The case against nuclear power

Posted by bex - 8 January 2008 at 7:03pm - Comments

With the government about to announce a new generation of nuclear power stations, we've published our case against nuclear power - and for the real solutions to climate change and energy security.

You can download the full briefing as a pdf but here's a quick run-down of why nuclear new build can't keep the lights on and actually threatens our ability to reduce our carbon emissions:

• Even if Britain built ten new reactors, nuclear power can only deliver a 4 per cent cut in carbon emissions some time after 2025. Even the Government admits this (Sustainable Development Commission figure). It's too little too late at too high a price.

• 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.

• Indeed, 86 per cent of our oil and gas consumption is for purposes other than producing electricity. So nuclear power, which can only generate electricity, is almost irrelevant.

• The real solutions to the energy gap and climate change are available now. Energy efficiency, cleaner use of fossil fuels, renewables and state of the art decentralised power stations like they have in Scandinavia. Together they have the potential to deliver reliable low carbon energy quicker and cheaper. They are also safe and globally applicable, unlike nuclear. But these technologies will be strangled if cash and political energy get thrust at nuclear power.

• Gordon Brown very recently committed the UK to generating around 40 per cent of our electricity from renewables by 2020. If he means it, Britain could become a world leader in clean energy and his case for nuclear evaporates. At the moment Germany has 300 times as much solar power and 10 times as much wind power installed as the UK and has given up on nuclear.

• Margaret Thatcher promised 10 new reactors when she was in power. Just one was built. Going for nuclear allows politicians to project the impression that they are taking difficult decisions to solve difficult problems. In reality going for nuclear simply will not solve our energy problems. Other low carbon technologies will.

Download the briefing here.

Article tagged as: nuclear power, public consultations

Comments Commenting is now closed

I have been reading the comments with great interest. But what really confuses me is why nobody seems to think the aftermath is a cause for concern. Surely, with the rubble from Nuclear sites now going in to landfill sites it brings about lots more reasons why we shouldn’t rely on Nuclear power. It is buried under a metre and a half of soil in pits less than a mile from heavily populated villages. The levels emitted are claimed to be safe but how can you trust these figures. I have read that in many years down the line Drigg will be uninhabitable. There are issues of transporting it from all corners of the UK and with the lack of monitoring (as it seems to be left up to the landfill company to do that) how are we to know that they are sticking to their guidelines. Is there a risk of leakage? If the rubble is radioactive surely the soil piled on top in landfill is the same. I cant see that double sealed bags are going to prevent it escaping. I am as you can probably tell not very up on my radioactive waste knowledge but what does concern me is that we are not considering the mess we are creating for future generations.

By Melanie McCall - 11 June 2009 at 10:40pm

Nuclear Power produces tons of waste. Places all over the world are shipping their waste to britain, so we can store it for them. The vast majority is put into shipping containers that are then filled with concrete. Once the pit they are storing these in gets full, they will simply cover it in soil and forget about it. This means hundeds of years from now, some one could find it, and not kowing what it was, could end up causing harm to people withit, even if it was purely accidental. Surely this is why we need to start using sustainable energy such as wind and solar, so we don't end up causing this damage.

By Jennie_d - 15 October 2009 at 6:58pm

Yes, I'm all electric here. Electric cooker, heater etc. You need to come up with some better reasons against nuclear energy than the ones stated here.

By Villy - 12 November 2009 at 4:00pm

The 'Masters degree' student 'dcoughlan' who suggests that wind energy uses to much steel etc. should I suggest change careers! I assume the alleged student has read the appropriate research into wind farms that clearly shows that the carbon footprint of wind energy is very similar to nuclear! The quantities of steel and concrete used results in similar carbon footprints. The poor research posted by dcoughlan is the sort of thing one would expect from an amateur anti-wind web site, not a masters degree student. Some research for our alleged student friend to ponder: White, Scott - Net Energy Payback and CO2 Emissions from Three Midwestern Wind Farms: An Update 2006 Barbara Batumbya Nalukowe, Jianguo Liu, Wiedmer Damien,Tomasz Lukawski - Life Cycle Assessment of a Wind Turbine 2006 Gagnon - Civilisation and energy payback 2008 Motoaki Utamura - Analytical model of carbon dioxide emission with energy payback effect 2004 Lenzen and Munksgaard, Energy and CO2 Analysis of Wind Turbines - Review and Applications. Uwe R. Frische - Comparison of Greenhouse-Gas Emissions and Abatement Cost of Nuclear and Alternative Energy Options from a Life-Cycle Perspective. 2006 BTW There's more where that came from.

