Skip to main content

Nuclear lies

I say that it is a lie that nuclear is low-carbon, let alone carbon-free...:
Once one factors in the very substantial amount of energy needed for mining, transporting and processing uranium, for building nuclear power plants, for protecting them and their fuel from sabotage and accident, etc etc., and once one includes the vast amount of energy needed to decommission, monitor and protect nuclear waste for hundreds of thousands of years, then nuclear ends up with a stupendously huge carbon footprint. It is simply not true -- it is the grossest most misleading spin imaginable -- for advocates of nuclear power to claim that nuclear is a low-carbon source of enegy. The only true low-carbon sources of energy are renewables energy sources such as solar, wind and wave. Renewable energy can save us from dangerous climate change. Nuclear power cannot.
And furthermore, it is a lie that nuclear is low-cost...:
The government has secretly given the go-ahead for plans to collect a fee from the energy companies for each unit of electricity used in British homes to build up a fund to meet decommissiong costs for new nuclear power stations. Those of us with genuinely green electricity tariffs -- i.e. those of us whose electricity is coming wholly from renewable sources -- would presumably be exempt from paying this fee? It would be a
gross injustice if we had to pay the fee, despite not being users of nuclear power... The bottom line here is that the British taxpayer, and the British energy-consumer, is going to pay through the nose, if there are new nuclear power stations built in this country. Never forget that the reason that we stopped building nuclear power stations, a generation ago, is a very simple one: they are uneconomic.

Comments

Can't but agree - nuclear is costy for both money and environment, if you are considering all the costs. The issue is that a lot of costs in case of nuclear are not so obvious, and therefore can be easily manipulated.
Read more details here: http://www.theleaneconomyconnection.net/nuclear/index.html
Rupert said…
Agreed, Alexandra!
See my next post for more on this.
R

Popular posts from this blog

Post-Growth: A new vision for a fairer and more sustainable Britain

More on why 20's plenty -- without need for any further 'trials'...

There are a number of reasons for setting a default speed of 20mph throughout the 'unclassified' road network in residential parts of a city such as Norwich. Most important perhaps is that of driver recognition as to what the speed limit is. If you have 20 mph as the default then you not only establish this limit clearly, but you also adjust the driver's recognition as to what is the "normal" speed in such residential areas. The most important aspect is that drivers set 20 mph as the norm with those 30 mph areas or roads being seen as 50% faster, rather than seeing 30 mph as the norm with 20 mph as 33% slower. The psychological adjustment of normal speeds in residential areas is key to the success of reducing speeds and therefore danger to pedestrians and cyclists. Therefore any trial, pilot or whatever, that only implements 20 mph in a tiny proportion of the city is not modelling 20's Plenty in any realistic manner.   When considering the val...