And no friend of the taxpayer either:


Nuclear power a costly failure

"Britain is still paying for nuclear-generated electricity consumed a generation ago because of the hidden costs of an industry reared on the expectation of public subsidies, the Energy Secretary Chris Huhne said yesterday.."

(The Independent, 14 Oct 2011)

"... Half of the budget of the Department for Energy and Climate Change goes on cleaning up Britain's legacy of nuclear waste, which includes the world's largest stockpile of civil plutonium waste, three Olympic-sized swimming pools of high-level waste, enough intermediate waste to fill a supertanker and even more low-level waste, he said. "That is 2bn a year, year in and year out, that we are continuing to pay for electricity that was consumed in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s on a false prospectus," he told the Society. "The nuclear industry was like an expense-account dinner: everybody ordering the most expensive items on the menu because someone else was paying the bill." ..."


------------------------------------------------------------------------

Doubling the UK's nuclear capacity would only cut carbon emissions by 8% by 2035, according to the Sustainable Development Commission's report, 'Nuclear power in a low carbon economy'.

GREEN? - The argument that nuclear is green is nonsense. The operation of a nuclear power station generates minimal carbon dioxide compared with fossil fuel power stations -- but in many other respects the nuclear industry is a diabolical polluter and has poisoned this planet. The industry points to the one and only area in which it can claim any credit, and hopes nobody will notice all the bad bits. It's a dirty business.


Pollution occurs at every stage of the nuclear process.
In the energy-intensive mining of the uranium, where windblown radioactive dust is a persistent hazard. In its (fossil fuelled) transport. In its initial processing, from which radioactive waste products outweigh the intended product. In its (fossil fuelled) shipment across the oceans. In its further processing, and in its waste products, many of which will not lose their toxicity for centuries. Plus the enormous amount of energy from other (fossil fuelled) sources consumed in construction and the permanent cooling and storage of certain waste products. Nuclear power stations and reprocessing plants routinely release radiation into the atmosphere. Ireland has long expressed anger at ongoing pollution from UK nuclear discharges into the sea.

If the Romans had used nuclear power, we would still be guarding their waste. If the ancient pyramids were nuclear waste, we would still be guarding those too.
See http://www.sea-us.org.au/disc-guide/disc-guide.html#table


The argument that going nuclear removes our dependency on imports doesn't add up either. The UK imports its uranium requirements, and has to pay the going rate in competition with other buyers.

TERRORISM
How long before terrorists mount an attack on a nuclear facility? The day they do (and it's surely when not if), shares in nuclear-related companies will crash, and every country with a network of nuclear power plants will suddenly realise they have boobytrapped themselves. A direct hit on a reactor (though perfectly feasible, as many were never designed to cope with more than the accidental collision of a small aircraft) would not be needed - facilities adjacent contain enough radioactive material on its way in and out, and there are nuclear convoys crisscrossing Britain every few weeks, between the ports, the power stations, and the processing facilities.

We all share one sky. As demonstrated by the disaster at Chernobyl, when radioactivity was distributed by the wind across an entire continent and beyond. And similarly when contaminants were released in the disastrous events at Windscale and Three Mile Island. The risk and frequency of such events may be low, but the consequences are global and uncontainable. Far more so than the biggest of the big oil spills. Twenty-five years on from Chernobyl, grazing land in Wales still registers pollution from it.



- Returning to nuclear power is a step backwards. And it diverts investment from the very alternatives that have been starved of money for decades.

If the government gives the go-ahead to more nuclear power stations, every household will have to pay an estimated 150 per year "nuclear tax" (slapped onto electricity bills) to pay for them. [Source: Lib Dems]
But every man, woman, and child in Britain is already going to have to pay 800 to cover the 56 billion cost of cleaning up our existing nuclear power stations. [Source: Lib Dems]

And we will be locked into an even bigger legacy of stored waste which future generations will not thank us for.


Links:
http://www.ratical.com/radiation/NRBE/NRadBioEffects.html (biological risk)
http://nonewnukes.ukrivers.net/ (campaign site)
http://www.newnuclearpowernothanks.org/ (campaign site)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire (with links to T.M.I and Chernobyl)
http://www.foe-scotland.org.uk/nation/energy05.html The Scottish case

There is huge public enthusiasm worldwide for progress towards the use of safe renewable energy sources. And there is a nuclear industry whose supporters are doing their best to stop it happening.

The public are being bullied into believing that nuclear power is essential. And that alternatives are not viable. Billions of dollars that could and should be going into hastening the development of alternatives are instead being chanelled into keeping the nuclear industry alive.


27 March 2007 -
DUBLIN (AFP) - Environment ministers from Austria, Iceland, Ireland and Norway said Monday that nuclear power was not the solution to global warming.

In a joint statement following a meeting in Dublin, the four ministers from the non-nuclear countries said the inherent risks and problems associated with the nuclear energy option remain and it can not therefore claim to be a clean alternative to fossil fuel use.

.. we voice serious concern that nuclear energy is being presented as a solution to climate change. It is our collective view that the current debate seeks to downplay the environmental, waste, proliferation, nuclear liability and safety issues and seeks to portray nuclear energy as a clean, safe and problem free response to climate change.

...After more than 50 years of nuclear power, waste remains the most intractable issue, they added. The legacy of the nuclear industry for many generations to come continues to increase with little evidence of any real implementation of necessary long term solutions to the waste issue. Nuclear waste reprocessing, advocated as a solution to the management of nuclear waste, has long since lost its lustre and today the industry remains economically and environmentally untenable.

They said that reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel represents a key source of pollution risks and remains a significant source of radioactive pollution and called on Britain not to re-open the THORP plant at its Sellafield site.

------------------------------------------------

Sellafield of course is the name applied to what used to be called Windscale. And 50+ years on from the infamous fire that prompted the namechange, work is now under way on the final removal of fuel from the damaged reactor. This is scheduled to be completed in 2012. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire




Countries who rely on nuclear power are outnumbered by those who dont. Nuclear is only one of eleven or more sources for electricity production. Gas, coal, oil, solar, biofuels, nuclear, tidal, hydro, geothermal, wind, wavepower. Everyone has their own order of preference which will differ from place to place - mine happens to totally exclude one of those eleven.

On the green side have a read of Utilities Giving Away Power as Wind, Sun Flood European Grid which I came across last month.

.

Yes and it was issued PDQ.

Thanks for that link skinny. Interesting stuff.