'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
-
Ricky Knight (Cllr)
commented
There are so many pressing concerns for us to address, most of them to do with the crisis of simply surviving the routine short-term pressures of life.
However, Fukushima has taught us nothing. At Hinkley on the North Somerset coast, they're going ahead with the next generation of nuclear power stations - elsewhere too. This desperate insane decision HAS to be fought and prevented - for the sake of future generations. Please make this 38 Degrees' Number One priority. -
David Jackson
commented
Its funny how the Nuclear power supporters have all become Peak oil theorists since Fukishima whereas before they would have dismissed it as rather cranky
-
Jude
commented
I hope everyone is bombarding their members of Parliament. That's all they understand!
-
Richard Chisnall
commented
nuclear power is a big con: it'll funnel squllions of public funds (in the form of debt) into a few private pockets. our children and their children will be forced to pay for it and for the mess it creates. after 60 years, there still isn't a solution to the waste problem
it costs more to decommission a nuclear plant than the total income from the energy it produces - and it's not green, as the embodied energy in these plants is huge
and the best bit: there isn't enough uranium left!
all in all: it's a dead horse sold to us to enrich a very few rich people
-
Anonymous
commented
I think it's a bit unfair refering to nuclear power as "Green" in this blurb. Nearly all people who call themselves "Green" object to it.
-
Sue Jones
commented
Nuclear Power is anything but cheap. The costs of dealing with the aftermath are exhorbitant. Renewable is the only sensible way to go. I believe this and buy my power from renewable sources.
-
Liz Ounsted
commented
My late husband was a Research Scientist in the CEGB and was against nuclear power when it was first introduced and I have seen the results of what he warned against and have carried on the campaign ever since. For the sake of our children we must stop the Gadarene swine from carrying us along with them.
-
Anonymous
commented
This country does not want nuclear power, the world does not want nuclear power - ask the people living near Fukisihima and Fort Calhoun. Nuclear power is dangerous and not a positive or Green long term solution. May I propose that every MP who supports nuclear power buys and lives in a house as close as possible to their nearest nuclear power plant - ie put your money where your mouth is - You want us to have Nuclear, then you go and live by it!!!! There are alternative sources that are no more costly and far more ecologically friendly and sustainable. Parliament do yourself a favour and extract your heads from your posteriors - listen to what the people in this country want - it's not just Nuclear where you are making massive mistakes, and we're not going to go down quietly this time - we- the people have had enough!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
muriel spenceley
commented
No thanks to hinkley C!
-
Dave at Vote For Yourself
commented
As Sickofbeingsickofit pointed out, there's no need for traditional nuclear power apart from the fact that it's the only way to manufacture weapons-grade plutonium for nuclear bombs. As I've also pointed out, the claim that renewables can't fill the gap is total bollocks - I live in Spain where in March 2011 ie this year, 42% of all electricity was produced from hydro, wind (19%), solar etc - here's the article: http://www.simplynetworking.es/news-5836-31-alternative_energy_becoming_a_viable_alternative.html
-
Sickofbeingsickofit
commented
There is a safe form of nuclear power that does not produce radioactivity, its called 'Anurenic' power. Its based on safe Helium and takes a while to get going (Much like the AGA stove),but then produes a stream of electicity safely with no hazardous waste. Why have you never heard of this? Because it cannot be used for atomic weapons.
-
Prof. Richard Johnson
commented
Part of the government's strategy is also to minimize the health dangers of nuclear by spinning Fukushima as not a disaster (expert news - not mainstream media - is showing it is daily getting worse with food supplies contaminated outside exclusion zone ), glossing scientific research in nuclear's favor (e.g. recent COMARE report minimizing excellent German research on childhood leukemia), and generally working very closely with nuclear industry in PR - could this be the next scandal?
-
alan elkan
commented
The other misnomer put out by pro- nuclear power lobby is that we would otherwise have to import our gas and oil-- but we don't hold uranium deposits do we, and it is highly destructive and dangerous to extract in Africa, canada, jolly old Kyrgystan etc!
-
Jude
commented
This is encouraging......it seems, despite the Government reducing help for these schemes, people all over the country are determined to have renewable energy, We should keep on at our government to give them MORE help, not less!
http://www.microgenscotland.org.uk/news.php -
Rod Thick
commented
Nuclear is a dangerous & expensive way to provide energy for the future especially after the disaster in Japan.
We have the technology to provide the nation's future energy needs by using alternative energy. Enough wind for wind power, high sea's & tides for wave power & enough sun for solar.
It would benifit the economy & if every loft & cavity in the country was insulated free of charge.
By using alternative energy systems & insulating homes hundreds of thousands of new jobs would be created therefore bring many unemployed people into work.
Let's follow Germany's lead & go down the alternative energy route, we owe it to future generations. -
Wicked Dreams
commented
If I was a big black coal company boss, I would anonymously donate money to Anti Nuke activists, best bang for buck my marketing dollars could buy. Much cheaper than advertising or PR.
Passionate workers for next to nothing. Keep the activists distracted and off my back, while each of my coal power stations emits 5 ton of uranium & 12 ton of radiactive Thorium waste every year, with no nuclear waste facility required. ....heheh suckers!
Best way to stop my only viable competitor....
Take the time to learn the facts about Nuclear, especially Thorium LFTR vs Uranium LWR. There is a world of difference.
LFTR = Safe, clean, abundant, reliable, low cost power. Our best hope.
Learn the facts about Solar & Wind, they definitely have their place, but they won't solve the problem no matter how far they advance.
If I was coal company I'd even donate money to promote solar & wind....another distraction that will never be a significant competitor.
-
Daniel Thompson
commented
Our current nuclear technology is badly outdated and inherently flawed in its design. Clean safe and abundant nuclear is easily available though. Big oil would rather see nuclear never work, but Thorium when used as a fuel in a Molten Salt Reactor (known as LFTR) is very attractive proposition and would happily power our entire civilization for many thousands of years. No nasty side effects, it will actually REMOVE nuclear material from the environment. http://38degrees.uservoice.com/forums/78585-campaign-suggestions/suggestions/2017457-uk-manufacture-of-liquid-fluoride-thorium-reactors?ref=title
-
Rita Holmes
commented
The pro nuclear new build politicians here might think differently if they had to spend some time in Japan and had to decide which foodstuffs were safe for their families to eat. It`s not as though the Japanese government is fully informing their people of the risks to health. I thought we were only to have new build if there was a waste solution. All they do is talk about it and send out consultation documents. There is no real solution to the waste problem.
-
Anonymous
commented
What proportion of the energy generated will have gone on the building and manning of a power station + cooling/moving/storing the spent fuel over an unknown, indefinite period of time - not even counting the health, accident and security risks, protection from rising sea levels etc: Madness!
-
david higgins
commented
nucleat will not work
