I suggest a campaign about ...

Don't nuke the UK - Stop back-door subsidies which fix the energy market to make nuclear economic

Although the Coalition has promised ‘no subsidies’ for new nuclear, the Government’s imminent Energy market White Paper the market will force up the price of electricity enough to make new nuclear power economic. The Coalition has been listening to the nuclear power companies’ strong lobbying for a carbon floor price, a mechanism to reduce revenue uncertainty for low carbon generation, and a new capacity mechanism. The Coalition is fixing the energy market for new nuclear, whilst the existing bill for legacy rad-waste is around £100 billion.

118 votes
Sign in
or sign in with
  • facebook
  • google
    Password icon
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Paul Dorfman shared this idea  ·   ·  Admin →


    Sign in
    or sign in with
    • facebook
    • google
      Password icon
      Signed in as (Sign out)
      • Ed Brown commented  · 

        In some ways, I highly disagree - The problem is that "New Nuclear" energy refers to the, as you stated very dangerous and expensive ( as well as inefficient ,) use of Uranium based plants.
        Instead they should consider scrapping Uranium and opting for the very possible "Thorium based" nuclear plants. Wind based power is a pipe dream, it is very inefficient, expensive and unrealistic.
        Solar power too is inefficient, expensive and what most people dont realise is that it also produces harmful waste. The main component used to produce solar panels is a HEAVY METAL - these do not degrade and are very difficult to store safely.

        Thorium is very abundant in the earths crust, it could power the entire earth with the amount that covers an average football pitch. It is proven to be very stable and a meltdown such as Chernobyl and Fukushima are almost impossible. It does not need water to cool it down and so does not produce water based nuclear waste, in fact the amount of waste it does produce is very minimal and much safer than the waste already produced by OIL and COAL. Furthermore any waste produced by thorium cannot be turned into nuclear weaponry unlike its uranium counterpart.

        All in all Thorium is the best form of energy I have I have seen or heard of to solve our energy and world climate problems.

        Here is a video for further information


      • Nancy Birch commented  · 

        If the nuclear indusry is allowed to get a hold on the energy sector now it will kill off any hope of creating a viable market for truly renewable forms of energy. We have to stop this NOW. Nuclear energy is incredibly expensive and incredibly dangerous. There are alternatives. We want a future, not a disaster.

      • Gordon Craig commented  · 

        Should we consolidate our votes to make them count and pick a campaign that best suits the "No Confidence/ General election vote?" I personally feel no confidence says it all and should then lead to a general election.

      • David Toke commented  · 

        See previous post about writing to your MP asking for no subsidies to be given to nuclear power and that the money be spent on renewable energy instead - there is no shortage of options here! You can get more info on the Government proposals from a green energy point of view on Dave Toke's green energy blog on: realfeed-intariffs.blogspot.com

      • David Toke commented  · 

        Write to your MP demanding that subsidies for nuclear power, planned under the 'low carbon mechanism' proposed under the electricity market reform proposals, be stopped - and instead that the money should be spent on renewable energy such as offshore windfarms. Renewable energy should be supported using a German style 'feed-in tariff' system rather than the 'auction' system proposed by the Government which will limit renewable energy projects to fit in with giving nuclear power a priority.

      • Gerry Wolff commented  · 

        In addition to the new subsidies that the Government is now proposing, nuclear power already enjoys several existing subsidies described in the "Nuclear Subsidies" report from the Energy Fair group ( www.energyfair.org.uk ). Some of those existing subsiies are very substantial. If just one of them was to be withdrawn (limitation on liabiities), we calculate that the cost of nuclear electricity would rise to about 20 US cents per kWh.

      • max Wallis commented  · 

        - this Coalition U-turn on "no nuclear subsidies" is shameful.

