'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.
Suzanne C-Kelly commented
RENEWABLES NOT NUCLEAR...... A POSITIVE SUSTAINABLE LEGACY
Don't let anyone tell you Fukushima isn't as bad as Chernobyl.....it's worse
Rob Siveter commented
The current ERM white paper provides covert support for nuclear power - pretty much the highest cost carbon mitigation option out there. It must be changed.
The development of a new power station at Hinkley C was stopped 20 years ago because it would be economically unviable. Nothing has changed. Nuclear power is ludicrously expensive, and stockpiling increasing amounts of dangerous waste is unsustainable, particularly for local communities that have to deal with the consequences. We waste far too much energy - unnecessary lights burning in office buildings over weekends, badly insulated homes. Much more could be done to conserve energy and plough funds into renewable sources.
Rev H.P.Barkham commented
We don't need nuclear power. There are renewable sources.
Clive Jones commented
Why take a very expensive and dangerous sledge hammer to crack a small nut ?
The protagonists say "its OK, its now safe, we've got new technology, dont worry."
Try telling that to the nearby residents in Chernoble or Fukishima.
The small 'nut' is that we just need to stop using so much electricty in a profligate way. Invest in jobs to make our homes and white goods more efficient and educate folk in the art of good husbandry.
Giorgio Giandomenici commented
every effort has to be made to halt the spread of this short term energy fix that has such long term consequences...........as a race we need to learn to live more elegantly and harmoniously and to massively exercise our collective will if we are to survive............sun, wind, wave and water are absolutely fine as energy sources
Please make nuclear power stations history.. EDF has been slowly buying peoples support in Somerset. It would be immoral to leave its uncertain and possibly dangerous legacy to our children.
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
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
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.
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
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.