Nuclear Energy

controversial - supporters and opponents claim different ‘facts’.

Two facts are accepted by all:

(i) nuclear production does not produce carbon dioxide and

(ii) nuclear fuel and waste is dangerous and has to be handled with care.

Everything else is disputed.

1) The government first rejected nuclear power but then came to support it on the grounds that it does not produce carbon dioxide.

2) It is now safe.

3) Only nuclear power can fill the gap in electricity production caused by replacing old nuclear power plants and cutting down on fossil fuel plants. Changing the planning rules to allow fast track decisions will enable production in time.

4) It is comparable in price to fossil fuel production.

Opponents say:

1) Constructing nuclear power plants uses huge amounts of cement and concrete, which produces large amounts of CO2. “Cement is one of the most environmentally hazardous materials in the world, adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than the entire weight of the global airline industry. According to the Sustainable Development Commission, .. cement-based building materials, including concrete and asphalt, account for between 5% and 10% of all carbon dioxide emissions.” (Sean Dodson guardian 11 May 2006)

2) Nuclear production is not safe.

(i) No reactor.. is inherently safe. .. Highly radioactive spent fuel requires constant cooling. If this fails, it could lead to a catastrophic release of radioactivity. (Reactors) are also highly vulnerable to deliberate acts of sabotage, including terrorist attack. (Greenpeace)

Local Green Councillor and Sustainable Development expert John Whitelegg: "Already the area surrounding Sellafield is the most radioactive in the world with.. childhood leukaemia; .. ten times the national average." (Greenpeace)

(ii) The Waste is toxic, and there is no safe way of storing it. Mining produces nuclear waste on a massive scale. “ 1-9 November (2009) Greenpeace found dangerous levels of radiation in the streets of Akokan, a mining city located close to two AREVA mines. AREVA had earlier declared the streets safe.” (Greenpeace)

Storage is not safe.

There is no secure, risk free way to store nuclear waste. No country in the world has a solution for high-level waste. It must not be allowed to escape to the outside environment by any foreseeable accident, malevolent action, or geological activity..for over 20,000 years. (It has only been 3000 years since the Egypian Empire) Plutonium is not only highly radio-active, but is also among the most toxic elements known.

How safe have nuclear dumps in Britain been?

The nuclear dump site at Drigg in Cumbria, is a "long term health hazard." Officials from the Environment Agency warned that radiation levels at the dump could far exceed acceptable levels should further waste be dumped on the site. 2005(Greenpeace)

The Health & Safety Executive report on Sellafield 1999, identified safety failings

- “the site ‘lacks a high quality safety management system’.. sufficient resources to implement the existing safety management system. The report highlights a ‘decline in safety performance at the site’ which it links to inadequate management structures and safety culture”.

3) Nuclear power will not fill the energy gap.

“Optimistic estimates suggest that new nuclear power stations will only reduce our emissions by four per cent by 2024: far too little, far too late, to stop global warming or address the predicted energy gap.” (Greenpeace)

4) Nuclear power is not economic.

It comes with a huge, unknown price tag, for storing the waste. If the market were to decide our energy policy, nuclear production would not be considered. Tax payers of the future, the far distant future, will have to continue to pay for storage.

In addition opponents stress -

5) The link between nuclear arms and nuclear electricity

6) That nuclear material is a finite amount, not renewable and

7) That it has to be imported and so is vulnerable to political changes.

They conclude that nuclear production is neither practical, nor ethical.

Ask a Question on Unity Wind Community Turbines