        Rather than declaring it confirms one's own view on lobbying, Con-Dem traitors etc. let's declare this is outrageous even compared with the Student Fee betrayal
        # Clegg and Huhne have failed to hold the Tories to their promise of no subsidies
        # Clegg and his MPs have failed to keep their Coalition stance that they would abstain on nuclear voting, rather than insisting on voting against as in their manifesto.

        ie. betrayal of both the manifesto and the Coalition agreement.

      • Ma1colmR commented  · 

        While on this subject stop subsidies that make renewables such as wind and wave economical.

      • nikkinomad commented  · 

        Here here Paul!
        The energy companies have been lobbying for these changes for the last few years and I know that you've been writing about it. This is the sort of thing that provides absolute proof (if any was needed) that there is no such thing as the "hidden hand of the market" actually the hands guiding these markets are about as subtle as Michael Jacksons famous white glove! Why should we allow the government to go to such lengths to force through such unsafe unneccessary technology? Its is precisely the costs associated with regulation construction and decommissioning that is why these private companies want the subsidies in the first place! The government have said that the "market" should decide if nuclear is economically viable so their intervention in the carbon markets and the other subsidies that are being talked about would go against this. We should be resolute about not subsidising the nuclear industry. Let's face it we know that the governments real agenda about nuclear is totally about global power politics, and the development testing and subsequent use of more nuclear weapons, something spelled out quite clearly in the governments recent announcement that we're going to 'pool our resources with the French, in terms of nuclear weapons testing'. By demanding that there is no subsidy at the very least it should force the government to be honest about what their real nuclear agenda is. At best it should halt nuclear construction in the UK in its tracks.

      • herbeppel commented  · 

        The "Don't nuke the UK" initiative is currently ranked 46th, up from 64th a couple of days ago. Hopefully it will keep rising and become a 38 Degrees campaign.

      • Michael Sackin commented  · 

        I agree with Herbert Eppel and others: no new nuclear - go for renewables and, if necessary, less use of electricity altogether.

      • GRAHAM STOCKS commented  · 

        'Augean'? How ironic. Cleaning the Augean stables was one of Hercules' twelve labours. That is, a task beyond the capabilities of mortal man.

      • Prof. Richard Johnson commented  · 

        This is a very important issue with many ramifications, not least the way in which new nuclear is being forced through against public scepticism and with massive subsidies, hidden and not so hidden, at a time of financial crisis and cuts. As others say, nor can we afford - on health and financial grounds - more nuclear waste production either. With Drigg nearly full or reserved, low level waste is already being attempted to be dumped in landfills - as in the Kings Cliffe, Northants struggle against the waste company Augean, currently under appeal. See Kings Cliffe Waste Watchers website.

      • Alan Gledhill commented  · 

        Nuclear is unsafe now and for as long as can be imagined. It also cannot go forward without subsidy, either or both for building and decommissioning.
        Why are the public expected to pay for this threough their fuel bills and increasingly likely through other taxes. This is an industry and investor-led promotion, which disregards both environmental hazards and monetary costs to the wider population

      • Angela Paine commented  · 

        Nuclear power is expensive, does not solve global warming and creates very dangerous highly radioactive waste. The creation of these hidden subsidies is immoral.

      • Graham Stocks commented  · 

        Only a tiny, tiny proportion of the population has any understanding of the biological effects of ionising radiation and high energy particles. Even then, some of those who do are in the pay of the nuclear power generating industries and are thus in denial.

      • PETER RUSSELL commented  · 

        While dealing with our present nuclear waste promises a bill of upwards of £100,000,000,000 and even then with no promise of avoiding dangerous health effects, we should NOT be contemplating building any further nuclear power stations. And rigging the pricing market in favour of nuclear, in response to the present campaigning by the industry, is definitely NOT a good idea either. peter russell, plymouth

      • Deborah Ardizzone commented  · 

        Nuclear power is always subsidised by governments. The French government built their nuclear power stations. EDF would not know how to go about building an un subsidised one.

      • Herbert Eppel commented  · 

        Time to stop the nuclear madness and switch to a 100% renewables strategy.

      ← Previous 1

      Feedback and Knowledge Base