'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.
"a safe and clean source of energy" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ?????????There are none so blind and deaf as those who don't wish to see or hear the truth.
Read this and then tell me I'm a scare-monger.
By the way, Britain has regular earthquakes and has had a tsunami before.
D Tizzle commented
If we're serious about combatting climate change we need to use every technology we have. It's already too late to stop it, and we need to act quickly to do mitigate the effects. I don't see the sense of attacking a clean and safe source of energy as environmentalists. I'm not particularly pro-nuclear, but because it's a waste of money, not because of the 'dangers'. The environmental anti-nuclear arguments are ideologically-based, products of scaremongering and totally unfounded. There is no risk of an earthquake in the UK, and more chance of a comet destroying us than one on the scale of that in Japan hitting. The technology is completely safe. Even the Japan quake, as Monbiot has pointed out, couldn't dream of having as serious an impact as coalmining and coal-fired power stations would and do, which are certain to be its replacement in reality.
We do need to promote renewables as the number 1 alternative but unless we cover the entire island in windfarms they simply won't do the job quickly enough. Simple as that.
So why attack nuclear so vociferously? It's a negative argument when there are many more important issues to be campaigning on which have a rational basis.
From 'The Guardian' today. Is this what we want more of in the future?
"Radiation fears have prevented authorities from collecting the bodies of as many as 1,000 people living in the evacuation zone who died in the 11 March earthquake and tsunami.
Kyodo news agency cited police sources as saying the corpses had been exposed to high radiation levels and would probably have to be decontaminated before they could be collected and examined by doctors.
Left as they were, the bodies could pose a health threat to relatives identifying them at morgues, the agency said. Cremating them could create radioactive smoke, while burying them could contaminate soil."
....and in other places in the UK
Dave at Vote For Yourself commented
To all the "nuclear is safe" people, don't suppose you'll be rushing to Glasgow:
Traces of radioactive iodine thought to be from the damaged and unstable Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan have been detected in Britain. An air sampler in Glasgow picked up the particles.
Anyone who thinks that nuclear power is safe in ANY regard must be insane. that's the only possible explanation for such an opinion. We keep being told about our exposure to "every day radiation" being less than whatever, but that is a different kind of radiation to that made in a power station reactor. We already have enough causes of cancer in the world. We don't need more!!
Joe U235 commented
si richards commented
These power stations hold such potential for harm that all plans to build them should be abandoned. Energy reduction and efficiency should be high on the political list. Say no to nuclear, once they are built, they will be here for a long time
This is worth reading too
I heard someone today say how safe our nuclear power stations are, and that the next generation of them will be even safer! Also that our new power stations will be stronger and backup emergency power supplies will be superior.They all live in cloud cuckoo land...
Oh yes, and they also said that we (in Britain) aren't expecting any earthquakes or tsunamis.
Can anyone guarantee that?
Have a look at this Joe U235 or anyone else who is sceptical about renewable energy, why pay fuel bills to a multinational company that is going to poison your backyard for generations, when you could have a SAFE cheap local source of power generation? We have the technology and it would create permanent local jobs and affordable lives as the control of the energy would be decentralised:
Thanks Jude, the truth must be laid bare,and justice has to be done, the nuclear industry must be stopped, children not yet born will pay the terrible price for the arrogance and stupidity of a few men
I send applause to Ornella and Marrianne and agree with every word
Joe U235 "When managed properly it can be a safe and reliable source of power." Well sorry but it's not managed properly, Fukushima being an excellent example, also why don't you check the governments own Sustainable development committee's report's conclusion that we are, as an island in a prime position to produce enough energy with renewables. Nuclear is not safe, not cheap, not green. Radioactivity destroys the very fabric of life, electricity production is the civil smokescreen for military weapons such as depleted uranium and uranium weapons that are poisoning the DNA of life and are causing the most horrific birth deformities in Iraq and Afghanistan.Also we must not dismiss low level radiation and its impact on communities living around nuclear power stations (kikk report). Yea and as you have pointed out decommissioning these plants would need more electricity...and we would have to manage the most poisonous man made substance for centuries...so why build more of these monsters, it doesn't make economic or environmental sense!
Marianne Birkby commented
CASTLES IN THE AIR - RADIOACTIVE PARTICLES IN THE SAND
Children ARE dancing on the waste .....
Each tide that washes into the coasts of Cumbria brings radioactive particles. The latest "discovery" of measurable "alpha-rich" particles was found on the beach near Workington on December 12, 2010, the local authority was only told this month. The Environment Agency monitor a small part of the Cumbrian coast from Silecroft to Solway - so far they have "detected and removed more than 1,200 radioactive items."
Allerdale Council Agenda 2nd March 2011
Radioactive Particles hidden under "Other" on page 19
How many more radioactive particles can humanity take?
Tsunami's are not unknown in Britain. Just because we haven't had one in our lifetime.......
I live on a fault line not a million miles from Oldbury nuclear power station
Andy Kent commented
I used to say, when the next generation of children can dance on the waste, I'll support it.
With radiocative clouds heading towards Canada, the recent news clearly demonstrates such support would be unfounded.
Elisabeth Winkler commented
Nuclear is not necessary.
Nuclear, no more.
Andrew Sherwood commented
I heard a professor ( Sorry Can't remember his name) on radio 5 talking about the disaster in Japan. The Interviewer asked well we aren't at risk of a tsunami are we? He replied that there was a Horizon programme on BBC2 a few years back and they were saying that one of the Canary islands is forecast to blow up and the side of the mountain will be blown into the sea. If this happens it will hit numerous nuclear power stations on the west and southern coast of the UK. There is also a glacier in Norway that is forecast to shed an enormous amount of ice and this will potentially cause a tsunami. If and when these happen it will be devastating but the nuclear power stations will make the disaster much worse.
We do not need nuclear power if they invested as much in green technology as nuclear power we would be much better placed. It isn't only the legacy of the nuclear waste for thousands of years they do not count the amount of carbon gases produced whilst building and decommissioning the power stations.
Micro-generation has to be part of the answer with local communities producing energy from wind, hydro,solar and ground and air source heat pumps.
SAY NO TO NUCLEAR-Boycott any company investing in it.
Joe, I think you live on a different planet to the rest of us! You obviously close your eyes and ears to the real world. I don't want to leave a radioactive world to my grandchildren, and if that means using less electricity, so be it.
Hundreds if not thousands of people are going to die as a result of the tragedy in Japan. Don't they count?
Or is it like the CEGB top man once said, "a few deaths are acceptable and worth it in the long run, and the price we have to pay." ? How would you like that "acceptable" death to be your grandchild?