The case against nuclear power

Usual drivel from Greenpeace, this time about nuclear power. Personally, I don't want to pay the Russians billions for gas or oil, or be left at their behest. Wind and wave power is a joke in terms of efficiency and the damage the apparatus does to the environment; nuclear power is the only option, or I guess we could live in the dark.

Greenpeace used to be useful organisation, now all it does is endlessly block progress. I guess that's what happens to all single issue pressure groups, eventually.

Why do the so called goverment always turn to nuclear power......they're fat and lazy and don't care about the people or the enviroment, just how much they can fill thier own pockets!!!
Nuclear power is'nt progress it's an easy option for them.
If people don't want to pay billions to other countries for energy resorces, cut down and do your bit to save energy, reduce emisions and find cleaner, save ways to harness energy.

We're not put on this earth to drain it dry........mother earth has looked after and given to humanity for millions of years, about time we stop taking and start giving.

I'm no expert, but the above arguments seemed completely flawed to me.

I accept Nuclear power can cause devastation if things go wrong and we are storing up problems for the future on where to store the toxic waste.

But as far as the more pressing issue goes regarding CO2 emmission Nuclear seems to make sense to me.

The article states the most CO2 emmissions are cause by the burning of Gas and Oil used by transport and that Nuclear power can only generate electricity so this doesn't help. Surely thats because lorries, vans, cars, some trains all use fuel derived from oil.

So for transport it makes sense to me we should be forcing the use of electric vehicles and using renewable/nuclear power to provide the electricity to power these vehicles. Then there is the problem of air travel/Ferries which I can see at the moment would be impossible to use electricity so these will have to rely on techology to reduce CO2 emissions.

As far as heating is concerned if we converted to electric heating and all our electricity came from renewable/nuclear then CO2 emmissions are reduced.

Also the reality is more and more electricity will be consumed as air conditioning, more homes, more commercial properties, street lighting, electrical gadgets and hopeful electrical transportation.

Wind Farms have their own problems with wild life, what to do when there is no wind and the devestation they cause the natural beauty.

We don't have enough sunlight to use solar power.

Also there are technical limitations on how far electricity can travel so I understand you cannot suppy London with wind farms off the north coast of Scotland.

I don't have the answers but slamming down every idea just because it has a flaw will just destroy the human race. You have to deal with the issues having most impact and disposal of nuclear fuel has less of an impact than CO2 emmissions.

BTW its not about saving the planet, the earth will always survive given a few million years, its life as we know thats risking extinction.

I have been a Greenpeace supporter and member for longer than I can remember. In practical terms, I cannot agree with Phoenix' views. The reality is that there is little alternative to nuclear power for the foreseeable future. All methods of power generation have their advantages and disadvantages. Returning to the Bronze Age as advocated by extremists is simply not an option.

In truth, private power generating has to make a profit to invest in future technology and infrastructure. Remember that pension funds investing in companies do so that pensioners can get an income in old age. There are many other factors that make profitability important so it's not just about directors' salaries.

There is no place for idealism in this debate, whether it is from Greenpeace, the Government, environmental extremists or the criminals that cuts down the forests (they are also contributing to climate change).

Like I said, I have been a Greenpeace supporter for many years. Opposing nuclear power is not good. Successfully opposing nuclear generating industry could result in people having to cut down trees for fuel in winter or using expensive fossil fuels adding to climate change simply because there was not enough power to go around. Folks like phoenix, no matter how well intentioned, are taking too narrow a view.

To conclude, I feel I must add some of my own credentials. I am a successful businessman in a low carbon industry. I do not own a car and travel mostly by public transport. My family vehicle is a one litre Nissan Micra. I do not fly when going on holiday. I recycle almost everything and have energy saving light bulbs and turn everything off standby when not in use. Oh, and I've turned down my home and office thermostats by one degree.

Perhaps Greenpeace should be working with the UK Government on how best to implement the nuclear policy given the problems of waste disposal. Better to have influenced the outcome in that way than to have stood on the sidelines waving banners and wringing hands.

Haz, you'll still have to pay the Russians for oil and gas whether or not there's nuclear power.

Nuclear power produces electricity; it doesn't contribute to our heating and transport needs. Most of the gas we use is for heating and hot water, or for industrial purposes. Virtually all oil is used for transport. In all, 86% of our oil and gas consumption is for purposes other than producing electricity.

So how does nuclear electricity improve security of gas or oil supply?

The real answer to oil dependence is improved vehicle efficiency, improved public transport and reducing the need to travel.

For heating, we need to start using decentralised energy and CHP.

Cheers,

Bex
gpuk

2parasoldier, we lay out our energy solution at www.greenpeace.org.uk/solution. In short, it's decentralised energy, based on efficiency, renewables and combined heat and power.

It's not only an alternative to nuclear power - it's an alternative that will actually work, and will significantly reduce our emissions / ensure energy security. Nuclear won't. From our point of view, decentralised energy is the pragmatic, realistic energy solution, and the claims Labour and the nukes industry are making about nuclear are pie in the sky.

