Registered user login:

Nuclear fallout

Caroline Lucas

Published 11 January 2008

The government’s commitment to nuclear power will undermine national and environmental security for decades

After a lengthy period of dithering over the best way to satisfy Britain’s energy needs, the government has finally taken the path most expected and many had dreaded.

The UK is now, it seems, committed to an indefinite future of nuclear power; a policy decision which represents a dangerous, highly irresponsible and costly distraction from the real challenge of tackling climate change.

At a time when energy companies are warning homeowners to expect a hike in prices, and the price of oil has rocketed to an unprecedented $100 a barrel, the government has launched a PR offensive in favour of nuclear energy. But in choosing nuclear as the way forward, the Labour government is guilty of a staggering failure of political vision.

Rather than looking at the real solutions to demonstrate that there are safer, more effective and more sustainable answers to the energy crisis, and inspiring a new direction on housing insulation, improved efficiency and renewables, Gordon Brown has attempted to intimidate people into blindly accepting nuclear as the only option.

Opposition to the move has been widespread. In my South East constituency alone, many residents have expressed disgust at plans to build new nuclear facilities at Dungeness in Kent. Those living near to such sites earmarked for development will now suffer the direct consequences of the government’s new nuclear push. For example, a number of epidemiological studies have discovered unusually high incidences of childhood leukemia in areas close to nuclear sites.

The fact is that it simply isn't true to call nuclear power the ‘answer’ to the so-called energy gap we face over the next 10 years, and it cannot be the answer to climate change. The earliest that a new nuclear power station could come on stream is around 2017 – too late to fill the energy gap and seven years after the deadline for the UK’s 20% emissions reduction target. Even if Britain built ten new reactors, it's been estimated that nuclear power can only deliver a 4 per cent cut in carbon emissions some time after 2025.

Many nuclear supporters like to highlight the benefits of nuclear power for climate change. But while it is true that enriched uranium releases zero CO2, this does not make it carbon-free. Throughout the lifespan of a nuclear facility – from the construction of the plant and mining for uranium ore, to fuel processing, decommissioning and disposing of the nuclear waste – a significant amount of energy is consumed.

Furthermore, nuclear power is not cheap. No nuclear plant has ever been built without money from the public coffers, yet we are supposed to believe that this government will ensure private energy firms will foot the bill for the lot - from construction to clean-up. According to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, the total costs of cleaning up the existing nuclear waste are likely to reach an astronomical £70bn. On top of this, the costs of building a new waste dump could be as high as £21bn. This will inevitably lead to the taxpayer footing the bill.

Public concerns over the safety and ethics of nuclear have never gone away. As well as being a ripe target for terrorist attacks, civil nuclear programmes are inevitably linked to military capabilities. Furthermore, if Britain chooses to go down the nuclear route, it robs us of any moral authority to lecture other countries on their nuclear aspirations, and highlights the enormous hypocrisy of the Government’s position on Iran.

Ultimately, nuclear power is not just unsafe and unsustainable – it's entirely unnecessary. A combination of renewables, energy efficiency, decentralised energy and demand reduction could deliver emissions cuts and energy security much more safely and effectively.

The UK has some of the best renewable energy sources in the world, yet we lag behind other nations whose governments have developed more forward-thinking energy policies. For example, the reason that Germany has 300 times as much solar power and 10 times as much wind power than the UK is simply because German politicians, led by the Greens, have had the political will to lead the way.

On energy efficiency, the government's own figures show there is the potential to save over 30% of all energy used in the UK solely through efficiency measures that would also save money. Moreover, large centralised power stations, whether nuclear or gas, currently waste two thirds of the energy used in electricity generation before it even reaches our homes.

This waste alone accounts for a full 20% of UK CO2 emissions. Nuclear would lock us into a centralised distribution system for the next 50 years at exactly the time when opportunities for micro generation and local distribution networks are stronger than ever.

Radical reforms are urgently needed to the way renewable energy technology development is supported in the UK. Government grants are derisory and the private sector currently invests just £250m a year in renewable energy technology when to significantly boost this industry we need to see more like £2.5 billion going into new projects.

The UK has a real opportunity to lead the way in the development of alternative sources of renewable energy, such as wind and solar power, yet this Government has shown that it prefers to hold on to its ambition of introducing more dirty, dangerous and expensive nuclear power.

The Sustainable Development Commission defines sustainable development as improving the quality of life for people today without damaging the prospects of those living in tomorrow. If the government continues to ignore the calls for safer, greener and more sustainable energy alternatives, future generations will end up paying a high price for our nuclear legacy.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • NowPublic
  • Reddit

16 comments from readers

Douglas Chalmers
11 January 2008 at 18:51

In reality, there is no such thing as "carbon-free" but there is "nuclear-free"!!!

The real AGENDA that is being foisted onto countries around the world by mining corporations and those who are now in the process of forming a CARTEL to control the supply of enriched uranium to countries with nuclear power-generating plants.

It is expected that an alternative energy source such as nuclear fusion will be viable in the next 30 or 40 years. In the meantime, simple technologies such as solar thermal and wind power are already up and running and can be scaled up to larger production.

