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/
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
It is expected that Sizewell in
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
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
3. Nuclear is a clean technology – That’s a lie. Despite being a nuclear state for over 50 years, the
4. Nuclear will secure the
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.
Comments
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.
The debate on new Nuclear Power stations was lost when the government decided to renew our Nuclear weapon capability.
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?
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!)
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)