New nuclear power is a doomed attempt to shore up our ailing energy system. An energy system based on large, remote power stations is grossly wasteful (two third of energy is lost before it even reaches our homes and businesses), so we're arguing for an efficient, flexible energy system based on renewables and combined heat and power.

To work with the government on how best to implement nuclear would be a nonsense for us: even leaving aside the waste, cost, inefficiency and siting issues, nuclear won't stop climate change so we wouldn't support it.

On working with government instead of waving banners, we've been working to influence energy policy on several levels, but not all of it's very visible. We've worked with the Conservatives, we've had countless meetings with Labour, we've worked with local authorities, we've produced reports and documentaries, we've made submissions to energy reviews and audit committees... And of yep, when it's come to the crunch, we've taken direct action.

Anyway, thanks for your support :)

Bex
gpuk

OK, limiting the argument to CO2 emissions as we seem to agree on safety/waste.

Theoretically, what you're saying makes some sense. Practically though it's impossible.

On heating, you say "if we converted to electric heating and all our electricity came from renewable/nuclear then CO2 emmissions are reduced". Apart from this being an extremely inefficient way of producing heat, there are a few problems with this.

One: we wouldn't be able to build enough nuclear plants, for reasons of cost, siting, waste storage, vulnerability to climate change-induced flooding etc. Even the gvt and nukes industry are only suggesting building ten plants, to replace the ailing reactors we have, which together only provide 19 per cent of our electricity. And, if our (massive) heating needs were to be met by electricity as you suggest, our electricity needs would sky-rocket.

Two: nuclear and renewables may both be able to run on the grid as long as both are making relatively small overall contributions, but both can't expand beyond a certain point without there being operational conflicts.

Three: experience in other countries (see Finland) shows us that nuclear sucks investment - and, more importantly, political will - away from renewables.

Four: nuclear locks us into our current, inflexible centralised model which is inherently massively inefficient.

So for electricity, it makes sense that we should be going full-pelt for renewables - along with CHP and efficiency. You might be interested in this study in which scientists prove that Germany can be 100% powered by renewables.

For heating, it makes more sense to use combined heat and power (CHP). Heat is a by-product of electricity generation, and at the moment we just let that by-product go up in smoke, and then use a load more energy (usually gas) to generate heat separately. CHP is the most efficient way possible to burn fossil fuels, and also allows us to make the transition to cleaner fuels (eg biomass) as they become available.

On transport, yep, and as well as electric vehicles powered from low carbon electricity, we need massively improved vehicle efficiency, improved public transport systems and to reduce the need to travel (especially for business).

And yep, point taken on your last paragraph :)

Cheers,

Bex
gpuk

Rampant xenophobia aside, we'll still have to be paying someone for the fuel to run nuclear power stations. And that includes Russia. The UK is not exactly what you'd call self-sufficient in the stuff.

web editor
gpuk

Well, what is wrong with the dark? Light a candle once in a while, instead of relying on electricity to run your life!

So, then what happen to the extremley dangerous Nuclear waste? Well, we'll just dump it in the sea, like everything else, shall we? You should be a politician.

Don't you want to protect this beautiful land you were born, and will die on?

Many folk don't like nuclear technology. Part of me doesn't either. However, this is not a black and white issue, good or bad. Nuclear power may have to be part of the electricity generating solution.

Question: Do you see mass energy efficiency, enough to cut energy use by 20% in one year? A. No

Question: Are there enough offshore wind turbines, tidal lagoons, wave machines, decentralised CHP systems going in? Well no!

What I read into Greenpeace at the moment. Lots of green dodgma and retrospect potest. The nuclear debate is good as done, barring a few legal challenges. What Greenpeace should be doing is being the sales organisation for energy efficiency, microgeneration and renewables, or become an energy sector irrelevance.

Question: Do you see the mass consumer market at the moment putting en masse solar panels, duble helix wind turbines on there roofs, or digging in ground heat pumps?
No, not many, not just yet! Consumers wish to buy and purchase their plasma screens, trade in their CRTs but not pay the same money for a solar heat panel for the roof.

Dr David King is correct to comment on Green ideologs, and highlight the need to live with and part encompass the technological. The days of rubber dingies, wetsuits and blocking sellifield waste outlets is long gone.

Greenpeace needs to ditch the ideogology, and grasp the Climate Change reality so as to attract consumer action, rather than repel consumers into inaction or indifference?