Uranium miners are desperate to dig up and flog off their filthy stuff while they still have a chance. The big oil cartels and others are moving into stitching up the world's energy market once again through coercing governments into having a restricted number of supply sources for enriching uranium.

Whereas individual countries have, up until now, had to mine or purchase their own uranium yellowcake and enrich it themselves, they are now being told that they could be seen as some kind of rogue state if they do so in future. That is the result of the harassment of Iran by the USA - and the real reason it is happening.

Cybertiger
11 January 2008 at 21:52

What can Britain have done to deserve such a stupid government? Could fraternising with the Americans have anything to with the simple stupidity of our 'elected' rulers?

gnuneo
12 January 2008 at 15:43

two words: Hydraulic Despotism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_despotism

sick, and utterly sickening.

isn't it so great our electoral system and corporate controlled media ensures the Greens can never be a viable political force, as they have been in Germany?

mmmhmm, i'm just so...PROUD to live under the Mother of All Parliaments, yes indeed.

DrColes
12 January 2008 at 18:21

Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007.

http://tinyurl.com/2dv6nz

Cybertiger
13 January 2008 at 09:59

"Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007. "

Who trust experts any more? Certainly not me. These experts are in bed with fossil fuel and nuklar junkies and they're progenating disgustingly.

Nato
14 January 2008 at 09:10

RE: DrColes:

GLOBAL WARMING SCEPTICS IN FOSSIL-FUEL FUNDING SHOCK!

Turns out these "scientists" may not be so "prominent" after all...

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/inhof...

Paul Evans
14 January 2008 at 11:04

On behalf of John Bushby:

Caroline Lucas has no need to worry - the chances of the nuclear "renaissance" are indeed slender.

When the build is expected to start in 2012 we will be well into the energy gap which will escalate the cost of every component of the nuclear programme - even the aggregate of the concrete for the containment is already in short supply and a Norwegian mountain is being ground up for Europe's needs. Who can estimate the cost of the diesel needed for the site work in 2012 to 2017?

Without subsidy there will be no new build.

The Energy Minister, Malcolm Wicks persists in calling nuclear power "home grown", presumably based on the "stock" of plutonium and uranium Sir David King mentioned in Radio 4's "Today". This is in the Sellafield waste, requiring a massive investment in re-enrichment centrifuges and chemical separation. NDA wants to dismantle Sellafield - not extend it. It estimates that there is fuel from the waste inventory for only three one-megawatt stations for their operational life and there would still be 300 years of waste handling thereafter.

The end of the Megatons to Megawatts US-Russian deal in five years' time will leave half of the US nuclear stations without fuel and will put the US and France in competition for dwindling supplies of uranium from Canada and Australia.

So the comment about the miners wanting to sell their "yellow cake" is the opposite to the situation, as primary uranium mining production is in severe decline and in any case only provides 60% of the global demand. The lights will soon be going out in France as they are too dependent on nukes (78%) and their supplies of uranium are dwindling. If Areva builds in the UK they will have to provide the nuclear fuel, so the French domestic requirements would be served first. So much for security of supply.

See http://www.after-oil.co.uk/nuclear.htm for an overview of nuclear power and global warming.

and "An even bigger hole", "A little makes a lot?" and "The big hole" on

http://www.after-oil.co.uk/articles.htm

John Busby

Maxgen
15 January 2008 at 07:29

Nuclear is not cheap, but renewables are not cheap either. Nuclear power stations have the benefits of economies of scale which have not been achieved by renewables. Most renewables projects are small scale. Even when they are scaled up it takes the output of twenty to thirty large wind farms to equal the output of one nuclear power station. The UK can probably nuclear power stations faster than building renewables if you consider the effects of the planning system. Assuming a 50/50 chance of getting planning permission an energy supplier would have to develop 40 to 60 potential wind farm sites. That's 40 to 60 planning applications public inquries etc. No company has the resources to do this. The nuclear station only has to go through the process once or twice.

trueblue
15 January 2008 at 17:49

when asked whats at stake thespokesman at the chernobyl plant said RUSSIA.But the technology is much safer today.I mean the goverment would never lie to us.And surely they can be wrong once or twice ,unfortunately once will be enough to stop any opposition.Show me a man who never made mistake

Pat T
24 January 2008 at 02:40

The nuclear question is really the tell-tale question as to whether it really is about CO2 for the warmers, or whether they're just modern-day versions of the Unabomber seeking to impose a "back to nature" lifestyle on the rest of us.

If it really is about CO2 then, even if you're right (which remains unproven but for argument's sake, assume you are), nuclear is the answer - we can just convert to nuclear, which not only involves no CO2 emissions but doesn't come from the middle east, and generate our power that way - and while that doesn't address transportation it goes a long way toward reducing CO2 emissions by replacing coal-fired plants to fuel baseload generation.

And we can go about our production and consumption at the same levels we now enjoy.

But I suspect many of the warmers don't want that.

See, this is an agenda first and foremost. The theory is maintained to support the agenda. Changes to the theory when necessary are OK so long as what results still supports the agenda.

