Get all your news in one place.
100's of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
The Guardian - UK
The Guardian - UK
Environment
Letters

Nuclear option is not the best for energy transition away from Russian fuels

Artist's impression of the Swansea tidal lagoon project
‘There is already an ‘oven-ready’ Swansea tidal lagoon project, fully costed. The government failed to back it in 2018.’ Photograph: Tidal Lagoon Power/PA

Agreed, Russian gas bad – but George Monbiot’s attack on Germany, Europe’s largest economy, seems deeply misplaced (It’s not too late to free ourselves from this idiotic addiction to Russian gas, 9 March). The German energy transition is all about replacing conventional power plants, fissile as well as fossil fuel, with renewables. Looking at both short- and mid-term energy scenarios, Germany decided that the costs and risks of keeping nuclear outweighed the limited benefits. Meanwhile, worldwide, renewables are exponentially ramping up, and nuclear declining.

Global renewable electricity capacity is forecast to increase by over 60% between 2020 and 2026, reaching more than 4,800GW. This is equivalent to the current global power capacity of fossil fuels and nuclear combined. And here’s the killer: Russia produces about 35% of the world’s enriched uranium for nuclear reactors, and the EU’s uranium imports from Russia equal those from Niger, at 2,545 tonnes. The Fukushima disaster made Monbiot pro-nuclear and now military attack on nuclear in Ukraine makes him even more so. Good luck with that.
Dr Paul Dorfman
Associate fellow, Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100's of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
One subscription that gives you access to news from hundreds of sites
Already a member? Sign in here
Our Picks
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.