Bid for Britain's nuclear power stations goes piff paff poof

There's a difference between the background radiation we're exposed to all the time (and have evolved to cope with) and the acute man-made variety which is highly dangerous. It's one thing to be exposed to certain types of radiation as part of medical treatment in highly controlled circumstances (there's a good reason radiographers stand behind shielding every time the x-ray machine fires), another entirely to have extremely toxic byproducts from the nuclear industry leeching into the environment.

I'd be interested to see the information on which you base your assumptions about the generating capacity of wind turbines - can you provide more info? And yes, they have a life span - everything does, including nuclear power stations. At least with wind turbines they can be dismantled and replaced with no lethal waste to worry about or contaminated sites to monitor for decades or centuries.

Equally, any new development is going to cost something but the costs of nuclear far outstrip those of renewable energy sources or combined heat and power installations. The bill for dealing with just the waste and decommissioning of just the existing plants is currently estimated at £73bn, although that is just an estimate and has recently been rising sharply.

But to answer your question, we have plenty of viable, alternative options - here's the convenient solution to climate change.

web editor
gpuk

By jamie - 12 August 2008 at 3:55pm

Thanks for your comments about the potential radiation threats from nuclear reactors. The debate about the hazardous nature of the various types of waste produced by reactors has been running for years - your simple assertion that the radiation they produce is indistinguishable from other, 'natural' radiation and is therefore not a problem is disingenuous - because the nature of nuclear power plants is to create artificial concentrations of radioactive materials which rarely (if ever) occur in the natural world, and we're all still grappling with the implications.

Dealing with both high and low level radioactive waste has been occupying a great deal of government and scientific attention for decades - decommissioning and clean-up costs for existing UK reactors alone are already running into the tens of billions - ample evidence that it is recognised as a serious issue. So your jibe about "Made-up-to-support-my-argument-radiation" is well wide of the mark, to put it politely.

But although undoubtedly important, waste is only one of the problems with nuclear power, as you can see from the list below:

1 nuclear reactors simply won't deliver the urgent emissions cuts needed to tackle climate change. Even the most optimistic estimates suggest that a new generation of nuclear powers stations will only reduce our emissions by 4% by 2024: far too little, far too late, to stop global warming or address the predicted energy gap.

2 a new generation of reactors will create thousands of tonnes of hazardous radioactive waste, which remains dangerous for up to a million years.

3 we'll all be liable for the clean-up costs; estimated at over £70 billion for existing waste.

4 new reactors will act as targets for terrorists, including nuclear waste trains carrying deadly cargoes along our public rail network.

5 they will lead to the proliferation of weapons-grade plutonium.

6 they will keep the threat of a nuclear reactor accident hanging over us. As recent studies show, the nuclear industries safety claims don't stand up to close examination, with 4,100 fatalities in total, and 29 accidents around the world since Chernobyl.

But the most imminent threat that a new nuclear age poses is to the real energy solutions to climate change. Investment in nuclear energy and its infrastructure is a dangerous and expensive distraction from the real solutions – energy efficiency, renewable technology and decentralised energy. By decentralising our energy system and producing energy locally using Combined Heat and Power (CHP) , the UK can meet its energy needs in a much cheaper, cleaner and safer way, slashing our climate change contributions.

Read the case against nuclear power for more details.

By jossc - 23 October 2008 at 11:29am

Enough please Colin, Greenpeace's reasons for opposing nuclear power are practical, not ideological. You may not like them but they are factually accurate, and we just don't have time to endlessly debate with you - I've made the bare bones of our case above - anyone who wants more detail can find it in abundance on our nuclear campaign pages. The only new point you raise which I want to take issue with is on CHP - you are fundamentally not understanding the huge advantage CHP gives in terms of energy efficiency (much more so than nuclear or any other centralised solution). CHP plants burn their energy (could be gas or biomass - most are dual-fuel ) at over 80% efficiency, compared with 35% or so in a conventional power station. This is of course because CHP plants re-use what would otherwise be waste heat to provide heating for local homes and industry, something giant centralised nuclear plants are not suited for. Add to that the fact that as Poyry's recent report pointed out, 9 new strategically placed industrial CHP plants can supply similar amounts of power to the UK as the proposed nuclear equivalent at a fraction of the cost (£1 billion per plant, as opposed to £3 billion) and in less than half the time, and the benefits should be blindingly obvious to anyone except the nuclear industry themselves. And even those who support and understand the nuclear industry well are not blind to its limitations. Only a few days ago Mohammed ElBaradei – Head of the UN Atomic Energy Agency and Nobel Prize laureate - drew a line in the sand on all the rhetoric and expectations on nuclear energy and said: "It (nuclear energy) is not a panacea by itself and many countries will have to understand that it will take 10 to 15 years before they can use nuclear (power)," he said. "They'll have to prove it's economically competitive, a good part of the energy mix." He also acknowledged that "they (nuclear plants) are expensive to build and require strict adherence to safety and security requirements" and admitted that "vulnerabilities remain. We can never be complacent about safety. A single nuclear accident anywhere in the world could undermine the future of nuclear energy everywhere." The nuclear power industry has had over 50 years to solve the problems of cost, waste and safety which have dogged it from the start, and yet it's still beset by these issues. There are safer, cheaper, faster and more environmentally friendly solutions to our future energy needs, and we will continue to push for their adoption because they represent the best chance we've got of heading off the climate change disaster which is staring us all in the face.