This is Orwell. This is Animal Farm. It's not about CO2, never has been - it's about resuscitating long-since disproven Malthusian policy recommendations based on whatever theories can be drummed up to convince enough people to support them.

Instead of watching V for Vendetta you should be reading F.A. Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" - the threat to individual liberty comes mainly from the left.

Pat T
24 January 2008 at 02:43

And this business of "sustainable development" - folks on that commission should read their Smith, Say, Ricardo and Schumpeter and realize that the price mechanism allows the market to make those calculations for you!

If it costs less to develop method A than method B, that means method A is at the moment more sustainable, and when that stops being the case, it means method B is now more sustainable, because the relative costs are driven by the supply of and competing demands for the resources used!

Oh, if only basic Economics were a required part of the secondary school curriculum, the policy blunders that would be avoided......

BritishAirman
24 January 2008 at 12:05

Excellent article, Caroline.

Yesterday's announcement by the EU (Wednesday, 23 January 2008) that it intends to be committed to the 20% carbon reduction target by 2030 will, I believe, give the renewable lobby a powerful mandate for wider implementation of renewable sources. The issue of 'carbon trading credits' whilst not new is stamped all over the EU dossier. This suggests a possible promotion of cleaner based coal which, given its ability to produce voluminous levels of energy and with less potency in terms of CO2 emissions, is, in the opinion of many a source that is much better than the traditional burning of coal. The British government wanted a quick fix by surging forward as it has over a number of years now with nuclear power. Yesterday's announcement by the EU in Brussels effectively renders the energy bill, in its present form, as redundant. Compromise will now have to be made in finding the best-mix solution for the environment.

Whilst it is right that we acknowledge the interests of business, commercial interests should not be allowed in overriding public health issues indiscriminately. Nuclear, by its very nature, has serious implications which you have rightly pointed out in your article.

Best wishes,

http://markatscotland.blogspot.com

Pat T
25 January 2008 at 23:12

If we'd done all that 15 years ago there is no doubt in my mind that not only would you folks admit that global warming has stalled, but you'd be taking credit for it.

TheElitesWin
05 March 2008 at 10:15

I actually watched Hilary Ben (Environmental Minister) talk to a government committee about Environmental targets and issues, and I can say without doubt, he could not positively answer any questions about what they were doing. I HAVE TO SAY, IF THIS IS A TYPICAL GOVERNMENT MINISTER IN PARLIMENT "GOD HELP US ALL"

Peter Martin
18 March 2008 at 05:01

Caroline,

Its quite easy to say " Ultimately, nuclear power is not just unsafe and unsustainable – it's entirely unnecessary. A combination of renewables, energy efficiency, decentralised energy and demand reduction could deliver emissions cuts and energy security much more safely and effectively. "

Its a bit harder to justify. The French figures for CO2 emissions, per capita, are less than a half those of the UK , even though France exports a considerable aount of electricity produced from their nuclear power stations.

The main problem with renewables is not their cost but their unreliabilty. They are unlikely to be able to contribute more than about 20% of electricity to the National grid even if there was a political acceptance of having a wind generator located in every few acres of the countryside.

So , sorry Caroline, but there are three choices. a) Shut down most of the economy and rely on renewables. Your constituents may have to learn to live with no TV in the evening if there is insufficient wind. 2) Hope that the science of AGW is all wrong, side with the contrarians on the issue, and stick with coal fired power. 3) Get real about nuclear and follow the French example. Rather than shy away from the safety issues , face them head on and insist that they can and must , be made safe.

Peter Martin
18 March 2008 at 05:41

Paul Evans,

You wrote "The lights will soon be going out in France as they are too dependent on nukes (78%) and their supplies of uranium are dwindling."

There is an awful lot of nonsense written about Uranium and other nuclear fuels being in short supply. The price of Uranium has been very low in the last 20 years so it is hardly surprising that no-one has looked too hard for new supplies. That will change of course as the price rises.

Even if the price did increase by 10 fold it would make little difference to the economics of nuclear power generation. Most of the cost is in the capital infrastructure rather than the cost of the fuel itself.

Sea water contains approximately 0.5 mg per 1000 litres of Uranium which the Japanese have demonstrated to be recoverable. Coal contains typically 5mg per tonne of Uranium , which is concentrated into higher proprotions in the fly-ash waste. There is plenty of that about.

Besides Uranium, there is Thorium which is 4 times more abundant. We've hardly started on that. If supplies of Uranium and Thorium do look like they are getting low then there is fast breeder technology which can use up the depleted fuel rods. This is technically more difficult and we are a long way from needing that, if we ever do.

The ultimate nuclear fuel is Hydrogen, or its isotopes of Deuterium or Tritium. There is really no shortage of that! It may well be 300 years before controlled nuclear fusion is technically possible in a nuclear reactor but there is more than enough Uranium and Thorium to keep us going until then.

For all intents and purposes, nuclear fuels can be considered to be a renewable. The lights on the Champs Elyssey won't be dimming any time soon!

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

Read More

Vote!

Are women equal now?

Win Manu Chao
Albums!

Plus limited edition shirts and vinyl

Enter online