Thursday, 17 January 2008

Compendium of my recent anti-nuclear arguments

I've been asked to put together the links to my arguments against nuclear. Here are the main ones:

http://rupertsread.blogspot.com/2008/01/my-on-air-destruction-of-nuclear.html
http://ourkingdom.opendemocracy.net/2008/01/09/our-short-termist-polity-was-always-going-to-go-nuclear/
http://ourkingdom.opendemocracy.net/2008/01/03/the-year-ahead-green-milestones-and-nuclear-millstones/

Plus this letter just sent to some papers in Eastern Region:

Dear Sir,

The Labour Government has decided to back more nuclear power stations. However, the Greens believe the arguments for nuclear power to be based on a series of misleading and false assumptions and are pledging to fight any new nuclear build in East Anglia.

It is expected that Sizewell in Suffolk and Bradwell in Essex will be likely sites for the new stations. The Government is also legislating to change the planning system, making it harder for local communities to have any real say in major infrastructure projects. Their undemocratic planning regime could be used to steamroller through a host of unsustainable and damaging projects including nuclear power plants, incinerators, motorways and airport expansion.

As I have said before, the taxpayer is going to pay through the nose if there are new nuclear power stations built in this country. Lets not forget that the reason that Governments stopped building nuclear power stations, a generation ago, is very simple: they are uneconomic. Nuclear power is a failed technology which should not be part of East Anglia's energy future!

Just consider these wrong-headed claims for nuclear:

1. Nuclear power is zero carbon – That’s a lie. The mining and processing of uranium ore is hugely-energy intensive, requiring the use of fossil fuels. Nuclear power plants are very large, energy-hungry buildings to construct and decommission.

2. Nuclear power can help fight dangerous climate change – That’s totally misleading, even if my rebuttal of point (1) above were wrong (which it isn't). If all the current nuclear power stations were replaced, by the 2020’s they would offset around 4% of the UK’s CO2 emissions.

3. Nuclear is a clean technology – That’s a lie. Despite being a nuclear state for over 50 years, the UK still does not know what to do with its growing mountain of nuclear waste.

4. Nuclear will secure the UK's growing long term energy need and avoid relying on imports so much – That’s false. New motorways and runways, lead to an ever increasing energy supply - Labour has failed to stop the relentless rise in demand for energy and CO2 emissions have consequently risen since 1997.

5. New nuclear power will not cost the taxpayer and will be financed from private companies – That’s highly unlikely. Almost all-nuclear facilities worldwide have required taxpayer support.

Cllr. Rupert Read.


7 Comments:

Blogger Alexandra Prokopenko said...

I might also add that UK does not have any uranium mines of its own, and that creates a dependency on the foreign supplier. Also, some waste might be exported, otherwise new storages will have to be built.
The main reason for the so-called "nuclear renessaince" in the world nowadays I see the fact that the oil has become too expensive, and, combined with a growing environmental concern, the governments seek a quick energy solution, for which nuclear seems to suit well. Quick solutions are not always the best, but at least they are shown and seen as such.

18 January 2008 at 17:31  
Blogger weggis said...

You are wasting your time. The government’s decision has nothing to do with energy.

The debate on new Nuclear Power stations was lost when the government decided to renew our Nuclear weapon capability.

18 January 2008 at 18:14  
Blogger Rupert said...

Weggis; you are right about there being a link with nuclear weapons. But the link nowadays is nowhere near as tight as you imply. The UK has enough nuclear material for its nukes for years and years to come, already.

19 January 2008 at 16:44  
Blogger weggis said...

Yeah, But!
What about the "need" to have a civilian industry to back up the military with technical expertise and skills, not to mention the perceived neccessity to remain at the forefront of any new developments.

AND don't forget Image. What would it look like if any country gave up Nuclear Power but retained Nuclear weapons?

20 January 2008 at 14:52  
Blogger Dorothea said...

Alexandra Propopenko says; "governments seek a quick energy solution, for which nuclear seems to suit well. Quick solutions are not always the best, but at least they are shown and seen as such."

