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 want a future, not a disaster.

1,595 votes
Sign in
or sign in with
  • facebook
  • google
    Password icon
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Nancy Birch shared this idea  ·   ·  Admin →


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

        You clearly have no idea about nuclear power or nuclear physics or nuclear waste disposal. Nor do you understand that nuclear waste disposal is an incredibly high profit industry.

        The only problem we have is the French run all our power stations. Nuclear power in British hands (nationalised) would easily and cleanly solve all our power supplies for ever, whilst slashing energy prices.

        I expect you think that Fukashima was a 'disaster' when in fact it's ecological impact can barely be measured. No radiation made it further than 20 metres out to sea before decaying. Not a single isotope escaped or was consequently formed which can remain in the food chain. Not a single person had anything other than precautionary anti-radiation medication - no one's badges showed signs of raised exposure. The only serious injuries were from electrical burns.

        And hyperbole really? 100 is not 'nearly three times' 45. It's barely over twice. And since energy prices rises are fixed by law and they have to tell you if a cheaper deal is available - not every company will be involved with the power plants!

      • Anonymous commented  · 

        I completely agree with you!We've got to close nuclear Power stations down, concentrate on saving energy and develop safer and renewable energy. We owe this to future generations.
        However I think we should now update your campaign and launch a major new campaign to STOP the BUILDING of NEW EPR NUCLEAR REACTORS in BRITAIN.If we all act together we can really stop this crazy plan ,an agreement has just been made with EDF to build these reactors but they're still on the drawing board and not started yet!EPR is supposed to be the new future for nuclear power so if we stop it we can hammer a nail in the coffin of the entire nuclear industry in Britain ,France,Japan and the rest of the world!It'll be a clear message to David Cameron AND Labour who both support nuclear power that the majority of people are AGAINST nuclear power and FOR renewable energy and a cleaner ,safer world.
        Please could you read MY campaign suggestion(17th NOV 2013) and feel welcome to comment on it and to improve it!

        Thanks! Jonathan McLaughlin

      • Karen Bannochie commented  · 

        With the latest announcement from the government about Hinckley Point C being given the go-ahead, we really need to focus on exactly where the 'new generation' of nuclear power stations are taking us. Not only is this a seriously dangerous technology which the UK taxpayer will be subsidising for decades and will be adding to nuclear waste problems lasting centuries, it is not UK companies that will be building/financing them. Are we sleep walking into a future where our energy is controlled by foreign companies whose own track record on environmental and human rights issues leave much, much more than a little to be desired?
        If this kind of long term subsidy can be raised for nuclear power, why can't the same order of investment be made available to every household in the UK to work towards making them self sufficient in energy? Or even net contributors to the grid? Answer: there is no political will for renewables in this country.

      • John Hughes commented  · 

        Unbelievable that the media aren’t exposing this outrage. Not only will any new nuclear build raise energy bills and cost the taxpayer billions in decommissioning costs, it will also saddle god knows how many future generations will the problem of what to do with the toxic waste – now also from China? Clearly the government don’t care, as all this will hit the fan long after they’re gone.

      • mary tomlinson commented  · 

        I cannot believe that we are going to allow the Chinese to own nuclear plants in this country. ARE OUR POLITICIANS MAD? 38 degrees needs to campaign about this, and to stop nuclear power generally. One would think the Japanese disaster would have killed off the idea that nuclear power can ever be a solution to our energy needs.

      • Anonymous commented  · 

        This is now incredibly urgent as the government prepares to do a deal with a Chinese state woned nuclear company which is demanding in future to be able to design and run reactors in the UK, and the involvement of Toshiba, which is failing so spectacularly to solve the problems at Fukushima

      • Herbert Eppel commented  · 

        I'm all in favour of hydrogen in conjunction with renewables, including wind. Where does Paul Perkin's "magic cheap solution" hydrogen come from???

      • P F Perkin commented  · 

        Please support my Cheap Clean Energy proposal. I think you will like it if you read it.

        Best wishes, Paul.

      • Kevin Pepper commented  · 

        The new French EPR reactors have had massive construction delays in Finland and France, are way(!) over budget and have suffered from a horrendous string of faults - you only have to look at the French nuclear regulatory site to see the sort of problems they've had. Faulty welds, wrong kind of cement mixes, inappropriate construction techniques, lack of inspections, poorly trained cheap labour - they look like an accident waiting to happen, and we're building them here!! A whistleblower also apparently reported that internal documents had highlighted a design flaw that could lead to a control rod ejection accident, leading to a power excursion and explosion/meltdown. These things also use MOX fuel which is significantly more dangerous than normal fuel due to the increased plutonium content. Building these reactors in a small country like the UK makes no sense at all - one accident and half the country is irradiated, including probably London the economic hub. As we've seen in the past nuclear accidents do happen (3 mile island, Windscale, Chernobyl, Fukushima, the list goes on), and we don't want any more here. Vote for this campaign.

