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.

1,593 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 →

    393 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...
      • Marianne BirkbyMarianne Birkby commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        How much more evidence do we need than today's news from Japan ?Nuclear power is at the top of the polluting food chain requiring tonnes of fossil fuel to mine uranium, keep reactors cool, look after wastes ad infinitum. Natural disasters happen - and people can eventually again live on the land - but not if it is irreversibly contaminated along with our DNA.

      • Adam Adam commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        we need nuclear, what do you fools think will happen without it? we will continue to burn countless tonnes of fossil fuels, chernobyl was due to the lack of technology which we have today, with what we have now incidents like that are extremeley unlikely.
        we need nuclear as a reliable energy source unless you want us to continue burning everything, the risk from nuclear is next to non with todays knowledge and technology.
        dont let ignorance be your neighbour.

      • nikkinomadnikkinomad commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        here we are on the brink of chernobyl or three mile island again! And again all day I've been watching these people lie & do what I knew they'd do - deny everything radiation levels at fukushima are already 1,000 times safe levels Japan my heart goes out to you....Now will you all listen to us???

        Stop listening to the nuclear industry spin & start listening to your gut instincts, these people have been churning out lies all day saying theres nothing to worry about liars!

      • HuntsmanHuntsman commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Has anyone heard of the "BLOOMBOX TECHNOLOGY" this can be found by typing in www.bloombox . This is a device that is made up of ceramic plates that are coated with an electro resin reactor where gas and oxygen are pumped over the plates which create electrical energy. Measuring 4" x 4" inches produces 5 KW of energy. Total cost to each home £2000 or $3000. This replaces Nuclear energy and is being used in the USA by Coca cola, Fedex, Google etc etc. Our energy MP Hume does not recognise it as it is not made in the UK. Check out Nicola Tesla Free Energy also. Like most things, they are either shelved or kept from the publics interest. I'm an electrician for over 30 years and never even heard of Tesla Technology until last year, I wonder why they never taught his works at college?

      • Martin AitkenMartin Aitken commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        This is a vital issue to campaign on. Those of us who campaigned against nuclear power in the 70s and 80s hoped that it had been dealt with. The idea that nuclear power is necessary to stop the approach of climate chaos is little more than an emotive rationale for saving the industry. If we build more nuclear power plants, we encourage and enable other countries to do the same - and promote the proliferation of nuclear weapons. This alone is sufficient reason for choosing other methods of power generation.

      • Rosie Houldsworth TalkWorks.infoRosie Houldsworth TalkWorks.info commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        I endorse everything Nancy Birch says here.
        TalkWorks Films offer expert comment on this and other nuclear issues.
        See our short films of, for example, Professor Keith Barnham, Dr Frank Barnaby and Jeremy Leggett talking about why a civil nuclear 'renaissance' in response to climate change is madness, dangerous, expensive and will not work on TalkWorks.info and on TalkWorks1 YouTube channel

      • russellrussell commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        to the green crowd fu** off and live in the woods . sorry i feel elequance is wasted on you morons

      • Katy AttwaterKaty Attwater commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        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 BTim B commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        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.

      • davedave commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        its a bloody farce all the goverments corrupt and selfish greedy idiots

      • Ino Ino commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        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...

      • PCAHPCAH commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        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.

      • PCAHPCAH commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        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.

      • nikkinomadnikkinomad commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        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.

      Feedback and Knowledge Base