'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.
Nancy Birch
shared this idea
384 comments
-
andy andrews
commented
we dont need more nucler
-
Katy Attwater
commented
If you go to www.noneedfornuclear.org.uk you will see the falseness of government claim "the only way to stop the lights going out is nuclear".
People who live in the villages around Hinkley Point who have lost children and loved ones to leukemia and cancer already feel as if their lights have gone out. -
Tim B
commented
That's the first time I've ever heard nuclear power billed as a "quick fix solution" - brilliant!
Whilst I'd happily vote for this campaign, the only feasible way of meeting our ever increasing demands for energy is either by building more nuclear, or more fossil fuel power stations. Given the current hoo-ha about carbon emissions (nevermind the seemingly ever increasing oil price) nuclear is the only way we're going to be able to stop the lights going out in <10 yrs time.
The only way we can avoid this is if EVERYONE starts to reduce their reliance upon energy. How many people voting for this cause... have an iPod, sometimes leave their TV on stand-by, have two cars in their household, turn on/up the heating rather than putting on a jumper, fly on holiday etc etc...
Maybe once alternative technologies become more feasible in the future they will start to replace nuclear, but until then one more batch of nuclear stations is NEEDED to bridge the gap in energy demand.
-
Ino
commented
we don't want it! ok? get it!
-
Christine McCabe
commented
It can never be 'clean'......all those children's graves around Sellafield.
-
dave
commented
its a bloody farce all the goverments corrupt and selfish greedy idiots
-
Ino
commented
The Department of Environment and Climate change is colluding with the government and the Nuclear Industry to lie to the people of the UK. Their CONsultation is a farce, thoroughly undemocratic and obscured to the majority of the British public. The whole process of extracting Uranium and turning it into plutonium plus the whole "decommissioning" of a nuclear power station requires a highly carbon intensive programme. EDF the French Nuclear company is 44 billion Euros in debt to the French government and 34 of its 58 Nuclear reactors in France have been found to have a design fault... doesn't exactly inspire confidence does it? And of course THERE IS NO SOLUTION FOR NUCLEAR WASTE! And all we are going to get is 60 years worth of electric out of Hinkley C ...it makes no sense, economically or environmentally...
-
wendy agoglia
commented
it must be stopped
-
PCAH
commented
In Somerset we know how expensive and dangerous nuclear power is. People here have been dying from inhaling poisonous gases from Hinkley Point nuclear site since 1966, one year after the magnox reactors became operational.
EDF are now trying to bully the government into subsidising two new EPR reactors which are even more dangerous and expensive than the two magnox and two AGRs we've already got. Decommissioning is now causing deaths from a new range of emissions including Caesium 137 which weakens muscle and affects the brain causing strokes and brain tumours. None of the regulatory bodies the taxpayer is funding lifts a finger to stop any of these crimes. -
PCAH
commented
In Somerset we know how expensive and dangerous nuclear power is. People here have been dying from inhaling poisonous gases from Hinkley Point nuclear site since 1966, one year after the magnox reactors became operational.
EDF are now trying to bully the government into subsidising two new EPR reactors which are even more dangerous and expensive than the two magnox and two AGRs we've already got. Decommissioning is now causing deaths from a new range of emissions including Caesium 137 which weakens muscle and affects the brain causing strokes and brain tumours. None of the regulatory bodies the taxpayer is funding lifts a finger to stop any of these crimes. -
nikkinomad commented
NUCLEAR POLLUTION IS A FALSE SOLUTION
My goodness there's some propoganda on here - "new reactor create less waste" - are you having a laugh??? NNB waste will be five times more radioactive than current wastes and so hot that they cant even be transported anywhere. When they eventually would be transportable IF we had a GDF (NOWHERE IN THE WORLD DOES YET!) it would take significanlty more space than legacy waste.@ the person on here complaining about what everybody is against. The camapigns against renewables are broadly based in pro-nuclear propoganda first begun by Sir Bernard Ingham who has a financial interest in the nuclear industry.
