Government nuclear announcement only bold in its deception

Posted by tracy - 10 January 2008 at 12:36pm - 12 Comments

I was sitting in my local last night with the Arsenal game on and looking around me at the rapt faces in the Hackney pub and I started to wonder what makes people so passionate about football yet so apathetic about politics and the future of our planet.

Well for one, when was the last time you saw a government make a move you could really applaud? Take action that was bold, creative and from the heart? Something that grips and inspires the human spirit?

I'm not sure I've ever seen a government make a move like that, so it was no surprise today when the government officially announced plans for a new generation of nuclear power stations in the UK.

The decision defies logic.

The government claims that we need nuclear power to fight climate change.

But according to the government's own figures, even if the UK built 10 new nuclear reactors it would only deliver a 4% cut in carbon emissions some time after 2025. The real solutions to climate change are available now. Energy efficiency, cleaner use of fossil fuels, renewables and state of the art decentralised power stations are the real solution to cutting our emissions and halting climate change.

The government says we need nuclear power to bridge the energy gap.

Electricity is not the same as energy. The lion's share of our energy demand is for heat and transport. Most of the gas we use is for heating and hot water and for industrial purposes. Nuclear power cannot replace that energy.

And it's a similar case for oil as it's virtually all used for transport - nuclear power can't take its place.

The real answer to lessening our oil dependence includes improved vehicle efficiency, improved public transport systems and reducing the need to travel especially for business.

Why hasn't anyone called foul yet?

And so I'm searching for answers, something that makes some sense as to why the government would go down the nuclear path when there isn't a snowball's chance in a reactor that it will deliver on the government's promises. But the only good answers I can come up with have nothing to do with climate change or our energy needs. We're at a completely different game - they're playing politics.

The government has said that climate change is one of the greatest threats we face. Yet it became quickly clear that they weren't doing anything about it. All talk, no action and sooner or later someone is going to notice you're playing off side.

They need to give the impression they are doing something. Something big, visible, seemingly bold - whether it actually has any impact or not.

They're trying to fake us out, and before Brown needs to go to the polls.

They lack the vision to see the solutions all around them. Sweden currently gets 30% of their energy for renewables, Woking Borough Council has cut their emissions by 77% through the use of Combined Heat and Power stations (CHP) and renewables. Scientists have proven that Germany - which is already way ahead of us on renewables (14 per cent in 2007) - can power itself entirely by renewable energy sources. 100 per cent.

Yet our own government is hanging on to old technologies, technologies that won't deliver the emissions cuts and will drain investment away from proven technologies because they're more concerned about holding on to power than taking the bold steps that are needed to implement a real solution.

So a new game begins, and we're going to be there every step of the way. We're going to advance on the companies who want to build new nuclear power stations, we're going to block the bulldozers, we're going to stand in front of every pound that goes into nuclear power instead of the real solutions to climate change.

Join us - sign up to get involved and be a part of the real solution to climate change.

Article tagged as: CHP, climate change, energy gap, energy security, nuclear power, nuclear white paper

Comments Commenting is now closed

And to get down the heart of the matter I personally think that one of the only reasons they even chose nuclear was simply because they saw investment and public attention, and thought bingo! two birds with one stone. by cynical views aside what can we really do to stop this? like you said most people just arent interested in politics and the enviroment, to them we are just green bleeters that will complain about everything so how can we win? we are a small voice in an invisible crowd, no one wants to know because it suits them that way .

they say that global warming is the biggest threat but to me its the government thats the threat. It will not be long until their big ballons bursts and the public sees what is really going on but then it will be too late.

For what avail the plough or sail, or land or life, if freedom fail? ~Ralph Waldo Emerson

By Plain.crazy.monkey - 11 January 2008 at 10:29am

The Government gave two key reasons for going for more nuclear power: fighting climate change; and reducing dependence on energy imports.

Neither reason adds up. The uranium oxide we use to make nuclear fuel comes from abroad, mined and transported at very high carbon cost, so we would still be dependent on energy imports. Better to be as energy self-sufficient as possible, through efficiency and renewables investment.

Unlike energy efficiency investment nuclear is very slow and ineffective at combatting climate change because it takes a long time to design, approve, build and get them into full operation. It then takes time to counteract the high carbon costs of construction and the nuclear fuel cycle. We need
to seriously get to grips with climate change now, not sometime after 2025.

Lets not forget that billions spent on more nuclear is money not spent on genuinely sustainable energy generation, which will fight climate change.

Glenn Vowles
http://vowlesthegreen.blogspot.com

By Glenn Vowles - 11 January 2008 at 10:46pm

Hi, does anyone know of an energy supplier that I could switch to in the UK that definately does not use any nuclear power in its production?

By monica.93 - 12 January 2008 at 10:17am

http://www.electricityinfo.org/suppliers.php

Only way to guaruntee no nuclear is to generate your own energy on site or with a local cooperative.

