A group of five people have locked to concrete blocks in the entrance of Sizewell nuclear power station. They started the action at 7.45am this morning and unfurled a banner reading 'nuclear power is not the answer to climate chaos'.
The protesters have targeted the power station to highlight that nuclear power is no answer to climate change.
Sizewell B nuclear power station is operated by British Energy and is the UK's only large pressurised water reactor. In the first ten years of it's operation it produced about 3% of the UK's electricity. British Energy claim the power station has reduced the amount of greenhouses gases that would otherwised have been released by fossil fuel generation by around 60 million tonnes.
However they have conveniently accounted for only a tiny part of entire production cycle. A large amount of energy (and therefore greenhouse gas emissions) are involved in the mining of uranium ore, it's refining and enrichment and the construction and eventual decommissioning of the nuclear power stations themselves also needs to be factored into the equation.
Last year, during the climate camp near Drax in Yorkshire, protesters blockaded the Hartlepool nuclear power station.
Sizewell B nuclear power station is operated by British Energy and is the UK's only large pressurised water reactor. In the first ten years of it's operation it produced about 3% of the UK's electricity. British Energy claim the power station has reduced the amount of greenhouses gases that would otherwised have been released by fossil fuel generation by around 60 million tonnes.
However they have conveniently accounted for only a tiny part of entire production cycle. A large amount of energy (and therefore greenhouse gas emissions) are involved in the mining of uranium ore, it's refining and enrichment and the construction and eventual decommissioning of the nuclear power stations themselves also needs to be factored into the equation.
Last year, during the climate camp near Drax in Yorkshire, protesters blockaded the Hartlepool nuclear power station.
Comments
Hide the following 7 comments
Life Cycle analysis
20.08.2007 10:20
Alan Dixon
Re: Lie-Cycle Analysis
20.08.2007 16:45
Nuclear energy has "upstream" and "downstream" CO2 emissions which are uranium mining, enrichment and storage (upstream), and nuclear waste processing, storage, and plant decommissioning (downstream). All of these processes use massive amounts of fuel and thus CO2 emissions. Mining is heavily reliant on oil for fuel, not electricity, so the "carbon neutral" energy from nuclear production cannot be used to fuel this process.
Have you ever considered how much CO2 (never mind money) would be required to guard and protect nuclear waste for 250,000 years?
Nuclear fuel is the most expensive form of energy production. However, this is disguised in the government's and the nuclear industry's statistics because they refuse to include decommissioning costs in the actual cost of electricity, which is considerably higher than any other form of energy production. Historically it has been the tax payer who picks up the tab, thus hiding the burden.
There is also no way we can guarantee the safe storage of this material for 250,000 years. It is ridiculous to state that this is even remotely possible. The decision to go nuclear will burden people born yet with a huge responsibility they had no decision in taking. This is as far removed from a democratic decision as it is possible to get.
Nulcear power stations will increase the background radiation count of our country. This will increase the amount of cancer and leaukaemia deaths in this country, though we will not know by what rate unless it happens. Lets say for arguments sake that 1 person a year dies. Over 250,000 years that is a holocaust. A very slow one, but one none the less. Do you, or anyone have the right to decide whether those people live or die?
The technology for renewable energy sources such as tidal power and wind power are already with us today. The are relatively cheap and effective. We have a huge amount of coast for the land mass of our country. The real reason the government does not want to introduce renewable energy is purely political on two counts:-
1.) They want more nuclear weapons. Trident cannot be financially justified without sharing the cost with a common enrichment infrastructure, and vice versa, nuclear power cannot be justified without such cost sharing either. So there are some nasty strings attached to nuclear power, which could potentially kick start yet another arms race and increase global political instability.
2.) Introducing renewable energy would in all likelihood allow the creation of a distributed power generation system. This would take power generation out of the hands of corporations and put it into the hands of every day people. It would mean a local community could save up and buy a wind turbine and solar panels for low cost and green energy. It would prevent the very same corporations who lobby parliament and fund political parties into power from making a profit. And the goverment hate that idea. They cannot stand the idea of every day people taking control of their own lives and not being dependent on them. If people realised that they could do it for one thing, then they would realise that they could do it for many things. They want us to need them.
Mike D
Stop Third Runway
20.08.2007 17:30
This is what the Climate Camp is all about. The Protesters are making people aware that BAA has no concerns but fuck up our environment.
BIG and Well Done to ALL. Long LIve SWAMPY !
Lucky Singh
e-mail:
Luckystarfr2001@yahoo.fr
Sizewell B action devalues the rest of the campaign
20.08.2007 22:42
But twenty-eight years later the situation has changed dramatically. We have climate change, and as a professional engineer, I cannot begin to see how the world can tackle this without a significant input from nuclear power. Fifty years of nuclear power generation in many countries, France in particular which generates 78% of its electricity this way, has shown that well-regulated reactors are extremely safe. The relativley small amount of dangerous waste they generate can be buried deep in the ground close to the reactor, where it will stay forever. The dangers to world peace from climate change and imbalances in access to cheap energy, far outweigh any danger from nuclear technology proliferation.
The Sizewell B action was stupid and ill-informed, and devalues the rest of the campaign.
Ted
e-mail:
TL.freecycler@ntlworld.com
Re:Re: Lie-Cycle Analysis
21.08.2007 13:23
Alan
Re:Re:Re: Lie-Cycle Analysis
21.08.2007 17:39
"I could spend more of my time refuting it point by point". You haven't refuted it at all, in general or point by point. You made an unsubstantiated claim then dismissed anyone who disagreed with you as "paranoid" and someone whose "mind is closed to any scientific challenge to you [sic] belief system."
For an example of the clear and deliberate lies and misinformation that the nuclear industry spouts see the comments from the Sizewell spokesman in response to our action (e.g. in the BBC news clip available from
Adam
Can't do any more Re's
21.08.2007 21:03
References:
Sustainable Development Commission. The Role of Nuclear Power in a Low Carbon Economy, Paper2
Surely you won't argue with them.
You probably won't like the last two, but I doubt you can produce any corroborated and verifiable figures to counter any of their reports.
250,000 years of cancer holocaust not paranoid? I rest my case.
Alan