Nuclear power?
 
Do we need nuclear power?
Dave Rickard
some facts the pro-nuclear lobby ignore

Currently nuclear accounts for about 20% of our power, but government figures show that we could save up to 30% of our usage by energy saving methods which would be a far more cost effective way of dealing with reducing our carbon emissions and it could start today instead of the estimated 10 - 15 years required to plan, commission and build a new generation of nuclear stations. We need to cut Carbon Emissions now, which means we need to cut usage and rapidly deploy all the available Green Technology and fast track new technology.

Nuclear has never been economic. Not only has our nuclear energy been highly subsidised with tax payers' money from day one, but the current estimated bill for decommissioning and cleaning up the mess from our current stations is £93 billion (that is £1500 for every man, woman and child in the UK).   Just think what energy saving and renewable technology could have been bought for that!

Giving Nuclear a new lease of life has already dampened investor enthusiasm for renewables.

The decision of this government to U-turn on nuclear had the immediate effect of slashing the investment in renewables by over 50%, and renewable energy stocks plunged on the markets by a similar percentage.

The cost of a new station would be at least £2 billion pounds, but only if you use an existing site, which would take years to clear.   If new sites had to be sought the planning and compulsory purchase would cost dearly in time and money.   All current sites are near sea level due to the requirement for millions of gallons of water daily for cooling.   When predicted sea level rises occur, how safe will the station be under several feet of water?

We don't actually have much readily available uranium in this country so we are going to have to import it and the worlds supply is running out.   If worldwide nuclear capacity doubles, supplies will run out in 20years.

Most of the uranium available to us comes from very unstable countries such as Kazakhstan, Namibia, Brazil, Niger & Uzbekistan. To claim this will enhance energy security is therefore palpable nonsense.

After the cold war, tonnes of high grade waste went missing in Russia - probably sold to unstable regimes or possibly even terrorist groups.   Any increase in the nuclear energy industry will increase the military and terrorist risks.

To produce 1 tonne of uranium for a reactor takes 98,000 tonnes of rock, a standard 100Mw station needs 160 tonnes per annum.    The process to mine, mill, convert and enrich and transport the ore takes an enormous amount of energy. Current ore reserves exist at about 0.2% uranium. Anything less than that could actually end up using more energy (almost certainly from non renewable sources) than it eventually gives up. The get out for this government is that this will occur in another country and will therefore not affect 'our' climate change targets.

The process of mining is also one of the most environmentally damaging industrial processes and around the world there is a backlash against uranium mining on health, safety and environmental grounds.   The whole process releases a whole cocktail of other toxic metals into the environment, not to mention radioactivity.

Building a Nuclear Power Station is not Carbon Neutral, the amount of concrete and steel needed to build the station and all the processing and storage facilities is enormous. The decommissioning and securing the waste also has a high energy demand.

Our existing centralised power production and distribution network is very inefficient and wastes a large amount of money and energy.   We need to develop local, community and regional renewable power generation which would also be less of a threat from terrorists.

There are too many health risks. Existing power stations have a poor record on site safety and pollution. Many incidents and accidents have been covered up both by the industry and successive governments. 

A significant percentage of the radioactivity measured in North Wales and attributed to the Chernobyl disaster had been fingerprinted and found to be emanating from Trawsfynnydd Nuclear Power station.   All those who knew have been sworn to secrecy!!

We haven't successfully worked out what to do with the waste accumulated from the first 50 years of nuclear - why do we think a solution will magically appear now? 

It's a legacy of danger and economic risk of unknown proportions that could and probably will cripple future generations and it won't come close to solving our climate change requirements in the next twenty years, by which time all experts agree it could be too late! 
 
Back To Top
PRINTABLE VIEW - TELL A FRIEND - ADD TO FAVOURITES
Transition Town Bridport