Hi,
I'm not totally against all of the issues greenpeace and other such pressure groups protest against. However i have to totally disagree with your thoughts about nuclear power. Nuclear power is the safest and most efficient form of renewable energy there is. In the UK, yes there is a stockpile of plutonium, but that is what reprocessing is there for to use up the stockpile and use it to create new nuclear fuel. One of the comments I have read on the website stated that sellafield is one of the most radioacvtice places in the UK if not the World. Well im sorry to say no its not. The most radioactive place in the UK is actually Cornwall. This is natural radiation from the type of rocks in the area. This means that people living in cornwall are being subjected to more radiation than anyone working or living near a nuclear site. I work on one so i should know. Also I don't know if your group will even comment on this, but a wind turbine was blown over by the wind! I mean what a joke! A wind turbine is meant to use the wind to produce electricity not to fall over becasue of it and also they can't even be used in high winds because they can break! Surely this means that they are a danger to the public if they can fall over in high winds. I'm 19 and I've been given a great opportunity to work on the most technical site in the world and also one of the most up and coming industries in the UK. I've got a great job and really enjoy it. The nuclear industry relies on groups like yourselves to put pressure on us so that we are constantly making progress on our on site safety. Keep up the good work. In Cumbria 11-12 K people work on a nuclear site and a further estimated 100 K people work indirectly with the nuclear industry in Cumbria. It would be insane not to firther developments in the UK. Maybe if people stopped complaining about nuclear power and actually got involved then they would quickly realise that it is the best industry to be involved with at this time and it would actually give you lot something to do instead of complaining about things that make this country a great one.
Chris

50 percent of the uranium reserves are in canada and australia, two western stable and friendly countries
we can also reused a part of the nuclear waste and the plutonium of the nuclear weapons

the raw material in the total cost of nuclear electricity is 5 percent not 80 for oil and gas
so nuclear is relevant to protect our energy, and it s not xenophobic to say that
remenber the two oil crisis, or the russian ukrainian gas war
most of the oil countries are unstable, often dictatorships
venezuela, russia, turkemesitan, niegeria, saudi arabia

i prefere to be dependent on australia and canada

What the hell phoenix ? “Fill their pockets”, “fat”, “lazy”. are these meant to be serious arguments? Your choosing to denounce the very government that provides you with the lifestyle that you and millions others have grown accustomed to. Yes nuclear power is not a perfectly environmentally friendly answer, but it’s a feasible, well understood technology that provides a practical solution to the real big problem… climate change. We don’t have time for to experiment with visionary power sources. A complete renewable approach to energy is obviously favoured by all… but until the day we find a practical, efficient way to do this we have to make best with what we have. I completely agree with haz’s comment … At least he seem to have a grasp upon other major issues in the world

I am totally with Greenpeace on this - it seems that 90% of the people who come and post on here are not greenpeace supporters and are instead short-sighted, greedy and lazy oil addicts and pro-nuclear fanatics! (never mind the government!).

In our lifetimes we have seen a glut of oil/coal/gas fossil fuels. Just over a century ago our use of these resources was miniscule. We have pretty much used them up - and the resulting party is all we can recall ("If I hadn't seen such riches - I could live with being poor").

It's all downhill from here (apart from prices which are going up, up, up) as anyone listening to the news recently will know! The oil party is over - time to clear up.

So - nuclear. Safe, cheap & clean? No - not by any stretch of the imagination... encasing waste in glass and bribing people to accept it in their area is not a long-term solution - neither is burying itas deeply as we can. In case anyone hasn't noticed - the earth's surface is constantly shifting - the core is churning. One day some descendants of ours (if we have any at all) will have to cope not only with outrageous C02 and greenhouse gas levels due to our inability to take action, but they will also have to deal with our nuclear waste. Are we all hoping that in the future we will all be super-genii? Technology to the rescue? Send it to the moon/mars? Wake up and smell the isotopes!!

BTW - to all those who think nuclear is a convenient solution - would you rather have a nuclear reactor less than 20 miles from your house or a bunch of windmills? Would you rather cut down on your consumption or store nuclear waste in your neighbourhood?

CHP, Decentralised Power, Microgen on a domestic level, Improved domestic storage to level out peaks and troughs, Community Big Wind and Hydro, Electric/compressed air vehicles - this is the kind of future I want to see.

the fact is that we need energy and if you dont want to pay people to get oil for you to live on then maybe you should go on your computer and waste energy that we all need

Being one of these "short-sighted, greedy and lazy oil addicts and pro-nuclear fanatics" as you stated, ,whilst nuclear energy is not completely clean, it is the best option right now given our current situation.

"Are we all hoping that in the future we will all be super-genii? Technology to the rescue? Send it to the moon/mars? Wake up and smell the isotopes!!"

200 years ago, people thought that the moon,sun and planets were attached to the earth with huge crystal shards, Now, we know that we orbit the sun, due to its large gravitational pull, and that the moon orbits us. Its called progress and right now, all Greenpeace wants to do is halt that progress, if astrologers and scientists had listened to you people all those years ago, we would still be living in dirty, flea-ridden huts in the middle of the countryside. Yes, that would mean you would have nothing like what you have no toilet, no bath, no car, no computer, no TV, no radio and still think that the Earth was the centre of the universe.