Whatever else, nuclear is NOT quick.

"Nuclear electricity cannot solve our energy problems. For starters, not one single nuclear power station will come into operation over the next decade when we will need to bridge the gap. The government estimates we won't have the new stations until at least 2025."

http://barkingside21.blogspot.com/2008/01/blowing-in-wind.html

As Weggis points out, there's a lot more to this than meets the immediate eye (as usual!)

21 January 2008 at 09:29  
Blogger Alexandra Prokopenko said...

2Dorothea: I would argue nuclear is a relatively quick solution - comparing to new scientific research and creation of brand new technologies to substitute oil and gas as non-eco-friendly fuels,construction of a nuclear plant takes from five years up to a decade, while the complex research and approval of new techs which were never used commercially before might take several decades, and it is far not guaranteed that's going to work properly. This is what I meant when saying that nuclear is quick.

21 January 2008 at 11:16  
Blogger Dorothea said...

Hi Alexandra,

I can see what you are saying, and apparently there are also things called "pebble beds" or something that may be quicker (even)than other nuclear technologies. I'm afraid it's all rather unintelligible to me, as a non-engineer, unlike some here.

Technofixes are also unnecessary, imo. Nothing works faster than cutting down on consumption - and it's super cheap!

Dot (car-free, fridge-free, heating-free, blah blah)

21 January 2008 at 20:17  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

1. 2. 3. Rupert's Read: Compendium of my recent anti-nuclear arguments 4. 12. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 23. 24.

25. 26. Compendium of my recent anti-nuclear arguments 27. 28.

29.
I've been asked to put together the links to my arguments against nuclear. Here are the main ones:

http://rupertsread.blogspot.com/2008/01/my-on-air-destruction-of-nuclear.html
http://ourkingdom.opendemocracy.net/2008/01/09/our-short-termist-polity-was-always-going-to-go-nuclear/
http://ourkingdom.opendemocracy.net/2008/01/03/the-year-ahead-green-milestones-and-nuclear-millstones/

Plus this letter just sent to some papers in Eastern Region:

Dear Sir,

The Labour Government has decided to back more nuclear power stations. However, the Greens believe the arguments for nuclear power to be based on a series of misleading and false assumptions and are pledging to fight any new nuclear build in East Anglia.

It is expected that Sizewell in Suffolk and Bradwell in Essex will be likely sites for the new stations. The Government is also legislating to change the planning system, making it harder for local communities to have any real say in major infrastructure projects. Their undemocratic planning regime could be used to steamroller through a host of unsustainable and damaging projects including nuclear power plants, incinerators, motorways and airport expansion.

As I have said before, the taxpayer is going to pay through the nose if there are new nuclear power stations built in this country. Lets not forget that the reason that Governments stopped building nuclear power stations, a generation ago, is very simple: they are uneconomic. Nuclear power is a failed technology which should not be part of East Anglia's energy future!

Just consider these wrong-headed claims for nuclear:

1. Nuclear power is zero carbon – That’s a lie. The mining and processing of uranium ore is hugely-energy intensive, requiring the use of fossil fuels. Nuclear power plants are very large, energy-hungry buildings to construct and decommission.

2. Nuclear power can help fight dangerous climate change – That’s totally misleading, even if my rebuttal of point (1) above were wrong (which it isn't). If all the current nuclear power stations were replaced, by the 2020’s they would offset around 4% of the UK’s CO2 emissions.

3. Nuclear is a clean technology – That’s a lie. Despite being a nuclear state for over 50 years, the UK still does not know what to do with its growing mountain of nuclear waste.

4. Nuclear will secure the UK's growing long term energy need and avoid relying on imports so much – That’s false. New motorways and runways, lead to an ever increasing energy supply - Labour has failed to stop the relentless rise in demand for energy and CO2 emissions have consequently risen since 1997.

5. New nuclear power will not cost the taxpayer and will be financed from private companies – That’s highly unlikely. Almost all-nuclear facilities worldwide have required taxpayer support.

Cllr. Rupert Read.


30. 31. 32.