'New nuclear' energy: the great green rip-off
The government has told us that we need more nuclear power stations to combat climate change. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Nuclear power is incredibly expensive and incredibly dangerous. The New Economics Foundation estimates that to pay for building new reactors and processing their waste, nuclear power providers could increase our electricity bills by almost three times the industry estimate. So that's a hike from £45 a quarter to around £100.
Opting for ten new nuclear power plants is a quick fix solution that will leave us with a terrible legacy of cancer-causing radioactive waste that nobody knows what to do with.
If nuclear power is allowed to get a grip on the energy sector now it could kill off any hope of a viable, affordable market in truly renewable forms of energy.
Reports by Greenpeace, the New Economics Foundation, the Sustainable Development Commission, the Centre for Alternative Technology and many other respected organisations have outlined strategies for future energy provision that does not include nuclear power.
WE HAVE TO STOP THIS NOW BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE.
We want a future, not a disaster.
Joe Norman commented
I agree with the above - see also the excellent report: Zero Carbon Britain from the Centre for Alternative Technology. Another strong argument is that with current nuclear reactor technology we cannot decouple civil from military use. This leads to the situation we have with Iran and N.Korea (for example) where a nation can plausibly claim to need reactors and fuel enrichment for nuclear power while diverting material for building weapons. This is made worse by the fact that Britain clings to its unusable nuclear weapons.
Marianne Birkby commented
The greatest threat to food security is......nuclear contamination
When there are more radioactive isotopes in your food than vitamins -
tritium with your tea?
While there are doubts about going nuclear again surely the Localism Bill is a far greater threat. Shouldn't we be looking more at the Localism Bill? Cameron and co appear to believe we can build our way to prosperity which can only mean concrete on our fields. Our ability to feed ourselves (we already import nearly 50% of the food we eat) is putting us at far greater risk than nuclear power does. The worlds climate is changing and other nations have far more spending power on the world food markets than we now do. I don't support nuclear power but I believe there are other greater dangers.
David Jackson commented
To say Nuclear power is safe is like saying arsenic is safe
tony harding commented
The nuclear industry has a very poor reputation when it comes to telling us the truth. Don't let the government find a way to subsidise it again at our expense, and at the expense of research into safe renewable energy, which is where the future should lie.
Marianne Birkby commented
Following the failure of Nirex- in 1997 to dump nuke waste in Cumbria
the Pangea project was put forward for a high level waste dump in
Australia - BNFL (now NDA aka British Govnt) was one of the major backers. The proposal was thrown out by Australian state and federal parliaments in 2000. The Pangea Project no longer has a website but there is a leaked video This official short video outlines the need for "large flat, dry, remote areas" and rules out the idea of putting nuclear waste in areas where there is "high rainfall, permeable rocks, and mountains which would drive the water flow" Cue Cumbria - lied to and bribed - what good is money if the land is too radioactive to sustain life?
Gerry Wolff commented
Yes, nuclear power would be hopelessly uncompetitive without the subsidies it enjoys, see http://www.mng.org.uk/nsubsidies .
Graham Stocks commented
Sorry, that should have read 'Into Eternity'. The DVD is under a tenner from Amazon.
JAMES DAVIES commented
NO TO NUCLEAR
The nuclear industry has never resolved how to deal with the toxic waste, as a result the true financial cost can never be calculated.
This is crazy unless the issue of the waste is addressed first. I have children and grandchildren. Is this my legacy to them
Graham Stocks commented
Watch 'Into Infinity' a film 'for the future' by Michael Madsen. See www.dogwoof.com
Dr David Waddilove commented
Anyone in government circles notice Japan? Or were they too busy talking to EDF's public relations people at the time? Marketing tsunamis is not responsible.
diane jones commented
Nuclear energy is just the usual suspects looking to make money in the same totally irresponsible ways. EDF is using abusive means to ensure new nuclear build at Hinkley Point, and claiming it is"renewable".
David Polden commented
Nuclear power: dangerous, need to store highly radioactive waste securely for thousands of years, causes cancers in vicinity of nuclear power stations, yields plutonium that is used in nuclear weapons and thus facilitates nuclear weapons proliferation.
for every point made in favour of new build, there are enough against for any reasonable government would take heed of--instead the money and resources are to be wasted on nuclear
Herbert Eppel commented
A 750-page book describing the concept of a European renewable energy supergrid, which my translation team translated from an original German research thesis, has just been published by The Institution of Engineering and Technology - see www.theiet.org/books-scenarios
In this groundbreaking book, energy systems modelling expert Dr Gregor Czisch analyses electricity supply options for Europe and its neighbouring regions. He describes how our electricity supply could be structured in an optimally cost-effective manner largely based on currently available technologies. Czisch proposes that power plant usage and selection be optimised in a manner that takes full account of the availability and intermittency of renewables. To this end, the author provides a number of solutions entailing a wide range of thought-provoking scenarios. Czisch’s visionary study shows that a pan-European renewables-based supergrid using high-voltage DC lines extending into North Africa could supply an area spanning 50 countries with a combined population of 1.1 billion. The author demonstrates that such a supergrid would obviate the need for fossil fuels and nuclear power, and that its costs would be on a par with or perhaps even lower than our current electricity supply system.
Johnny Heriz-Smith commented
There is no credible strategy for disposing of waste which will remain lethally toxic long after civilization collapses.
D. Rothwell commented
Nuclear power is a dirty dangerous diversion.