All of the suppliers use energy from the grid.
Scottish power blessed with the lions share of Britians hydro power has one of the lowest(1%).
or
Ecotricity invests every penny of its profits in more renewables,putting its neck and reputation on the line,but is very popular and cannot at present generate enough renewable power so buys from the grid,including nuclear(25.6%).
Good energy is a middleman buying renewable energy only,no nuclear (0%)but does not build any renewable plant that we desperatly need.
Npower,Eon renewables etc are some of the biggest investers with some of their profits in prototype Wave and tidal power.
morally confusing which way to go,so as i said at begining try to generate your own energy until renewables in the uk are big enough to go their own way.

By renewables now - 12 January 2008 at 4:55pm

IF THE GOVERMENT WANT TO SAVE 100 BILLION POUNDS THEN THEY SHOULD SCRAP THIER IDEA'S FOR NUCLEAR AND TRIDENT AND INBRACE RENEWABLE POWER.

By ANDREW INGHAM - 1 July 2010 at 5:12pm

MONICA I HAVE A AN ANSWER TO YOUR PROBLEM ABOUT SWITCHING ENERGY SUPPLIER. TRY GOING OFF GRID THEN YOU WILL NOT NEED TO SWITCH ENERGY SUPPLIER. YOU WILL MAKING YOUR OWN ENERGY.

By ANDREW INGHAM - 8 July 2010 at 3:18pm

I think that the reason people have more spirit in football is because they have simply lost faith in this government, true and unavoidable. their partnerships in the world are built on interest and money stakes so its near impossible for them to do any good for the country when they are so heavily involved in the destruction of it. And to get down the heart of the matter I personally think that one of the only reasons they even chose nuclear was simply because they saw investment and public attention, and thought bingo! two birds with one stone. by cynical views aside what can we really do to stop this? like you said most people just arent interested in politics and the enviroment, to them we are just green bleeters that will complain about everything so how can we win? we are a small voice in an invisible crowd, no one wants to know because it suits them that way . they say that global warming is the biggest threat but to me its the government thats the threat. It will not be long until their big ballons bursts and the public sees what is really going on but then it will be too late. For what avail the plough or sail, or land or life, if freedom fail? ~Ralph Waldo Emerson

By Plain.crazy.monkey - 11 January 2008 at 10:29am

The Government gave two key reasons for going for more nuclear power: fighting climate change; and reducing dependence on energy imports. Neither reason adds up. The uranium oxide we use to make nuclear fuel comes from abroad, mined and transported at very high carbon cost, so we would still be dependent on energy imports. Better to be as energy self-sufficient as possible, through efficiency and renewables investment. Unlike energy efficiency investment nuclear is very slow and ineffective at combatting climate change because it takes a long time to design, approve, build and get them into full operation. It then takes time to counteract the high carbon costs of construction and the nuclear fuel cycle. We need to seriously get to grips with climate change now, not sometime after 2025. Lets not forget that billions spent on more nuclear is money not spent on genuinely sustainable energy generation, which will fight climate change. Glenn Vowles http://vowlesthegreen.blogspot.com

By Glenn Vowles - 11 January 2008 at 10:46pm

Hi, does anyone know of an energy supplier that I could switch to in the UK that definately does not use any nuclear power in its production?

By monica.93 - 12 January 2008 at 10:17am

http://www.electricityinfo.org/suppliers.php Only way to guaruntee no nuclear is to generate your own energy on site or with a local cooperative. All of the suppliers use energy from the grid. Scottish power blessed with the lions share of Britians hydro power has one of the lowest(1%). or Ecotricity invests every penny of its profits in more renewables,putting its neck and reputation on the line,but is very popular and cannot at present generate enough renewable power so buys from the grid,including nuclear(25.6%). Good energy is a middleman buying renewable energy only,no nuclear (0%)but does not build any renewable plant that we desperatly need. Npower,Eon renewables etc are some of the biggest investers with some of their profits in prototype Wave and tidal power. morally confusing which way to go,so as i said at begining try to generate your own energy until renewables in the uk are big enough to go their own way.

By renewables now - 12 January 2008 at 4:55pm

IF THE GOVERMENT WANT TO SAVE 100 BILLION POUNDS THEN THEY SHOULD SCRAP THIER IDEA'S FOR NUCLEAR AND TRIDENT AND INBRACE RENEWABLE POWER.

By ANDREW INGHAM - 1 July 2010 at 5:12pm

MONICA I HAVE A AN ANSWER TO YOUR PROBLEM ABOUT SWITCHING ENERGY SUPPLIER. TRY GOING OFF GRID THEN YOU WILL NOT NEED TO SWITCH ENERGY SUPPLIER. YOU WILL MAKING YOUR OWN ENERGY.

By ANDREW INGHAM - 8 July 2010 at 3:18pm