By jossc - 30 October 2008 at 12:07pm

Your optimism is touching Colin, but forgive me if I don't share it.

In fact, to my mind your determination to make nuclear appear fit for purpose exposes its already obvious flaws quite spectacularly.

For example:

What is the practical problem with nuclear waste if it never harms anybody or anything?

Absolutely nothing - but who's in a position to give that guarantee? No one, so it's a bit of a silly thing to say, isn't it? Not to mention sounding a bit desperate - especially when there are numerous examples of harm caused by waste - one recent one for example occurred in France last year when an accident at the Tricastin treatment plant (run by EdF)
led to 75kg of untreated uranium seeping into the ground , causing local rivers and groundwater to be contaminated, and leading locals to rely for weeks on bottled water and tanks trucked in from other parts of France.

Only a minor example for sure, but indicative of the fallacy of your claim about "never harming anybody or anything". For a more exhaustive list of nuclear screw-ups, try here.

What is the practical problem with nuclear facilities being possible terrorist targets?

Er - blindingly obviously, terrorists could get a lot more 'bang for their buck' taking out Sizewell B than Drax in terms of making the surrounding area uninhabitable for a few years. If I was a terrorist who's aim was to inflict the maximum inconvenience and panic, I know where I'd be pointing my Jumbo jet...

What is the practical purpose of worrying about the theoretical possibility of a nuclear accident when no such accident has ever occurred in a UK powerstation?

Again, your staunch faith in British infallibility is touching, but really this comment borders on the unhinged - ignoring for a moment the 1957 Windscale disaster (which we have still never been told the full details of publicly, but which released an estimated 750 terabecquerels (20,000 Ci) of radioactive material into the surrounding environment, including Iodine-131, which is taken up in the human body by the thyroid. Consequently milk and other produce from the surrounding farming areas had to be destroyed) or the Dounreay waste store exploding in 1977 (the beach is, or was until recently, still off-limits to civilians), low-level accidents are reported at one UK nuclear facility or another almost every week.

I guess you won't be happy until we've had our own Three Mile Island or Chernobyl, and you can sit around telling us how it's really not that bad (sorry, I know that was in poor taste and probably uncalled for, but honestly, I find your gung-ho naivety about the relative risks involved pretty shocking).

What is the practical problem with nuclear power delivering 4% cut in emissions by 2024 and more thereafter?

Too little, too late to be much of a solution to climate change. In practical terms nuclear is vastly expensive, and will hoover up money that could be spent more profitably on interim CHP plants and longterm renewable development.

What is the practical problem with the consumers of electricity paying for the cleanup costs of decommissioning and waste management?

Exhorbitant costs over hundreds of years - why would we want to saddle ourselves with this level of debt and difficult storage issues when there are far cheaper and safer alternatives?

What is the practical reason for associating weapons proliferation with civil nuclear power generation when civil nuclear powerstations in the UK do not produce weapons grade material?

Reportedly, it was driving Pile I at Windscale too hard to produce plutonium for our military nuclear programme that resulted in the 1957 fire referred to above. You say civil reactors do not produce weapons grade plutonium - that may currently be true, but they can be converted to such production if ordered to - it's a matter of choice, not fundamental design.

And again, correct me if I'm wrong, your question implies that there is no overlap between the staff who work in civil reactors and those in military installations like Aldermaston and Porton Down. Now I know you've just got to be kidding. Are you really that naive?

Anyway, good to chew the fat with you as ever, and I expect we'll speak again soon...

By jossc - 6 November 2008 at 6:43pm

There's a difference between the background radiation we're exposed to all the time (and have evolved to cope with) and the acute man-made variety which is highly dangerous. It's one thing to be exposed to certain types of radiation as part of medical treatment in highly controlled circumstances (there's a good reason radiographers stand behind shielding every time the x-ray machine fires), another entirely to have extremely toxic byproducts from the nuclear industry leeching into the environment. I'd be interested to see the information on which you base your assumptions about the generating capacity of wind turbines - can you provide more info? And yes, they have a life span - everything does, including nuclear power stations. At least with wind turbines they can be dismantled and replaced with no lethal waste to worry about or contaminated sites to monitor for decades or centuries. Equally, any new development is going to cost something but the costs of nuclear far outstrip those of renewable energy sources or combined heat and power installations. The bill for dealing with just the waste and decommissioning of just the existing plants is currently estimated at £73bn, although that is just an estimate and has recently been rising sharply. But to answer your question, we have plenty of viable, alternative options - here's the convenient solution to climate change. web editor gpuk

