Nuclear Reaction

Following the Prime Minister’s announcement at the Labour Party Conference, that nuclear power must be considered as a means of securing our energy supply, grownupgreen looks at some of the reactions to this and offers a reminder about the context of the debate with the help of the Open University,

A new generation of nuclear power?

“Nuclear power is not a viable option” – said Green Party Principal Speaker Keith Taylor. He went on to say;

“The astronomical costs of a new nuclear power programme would divert money away from creating a low -carbon economy, the real solution to global warming. A single power station costs billions to build, run and decommission and has to run for seven to ten years before it creates enough energy to cancel out the energy used just to establish it. The wind power equivalent takes three to six months to do the same.

“Incidents such as Monday’s closure of the Dounreay treatment plant after a leak demonstrate that even after 50 years of collaborative international research and an average spend in Britain of £230m per year over the last 25 years, nuclear technology is not safe enough to be considered a viable option – waste management alone poses questions we are still not able to answer.

“There is a ten-fold increase in cases of child leukaemia near Sellafield, an eight-fold increase near Dounreay, and a discernable increase near every source of radioactive pollution in Europe.

“It is not too late to make renewable energy a powerful weapon against climate change. It is safe, economical, quickly built and doesn’t leave us with piles of nuclear waste. We just need the political will.”

Friends of the Earth Executive Director Tony Juniper said:

“Nuclear power is not a solution to climate change. It could only ever provide for a tiny proportion of our energy needs and this would be at great cost to the taxpayer, the environment and would pose a threat to the safety of the public. Clean technologies are available and they need the Government’s support. Tony Blair must stop talking to the nuclear lobby and speed up investment in low -carbon, renewable and efficient energy technologies.”

Friends of the Earth have put forward these points to explain their objection to nuclear power:

• There are more cost effective and far safer ways to reduce UK greenhouse gas emissions – the UK has a significant renewable energy resources.

• The Government could show global leadership on developing renewable resources, rather than promoting nuclear power which would increase the risk of nuclear weapon proliferation around the world

• Nuclear power is expensive and has consistently proved more expensive than industry claims. In 2003, the Cabinet Office estimated that nuclear power would cost more per KWh than either on-shore or off-shore wind.

• Nuclear power does not necessarily offer substantial reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. Indeed doubling nuclear power generation in the UK would cut our carbon dioxide emissions by no more than eight per cent.

• Nuclear power would not make the UK self-sufficient in energy so will not guarantee security of supply. It won’t replace gas, which we will increasingly get from Norway and the Netherlands.

• Nor will it replace oil, with much of our imports coming from Norway. We have significant renewable sources, including biomass, with which we can produce all our electricity.

• Nuclear power creates nuclear waste which poses a threat to public safety for generations to come because no solution has been found for its disposal. Management of the waste is also expensive.

• Nuclear energy only produces electricity and will not replace petrol or diesel as a fuel for cars, lorries, ships and planes – road transport is currently the source of around 22 per cent of UK carbon dioxide emissions, and aviation is the fastest growing source of CO2 emissions

• Nuclear power will not replace gas for heating our homes and for business – natural gas currently accounts for 33 per cent of our total final energy use.

• Nuclear energy will not meet our short-term energy needs. Even if give the go-ahead, according to the nuclear industry, new nuclear power stations would not come on-line for an estimated 10-15 years.

• Nuclear power has a poor safety record and is a potential target for terrorists.

Did you miss our focus on Nuclear Power earlier in the year? You can view the three part feature and links to your comments, in our Library here:
Nuclear Power?

We are keen to hear your views, concerns and expertise – use the comment button below to share them with us.

YOUR Comments

Friends of the Earth have consistently argued against nuclear power, but I was concerned to notice that their recent campaign ‘The Big Ask’ did not seem to focus on this fact and was only concerned with fossil fuels and CO2 emissions. I feel this was a great weakness of that campaign.

Another point which does not seem to have been made in your article is that nuclear fuel is itself non-renewable. Estimates vary about how long it will last, but the answer seems to be in decades rather than centuries. This is yet another reason not to rely on this technology.

The only real long-term answer to fulfilling our energy needs lies in energy conservation and efficiency. This is by far the easiest and least costly option but it does imply considerable lifestyle changes. However it is the only way to ensure a ‘soft landing’ as we make the inevitable transition from fossil fuels to renewables.
M.S.

grownupgreen - 29/09/05

---