I suggest a campaign about ...

'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.

1,594 votes
Vote
Sign in
Check!
(thinking…)
Reset
or sign in with
  • facebook
  • google
    Password icon
    I agree to the terms of service
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Nancy BirchNancy Birch shared this idea  ·   ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    394 comments

    Sign in
    Check!
    (thinking…)
    Reset
    or sign in with
    • facebook
    • google
      Password icon
      I agree to the terms of service
      Signed in as (Sign out)
      Submitting...
      • JudeJude commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        It's good to see all this renewed interest in anti-nuclear. We must keep bembarding our MPs about it though.....
        "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.." Edmund Burke

      • Mike TaylorMike Taylor commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Nothing in the nuclear process can be described as green or environmentally friendly, here near Sizewell we have the second largest mountain of legacy radioactive waste second only to Sellafield. Plans for more stations would be in an area of outstanding natural beauty,destroy and pollute our marine habitats for generations to come. Consume vast quantities of water town and sea water... The many alternatives would be better for us, our economy and our environment.

      • Steve MilnerSteve Milner commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        We can't let politicians fool us into believing that nuclear is a "green" option - it is not. Energy conservation and renewables are the way forward. Nuclear is just too dangerous - remember Chernobyl.

      • Bill FroogBill Froog commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        With a fraction of the backing, alternative sources are set to be able to satisfy our needs - if we don't blunder into the nuclear option propelled by fear and lack of thought for future generations. Let's learn from - and follow Japan..

      • Pete Rowberry, No Money 4 NuclearPete Rowberry, No Money 4 Nuclear commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        IThe government wishes to free future generations from debt and is undertaking huge cuts in expenditure to achieve this, yet is happy to hand over between £1 billion and £3 billion in the carbon floor pricing plan, to the nuclear industry for doing nothing, not saving a single gram of carbon pollution. It is also quite happy to leave just as important legacy, the requirement to manage nuclear waste for thousands of years to come. Stop this nonsense NOW!

      • Wendy BrookWendy Brook commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Research alternative sustainable energy before committing to a bleak nuclear future for our grandchildren. Imagine what they will have to face.

      • Wendy BrookWendy Brook commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Research alternative sustainable energy before committing to a bleak nuclear future for our grandchildren. Imagine what they will have to face.

      • Alan GledhillAlan Gledhill commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Nuclear energy generation is potentially devastatingly dangerous in operation, there remains no viable means to safely dispose of the waste, we do not know what the cost of disposal may be, the costs of storage are clearly extremely high but not transparent and the overal cost to the consumer and taxpayer is unacceptable. The sleight of hand by politicians in insisting there will be no taxpayer or public subsidy is dishonest, when the enormous and full cost of all aspects of generation, decommissioning, storage and eventual disposal will all fall on the consumer.

      • Dave at Vote For YourselfDave at Vote For Yourself commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        As posted previously, I live in Spain and in March 2011 over 40% of all their electricity came from wind/solar and hydroelectric, just 19% came from nuclear.

        Here's a link to the article: http://www.simplynetworking.es​/news-5836-31-alternative_ener​gy_becoming_a_viable_alternati​ve.html

        The only way we'll get rid of nuclear power is to wrest control from our government and introduce a Vote For Yourself Internet system for direct democracy. - look it up on Facebook.

        I'm sure that the public would rather spend the budget for new nuclear power stations on solar panel factories - and then train thousands of people to install them on every suitable roof in the country. This would negate the need for more nuclear power.

        Of course, it could be that our leaders just want to keep on producing weapons-grade plutonium...

      • Andrew BlowersAndrew Blowers commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Nuclear energy is a moral issue. It afflicts future generations, it imposes disproportionate risks on vulnerable communities, it diverts resources and energy from safer long term solutions and it encourages risks of diversion of dangerous materials and proliferation of nuclear risk. And there is no proven method of dealing with dangerous wastes which will pose harm into the far future. Everyone knows this, yet still we persist in this folly.

      • Joe NormanJoe Norman commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        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 BirkbyMarianne Birkby commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        The greatest threat to food security is......nuclear contamination

        When there are more radioactive isotopes in your food than vitamins -
        tritium with your tea?

      • PeterPeter commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        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.

      • tony hardingtony harding commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        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 BirkbyMarianne Birkby commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        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?

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjBSAlu0hjM

      • AnonymousAnonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        The nuclear industry has never resolved how to deal with the toxic waste, as a result the true financial cost can never be calculated.

      1 2 8 10 12 19 20

      Feedback and Knowledge Base