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 HAVE TO STOP THIS NOW BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE.

We want a future, not a disaster.

1,593 votes
Vote
Sign in
Check!
(thinking…)
Reset
or sign in with
  • facebook
  • google
    Password icon
    I agree to the terms of service
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Nancy BirchNancy Birch shared this idea  ·   ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    393 comments

    Sign in
    Check!
    (thinking…)
    Reset
    or sign in with
    • facebook
    • google
      Password icon
      I agree to the terms of service
      Signed in as (Sign out)
      Submitting...
      • Prof. Richard JohnsonProf. Richard Johnson commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        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 elkanalan elkan commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        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!

      • Rod ThickRod Thick commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        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 DreamsWicked Dreams commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        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 ThompsonDaniel Thompson commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        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 HolmesRita Holmes commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        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.

      • AnonymousAnonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        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!

      • John & Sylvia StaddonJohn & Sylvia Staddon commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        We do not want any nuclear power used for anything. We want our grandchildren to live in a nuclear free world and without the worry of dealing with nuclear waste or fallout due to an accident.

      • Jane BlakeJane Blake commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        I feel really strongly about the future of electricity in this country. Let's follow the German example, if they can do it so can we.

      • Ann MatkinsAnn Matkins commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Please, please don't let nuclear power take over this country. This is the biggest death threat I can think of. And then there's the problem of where to put the nuclear waste. So do pursue other means of providing power. A tip, perhaps we could educate oursselves to need less electricity? Grateful for being able to voice an opinion. Thanks.

      • JudeJude commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        • A nuclear expert is now warning that it will take 50 to 100 years before the spent nuclear rods at Fukushima will cool enough to be removed from the site. In the mean time, Japan must keep pouring water on the fuel, and that creates highly radioactive water that's being flushed directly into the ocean. So now we're looking at the possibility of a century-long radiation leak

        Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/031923_Fukushima_meltdown.html#ixzz1S9yNDvtS

      • Janet TaitJanet Tait commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Why is the Nuclear lobby so powerful. I do not want to leave a legacy of nuclear waste to my children and their children for endless years to come. It is immoral, extravagantly expensive and unnecessary - if only the sustainable alternatives were considered we could avoid the pollution of our environment in this country and in the countries where uranium is mined.

      • Joan GirlingJoan Girling commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Why the dash for Nukes when there are so many viable alternatives? Why is the government so hell bent on creating more nuclear waste from new stations when they still have no solution to the existing legacy waste from old stations? Even at todays prices the cost of storage, guarding and managing spent fuel /waste is exorbitant, in years to come the cost and environmental damage will be borne by future generations, completely disregarding the Agenda 21 Sustainability Criteria. Are politicians really that blind and totally misguided? Come the revolution !

      • AnonymousAnonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Nuclear waste is not a legacy I wish to leave my children, nor accident a risk I wish them to endure.

      • JudeJude commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        It's good to see all this renewed interest in anti-nuclear. We must keep bembarding our MPs about it though.....
        "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.." Edmund Burke

      Feedback and Knowledge Base