      • Max Priesemann commented  · 

        Sad that I can not vote anymore. This is certainly a campiagn in great need!

      • John Madgin commented  · 

        Every year are energy prices rise and every year the Government want to build more Power Stations to cope with the rise in usage. Well i would like to know why instead of wasting energy in our homes because of bad build. The Government is not forcing are builders to fully insulate New Home Build to cope with climate change hence saving and why they are not offering a more substantial deal for insulation including a good Double Glazing in existing homes.

      • Rob 197 commented  · 

        Hmm. On the fence, but…

        Some of these anti-nuclear videos and links posted here are not exactly from reliable or unbiased sources. The scientific evidence and credibility presented in some of these articles is not well sourced.

        As a couple of examples...
        Little actual factual evidence is presented about insect mutations. The program and participants clearly have their own agenda. Who actually is fairewinds.com?

        Again, http://www.corecumbria.co.uk/newsapp/pressreleases/pressmain.asp?StrNewsID=302 - there is just a mention of "As confirmed by the Environment Agency.", not a specific source or name of a person. The site also already has its own strong agenda and is not exactly unbiased

        Where-as I agree that nuclear is not ideal, and renewables are preferable, you are not going to traction with rational people if you are citing such dubious sources.

        This bbc horizon documentary is an interesting watch...

      • nikkinomad commented  · 

        Thanks Herbert Eppel!
        Please everyone get your friends voting on this issue we really need to come together on this issue now. nuclear policy is being greatly challenged because of the enlightened behaviour of the rest of the world turning away from nuclear. It's time for us to get together and put a stop to this industry.

        Getting 38 degrees to campaign on this issue would really help bring it into the mainstream publics awareness, the contracts for difference that the government and the industry are working on will tie ALL FUTURE GOVERNMENTS INTO THIS GOVERNMENTS ENERGY POLICY. The implication of this is that this is a policy that could bankrupt UK taxpayers over the next sixty years and then leave my grandchildren witrh a toxic legacy that no one can handle. People it's time to wake up and smell the bullshit! Right now the government are working on passing the contracts for difference into law under the auspicies of the energy act. This ACT will favour nuclear and all the rest of the fossil fuel based centrally controlled energy streams instead of facilitating a move to renewables. The nuclear industry always has and always will undermine renewable technologies because renewable technologies give us some degree of autonomy whereas nuclear and fossils keep us dependent on the government and the military. Please share this campaign on your social networks and also insert it as a comment on other camapaign suggestions that mention coal and oil and fracking but ignore nuclear in their analysis. Frack off recognise that fracking and nuclear as well as Tar sands are all extreme energy solutions that are essentially the powerful elites scraping the bottom of the energy barrel. It's time to say no to new nuclear. http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/1035 Anyone who thinks nuclear is green is suffering from a bad case of Dogma! either that or they are industry stooges.

      • Jude commented  · 

        "The Coalition Agreement between the Tories and Lib Dems pledged to not subsidise nuclear power. Despite this, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Lib Dem Ed Davey, now seems to be prepared to bow to Treasury pressure and kill off the onshore wind industry, whilst pretending the Government is not planning to subsidise dangerous new reactors. Greenpeace calculates that the onshore wind subsidy that the Treasury is so concerned about amounts to about £20 million per year. This rather puts EDF’s demand for £2.8 billion a year into perspective. All this had led some to question the rationality of The Treasury, which seems to be contemplating hiking consumers’ energy bills to support an industry with a dreadful record of delivering on time and budget, whilst at the same time killing off one of Britain’s most successful industries. Doug Parr, Chief Scientist at Greenpeace tweeted that the Treasury was “Not rational - if they aren't sane how can we trust them with the nation’s finances?”

      • Renato Rodrigues commented  · 

        As Renewables are expensive and have certain limitations, we need something else and a lot of it! In densely populated countries, like the UK and most European nations, this will mean going for coal or nuclear. Nuclear is potentially harmful and produces smaller quantities of very toxic waste. Coal is EFFECTIVELY harmful and produces huge amounts of air pollution and waste, which we happily breath, apart from the contribution to Climate Change, which I need not explain how dangerous it can be. Gas is similar to coal, only less harmful.


      ← Previous 1 3 4 5 19 20

      Feedback and Knowledge Base