Nuclear and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

From Pembina Institute Fact Sheet #1 May 2007

Click Here To View The Full Fact Sheet


Shouldn’t nuclear power be considered as an appropriate response to climate change?


Simply put, the answer is “no.”


Climate impact far from zero

Nuclear proponents frequently claim that nuclear power is a greenhouse gas (GHG) emission free source of energy. In reality, GHGs are released at each stage of the nuclear energy cycle. And while the GHG emission profile of nuclear power looks attractive when compared with conventional fossil fuel sources, it is far from zero.


Still, if nuclear power could offer a better GHG profile than conventional fossil fuel-based energy sources, shouldn’t it be considered as an appropriate response to climate change? Simply put, the answer is “no.”


Here are eight reasons why:


1.  We must address climate change without creating additional serious long-term

environmental problems.


2.  Nuclear can’t deliver the GHG emission reductions needed now and in the near

future to prevent dangerous climate change.


  1. 3. Nuclear is one of the most expensive options available for responding to climate change.


4.  Nuclear presents security, weapons proliferation and accident risks that are not

shared by any other options for addressing climate change.


5.  Existing uranium supplies can’t support a major nuclear expansion. Increasing the nuclear fuel supply (mining) also means additional environmental impacts as well as security and weapons proliferation risks. 


6.  Nuclear impedes the development of more sustainable options.


7.  Nuclear unreliability has lead to increased GHG emissions for Ontario.


  1. 8. There are safer, cleaner, more reliable and more affordable options available today for reducing GHG emissions.



To view full Fact Sheet, Click Here



  1. •Greenhouse gas emissions are released by nuclear power plant construction and maintenance, uranium mining, milling, refining, conversion and fuel fabication. Additional releases will occur in the course of facility decommissioning and the management of nuclear wastes.


  1. •Estimates of the total GHG emissions associated with the use of nuclear power vary widely depending on the assumptions made about the quality of uranium ore used as the basis of fuel, waste management and decommissioning requirements, and other factors. Recent estimates in relation to the use of nuclear power in Canada suggest a minimum of 840,000 tonnes CO2 per year.


• CO2 emissions and other environmental impacts would increase substantially if lower grade uranium ores are used as the basis of nuclear fuel.


Turning to nuclear power to address climate change would mean trading the problem of greenhouse gas emissions, for which a wide range of other solutions exist, for several complex and difficult problems for which solutions are generally much more costly and difficult — if they exist at all. 


Added to that, the history of poor performance, high costs and declining reliability that has been the real history of the CANDU nuclear program in Canada makes the idea of re-investing billions of dollars in nuclear energy look much less attractive than a simple comparison of GHG emissions from various

conventional energy sources might first suggest.





Proponents of nuclear energy often present the situation as a choice between expanding the role of nuclear power or risking blackouts and continuing on a business as usual path towards increasing GHG emissions and global climate change.


The reality is that we have a wide range of options for keeping the lights on while significantly reducing GHG emissions without having to resort to the high cost and high-risk nuclear path. A combination of energy efficiency improvements, fuel switching, low impact renewable energy sources, and high efficiency uses of natural gas can provide the foundation for a low GHG emission energy system. Those kinds of options should be the focus GHG reduction strategies and future energy policies.