'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.
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.
Let's stop this before it gets any worse- I can't support nuclear when we can't get rid of the dangerous waste!
One campaign on this site is against nuclear, another is against wind farms, pylons. What exactly do you all want? The ability to use as much energy as you want, to charge your mobile or stand for 10 minutes in a power shower or walk around in shirt sleeves during the winter? Perhaps we should open up the coal mines again and then you can start moaning about them? Of course, whilst demanding exponential amounts of really cheap energy and at the same time expecting China and India to go without as they begin to enjoy the luxuries we have taken for granted all our lives: I have little doubt. How about joining the real world instead, give the siutationb real thought instead of a winge.
sue underhill commented
its not 'green' and its waste is not clean - its just another way for corporates to profit. We should be looking at all new building (domestic and commercial) being required to build in energy saving and generating features such as ground heat sources or solar panels.
lisa dishman commented
we are going to be struggling to produce enough green electricity for our basic needs well into the future. Please join the fight against HS2 which at 250mph uses more than twice as much electricity as 125mph trains (which are considered high speed in europe). Does scotland and the north have to be disfigured by windfarms and mutilated by nuclear power stations to fuel this white elephant 250mph train. the green party have joined the fight to stop HS2. will you?
Marianne Birkby commented
Nuclear is Safe, War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength
Nuclear power is top trump at the pinnacle of the industrial polluting food chain. Absolutely reliant on fossil fuel, mining, chemicals, militarism etc etc
It is not an energy strategy- it is a PR strategy which is what this campaign suggestion outlines - "The great green rip -off" Rip off merchants know that the punters have to believe they need the rip off product.
Nick Jackson commented
I have to disagree. Whilst in the very-long term Nuclear isn't a great option we simply don't have the necessary technology to provide economically sound renewable solutions such as solar, wind or tidal in the short term.
Given that we're rapidly running out of combustible fuels such as coal, oil and gas it's essential that we secure our energy future without waiting for renewable sources to become viable. Modern reactor designs produce less waste (although I acknowledge it's still a problem) and are incredibly safe.
Marianne Birkby commented
The figures from the industry for yearly gas use alone used to look after the existing wastes at Sellafield are 500,000 tons of CO2 from the (specially built) Fellside Plant to ensure security of supply.
To mine a huge area of Cumbria for a proposed "geological disposal facility" (or 2 or 3) for high level wastes would generate greenhouse gases ad infinitum. According to the mining industry (Orica Mining Services) just the mining of "one million tonnes of coal produces about 400 tonnes of CO2-e from explosives detonation with 74,000 tonnes from diesel, electricity and seam gas emissions". Those are the emissions from an open pit. Deeper mining such as a "geological disposal facility" at 1000+ft - and at least a few miles ++ square would produce far greater emissions
including the need for continual dewatering and ventilation.
Electricity - maybe using Fellside (Sellafield's) Gas Power Plant?
Transportation of spoil etc
Methane (and radon) emissions
A petition to oppose a nuke dump like this in Cumbria can be downloaded here:
Andrew Crow commented
Nuclear energy is not carbon free. I live close to one of the roads that leads to the Sellafield site in West Cumbria. The odd centimetre of snow causing parking problems on the site carpark produces traffic tailbacks for miles. Only when it clogs like this does it become apparent what the true weight of traffic is. What do you think these cars run on? When do you believe the Sellafield site last produced any electricity? The pylon power lines from the site bring electricity onto the site they don't take it off site to the grid.
Do you know how long it takes for a nuclear power facility to produce more energy than has been used in building it? And bear in mind the carbon footprint of the reprocessing centre should properly be taken in to account also. Not to mention thousands of years' so-called secure storage.
We can absolutely rely on the Sun to shine. When it doesn't we as a species had better not be here, because we won't last twenty-four hours before we all freeze to death.
And yes the wind will always blow. And as long as we have our moon going round us we will have tidal flows.
When we know how to manage the waste safely it will be time to review the economics and practicability of nuclear energy.
I fear for your grandchildren also, but a lack of electricity will be the least of their problems. I don't believe your opinion is stupid, but I do think you are being mislead. And I believe the people responsible for misleading you have massive vested financial interests at stake. And they certainly have no consideration for your grandchildren and probably not for their own either.
Geoff Pinder commented
I disagree emphatically, nuclear energy is the ONLY carbon free source of energy available to stop the lights going out within two generations. If designed and operated sensibly and intelligently it will NOT be dangerous.
Get real, fossil fuel will soon be impossibly expensive and we CANNOT rely on energy that requires the wind to blow or the sun to shine. I fear for the future of my grandchildren in a society with no electricity.
Vic Machin commented
There's been enough written and said about Nuclear Power but the fact remains, the nuclear power industry still does NOT! Know what to do with the vast amounts of radioactive waste it has produced over the years. It is a disgrace that they can apply for a license to pollute and the government is only to happy to oblige. Nuclear Power------NO THANKS!!!!!!!!