidden costs and fails for example to include expenses for final storage and dismantling of the reactors.

Weapons
Some people maintain that there is a link between the knowledge of nuclear technology for peaceful means and that for weapons. I am afraid that I do not know enough technical details to have an opinion on the matter but, there is no denying that states has used peaceful nuclear programs as a cover for nuclear weapon programs.

Energy efficiency
There is a large amount of energy to be gained from energy efficiency. According to a report from SWECO, commissioned by Naturskyddsföreningen, the energy consumption of Sweden could be halved by 2030. This is of course preferable to all other solutions as it favors both the economy and the environment.
http://www.naturskyddsforeningen.se/upload/Foreningsdokument/Rapporter/externa_rapporter/rapport_sweco_halvaenerginhelavalfarden.pdf (swedish).
Evidently, this is not something that is going to happen by itself. There needs to be different incentives for private persons as well as companies. Most of all the knowledge of the importance of these measures needs to be spread to all parts of society.
“To meet our carbon reduction targets, we will need much greater action to reduce energy demand. We are concerned that a new nuclear programme would give out the wrong signal to consumers, encouraging the impression that the challenge of climate change can be tackled by a large-scale technology fix. Greater use of decentralised, small-scale energy generating technologies helps to increase awareness of energy consumption and foster more sustainable behaviour.”
http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications/downloads/SDC-NuclearPosition-2006.pdf
This is the only solution there is in the long term. If we keep using more natural resources than the environment can contend with, we are going to have to pay for it in the future.

A good example where nuclear has contributed to drastically decreasing the resources for renewables is Finland. When deciding about the construction of a new power plant about six years ago the Finnish politicians promised that this would not affect investments in energy efficiency and renewables. However, in reality investments in renewables has become fewer and the electricity consumption continues to increase…
http://www.greenpeace.org/sweden/kampanjer/karnkraft/fraagor-och-svar-om-kaernkraft