Skip to content or view screen version

Nuclear energy is a red herring

Green Left | 25.02.2009 10:49 | Ecology | Energy Crisis

An article entitled "Nuclear Power? Yes please.." appeared in the Independent newspaper on 23 February, 2009. It states that "four of the country's leading environmentalists" advocate nuclear power as a solution to climate change.

Nuclear Power? No Thanks!
Nuclear Power? No Thanks!


The vast majority of the green movement remain staunchly opposed to nuclear power.

FIrstly, it will take more than a decade for these plants to come on stream, which removes one plank of their argument about nuclear power stations to be ready in time to deal with climate change. Renewables are quicker to build.

Secondly, the large companies ready to profit from this bonanza historically ask for huge government subsidies. Were the renewable energy sector to be subsidised on the same scale, the unit cost of the new technologies would plummet.

Thirdly, very few jobs are created in giant nuclear plants, a central concern today as we stare at the abyss of an economic depression.

Fourthly, nuclear power will generate around 8% of our energy needs despite all the projected capital expenditure.

Instead, we propose the immediate implementation of energy efficiency projects up and down the country. We can save many times more energy than that generated by Nuclear. Moreover, we can put tens of thousands of people back into jobs by retooling houses and businesses.

Finally, we should be subsidising UK technology companies to use their talents for solar, wind and tidal energy. We are already falling behind Germany, Denmark and even Portugal in the introduction of renewables.

Instead of the red herring of nuclear energy, the green movement calls for investment in modern, robust, renewable energy.

Green Left
- Homepage: http://another-green-world.blogspot.com/2009/02/green-left-nuclear-energy-is-red.html

Comments

Hide the following 2 comments

Why?

25.02.2009 11:22

Why, when discussing the energy issue, is hemp never mentioned? It has a higher calorific content than coal, can be grown quickly, helps combat soil erosion, can be used as a fibre and building material, as a food source, as a source of any kind of oil product (including plastics) and for making paper! Add to this the fact that hemp grown for all these purposes is so low in any kind of 'drug' content so as to be useless as a drug and any kind of rational (or irrational depending on your views) opposition to it just melts away.

Selma


Not carbon-free

25.02.2009 16:48

The huge amounts of energy and materials required to build a nuclear power station add up to 27 or 28 times the CO2 emissions involved in building a coal, oil or gas-fired powers station.

This means that it is only in its 10th or 11th year of operation that a nuclear power station starts to have a lower carbon footprint than a dirty old "conventional" one.

So it's actually not 10 years away, it's 20+.

Stroppyoldgit
mail e-mail: dodgy@umpire.com