As for being against things the point that you miss is that sustainable development is a very specific set of conditions and the title does not apply to a technology just because it exists. This is why Government continually gets it wrong. The mind set that creates a problem is rarely the mind set that solves it. Bio fuels are only sustainable when they are produced in the country where they are going to be used or are genuine post conusmer waste such as chip fat etc. Wind farms if huge & imposed on communities for private profit have a downside (although its still considerably less than nuclear)
Decentralised, community owned energy solutions with technologies such as CHP and energy conservation are all examples of the way forward. Check out zero carbon Britain & Energy [r]evolutions for acheivable ways we can cut GHG emmissions by 2050 WITHOUT Nuclear.
As for population growth, whilst humans will at some point reach our carrying capapcity right now thats not our problem - consumption is and consumption for consumptions sake - ergo captialsim most definitely is.
Its time to put a stuff to mindless consumerism and self interest, it does nothing for our well-being as humans, bring back ALTRUISM.
-
oRNELLA sAIBENE
commented
The government is carrying out a pretend public consultation, it shows how very few people know what they are up to,if this petition vote is so low on 38 degrees please, those of you who are aware get people voting!!!
-
oRNELLA sAIBENE
commented
More like glowing green than "going green"
-
Steve Baker
commented
The only question is " Have you been able to continually reduce your energy demands and still stay ahead of the game?"
Until we can do that we are trapped in the ever extending loop. -
Tom Cuthbert
commented
Like nuclear weapons,deterrence,bankers bonusses etc we are seeing that
much of our energy policy is based on a huge fraud decided by a minority with a vested interest. Change has to come sooner rather than later and the poverty that the Condem Government is imposing will be one of the final straws on the backs of us 'the camels' carrying the burden of a debt which is not of our creation.Rip off energy bills are a big part of that fraud. There's is a groundswell of discontent that will show on March 26th but it can't end there. All of us in towns, villages communities
large and small must grumble and moan until we get that change and energy policy must be high on the list, nuclear is simply unaffordable, unsustainable
and must be stopped. The message must be heard by those with elected power but more important all of us must build that mood for change everyday in everyway. Yes we can.The problem lies in absurd and superficial decisions taken in the past the most recent being by Blair,Brown and now Huhne. But lets not just rubbish the nonsense of nuclear lets emphasise the real green alternatives and push for action. oh just a thought but Dave Cameron doesn't use his bike much nowadays, hmmmnnn? -
Ros Beauhill
commented
Solve the waste issue safely and it may be worth a second thought, otherwise no then, no now, and no in the future.
-
D. Viesnik
commented
Nuclear power is not safe, not green, not cheap and too little too late in terms of cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Nuclear power and nuclear weapons proliferation have always gone hand in hand. We still have no long-term solution for the cancer-causing radioactive legacy waste, which will remain lethal for many thousands of years, let alone new build waste, which would be hotter and even more radioactive and would have to be stored on site for at least 160 years. There are alternatives to nuclear which are more environmentally-benign, e.g. energy efficiency, renewables and micro-renewables, micro-CHP (combined heat and power), and demand reduction, which would be quicker and cheaper to implement than nuclear power, with none of the associated risks. There is no need for us to 'nuke the climate'.
-
chinks grylls
commented
The future energy needs graphs, show there is no need for nuclear.Each reactor takes up to 10 years to build before it even starts producing energy.Nuclear Power is not 24/7.Shutdowns can often take months.It is NOT sustainable in any shape or form.It is a dirty technology leaving highly radioactive waste for generations to come.
-
Robert Minter
commented
This is rubbish. Eventually we may be able to do without nuclear power and rely on renwables alone if we reduce human numbers by about 90%. Until then nuclear is a much safer option than carbon based fuels, and has caused only a minute percentage of the deaths caused by coal, in spite of crass errors in the past.
-
stephen blomfield
commented
Nuclear power was developed in this country in order to breed weapon's grade plutonium 239. We now have tons of the stuff and nothing to do with the stuff and nowhere to put it, along with all sorts of other highly fissile waste material. The Plutonium will remain a hazard for a million years. How long can one guarantee that any storage site will remain intact and safe for so long? It is a short term solution outweighed by longterm costs.