By jamie - 12 August 2008 at 3:55pm

Thanks for your comments about the potential radiation threats from nuclear reactors. The debate about the hazardous nature of the various types of waste produced by reactors has been running for years - your simple assertion that the radiation they produce is indistinguishable from other, 'natural' radiation and is therefore not a problem is disingenuous - because the nature of nuclear power plants is to create artificial concentrations of radioactive materials which rarely (if ever) occur in the natural world, and we're all still grappling with the implications. Dealing with both high and low level radioactive waste has been occupying a great deal of government and scientific attention for decades - decommissioning and clean-up costs for existing UK reactors alone are already running into the tens of billions - ample evidence that it is recognised as a serious issue. So your jibe about "Made-up-to-support-my-argument-radiation" is well wide of the mark, to put it politely. But although undoubtedly important, waste is only one of the problems with nuclear power, as you can see from the list below: 1 nuclear reactors simply won't deliver the urgent emissions cuts needed to tackle climate change. Even the most optimistic estimates suggest that a new generation of nuclear powers stations will only reduce our emissions by 4% by 2024: far too little, far too late, to stop global warming or address the predicted energy gap. 2 a new generation of reactors will create thousands of tonnes of hazardous radioactive waste, which remains dangerous for up to a million years. 3 we'll all be liable for the clean-up costs; estimated at over £70 billion for existing waste. 4 new reactors will act as targets for terrorists, including nuclear waste trains carrying deadly cargoes along our public rail network. 5 they will lead to the proliferation of weapons-grade plutonium. 6 they will keep the threat of a nuclear reactor accident hanging over us. As recent studies show, the nuclear industries safety claims don't stand up to close examination, with 4,100 fatalities in total, and 29 accidents around the world since Chernobyl. But the most imminent threat that a new nuclear age poses is to the real energy solutions to climate change. Investment in nuclear energy and its infrastructure is a dangerous and expensive distraction from the real solutions – energy efficiency, renewable technology and decentralised energy. By decentralising our energy system and producing energy locally using Combined Heat and Power (CHP) , the UK can meet its energy needs in a much cheaper, cleaner and safer way, slashing our climate change contributions. Read the case against nuclear power for more details.

By jossc - 23 October 2008 at 11:29am

Enough please Colin, Greenpeace's reasons for opposing nuclear power are practical, not ideological. You may not like them but they are factually accurate, and we just don't have time to endlessly debate with you - I've made the bare bones of our case above - anyone who wants more detail can find it in abundance on our nuclear campaign pages. The only new point you raise which I want to take issue with is on CHP - you are fundamentally not understanding the huge advantage CHP gives in terms of energy efficiency (much more so than nuclear or any other centralised solution). CHP plants burn their energy (could be gas or biomass - most are dual-fuel ) at over 80% efficiency, compared with 35% or so in a conventional power station. This is of course because CHP plants re-use what would otherwise be waste heat to provide heating for local homes and industry, something giant centralised nuclear plants are not suited for. Add to that the fact that as Poyry's recent report pointed out, 9 new strategically placed industrial CHP plants can supply similar amounts of power to the UK as the proposed nuclear equivalent at a fraction of the cost (£1 billion per plant, as opposed to £3 billion) and in less than half the time, and the benefits should be blindingly obvious to anyone except the nuclear industry themselves. And even those who support and understand the nuclear industry well are not blind to its limitations. Only a few days ago Mohammed ElBaradei – Head of the UN Atomic Energy Agency and Nobel Prize laureate - drew a line in the sand on all the rhetoric and expectations on nuclear energy and said: "It (nuclear energy) is not a panacea by itself and many countries will have to understand that it will take 10 to 15 years before they can use nuclear (power)," he said. "They'll have to prove it's economically competitive, a good part of the energy mix." He also acknowledged that "they (nuclear plants) are expensive to build and require strict adherence to safety and security requirements" and admitted that "vulnerabilities remain. We can never be complacent about safety. A single nuclear accident anywhere in the world could undermine the future of nuclear energy everywhere." The nuclear power industry has had over 50 years to solve the problems of cost, waste and safety which have dogged it from the start, and yet it's still beset by these issues. There are safer, cheaper, faster and more environmentally friendly solutions to our future energy needs, and we will continue to push for their adoption because they represent the best chance we've got of heading off the climate change disaster which is staring us all in the face.

By jossc - 30 October 2008 at 12:07pm

Your optimism is touching Colin, but forgive me if I don't share it.

In fact, to my mind your determination to make nuclear appear fit for purpose exposes its already obvious flaws quite spectacularly.

For example:

What is the practical problem with nuclear waste if it never harms anybody or anything?

Absolutely nothing - but who's in a position to give that guarantee? No one, so it's a bit of a silly thing to say, isn't it? Not to mention sounding a bit desperate - especially when there are numerous examples of harm caused by waste - one recent one for example occurred in France last year when an accident at the Tricastin treatment plant (run by EdF) led to 75kg of untreated uranium seeping into the ground , causing local rivers and groundwater to be contaminated, and leading locals to rely for weeks on bottled water and tanks trucked in from other parts of France.