By Villy - 12 November 2009 at 4:14pm

You are fogetting that the problems of the waste are constantly being investigated, one idea is the use of a large rail gun to launch the unuseable material into the sun this if the idea works an is safe enough will be cheap enough for nuclear waste to be permantly disposed of. Also the fact is that nuclear reactors are purely the idea of a stop gap while the research on Fussion reactors produces a working prototype that can then be put into commercial use. But this next step in the development is not expected for another 50 years

By Bettsy - 18 December 2009 at 12:49pm

Hi there guys, I'd just like to tell you I live in a mansion made of Amazonian mahogany, powered by burning whale oil. It also has oil and coal burning stoves, and I cut down the surrounding wood to make a golf course. And you know what else? I force orangutans to dig for oil in my diamond mines.

By Dr. Acula - 19 April 2010 at 3:01pm

Many renewables do not deliver a constant invariant supply of power, for example wind power is very dependent on the weather. However the national grid requires a constant supply of power. At the moment our solution to this is to keep a gas power station running slowly and to vary its output dependent on our renewable supply. As such, if we increase our renewables, we need to accomodate for an increasingly unreliable supply.

Although our island has the potential to supply our energy needs with wind power, it would require us to return to our wartime production rates of steel to create wind turbines within any reasonable time frame. This is not feasible, nuclear power is the only short term solution to our energy needs.

By Bob1985 - 14 December 2010 at 5:28pm

There are a lot of disadvantages. Some of them are very specific to the nuclear power industry:
You generate radioactive waste that has to be disposed of in a safe
way.A failure could lead to a condition where radioactive material is released into the environment.Nuclear power isn't very portable. It's easy to build an engine that
runs on gasoline or natural gas to power your car, but building a
nuclear powered car is a major challenge, for a number of reasons. Of
course, if you have an electric car, it doesn't really matter whether
the electricity is generated using coal, natural gas, nuclear power,
wind, solar, etc. People are scared of nuclear power, whether rationally or
irrationally, and that presents political obstacles to building a power
plant.

Other disadvantages apply more broadly to power generation:

- The uranium fuel must be mined from the Earth and isn't renewable.
Specific to nuclear power, in the US, only 5% of the fuel used in our
power plants is mined in this country. 50% comes from Russia. So much
like "foreign oil", we're dependent on other countries for our nuclear
fuel.

- Generating power produces waste heat. In nuclear power plants (and
other types of power plants), this takes the form of warm water used for
coolant, which has to be dumped into the environment. Power plants
often discharge this warm water into a nearby lake or river, where it
can affect the environment (although sometimes this isn't a negative
effect - in the winter, Florida manatees gather near the warm water
discharge of nuclear power plants). Note that the coolant isn't
radioactive, it's just warm water.There is a very high startup cost to build a new power plant and begin
generating power. This is particularly the case for a nuclear plant,
because of the security concerns and the technology required. That
means that, over the life of a plant nuclear power is a little more
expensive per kilowatt-hour than traditional (coal and natural gas)
power generation, even though the operating costs are less.

By summerscheifer - 7 January 2011 at 7:22am

2 people agree

i agree with you summer. that nuclear power isn't very portable. It's easy to build an engine that runs on gasoline or natural gas to power your car or auxiliary water pump, but building a nuclear powered car is a major challenge, for a number of reasons. Of course, if you have an electric car, it doesn't really matter whether the electricity is generated using coal, natural gas, nuclear power, wind, solar, etc.

but in some cases, the concern was raised about nuclear weapons, their aftereffects, and government responsibility. In other cases, the alarm was about nuclear power, plutonium, low level radiation effects, and accidents.

By floydpo - 18 January 2011 at 2:11am

1 person agrees

whoever posted that first comment, i agree with you. Greenpeace gave us nothing, engeneering and nuclear power gave us everything.

By mihikle - 20 January 2011 at 12:53pm

Lol nuclear is the answer to everything. Its reliable, renewable, clean and good. It's cool and groovy. It's also good for weapons I got a 25 kill streak and won a game once. Nice

By Nuclear ftw - 9 February 2011 at 12:03pm

why can't you hippies see that it is people like you holding humanity back? If you want to live in a world with no electricity and live sustainibly go live in a cave like the prehistoric people you want to be. I'd be quite happy in my comfy arm chair opposite an electric fire powered by a nuclear power plant knowing your sat there freezing while i'm nice and cosy, with all the lights on in my house, my washing machine, my tv. While you're just sat there knitting broccolli because you want to "save the planet."

By DeadlySquirrel - 9 February 2011 at 12:43pm