Offensive wars, normalization of war, militarization of foreign policy, exploding inequality, privatization, political corruption and nuclear power plants as panaceas bring us to the brink of ruin. Changing course and accepting new priorities could help create a human-friendly future beyond short-term capital gains
NEW NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS – NO, THANKS!
The report of a commission created by the British government sees no justification for a nuclear program for energy production
By Florian Roetzer
[This article published in the German-English cyber journal Telepolis, 3/8/2006 is translated from the German on the World Wide Web,
http://www.telepolis.de/r4/artikel/22/22202/1.html.]
The British government would like to build more state-of-the-art nuclear power plants to secure its energy supply, reduce dependence on oil and provide cleaner energy. The arguments are similar among all advocates of nuclear energy whether in the US where president Bush wants to construct more nuclear power plants or in Germany [Pillow Fights with arguments of yesteryear (1)]. In a comprehensive report, the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) (2) levels sharp criticism at the plans.
A few years ago the vision was Great Britain reducing carbon dioxide emissions 60% by 2050 and covering 10 percent of its energy need with renewable energies by 2010. Through the higher oil- and gas prices and the decline of oil fields in the North Sea, demands for new nuclear power plants were loud to assure the energy supply, provide price stability and lower the carbon dioxide burden. As in Germany, the old nuclear power plants that until now produced 20 percent of all electricity for a long time will gradually be shut down by 2035.
According to the SDC, there is no panacea or cure-all for protecting the atmosphere. If the energy volume produced by nuclear power plants were doubled, the release of carbon dioxide would remain high and unchanged and decline 8 percent by 2035. The SDC proposes a nix of measures that is less risky than nuclear energy, namely energy efficiency, developing renewable energies and better technologies to prevent the emission of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
For the commission, the disadvantages or risks of nuclear technology outweigh its advantages, at least with the present state of technology. Five reasons are cited against the resumption of nuclear technology that are true beyond Great Britain:
• The long-term storage of nuclear waste is not secure. A long-term safe disposal could not be guaranteed in the past. The half-life of plutonium is 24,000 years. Most waste material consists of trifling radioactive material. For a long time, there has been no acceptable solution for existing nuclear waste. The search for a safe final disposal site will lead to conflicts. The costs are hardly calculable; many billions will flow into dismantling present nuclear power plants.
• The costs of nuclear technology are unknown. There is a great risk that unforeseen costs will be shifted to taxpayers.
• Nuclear power ensures inflexibility. A central energy distribution system would be created just when the opportunities for small-scale producers and local networks are greater than ever.
• In the opinion of the SDC, a new nuclear program would prevent further energy savings that have hardly been exhausted and give people the “wrong signal”.
• An important political argument is that other countries like Iran cannot be denied access to nuclear technology if a new program is started. Low international standards will increase the risk of accidents, the spread of the technology and terrorist attacks. The necessary transport of fuel rods is a permanent risk. Used fuel rods could help in building “dirty bombs”. Countries could withdraw from agreements like the Nuclear Test Ban treaty.
For these reasons, the commission concluded that a new nuclear program for energy production cannot be justified now. Research on better and safer technologies should be continued. Perhaps we will have to weigh the question again in the future. With increased need, uranium supplies will be exhausted more quickly. Instead of dependence on oil countries, there will be dependence on the main suppliers of uranium – Australia, the US, Canada, Kazakhstan, South Africa and Niger.
The report of a commission created by the British government sees no justification for a nuclear program for energy production
By Florian Roetzer
[This article published in the German-English cyber journal Telepolis, 3/8/2006 is translated from the German on the World Wide Web,
http://www.telepolis.de/r4/artikel/22/22202/1.html.] The British government would like to build more state-of-the-art nuclear power plants to secure its energy supply, reduce dependence on oil and provide cleaner energy. The arguments are similar among all advocates of nuclear energy whether in the US where president Bush wants to construct more nuclear power plants or in Germany [Pillow Fights with arguments of yesteryear (1)]. In a comprehensive report, the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) (2) levels sharp criticism at the plans.
A few years ago the vision was Great Britain reducing carbon dioxide emissions 60% by 2050 and covering 10 percent of its energy need with renewable energies by 2010. Through the higher oil- and gas prices and the decline of oil fields in the North Sea, demands for new nuclear power plants were loud to assure the energy supply, provide price stability and lower the carbon dioxide burden. As in Germany, the old nuclear power plants that until now produced 20 percent of all electricity for a long time will gradually be shut down by 2035.
According to the SDC, there is no panacea or cure-all for protecting the atmosphere. If the energy volume produced by nuclear power plants were doubled, the release of carbon dioxide would remain high and unchanged and decline 8 percent by 2035. The SDC proposes a nix of measures that is less risky than nuclear energy, namely energy efficiency, developing renewable energies and better technologies to prevent the emission of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
For the commission, the disadvantages or risks of nuclear technology outweigh its advantages, at least with the present state of technology. Five reasons are cited against the resumption of nuclear technology that are true beyond Great Britain:
• The long-term storage of nuclear waste is not secure. A long-term safe disposal could not be guaranteed in the past. The half-life of plutonium is 24,000 years. Most waste material consists of trifling radioactive material. For a long time, there has been no acceptable solution for existing nuclear waste. The search for a safe final disposal site will lead to conflicts. The costs are hardly calculable; many billions will flow into dismantling present nuclear power plants.
• The costs of nuclear technology are unknown. There is a great risk that unforeseen costs will be shifted to taxpayers.
• Nuclear power ensures inflexibility. A central energy distribution system would be created just when the opportunities for small-scale producers and local networks are greater than ever.
• In the opinion of the SDC, a new nuclear program would prevent further energy savings that have hardly been exhausted and give people the “wrong signal”.
• An important political argument is that other countries like Iran cannot be denied access to nuclear technology if a new program is started. Low international standards will increase the risk of accidents, the spread of the technology and terrorist attacks. The necessary transport of fuel rods is a permanent risk. Used fuel rods could help in building “dirty bombs”. Countries could withdraw from agreements like the Nuclear Test Ban treaty.
For these reasons, the commission concluded that a new nuclear program for energy production cannot be justified now. Research on better and safer technologies should be continued. Perhaps we will have to weigh the question again in the future. With increased need, uranium supplies will be exhausted more quickly. Instead of dependence on oil countries, there will be dependence on the main suppliers of uranium – Australia, the US, Canada, Kazakhstan, South Africa and Niger.
e-mail:
Homepage:
Comments
Display the following comment